What should a good DLC/Expansion pack include?

[Lt. Rocky]

It may just be my personal taste, but I found Duke Nukem Forever: The Doctor Who Cloned Me expansion to be really good. Eighty times better than what the original was, if that's worth anything. It may have been shorter, but it was much better paced with a more reasonable plot and, naturally, enjoyable new dialogue from good ol' Duke. The new weapons were meh, but its easily overlooked from the hilarity of fighting Duke Nukem clones that behave like self-loving Terminators, as well as some the funniest things you'll ever see in a video game. Also, it ended on the moon...something the original diserved a good slap for missing. Its good to see Duke's still trying, and its more than liable evidence this isn't the end for him

 

[Joccaren]

DLC should contain a low pricetag (Get above $12 and you're pushing it) and add in small new things. A new NPC companion, a new mission - that sort of thing. The best sort of DLC is the Lair of the Shadow Broker sort - the sort that fixes some of the issues fans had with the game, adds something slightly different in and maintains a good atmosphere.
Expansions should be more... well, expansive. They should contain not just a new mission or two, but new weapons, new races, a new story, new maps - basically what CoD sells of each year as a new game SHOULD be sold as an expansion. The pricetag for these can range from $10 to $30 and still be reasonable.

 

[omicron1]

Yes:

No:

Civilization 5 exemplifies exactly what not to do with your expansion pack. Whereas Civ IV had packs with multiple new civilizations, random maps, and gameplay features for $40-$50, Civ 5 has individual civilizations (with a single map apiece) for $5 a pop. No new gameplay whatsoever, just what amounts to an expensive reskin of existing content. When compared to the bounty of riches Firaxis offered to its Civ IV players, 2K's attempts this time around seem anemic, uninspired, and insipid.

 

[zspartancats]

Just add zombies, cause we all love zombies! Just kidding.

A good DLC should extend the life of the game. Whether it be a new maps/areas or a whole new experience.

I truly hate those skin/costumes DLCs. I wish we could just unlock them for doing challenges or beating the game on hardest settings.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

A good DLC should provide a few more hours of enjoyment added to the original game. It doesn't matter if there a map pack like CoD or a massive expansion like TBoGT, as long as the person who bought it actually enjoys it and doesn't feel ripped off then it's fine.

 

[Lawbringer]

Spoiler: Yes:

Spoiler: No:

Civilization 5 exemplifies exactly what not to do with your expansion pack. Whereas Civ IV had packs with multiple new civilizations, random maps, and gameplay features for $40-$50, Civ 5 has individual civilizations (with a single map apiece) for $5 a pop. No new gameplay whatsoever, just what amounts to an expensive reskin of existing content. When compared to the bounty of riches Firaxis offered to its Civ IV players, 2K's attempts this time around seem anemic, uninspired, and insipid.

Thank you...thank you! As I was scrolling, I was picturing my response in my head and it was this exactly. Civ V was a major disappointment to me, not least due to the extremely underwhelming DLC. If the same proportion of actual effort required to create against price paid was applied to the main game, I would have to take out a mortgage to buy Civ V! Frankly, I consider this a travesty compared to the glory of the Civ IV expansions, which I happily would pay £15-20 a pop for. In fact, I liked them so much I paid for them all individually...then again for the 'complete' version on disc. Then they were on Steam, so I bought them all over again! Paid for them three times and I'm confident I still got a fairer deal than £2.99 PER FACTION!

I can't stress enough how much I lost faith in the Civilization games after nearly twenty years of happy marriage from this sad departure from creativity. Not a SINGLE new thing has gone into Civ V since its inception that the most basic of modders could not have done themselves (ie reskins, reskins, reskins...)

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Anything done before this generation is how to make an expansion pack. Most of the problem with DLC is that a lot of it is stuff that would have been in the game before this gen ie different costumes and weapon skins you would unlock by playing the game.

Even when there is DLC the price is usually way off for what it is and DLC does not depreciate at a reasonable rate. I mean like there is something horribly wrong with the DLC system when years later I can buy the game again in GOYE form for cheaper than buying the DLC separately. Buy the game twice makes it cheaper it makes sense I swear it does.

Some of the games you buy today could be considered expansions.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

DLC should provide a new experience that is worth the price, but beware! Though the addition should be a meaningful contribution to the piece, the original game MUST also be complete and worth the purchase price.

Starcraft: Broodwar comes to mind as a good example... the first game was well balanced and came to a satisfying conclusion, ranging over three racial campaigns of about 10 missions each. Broodwar was equally as long, added some new units that were themselves balanced, and came to an equally satisfying conclusion... it was FULLFILLING but not NECESSARY.

By contrast, DLC that only adds new equipment or abilities seems like a poor way to go. Either the new equipment breaks the game or it fits in perfectly... but leaves the original game without something that it really should have had from the word go. For example, in Dragon Age the first, a chest to store your stuff in (provided in one of the expansions) really should have been in the game to start with, given the vast number of gems and herbs and runes you were to hang on to for leveling up your armies. Making someone pay extra for something that is needed to make the experience a coherent whole in the first place is bad form.

Anyway, for my money your focus has to be on depriving neither the original game purchaser nor the buyer of the expansion of the value they have paid for. It's a pretty tall order.

 

[TheLoveableMuffin]

Good expansion packs should always offer something new to the experience we know. Though modern games seem to just add multiplayer maps now...which isn't exactly fun for those who don't like or play multiplayer.

 

[Berenzen]

Spoiler

What all expansions should try to attempt to attain. One of the best expansions out there. Love or hate Obsidian, MotB was a masterpiece, not very buggy, a tight story with massive amounts of symbolism.

Spoiler

A great set of DLC, that wasn't overpriced for the amount of game that they added. They added to the story, gave good rewards, and expanded upon the storyline of the game. While it wasn't needed, it really made the world seem even more alive.

Yeah, I realize I linked expansions and DLC to Obsidian games, but honestly, they make damn good expansions and DLC.

 

[JaceArveduin]

RTS wise, I think Rise of the Witch-King was pretty good, the gameplay was shook up some, they added in a new faction and some new units for existing factions, new maps, and tinkered with the create-a-hero some more (even if it was abused to hell)

Also going to second The Shivering Isles, all kinds of neat new things, and Sheogorath, who is epic.

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

Some of the DLCs I've got that I loved are Shivering Isles for Oblivion since it's just huge and it adds all new items and enemies and places. Even knights of the nine was decent.

Fallout 3 and NV had some amazing ones such Broken Steel and Point Lookout, but some lame ones like Operation Anchorage and Dead Money.

Mass Effect's were kind of small but were really only there for bridging ME2 and 3.

Both Left 4 Deads had some lame DLC, just extra maps really, nothing new, well maybe mutations...

SVR 2011 had one that allowed you to unlock everything in one go, which was really nice.

Arkham City and Saints Row 3 have nothing but shit DLC, just adding challenge maps and 2-3 items, although both have some story based coming soon (finally).

I guess it just depends if it adds some great new stuff without taking away what you already love. Best DLC ever = Shivering Isles

 

[Cal Thomas]

See Painkiller: Battle Out of Hell. About a fourth as long as the actual game. Of course, they could probably just make a whole sequel instead, but still...

 

[Smooth Operator]

It should simply add good value for money, if you are asking $15 that is 25% of the games worth so it needs to bring 25% content on top, and a $30 expansion needs %50 extra content.

That is how it used to be done with expansion packs, they used the old game as a platform to bring you more and more content, now it's used as a platform to hustle money.
Just recently been playing EDF which is a cheap fun game, after finishing I check for DLC because new missions and abilities are really needed, and what do these fuckers sell... item packs and all items are procedurally fucking generated, you are asking money for writing down a couple of stats?! Are you completely fucking insane.

I was writing up the full list of sins dev's racked up with DLC but it's so depressing I don't even want to finish it.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Just do what Bethesda do! (except for that one DLC... you know the one I'm talking about) - but everything else, do that!

 

[Lt. Rocky]

See Painkiller: Battle Out of Hell. About a fourth as long as the actual game. Of course, they could probably just make a whole sequel instead, but still...

I was going to mention Painkiller. Battle Out of Hell (and Overdose, to an extent) were shining examples on how to make an expansion. Shame Resurrection or Redemption couldn't live up to them..

Both Left 4 Deads had some lame DLC, just extra maps really, nothing new, well maybe mutations...

I think it's safe to say the mediocrity of Left 4 Dead's add ons can be justified by the fact they didn't cost a dime. At least for the PC. They weren't harmful in anyway.

 

[Joccaren]

Yes:

No:

Civilization 5 exemplifies exactly what not to do with your expansion pack. Whereas Civ IV had packs with multiple new civilizations, random maps, and gameplay features for $40-$50, Civ 5 has individual civilizations (with a single map apiece) for $5 a pop. No new gameplay whatsoever, just what amounts to an expensive reskin of existing content. When compared to the bounty of riches Firaxis offered to its Civ IV players, 2K's attempts this time around seem anemic, uninspired, and insipid.

Oh god, how could I forget BTS?
You are somewhat forgetting Warlords though - that was nothing compared to BTS

And to be fair, what 2K are doing is DLC or Add-ons instead of expansion packs, and they are (Over)priced according to that. If they were to release an expansion pack for $40, and have it only include new races, then I'd agree with you, but as of yet they are merely selling off small add-ons. I hope a major DLC is in the works for those who play Civ V (I personally don't. Didn't like the sudden change in direction - Civ IV was so epic, and IMO with BTS it reached the Pinnacle of Civ games, and Civ V seemed to go for 'Simplified with shiny graphics', which isn't what I wanted. Eh, I got the Fall From Heaven mod to play as a Civ V if I have to (Check out FFH2 if you haven't already. The Age of Ice mod had story and some reasonable immersion, FFH2 takes it to a whole new level)).

Though I do love that guys name. Kamehameha
Dragon Ball anyone?

 

[SpaceCop]

Undead Nightmare is the DLC high-water mark in my books. It took settings, characters, and gameplay we were familiar with and used them for something that stands up entirely on its own. Its familiarity means that it works in tandem with the main game, but because it is separate from Red Dead Redemption's canon it doesn't have to awkwardly shoehorn itself into the storyline.

Most of the Dragon Age DLC, on the other hand, is all about awkwardly shoehorning itself into storylines. And with the exception of Awakening it was all short, inconsequential, and filled with a frustrating array of throwaway NPCs, game-breaking items, and features that probably should have been included in the main game--the storage chest, for instance.

So. To my mind the best DLC works within gameplay or settings we've already previously enjoyed, but delivers well enough on its own so as not to intrude into areas of the game that are already established.

 

[Leninv3l]

Rockstar does DLC very well in my opinion. They more often than not wait until well after the game's release to continue support, unlike the greedy developers who withhold content then release it on day 1/ announce it a week before release/ intentionally omit it like Saints 3, Battlefield 3, Assassin's Creed II,and LA Noire (not developed by R*). High content DLC that is a respectable price is fine by me. I loved Point Lookout(Bethesda), Shivering Isles(Bethesda), Lost and Damned(R*), Ballad of Gay Tony(R*). I count all those as true expansions.

 

[dills2]

a dlc that adds a new enough gameplay experience