What should a good DLC/Expansion pack include?

[Lt. Rocky]

I've always enjoyed the concept of DLC's and expansion packs: Bringing in a fresh new set of parts to a world you're familiar with and enjoy, at occasionally a decent price. And because you're already familiar with the main game, you're able to better analyze upcoming expansions as to whether its additions will be unnceccesarily gimmicky or exactly what main game needed.

That said, what do you believe a good expansion should always include?
What should expansions always try to avoid?
Do you prefer they come in small, multiple packs like for Borderlands or Fallout? Or do you prefer ones that come in big chunks like for GTA IV?

 

[endtherapture]

DLC should include an entirely new experience.

DON'T DO WHAT DRAGON AGE DID for the latter lot of their their DLCs which was take old areas from previous DLCs/Expansions and repackage them as completely new.

 

[SamFancyPants252]

The Shivering Isles expansion for Oblivion was a shining example.
Interesting new world, new characters, new storyline, new experience. Something that can stand up by itself as something special, rather than making the original game slightly better.

 

[Euhan01]

Bethesda (post Horse Armour) are probably the best it, Fallout ones are normally good, and as said above Shivering Isles was pretty much one of the best examples. I enjoyed General Knox's arsenal in Borderlands, can't speak personally about the rest.

 

[JesterRaiin]

That said, what do you believe a good expansion should always include?
What should expansions always try to avoid?
Do you prefer they come in small, multiple packs like for Borderlands or Fallout? Or do you prefer ones that come in big chunks like for GTA IV?

It varies from game to game.
- The perfect example of good DLCs are official add-ons for Fallout 3. I think that Broken Steel alone is worth of buying FO3.
- The perfect example of failed DLC is horse armor for Oblivion. C'mon... Something like that should already be in the game !

 

[skywolfblue]

Enough content to justify the price?

A lot are just one extra mission (or 3 multiplayer maps) at an absurd price.

Examples of good DLC:

- Read Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare (a massive amount of zombie models, a very respectable set of missions, and a very different style of gameplay then what was found in the normal RDR)

- Bioshock 2: Minerva's Den (3 really massive levels, new weapons and plasmids, and one of the best stories I've seen in a DLC yet)

 

[ranger19]

Like a few others have said, generally in single player games I enjoy the likes of Shivering Isles and RDR Undead Nightmare - DLC that leverages the existing world or game engine, but uses it to deliver new content with a fresh twist on the original game. (Sometimes, well done DLC that doesn't necessarily bring a fresh twist but still has new content can be fun too, though I can't think of any such DLC packs like that at the moment.)

For multiplayer.. generally new maps that somehow bring something different to the game is important. A new asthetic can be nice, but won't be worth the buy in the long run (to me) if it's not bringing something new to the table. (For example: in Halo Reach, one of the new maps introduces a boundary between gravity and no-gravity zones which bullets can go through. Before, that didn't exist. Or there's a map which is very big and fun for like big team capture the flag games but with more cover and less visibility than current similarly sized maps.)

But also important for multiplayer games is giving people a chance to play these maps. If you never see these maps save unless everyone in the room has bought them, you won't get to play them as much as you want to, which is annoying.

 

[Nouw]

For a Strategy Game, an expansion pack usually has new units, sometimes a new race, more maps and a new campaign and frankly that's enough for me. It's hard to get expansion packs wrong for this genre.

 

[TrevHead]

Good DLC should be just like the expansion packs that many old PC games had. So many DLC seem like it should be part of the game. Some game modes are fine as DLC, as long as it doesnt seem to be cut out of the main game

Moving slightly Off Topic.

However I cant blame some boxed retail devs for using DLC (within reason). With their games quickly reduced to bargin bins, especially if the game is 2D / retro, since most gamers cant see the value between a XBLA retro game and a full priced game.

If a dev need to use DLC to turn a profit ill grudgingly put up with it.

 

[nklshaz]

Bethesda's DLC's are pretty good. I also don't mind a reasonably priced map pack. The Killzone 3 map pack bundle is a good example. 8 maps for $10 is probably one of the best DLC deals I've ever gotten.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Recently, I think Fallout New Vegas did a very good job with it's DLC.

It expanded on an interesting but non essential side plot introduced in the main game.

Namely, the courier who gave up his opportunity to carry the Platinum Chip so that the player could.

There were references to Ulysses in all the DLC packs before the Lonesome Road. Some were very minor, like in Honest Hearts, others a big part of the plot in the DLC, like in Old World Blues.

Then when Lonesome Road arrives, it set an air of tension and amazing atmosphere that I throughly enjoyed.

 

[josemlopes]

Rockstar and their 3 big DLC's (the two ones from GTAIV and the zombie one from RDR)

 

[Seishisha]

Realy the answer is in the question, it should expand the current content, be it new maps for your fps, a new campaign for your stratagey, new lands to explore in your mmo, whatever the game type is you should get more of it in your dlc, im not discounting things like new costumes or skins as irrelevant because there is without a doubt room for everything so long as its reasonably priced, personaly i see less value in cosmetic items than i do in functional ones.

The main problem with determing what should be in DLC is subjective. An example to some people a skin pack costing £2 is a reasonable thing to buy to others its too much money for no extra content, where as a £10 map pack is unquestionably more content but the price point may still be too high for some people.

Its a odd question to answer fully without going deeply into what each person is willing to buy, the price they are willing to pay and the 'value' the DLC gives to the game, for me personaly i'd rather see content that actualy adds somthing new rather than a re-skin of somthing old.

 

[TheOneBearded]

They should be like the DLCs for Fallout: New Vegas. They took more than six hours (the amount of time it takes to finish a modern Call of Duty - which is a joke) to finish, they took longer than that to completely suck dry (finding every weapon, clothing, etc), and they (most of them) played out a story that started from the stand-alone game (Ulysses' background). A DLC should also give you free use of it; where it isn't "a chapter in a story" and ,once you go through it, can't be played in again. Depending on how many are being made for a certain game, a DLC should try to expand and try to do different things than what was used in the stand-alone. Take for example, Dead Money. It changed the "take it easy and enjoy the scenery" of NV into a survival, horror game, which at first I didn't like, but after playing through it again, I saw that it, while a bit different and challenging, was one of the game's best DLC.

Oh, and a DLC shouldn't be used as an excuse to have players pay for crap they should have already gotten. Horse armor? Cheat codes? A different pair of pants? Either give it to me at launch or save it for the next game. If you insist on cramming this in my mouth, be reasonable and price the DLC according to what you give me.

 

[Trasken]

DA: Awakening was pretty good DLC albeit a tad too pricy

 

[SteakHeart]

I'd say Red Dead Redemption's Undead Nightmare DLC is a great example of a great DLC. Although it uses the same characters, it adds plenty of new story, new content, radically different gameplay, and at a decent buck for all the bang. (That last bit sounded wrong.)