DLC would be nice if they would do it like they did the premium modules for NWN. But lately developers have just made DLC a new area that you have to go through the core game to see, or some extra goodies that aren't really worth much.

No matter how great your toolset is, Mr. Gaider, it will never overcome the most significant problem with fan-made mods.

That maybe quite true, but you still have that 10% that isn't crap. The trick is finding it in a sea of mods. A few reviews and helpful hints from fellow gamers goes a long way to finding the free mods that are great.

To me that's making the best out of a backwards approach instead of just doing it right. Why would players want to be completely familiar with mods before they play them? Isn't that sort of like being completely familiar with a game before you play it?

Developers should design modifications themselves and apply them in reaction to the player and the choices he makes in the beginning and throughout the game. That would go a long way toward creating unique experiences. Barbarians played like Conan could have adventures like Conan while thieves played like Bilbo could have adventures more like his. It could be designed so that it just worked out that way.

None of the modifications would be limited by the capabilities of a modding tool, and none of them would be transparent. It would be a lot better, IMO.

I was talking about just free mods made by modders. DLC's made by the developer hopefully would be better than the usual stuff. My best example of that are the premium modules from NWN. I don't know about you but imo they hit a homerun with those DLCs.

As for designing to the reactions of players. Sure that would work great if you only made a game for one person, but each and everyone one of us, even here, have a different defintion of what is fun to them. Hell we all can't even decide exactly what an CRPG is and we are a RPG only site. That makes it a little difficult for any developer to react and adjust to the community.

I guess you could take into consideration what most of us have in common and what most of the things that we want improved. Unfortuantly I think DA has already hit on all of those points, if you believe the hype which I do this time around. I think even in an indie game like Eschalon 2, there is only so much he could do to make us all happy. By putting in optional rules I think was the best decision he ever made with that game. So the hardcore gamers can have they're fun as well as someone who doesn't want to worry about all the little things.

See how it gets a little complicated when trying to make a game to please us all ;) I'm hoping for more optional rules with the DLC. That way they can sell it to both me and the "happy click fest" type of player.

I've only bought DLC for Mass Effect and GTA4. Honestly, I thought Bring Down the Sky was a little underwhelming but I loved The Lost and Damned (DLC for GTA4). The Lost and Damned was on par with what people expect from an expansion pack. It had the same level of polish and care as the original game. Maybe it was just so good because MS paid Rockstar $20 Million to produce it.

That's really the issue for me. It's a bit of a two sided deal though:

1) I'm not going to replay a game just to see a small segment of 'new stuff'. This was one thing that really annoyed me about BG Tales of the Sword Coast. I thought it was an extension, so I played all the way through BG (second time actually), then loaded it in and found out that it was just some side quests and such and my characters, for the most part, had leveled past where the stuff was challenging.

2) On the other hand, if I really like a game, I have about a 50/50 chance of replaying it and it's nice to have some extra content to change it up. That's one thing I really enjoyed about some of the BG & BG2 user mods, like the NPC banter packs.


It would be best, IMO, if they offered both new adventures and extra areas via the DLC so you could choose which you want.

Don't developers already design these games with players in mind? And don't modders as well? Abandoning the concept of single version would only enhance that effort. It could be done poorly, sure. But that's nothing new, is it? As is the case already, the trick would be to do it well.

For years modders have been proving over and over how single-player games can be improved, taking advantage of how they're hosted on individual platforms. It's a PC approach, really (one that would be better than the current one, IMO).

But who would buy something they know nothing about? No one, naturally. That's why I think that kind of DLC would have to be provided via subscription. Then instead of merely always adding more and more, its content could (and should) also be redundant, meaning it could be created and provided in varieties of versions that would be unique and mostly incompatible (and matched to fit the player specifically).

Only one version at a time could ever be played, of course, and that would be the key (that and what you would be left with after throwing the concept of single version out the window). Remove the player's firsthand knowledge and control over it, and modifications have the potential to make CRPG very intriguing, IMO.

I just remembered that The Witcher had some extra adventures,was that considered a DLC?Cause I think it was free.