Fallout: New Vegas - Three DLCs Detailed

Pessimeister said:

It's the ol' chestnut. Some gamers would actually prefer meaty expansions, than bite sized chunks. We also disagree on the quality of Bethesda's DLC.

Click to expand...

I prefer expansions as well. That doesn't mean DLC is bad.

Can't believe what you said about Tribunal to be honest - that's actually a respectable sized expansion and contains some fascinating spots of political intrigue, solid exploration and some nice dungeons (especially toward the end)
It stands poles apart from the DLC stuff, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

Morrowind was about exploration to me and Tribunal's exploration sucked. At least I thought it did at the time, I haven't really revisited it. It was also quite small from what I remember, with most of the new content being similar looking tunnels.

All of these sound interesting.
I´m very likely to pick all 4 F:NV´s DLCs and ruin DArtagnan´s hobby a bit.

That said, I hope substantial thoughts were given to balance.
Playing with the level 30 cap trait is a no go for me (unless it has some reeeally interesting, not yet mentioned benefit) -
a) I like to see level up screen from time to time, thus I wouldn´t like to play large portion of the game capped
b) Unless all that was done in regards to enemy rebalancing was making them damage sponges, playing a level 50 game capped at level 30 seems like locking oneself out of content. Similar with perks.

Even if progression to level 50 follows steeper curve and it´s reachable only when exploring everything (it wasn´t the case in the original - I´ve played with mod which raised exp needed for level 30 from 67000 to 100000 and I still was able to reach it - very close to the end though, which felt just about perfect), there´s still a problem with skill gains. At level 30, the overall amount of available skill points felt quite right (it was still a bit on the "pushing it" side for my 10 INT character with Tag! and Educated perks, but nothing dramatic), but with level 50 it would be possible to max out pretty much everything.
Personally I´d like there to be some kind of skill point gain nerf in place, proportional to how high the level cap is. Special DLC related difficulty setting, or something.

Anyway, these DLCs seem to have potential to infuse vanilla with additional depth and breadth and I´m looking forward to play the game with all of them, but I also hope the already so so vanilla´s balance won´t go out of the window with them when playing the game in a more completionist-y fashion.

DoctorNarrative said:

I prefer expansions as well. That doesn't mean DLC is bad.

Click to expand...

I…didn't infer that was the case at all. What I will say though, is that there is seemingly greater potential to be unsatisfied with DLC. At least, that has been my experience. Naturally we've seen the exceptions and as previously stated, there have been examples of good DLC. Fingers crossed that Obsidian can continue that trend and I have good faith (bias!) that they will.

DoctorNarrative said:

Morrowind was about exploration to me and Tribunal's exploration sucked. At least I thought it did at the time, I haven't really revisited it. It was also quite small from what I remember, with most of the new content being similar looking tunnels.

Click to expand...

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. But maybe I'm a sucker for exploring sewers - especially long drawn out interconnected tunnels leading to smaller crypts and whatnot. I remember having an absolute blast wiping out the dark brotherhood by stealth for instance.
Also, the further and deeper you went, the harder enemies you encountered and more plot elements were revealed as you delved deeper and returned to the surface each time. So yeah, I definitely felt exploration was solid in Tribunal.
It was reasonably lore-heavy too, which was good for me, as exploration wasn't the only gameplay element I enjoyed.

DoctorNarrative said:

DLC is like anything else, some is good and some is bad. I don't get the hate for it in general, as if it is all universally terrible. Some of my favorite gaming moments of the past few years have been with DLC, like Mass Effect 2's Shadowbroker DLC.

Click to expand...

The problem with DLC as a model to make money, is that it's slowly making expansions unattractive as a thing to create and sell. Actually, no, it has already made expansions unattractive to most - or so it seems.

If DLC as a concept existed in a vacuum - I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it.

The people holding the financial power behind game development, have figured out that the impulse-driven purchase is the new gold. This is most evident in the smartphone Apps market and "F2P" games.

However, DLC is fast becoming something very similar.

It's true that DLC, as it is, doesn't HAVE to be bad - but in my personal opinion, there has yet to be released a single DLC or complete DLC package that amounted to similar quality as a quality expansion.

For the record, I wasn't impressed with Fallout 3 DLC - but they did represent some of the better examples. That is, one or two of them did. This is because Fallout 3 has a structure that lends itself exceptionally well to the DLC model. Most games are much more linear and "final" in terms of structure.

And what's that? I don't want to hear about "breaking up the main game to sell as DLC" because a) that is usually not the case if you know about development schedules (content creators are done months before the game ships) and b) that's bad DLC, it doesn't condemn the entire idea.

Click to expand...

As I said above, DLC is simply too attractive in cost vs revenue to make expansions viable for the market-led mindset.

All of this isn't fact, it's just the way I see things. If you think that DLC isn't hurting the concept of a true expansion, or that it can fully replace that concept - then we just strongly disagree.

Basically, most of the industry is led by those who hold the money to fund games. DLC is, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, a better way to generate profit in terms of effort vs reward.

Human nature and natural opportunism will create the problem I'm talking about.

I think the initial plans from EA/Bioware about DLC was a lot to mimic MMO and reproduce the system into single player games. They almost clearly tried use it to keep the game hot longer.

But for DAO it's been a clear failure from that point of view, up to the little disaster that's been DA2 (not that I don't like it but well the disaster is clear and a large part of this is coming from a too short plan to be sure to release it before it becomes cold).

Even Awakening is probably a failure resulting from this vision. Awakening isn't too short, it is undeveloped. I have played satisfying RPG as long, but in Awakening it's the development of the RPG, story, adventure, that is a failure. It's easy to suspect this a result of too much hurry involving setup a too short plan.

DLC and expansion allow much more asset reuse than could a game follow up in a series. So yes if DLC can play this function more efficiently than expansion, and doing both bring nothing but less DLC, then I agree I don't see how DLC won't kill Expansions. But writing that also means there's nothing to do against it.

It seems that there will be enough DLC for a beefy Game of the Year edition for the holidays! I'm glad I waited...

life is too short for game of the year editions

There are too many games to play to waste money on non-GoY editions.

curious said:

life is too short for game of the year editions

Click to expand...

On the contrary, life is too short for a game to be strung out by periodically released DLC.

Not only that, life is too short to play unpatched buggy DLCs. Patience is a virtue.

by that argument you should wait to see all movies at home then because you get to see all of the extra content that was sometimes cut. and you do release that many game developers and their publishers will base dlc and expansions/addons by initial sales. so all of your arguments are lost on me because i choose to support the devs i like rather than leaving them dangling in the wind. the patches eventually come and we can all praise bloodlines after the fact but if more people bought it intially, like myself who played through fine without any gamebreaking bugs on release, then we might still have seen trokia--tough to say.

you can be the smart and patient consumer all you want but game developers live a life on the edge and by that behavior you only encourage more devs to go the way of bioware so i hope you realize you can't have it all.

Actually i do watch all my movies at home, so at least I am consistent.

I support devs when they create real expansions rather than these miniscule DLCs that milk us for little content.

Pessimeister said:

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. But maybe I'm a sucker for exploring sewers - especially long drawn out interconnected tunnels leading to smaller crypts and whatnot. I remember having an absolute blast wiping out the dark brotherhood by stealth for instance.
Also, the further and deeper you went, the harder enemies you encountered and more plot elements were revealed as you delved deeper and returned to the surface each time. So yeah, I definitely felt exploration was solid in Tribunal.
It was reasonably lore-heavy too, which was good for me, as exploration wasn't the only gameplay element I enjoyed.

Click to expand...

I've never been much of a dungeon diver. I prefer to explore topside. Dungeons just get very repetitive to me very quickly, unless they are really brilliantly designed like say something from Thief: The Dark Project, or New Vegas' Vaults.

I should give Tribunal another shot though. I have replayed Morrowind probably half-a-dozen times but have never spent much time in Tribunal since release.

DArtagnan said:

The problem with DLC as a model to make money, is that it's slowly making expansions unattractive as a thing to create and sell. Actually, no, it has already made expansions unattractive to most - or so it seems.

If DLC as a concept existed in a vacuum - I wouldn't have the slightest problem with it.

The people holding the financial power behind game development, have figured out that the impulse-driven purchase is the new gold. This is most evident in the smartphone Apps market and "F2P" games.

However, DLC is fast becoming something very similar.

It's true that DLC, as it is, doesn't HAVE to be bad - but in my personal opinion, there has yet to be released a single DLC or complete DLC package that amounted to similar quality as a quality expansion.

Click to expand...

I agree it sucks that expansions have been phased out. That said I do think the DLC model can offer some upsides. For example DLC allows you to try different ideas without as much risk. Bethesda made it clear that of the 5 Fallout 3 DLCs only Broken Steel would have originally qualified for investment as a real expansion. They specifically stated that Point Lookout was a lark they could try for fun because of the lower cost DLC model. Point Lookout was probably my favorite Fallout 3 content overall.

So... it's the same as many things in life, change brings about new benefits and new downsides, but it's going to happen no matter what. Boycotting DLC is not going to bring expansions back, the market has already changed. So why not enjoy the good DLC when it comes out?

well considering this thread is about new vegas which you haven't played nor its dlc which is not miniscule…if you don't like the dlc then why not just buy the original?

its not that the average consume is an idiot its that they are an asshole.

everyone has reasons/excuses while they shop at walmart or other low price stores. bottom line is being thrifty is one thing but when you don't factor in the "real cost" of your purchases or lack there of, a penny saved is an unemployment check earned for someone else.

personally i'd rather enjoy things when their fresh. good beer that is kept refrigerated and made with quality ingredients is worth the cost.

good music that is made by musicians who write their own music and take their careers and music seriously.

food that is grown or produced as locally as possible is not only better tasting, but supports your local economy and farmers/resturants and is worth the extra cost to me.

and of course i would like to buy all games directly from the devs since most games pc games are digital these days. but distributers like steam are good in that they give a marketplace for a lot of smaller and indie developers where a few dollars per game can add up quickly. smaller purchases do really make sense in todays economy which is why dlc makes sense. i agree some dlc isn't worth it's dollar value but then again many games are worth far less than their $40-$60 price tag in the first place.
$10 is hardly a lot of money for the fallout dlcs which at a mininum of a handful of hours of new content (price of a movie but replayable) and some like point lookout and hopefully many of the new vegas dlc well over a dozen hours which many expansions themselves fail to offer.

its fine to reject dlc on a per dlc basis but to boycott or lament about it as a whole is futile and your loss as a gamer and perhaps the devs loss as well. being an early adopter/supporter too also has the advantage of providing feedback to the devs and in many cases this allows for patches that don't just fix bugs but also provide new content/options for gameplay.

real people with real families make things and the whole "discount market" concept is bad for anything that is made in this country if it continues to grow. thankfully there are things like kickstarter that counter this which help fund many artists, musicians, inventors, etc in this country that connects people directly with their passions and interests and saves/starts many great ideas/careers/etc