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.