Recently I have noticed the tendency for reviewers to comment on expansion packs as if they were full games. I recently read (or watched) reviews of F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate and it has been slaughtered by critics for a variety of reasons. Most of which have to do with the aging engine, graphics, environments and lack of new content. IGN and Zero Punctuation are among those who have ripped the game to shreds. Coming to the realization that they are reviewing them using the same standard as a full game, I purchased it anyway, and to tell you the truth, I should have bought it earlier. I picked it up for $14.99 US and it is worth the $29.99 it debuted for. Am I the only person who has a problem with these people applying full game standards to expansion packs?
Expansion Packs
- Thread starter ingsoc
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I never buy expansion packs new becuase as you say, even though they are simple add-ons they are usually sold as if they were new games. And for that reason alone I usually hate expansions but when they are cheap I do buy them.
I'll give an honorable mention to some expansions though.
Namely; C&C: Red Alert 2 Yuri's Revenge, Call of Duty: United Offensive and The Lord of the Rings The Battle for Middle Earth: Rise of the Witch-King (not becuase its good just becuase of the insanly long name)
I'll give an honorable mention to some expansions though.
Namely; C&C: Red Alert 2 Yuri's Revenge, Call of Duty: United Offensive and The Lord of the Rings The Battle for Middle Earth: Rise of the Witch-King (not becuase its good just becuase of the insanly long name)
While expansion packs are going to be less in quantity, they should be no lower in quality than a full game release. Releases which fail to live up to the high standards of original games come across as half arsed efforts with no point but to reel in a bit of extra cash.
I like expansion packs that don't just add a couple new weapons and a couple new levels. CoD: UO added expanded multiplayer with vehicles and ranks. Age of Mythology: Titans added a race with a different playstyle from the other three. I like expansion packs that change the way you play the game.
As an RTS player, I buy a lot of expansion packs. These days, you know an RTS is good if it gets an expansion pack.
Expansion packs often add new content, but more importantly, they can correct flaws in the original. I think that expansions should be judged on their own merits, not compared to full games (for one, they'll always be lacking in the graphics department, with a few exceptions).
But sometimes I think an expansion necessitates a review of the ORIGINAL game, with the expansion content included. This happens when an expansion pack alters the basic gameplay in some way. Certainly Dawn of War, which just recieved a THIRD expansion, deserves a review. Since the initial release, five new factions have joined, more than doubling the original number. The original four have themselves been altered, with new and modified units. Excluding graphics, how does Dawn of War + Winter Assault + Dark Crusade + Soulstorm stack up against other modern strategy games?
Expansion packs often add new content, but more importantly, they can correct flaws in the original. I think that expansions should be judged on their own merits, not compared to full games (for one, they'll always be lacking in the graphics department, with a few exceptions).
But sometimes I think an expansion necessitates a review of the ORIGINAL game, with the expansion content included. This happens when an expansion pack alters the basic gameplay in some way. Certainly Dawn of War, which just recieved a THIRD expansion, deserves a review. Since the initial release, five new factions have joined, more than doubling the original number. The original four have themselves been altered, with new and modified units. Excluding graphics, how does Dawn of War + Winter Assault + Dark Crusade + Soulstorm stack up against other modern strategy games?
Also, the Titans expansion mixed up the balance with the Atlantean race. These guys build faster AND don't have to go to resource drop off sites. They cost a little extra, but they do much more than the other civilizations' gathering units. Also, the fact that you can make ANYONE heroes messed up the game.
Khell, I noticed that you didn't put Soulstorm on your list of expansions that unbalanced the game. Did it fix the balance?
Khell, I noticed that you didn't put Soulstorm on your list of expansions that unbalanced the game. Did it fix the balance?
I'm going to allow myself a ROFLMAO on that one, please don't judge me.Khell_Sennet said:
The previous post had just got me thinking about how the Dark Crusade expansion basically broke Dawn of War (goddamn space-zombies), and I haven't bought Soulstorm because of it. Winter Assault was a fine addition after they finished tweaking the IG (It took a few patches).
I would rather have expansion packs to games I really like than a sequel in most cases as long as they are made by the same developer.
OK, having not played multiplayer much, I'm not going to judge on DoW's expansions. I agree that the Necrons were quite powerful.
I don't think that YR unbalanced RA2. It changed plenty of things around, especially for the Sovs, but it improved things overall. I even felt the Soviets were improved - they became all about what they should always have been about - giving and receiving large amounts of damage.
I don't think that YR unbalanced RA2. It changed plenty of things around, especially for the Sovs, but it improved things overall. I even felt the Soviets were improved - they became all about what they should always have been about - giving and receiving large amounts of damage.
Khell_Sennet said:
Yes, Starcon. I've had that handle since I was 10, so... 15 years now? I suddenly feel really old.
What about Da Boyz? The IG? In my experience they got hosed by the Necrons worse than anyone else. (except for the Eldar and they don't count)
The expansion you are thinking of was called 'Hellfire'. At the very least it was amusing to see an npc named 'Lester the Farmer' in Diablo's gothic horror atmosphere. And about outsourcing, DC was well though I can't remember to whom.
Edit: Ok I'm totally wrong, Relic did do DC. Makes me wonder how they got the zombies so wrong...
For me a game should be reviewed on the 'fun factor' and how long it lasts.
Tell me is great fun, lasts 20 hours i can then decide if its for £30 or not. If it is great fun, lasts 1 hour and costs £30 again i can decide.
Its like when Serious Sam got great reviews for being a 'cheap game' it would have got a lower mark if it was full price - eventually they increased the price due to the good reviews. IMO this is stupid.
Games should be reviewed on how much fun they are not how pretty or cheap they are.
Also i think all games should be reviewed on the stated min spec - that would sort out the devs claiming ridiculous min specs that will never run the game.
Tell me is great fun, lasts 20 hours i can then decide if its for £30 or not. If it is great fun, lasts 1 hour and costs £30 again i can decide.
Its like when Serious Sam got great reviews for being a 'cheap game' it would have got a lower mark if it was full price - eventually they increased the price due to the good reviews. IMO this is stupid.
Games should be reviewed on how much fun they are not how pretty or cheap they are.
Also i think all games should be reviewed on the stated min spec - that would sort out the devs claiming ridiculous min specs that will never run the game.