DLC to Bridge Sequels: Yay or Nay?

[Kane Knight]

I was thinking about this because I've seen some people refer to the DLCs from Mass Effect 2 as being vital to ME3, and therefore complain it's bad form to do it that way. I don't know how true this is, having not played either the DLCs in question nor ME3, but it kinda got me thinking.

I really liked the fact that the final DLC story for Saints Row 2 was designed to bridge 2 and Stilwater to 3 and what I think was unnamed at that point.

The only downside for me was that they ended up dropping this link completely. The dude who escapes (name withheld for spoiler purposes) was never mentioned in 3 because continuing plot threads from a prior game might confuse new customers. Or ponies. I think ponies is probably the real answer.

That line of thought aside, I mean, we never got to see how vital it would be to follow 3, but with the setup, I don't see much. Guy betrays you previously, guy continues to fuck with you in DLC, guy escapes to [not set]. Seems like it's a good way to keep your fans playing, segue things neatly to the next game, etc.

So monologue aside, how's everyone else feel? Bad? Good? indifferent?

I mean, it can always be bad. All one needs to do is withhold vital story information for DLC. But I mean, the general concept.

Are there other examples? The ME2 and SR2 are the only examples I can think of off the top of my head that specifically move things towards the next game, and one of those aborted mid-mission.

[Swiss Ultimate]

On the one hand I like the idea of DLC for games that are enjoyable without DLC. If I feel like I got my money's worth from buying the game by itself, then DLC is a safeish bet and a good deal for me to continue playing the same game.

That said, I really didn't like Fable 3 and got the DLC because I didn't know what else to do with my xbox points. Also felt the DLC was lame though at least in line with how lame the rest of the game was.

In ME2 the DLC didn't really impress me. The reason being that I felt running around doing errands for random people wasn't in the best interest of the galaxy anyways and I also disliked the combat. ME3's combat for me is fun on a lot of different levels. I can't even tell you what differences they made to it, but for some reason I like the combat in ME3 whereas I didn't in ME2. The DLC in ME2 was combat heavy and because of that I didn't really enjoy those missions.

However, when DLC stuff from ME2 started coming up in ME3 I was pleasantly surprised. Too bad Zaeed might never leave the Citadel if they don't give us some awesome DLC missions that go over the Reaper's attack.

[Requiem]

I like DLC for optional content, but hate recommended or important DLC because I don't want to pay extra for something that should have been in the original game if it was so important. ME3 for instance, hate that they did what they did with the DLC. Seems like the character is too important, and forcing people to pay extra for important story related content is just greedy.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

I guess they needed to walk a fine line with DLC being important or just another random mission added on.

I don't agree with what they did with the day one DLC since it is apparent it was on the Disc, but I do like how Mass Effect's 2 DLC affects the third game. The DLC in Mass Effect 2 is worth buying and a lot of fun. So, it's fun and it makes Mass Effect 2 and 3 easier to beat. I don't see a huge problem with that.

The Mass Effect 1 DLC just seemed to be just a random mission and it was pretty lame.

[Kane Knight]

On the one hand I like the idea of DLC for games that are enjoyable without DLC. If I feel like I got my money's worth from buying the game by itself, then DLC is a safeish bet and a good deal for me to continue playing the same game.

This was sorta what it was like in Saints Row 2 for me. It kinda pissed me off that they were done after three DLC packs, because I was all "Shut up and take my money!"

Contrast that to 3, with a fuckton of DLC, but much of it was stuff that probably should have been in the game (A city half the size and game half the length and now they've got like 100 bucks of on disc DLC...Yeah, no way THAT was cut) and the game wasn't as much fun, anyway. I wish they had added some of that crazy shit from SR3 to 2 as late-game or end-game DLC. Too early and it's an easy button. But if you have to earn it, it's just dessert.

I guess they needed to walk a fine line with DLC being important or just another random mission added on.

I don't agree with what they did with the day one DLC since it is apparent it was on the Disc, but I do like how Mass Effect's 2 DLC affects the third game. The DLC in Mass Effect 2 is worth buying and a lot of fun. So, it's fun and it makes Mass Effect 2 and 3 easier to beat. I don't see a huge problem with that.

The Mass Effect 1 DLC just seemed to be just a random mission and it was pretty lame.

I do like the fact that whether or not you've played a couple of the DLCs impacts conversations with some of the characters involved and stuff. That was pretty fucking cool.

I'm also with you on the "fine line," thing. Even when it was assumed the day 1 DLC was not on-disc (because bioware are gods and wouldn not lie), people were angry that stuff made (supposedly) after the game was finished and shipped to print would not be theirs for free.

Actually, in a series like Mass Effect, what I'd like to see is DLC that fleshes out the Universe more. Like, you can't spend all your time worldbuilding in a game like this, because everything's scripted, but imagine new content that lets you explore other worlds or opens up backstory or something.

One of the things that got me so excited for ME2 was the first two novels, which added quite a bit of content to the universe. But Mass Effect is a GAMe series, and I'd love to experience that. So they could do extra stuff easily (as in coming up with concept, not that coding and shit is easy) without making it too mandatory for the game.

I'd feel like I got something good. I know Zaeed sort of expanded one of the groups through his loyalty mission.

I don't know how much the DLC to 2 did this, though, because I got bored with the game and wandered off elsewhere. I mean no offense to those who bought the DLC, but if a game doesn't please me, I'm not shelling out for it.

At the same time, as Swiss said, if I enjoy the game, it weights me more towards buying it even if I was on the fence about DLC otherwise.

[Emperor Smeat]

Rather it be optional considering a lot of games have had crummy DLC "expansion"-like packs for story content which ended up being a waste of money or ignored once the new game came out.

It also depends on what genre the game is in because it works a lot better with RPGs and MMOs than something like a fighter or shooter (not counting the Half Life series).

I did enjoy the DLC episodes of GTA IV a lot more than GTA IV and while it wasn't a bridge for a new GTA game, it did well bridging the connections to the main story from different perspectives.

[Kane Knight]

I agree they shouldn't be mandatory.

The beauty of DLC for a game like GTA IV is you pretty much know you're not getting a GTA V with the same locale and characters.

Well, unless Rockstar decides to pull a Final Fantasy on us. I don't think that's likely, though. they've bucked most of the current trends and don't seem likely to go with iterative games or online passes or shit. One reason I appreciate them, even if I think GTA IV was kinda shit.

It'd be cool if they did some stuff that connected up their games more though. I mean, I hear some of the portable games do that. Don't know if it's true. It'd still be cool, either way.