85 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

candidate88766 wrote...

Not all dlc has to be story based. We got 2 new characters, 2 bridging dlcs, a standalone mission and a tonne of weapons and armour. I think that qualifies for 'plenty'. Admittedly 3 bridging dlcs would've been nice, but if arrival if of the same quality as LotSB then i'm more than happy.

I think Overlord is bridging DLC too.

[Homebound]

Bioware's definition of DLC are appearance packs and weapons packs. Basically misc stuff that should be in the game already.
Our definition of DLC is real content like LotSB.

since we're the ones who buy this, i think by default our definition is the right one.

[Elite Midget]

This is why you always set your expectations low!

It'll do wonders for your stress and you can be surprised when they surpass your very low expectations!!!

[HBC Dresden]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Not really because most developers do not promise DLC and the ones that do, typically get more than what ME1 and ME2 had.

Because of the status of ME, I put it in the category of Halo, COD, GTA, RDR, and Fallout. All of those games had significantly better DLC support than ME and ME2.

I mean look at GTA's Ballad of Gay Tony/Lost and Damned. Those are like 2 mini games themselves. Same with RDR's Undead Nightmare and Fallout 3's list of large DLCs. Then compare that to what ME2 recieved in terms of story related content. 

Again, Bioware makes GREAT single player story games but when it comes to DLC support, Bioware continues to be in the "learning how to use" stage while other developers have moved onto "already know how to use but trying to make better: stage if that makes any sense.

In other words....Bioware as a AAA developer is behind the curve when it comes to DLC.

Your first statement of how most games that promise DLC typically got more DLC than what ME1 and ME2 is overgeneralized and not even supported. You take examples from a couple games and conclude that most games in the same category get more DLC? You need to rephrase that if you meant something else.

GTA's DLC was great, Fallout was hit and miss, and RDR was good too. Rockstar went for less but more substantial; they may got the winning strategy. But you mention COD and Halo, and I do not put their DLC support, aka maps, to be on par with the demands of an RPG in terms of DLC. BioWare is in the learning stages for sure, but to claim that they are behind the curve is purely opinion. Most devs are behind the curve, no one is really past it, except possibly Rockstar.

But regarding your earlier statements: even if a separate team is put on ME2 DLC, that is still personal from the main ME dev team. That means less people to work on ME3. It's not like we are talking about Dragon Age devs, they are still ME devs, just on DLC duty. Look at Rockstar, even though they have multiple teams, there aren't demands of sequels from the publisher, giving each team a breather to provide substantial DLC support. EA/BioWare do not have that luxury.

[candidate88766]

Mass Effect 2 has had 14 individual pieces of DLC so far (including Arrival because its about a week away). 5 of these have been story-based, 2 of them have been bridging DLCs (while Overload may tie back into the Geth-Quarian conflict in ME3, Bioware did state that LotSB was the first of the bridging DLCs). The Normandy Crash site could possibly be considered story-based in that it provides emotional closure if you are invested in the story enough, but I haven't included it as story-based.

To put this in perspective, Oblivion only had 10 pieces of DLC, only 2 of which were story based (3 if you count Mehrunes' Razor). And before you say that some of ME2's were things like armour and weapons, remember Oblivion had horse armour.

Fallout 3 only had 3 pieces of DLC. Granted they were all story-based, but in reviews were often said to be too short for the price - which is higher than any ME2 DLC except LotSB.

RDR has had only 5 pieces, but one of them was Undead Nightmare which is fantastic. This was the only one that was story-based.

Even if you don't count Zaeed or Kasumi as story-based, ME2 still has 3 (Overlord, LotSB, Arrival) which is equal to any other game it has been compared to here. It exceeds the story content of RDR, GTA iv and Oblivion and on par with Fallout 3. ME2 has had more individual DLCs than any other game I've so far been able to find.

Quantity-wise ME2 has had more DLC than any other game I've found so far.

Quality-wise, it has had 2 (or 4 if you count Zaeed and Kasumi, but I won't for this example) story-DLCs with 1 more on the way. Overlord has an 81% average on Metacritic (88 on PC) and LotSB has 87%. Undead Nightmare holds 87%, while both of GTA iv's have 89/90% so the quality is pretty much the same for all 3.

Frankly, I have no idea how people can be disappointed with ME2's DLC.

Modifié par candidate88766, 21 mars 2011 - 01:02 .

[MajesticJazz]

candidate88766 wrote...

Mass Effect 2 has had 14 individual pieces of DLC so far (including Arrival because its about a week away). 5 of these have been story-based, 2 of them have been bridging DLCs (while Overload may tie back into the Geth-Quarian conflict in ME3, Bioware did state that LotSB was the first of the bridging DLCs). The Normandy Crash site could possibly be considered story-based in that it provides emotional closure if you are invested in the story enough, but I haven't included it as story-based.

To put this in perspective, Oblivion only had 10 pieces of DLC, only 2 of which were story based (3 if you count Mehrunes' Razor). And before you say that some of ME2's were things like armour and weapons, remember Oblivion had horse armour.

Fallout 3 only had 3 pieces of DLC. Granted they were all story-based, but in reviews were often said to be too short for the price - which is higher than any ME2 DLC except LotSB.

RDR has had only 5 pieces, but one of them was Undead Nightmare which is fantastic. This was the only one that was story-based.

Even if you don't count Zaeed or Kasumi as story-based, ME2 still has 3 (Overlord, LotSB, Arrival) which is equal to any other game it has been compared to here. It exceeds the story content of RDR, GTA iv and Oblivion and on par with Fallout 3. ME2 has had more individual DLCs than any other game I've so far been able to find.

Quantity-wise ME2 has had more DLC than any other game I've found so far.

Quality-wise, it has had 2 (or 4 if you count Zaeed and Kasumi, but I won't for this example) story-DLCs with 1 more on the way. Overlord has an 81% average on Metacritic (88 on PC) and LotSB has 87%. Undead Nightmare holds 87%, while both of GTA iv's have 89/90% so the quality is pretty much the same for all 3.

Frankly, I have no idea how people can be disappointed with ME2's DLC.

While there have been 14 DLC pieces for ME2, only 5 of them have been story related.

Out of those 5, two of them were merely loyalty missions that should have been in the main game. That leaves us with 3.

Out of those 3, one of them (Overlord) wasn't a gap bridging DLC but rather a DLC that plays within the game's main story. So that leaves us with 2.

These final 2 are gap bridging DLCs that Bioware promised, but they did mention "several" gap bridging DLCs....not a pair, not a couple, but several which implied 3+. Most of us assumed that there would be atleast 3 of these that would play as its own mini trilogy.

So in terms of gap bridging DLC, we only got 2 which is fine, I have no problems with that. What I do have a problem with is when they said we would get several which implied 3-4 of these, not 2.

Not to get off topic, but another minor complaint I have is the length of these DLCs. While companies like Rockstar and Bethesda are dishing out DLCs that are 6-10 hours to fully complete, Bioware seems afraid to do a DLC for ME that is 2+ hours in terms of gameplay. They did Awakening for Dragon Age and we all assumed that to be something that would also go for ME2 but we were wrong.

If Bioware did just one big 8-10 hour expansion for ME2 that served as the bridge between ME2 and ME3 and sold it at like a $15-$20 price, you'll have a lot more happy people here and a lot less complainers like myself. 

[naledgeborn]

MajesticJazz wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

Mass Effect 2 has had 14 individual pieces of DLC so far (including Arrival because its about a week away). 5 of these have been story-based, 2 of them have been bridging DLCs (while Overload may tie back into the Geth-Quarian conflict in ME3, Bioware did state that LotSB was the first of the bridging DLCs). The Normandy Crash site could possibly be considered story-based in that it provides emotional closure if you are invested in the story enough, but I haven't included it as story-based.

To put this in perspective, Oblivion only had 10 pieces of DLC, only 2 of which were story based (3 if you count Mehrunes' Razor). And before you say that some of ME2's were things like armour and weapons, remember Oblivion had horse armour.

Fallout 3 only had 3 pieces of DLC. Granted they were all story-based, but in reviews were often said to be too short for the price - which is higher than any ME2 DLC except LotSB.

RDR has had only 5 pieces, but one of them was Undead Nightmare which is fantastic. This was the only one that was story-based.

Even if you don't count Zaeed or Kasumi as story-based, ME2 still has 3 (Overlord, LotSB, Arrival) which is equal to any other game it has been compared to here. It exceeds the story content of RDR, GTA iv and Oblivion and on par with Fallout 3. ME2 has had more individual DLCs than any other game I've so far been able to find.

Quantity-wise ME2 has had more DLC than any other game I've found so far.

Quality-wise, it has had 2 (or 4 if you count Zaeed and Kasumi, but I won't for this example) story-DLCs with 1 more on the way. Overlord has an 81% average on Metacritic (88 on PC) and LotSB has 87%. Undead Nightmare holds 87%, while both of GTA iv's have 89/90% so the quality is pretty much the same for all 3.

Frankly, I have no idea how people can be disappointed with ME2's DLC.

While there have been 14 DLC pieces for ME2, only 5 of them have been story related.

Out of those 5, two of them were merely loyalty missions that should have been in the main game. That leaves us with 3.

Out of those 3, one of them (Overlord) wasn't a gap bridging DLC but rather a DLC that plays within the game's main story. So that leaves us with 2.

These final 2 are gap bridging DLCs that Bioware promised, but they did mention "several" gap bridging DLCs....not a pair, not a couple, but several which implied 3+. Most of us assumed that there would be atleast 3 of these that would play as its own mini trilogy.

So in terms of gap bridging DLC, we only got 2 which is fine, I have no problems with that. What I do have a problem with is when they said we would get several which implied 3-4 of these, not 2.

Not to get off topic, but another minor complaint I have is the length of these DLCs. While companies like Rockstar and Bethesda are dishing out DLCs that are 6-10 hours to fully complete, Bioware seems afraid to do a DLC for ME that is 2+ hours in terms of gameplay. They did Awakening for Dragon Age and we all assumed that to be something that would also go for ME2 but we were wrong.

If Bioware did just one big 8-10 hour expansion for ME2 that served as the bridge between ME2 and ME3 and sold it at like a $15-$20 price, you'll have a lot more happy people here and a lot less complainers like myself. 

Off topic: Dude, your FemShep Av is banging. Hook me up with a face code.

[candidate88766]

MajesticJazz wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

Mass Effect 2 has had 14 individual pieces of DLC so far (including Arrival because its about a week away). 5 of these have been story-based, 2 of them have been bridging DLCs (while Overload may tie back into the Geth-Quarian conflict in ME3, Bioware did state that LotSB was the first of the bridging DLCs). The Normandy Crash site could possibly be considered story-based in that it provides emotional closure if you are invested in the story enough, but I haven't included it as story-based.

To put this in perspective, Oblivion only had 10 pieces of DLC, only 2 of which were story based (3 if you count Mehrunes' Razor). And before you say that some of ME2's were things like armour and weapons, remember Oblivion had horse armour.

Fallout 3 only had 3 pieces of DLC. Granted they were all story-based, but in reviews were often said to be too short for the price - which is higher than any ME2 DLC except LotSB.

RDR has had only 5 pieces, but one of them was Undead Nightmare which is fantastic. This was the only one that was story-based.

Even if you don't count Zaeed or Kasumi as story-based, ME2 still has 3 (Overlord, LotSB, Arrival) which is equal to any other game it has been compared to here. It exceeds the story content of RDR, GTA iv and Oblivion and on par with Fallout 3. ME2 has had more individual DLCs than any other game I've so far been able to find.

Quantity-wise ME2 has had more DLC than any other game I've found so far.

Quality-wise, it has had 2 (or 4 if you count Zaeed and Kasumi, but I won't for this example) story-DLCs with 1 more on the way. Overlord has an 81% average on Metacritic (88 on PC) and LotSB has 87%. Undead Nightmare holds 87%, while both of GTA iv's have 89/90% so the quality is pretty much the same for all 3.

Frankly, I have no idea how people can be disappointed with ME2's DLC.

While there have been 14 DLC pieces for ME2, only 5 of them have been story related.

Out of those 5, two of them were merely loyalty missions that should have been in the main game. That leaves us with 3.

Out of those 3, one of them (Overlord) wasn't a gap bridging DLC but rather a DLC that plays within the game's main story. So that leaves us with 2.

These final 2 are gap bridging DLCs that Bioware promised, but they did mention "several" gap bridging DLCs....not a pair, not a couple, but several which implied 3+. Most of us assumed that there would be atleast 3 of these that would play as its own mini trilogy.

So in terms of gap bridging DLC, we only got 2 which is fine, I have no problems with that. What I do have a problem with is when they said we would get several which implied 3-4 of these, not 2.

Not to get off topic, but another minor complaint I have is the length of these DLCs. While companies like Rockstar and Bethesda are dishing out DLCs that are 6-10 hours to fully complete, Bioware seems afraid to do a DLC for ME that is 2+ hours in terms of gameplay. They did Awakening for Dragon Age and we all assumed that to be something that would also go for ME2 but we were wrong.

If Bioware did just one big 8-10 hour expansion for ME2 that served as the bridge between ME2 and ME3 and sold it at like a $15-$20 price, you'll have a lot more happy people here and a lot less complainers like myself. 

I do agree with you that I was expecting 3 or more bridging DLC. By bridging they may simply have meant 'to fill the time until the 3rd game', but this should've been clarified.

I disagree somewhat about expecting longer DLCs though:

Lenth-wise, while many games have longer DLCs they have larger price tags to reflect this. Also, the Mass Effect games are generally pretty fast-paced. The length of the story-DLC missions have generally been longer than any individual mission in ME2. And, as seen with LotSB, a lot can happen in a short time-span. We have the flying sequence on Illuim and (I think) possibly the best set-piece so far in the trilogy, the Shadow-Brokers ship, in just a couple of hours. 

This is just my opinion, but I don't think longer mission are suited to Mass Effect. No mission in either game has ever taken anywhere near 6-8 hours, so any DLC of that length would have to have some pretty important story elements which I feel would be better served in ME3. While I like the idea of an expansion-length DLC for Mass Effect, i'm just not sure it fits its gameplay story approach and isn't really suited to it. A 3 hour DLC would've been nice though. The mission in Mass Effect are fast-paced and a DLC of 6-8 hours would throw off this pacing, at least I think it would. It would've been nice to see Bioware give it a shot though.

Modifié par candidate88766, 21 mars 2011 - 01:46 .

[Luvinn]

Quality over quantity. Arrival isn't even out yet. You might play through it, and at the ending be like, "Yup, I'm ready for ME3 now." I personally don't want them to keep putting out DLC that seems rushed, or just full of filler content.

So i can't complain about it until i play it, since both of the big story based DLC's (overlord, lotsb) were pretty good in my opinion.

[Lvl20DM]

@candidate - while I completely agree with you, one correction. Fallout 3 had 5 DLC : Operation Anchorage, The Pitt, broken steel, point lookout, and mothership Zeta. Only Lookout and Steel were all that great, but taken together they ate a substantial expansion. Still LotSB is probably the best DLC I've played for any game.

[candidate88766]

Lvl20DM wrote...

@candidate - while I completely agree with you, one correction. Fallout 3 had 5 DLC : Operation Anchorage, The Pitt, broken steel, point lookout, and mothership Zeta. Only Lookout and Steel were all that great, but taken together they ate a substantial expansion. Still LotSB is probably the best DLC I've played for any game.

Ah my bad, just checked on the marketplace and it does have 5. Kinda rendered one of my points moot now. Although as you say only a couple of them were well recieved, as far as I know the other three were met with mixed reviews.

[ODST 5723]

MajesticJazz wrote...

Pwnisher wrote...

Frankly, I wish there were more bridging DLCs but hey we got more DLC then most games do.

Not really because most developers do not promise DLC and the ones that do, typically get more than what ME1 and ME2 had.

Because of the status of ME, I put it in the category of Halo, COD, GTA, RDR, and Fallout. All of those games had significantly better DLC support than ME and ME2.

I mean look at GTA's Ballad of Gay Tony/Lost and Damned. Those are like 2 mini games themselves. Same with RDR's Undead Nightmare and Fallout 3's list of large DLCs. Then compare that to what ME2 recieved in terms of story related content.

Halo and Call of Duty get a bunch of multiplayer map packs.  It's a very different animal.  You're not getting any extra campaign value or story expansion for your money, you're getting new maps and in some altered modes.

RDR got expanded multiplayer and a single alternate universe campaign expansion.  You do get a new campaign, but it's alternate reality.  Again, different animal.

GTA and Fallout, now that's where you make a real point.  And it's story-driven campaign add-ons that add to the overall universe and which can add a significant chunk into the game.

Bioware provided 2 different add-on squadmates and missions to go with them in Zaeed and Kasumi.  They provided a mediocre vehicle/exploration add-on that added little value in Firewalker.  They provided a bit more value with exploration and the missions in Overlord which through they don't serve to bridge they do expand.  Then they provided Shadow Broker which added several missions and expanded the campaign.

Now they'll be putting out Arrival which is the 6th bit of campaign add-on (5th if you don't want to count Firewalker) and this doesn't even factor in the extra weapons and armor for Shepard and appearance packs for the squad.

Frankly, I got a lot of DLC for ME2.  Whether it's on par with or as enjoyable as some GTA or Fallout DLC was is debatable.

[MajesticJazz]

ODST 5723 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Pwnisher wrote...

Frankly, I wish there were more bridging DLCs but hey we got more DLC then most games do.

Not really because most developers do not promise DLC and the ones that do, typically get more than what ME1 and ME2 had.

Because of the status of ME, I put it in the category of Halo, COD, GTA, RDR, and Fallout. All of those games had significantly better DLC support than ME and ME2.

I mean look at GTA's Ballad of Gay Tony/Lost and Damned. Those are like 2 mini games themselves. Same with RDR's Undead Nightmare and Fallout 3's list of large DLCs. Then compare that to what ME2 recieved in terms of story related content.

Now they'll be putting out Arrival which is the 6th bit of campaign add-on (5th if you don't want to count Firewalker) and this doesn't even factor in the extra weapons and armor for Shepard and appearance packs for the squad.

Frankly, I got a lot of DLC for ME2.  Whether it's on par with or as enjoyable as some GTA or Fallout DLC was is debatable.

Again, I am talking about gap bridging DLC specifically because thats where Bioware promised "several" DLCs, not a coupld and not a pair.

I do not count Kasumi and Zaeed as true DLCs in the notion that those SHOULD have been in the main game from the get go as they were essential characters to Shepard's mission. Furthermore, they do not add anything to the core story.....just 2 new loyalty missions.

Then Overlord, while it expanded ME2 in the same way Bring Down the Sky did for ME1, it doesn't bridge the gap between ME2 and ME3.

So again, that only leaves us with LOTSB and Arrival as the proposed "several gap bridging DLCs" that Bioware mentioned. But that is 2, not "several".

If you count ALL the story related DLCs included Kasumi/Zaeed/Overlord....yes you have several DLCs but they aren't DLCs that connects and leads into ME3. 

THAT is the point I'm trying to make. Bioware said several connecting DLCs which is assumed as a minimal of 3 DLCs. Instead it looks like we're only getting 2 which is a let down considering that they build my hopes up thinking that we would have 3-4 different connecting DLCs because of their "several" comments.

Again, the moral of the story is to never expect too much from Bioware when they make comments/promises/predictions about DLC.

[candidate88766]

MajesticJazz wrote...

ODST 5723 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Pwnisher wrote...

Frankly, I wish there were more bridging DLCs but hey we got more DLC then most games do.

Not really because most developers do not promise DLC and the ones that do, typically get more than what ME1 and ME2 had.

Because of the status of ME, I put it in the category of Halo, COD, GTA, RDR, and Fallout. All of those games had significantly better DLC support than ME and ME2.

I mean look at GTA's Ballad of Gay Tony/Lost and Damned. Those are like 2 mini games themselves. Same with RDR's Undead Nightmare and Fallout 3's list of large DLCs. Then compare that to what ME2 recieved in terms of story related content.

Now they'll be putting out Arrival which is the 6th bit of campaign add-on (5th if you don't want to count Firewalker) and this doesn't even factor in the extra weapons and armor for Shepard and appearance packs for the squad.

Frankly, I got a lot of DLC for ME2.  Whether it's on par with or as enjoyable as some GTA or Fallout DLC was is debatable.

Again, I am talking about gap bridging DLC specifically because thats where Bioware promised "several" DLCs, not a coupld and not a pair.

I do not count Kasumi and Zaeed as true DLCs in the notion that those SHOULD have been in the main game from the get go as they were essential characters to Shepard's mission. Furthermore, they do not add anything to the core story.....just 2 new loyalty missions.

Then Overlord, while it expanded ME2 in the same way Bring Down the Sky did for ME1, it doesn't bridge the gap between ME2 and ME3.

So again, that only leaves us with LOTSB and Arrival as the proposed "several gap bridging DLCs" that Bioware mentioned. But that is 2, not "several".

If you count ALL the story related DLCs included Kasumi/Zaeed/Overlord....yes you have several DLCs but they aren't DLCs that connects and leads into ME3. 

THAT is the point I'm trying to make. Bioware said several connecting DLCs which is assumed as a minimal of 3 DLCs. Instead it looks like we're only getting 2 which is a let down considering that they build my hopes up thinking that we would have 3-4 different connecting DLCs because of their "several" comments.

Again, the moral of the story is to never expect too much from Bioware when they make comments/promises/predictions about DLC.

Thing is, we don't yet know whether Overlord ties into ME3 or not. It may end up being an important plot area to do with the geth. I still agree that the implication was for more than 2, but we are assuming by bridging they point as in bridging the plot from 2 to 3, when they may simply have meant bridging in the sense that it passes the time or introduces us to new gameplay elements they want in ME3. Granted, if that is the case then 'bridging' is a bit of a misleading word to use.

Besides, I still think they've done pretty well - LotSB I think exceeded most people's expectations for what it was and if Arrival is as good then i'm content with 2 great bridging DLCs as opposed to perhaps 3 or 4 that may have been more rushed. 

Still agree that more than 2 would've been nice, I just feel you're being a tad harsh - but its your opinion and you're welcome to it.

[MajesticJazz]

candidate88766 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

ODST 5723 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Pwnisher wrote...

Frankly, I wish there were more bridging DLCs but hey we got more DLC then most games do.

Not really because most developers do not promise DLC and the ones that do, typically get more than what ME1 and ME2 had.

Because of the status of ME, I put it in the category of Halo, COD, GTA, RDR, and Fallout. All of those games had significantly better DLC support than ME and ME2.

I mean look at GTA's Ballad of Gay Tony/Lost and Damned. Those are like 2 mini games themselves. Same with RDR's Undead Nightmare and Fallout 3's list of large DLCs. Then compare that to what ME2 recieved in terms of story related content.

Now they'll be putting out Arrival which is the 6th bit of campaign add-on (5th if you don't want to count Firewalker) and this doesn't even factor in the extra weapons and armor for Shepard and appearance packs for the squad.

Frankly, I got a lot of DLC for ME2.  Whether it's on par with or as enjoyable as some GTA or Fallout DLC was is debatable.

Again, I am talking about gap bridging DLC specifically because thats where Bioware promised "several" DLCs, not a coupld and not a pair.

I do not count Kasumi and Zaeed as true DLCs in the notion that those SHOULD have been in the main game from the get go as they were essential characters to Shepard's mission. Furthermore, they do not add anything to the core story.....just 2 new loyalty missions.

Then Overlord, while it expanded ME2 in the same way Bring Down the Sky did for ME1, it doesn't bridge the gap between ME2 and ME3.

So again, that only leaves us with LOTSB and Arrival as the proposed "several gap bridging DLCs" that Bioware mentioned. But that is 2, not "several".

If you count ALL the story related DLCs included Kasumi/Zaeed/Overlord....yes you have several DLCs but they aren't DLCs that connects and leads into ME3. 

THAT is the point I'm trying to make. Bioware said several connecting DLCs which is assumed as a minimal of 3 DLCs. Instead it looks like we're only getting 2 which is a let down considering that they build my hopes up thinking that we would have 3-4 different connecting DLCs because of their "several" comments.

Again, the moral of the story is to never expect too much from Bioware when they make comments/promises/predictions about DLC.

Thing is, we don't yet know whether Overlord ties into ME3 or not. It may end up being an important plot area to do with the geth. I still agree that the implication was for more than 2, but we are assuming by bridging they point as in bridging the plot from 2 to 3, when they may simply have meant bridging in the sense that it passes the time or introduces us to new gameplay elements they want in ME3. Granted, if that is the case then 'bridging' is a bit of a misleading word to use.

Not to sour your parade but it has already been confirmed by the devs that the "gap bridging" DLC began with Lair of the Shadow Broker, not Overlord.

[Lvl20DM]

Bioware could do a better job communicating with the fanbase. Obsidian has announced three upcoming DLC for New Vegas well in advance. Bethesda did something similar with Fallout 3. My guess is that Bioware didn't actually know how much DLC they would be releasing, or knew, but were concerned that the number could change and hedged with a murky "several" instead of "2".

[Arokel]

Kinda confused by OP. I count at least 3 bridging DLC.

Overlord
Lair of the Shadow Broker
Arrival

It seems like plenty to me. Any more and I wouldn't be able to afford it lol.

(Reading back over this I see I could sound arrogant or mean. That is not my intent.)

[candidate88766]

MajesticJazz wrote...

candidate88766 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

ODST 5723 wrote...

MajesticJazz wrote...

Pwnisher wrote...

Frankly, I wish there were more bridging DLCs but hey we got more DLC then most games do.

Not really because most developers do not promise DLC and the ones that do, typically get more than what ME1 and ME2 had.

Because of the status of ME, I put it in the category of Halo, COD, GTA, RDR, and Fallout. All of those games had significantly better DLC support than ME and ME2.

I mean look at GTA's Ballad of Gay Tony/Lost and Damned. Those are like 2 mini games themselves. Same with RDR's Undead Nightmare and Fallout 3's list of large DLCs. Then compare that to what ME2 recieved in terms of story related content.

Now they'll be putting out Arrival which is the 6th bit of campaign add-on (5th if you don't want to count Firewalker) and this doesn't even factor in the extra weapons and armor for Shepard and appearance packs for the squad.

Frankly, I got a lot of DLC for ME2.  Whether it's on par with or as enjoyable as some GTA or Fallout DLC was is debatable.

Again, I am talking about gap bridging DLC specifically because thats where Bioware promised "several" DLCs, not a coupld and not a pair.

I do not count Kasumi and Zaeed as true DLCs in the notion that those SHOULD have been in the main game from the get go as they were essential characters to Shepard's mission. Furthermore, they do not add anything to the core story.....just 2 new loyalty missions.

Then Overlord, while it expanded ME2 in the same way Bring Down the Sky did for ME1, it doesn't bridge the gap between ME2 and ME3.

So again, that only leaves us with LOTSB and Arrival as the proposed "several gap bridging DLCs" that Bioware mentioned. But that is 2, not "several".

If you count ALL the story related DLCs included Kasumi/Zaeed/Overlord....yes you have several DLCs but they aren't DLCs that connects and leads into ME3. 

THAT is the point I'm trying to make. Bioware said several connecting DLCs which is assumed as a minimal of 3 DLCs. Instead it looks like we're only getting 2 which is a let down considering that they build my hopes up thinking that we would have 3-4 different connecting DLCs because of their "several" comments.

Again, the moral of the story is to never expect too much from Bioware when they make comments/promises/predictions about DLC.

Thing is, we don't yet know whether Overlord ties into ME3 or not. It may end up being an important plot area to do with the geth. I still agree that the implication was for more than 2, but we are assuming by bridging they point as in bridging the plot from 2 to 3, when they may simply have meant bridging in the sense that it passes the time or introduces us to new gameplay elements they want in ME3. Granted, if that is the case then 'bridging' is a bit of a misleading word to use.

Not to sour your parade but it has already been confirmed by the devs that the "gap bridging" DLC began with Lair of the Shadow Broker, not Overlord.

Oh well, as long as it gets referenced to in more than an email in ME3 <_<

[candidate88766]

Arokel wrote...

Kinda confused by OP. I count at least 3 bridging DLC.

Overlord
Lair of the Shadow Broker
Arrival

It seems like plenty to me. Any more and I wouldn't be able to afford it lol.

(Reading back over this I see I could sound arrogant or mean. That is not my intent.)

I thought Overlord might count as well but I've been told that technically LotSB was the 1st bridging DLC i'm afraid

[Akizora]

There is a difference between the sentence "There will be plenty of content bridging the gap between ME2 and ME3" and "There will be bridging content between the release of ME2 and ME3". The first simply means they'll release DLC between the two games and the second that the content is meant to bridge the two games together.

Now in 14 months there has been 6 mission/story DLCs (Zaeed, Kasumi, Firewalker, Overlord, Lair of the Shadowbroker and now Arrival) if that isn't plenty of content in little more than a year...I don't know what is.

Modifié par Akizora, 21 mars 2011 - 07:07 .

[Arokel]

@candidate88766

I see what you mean. I have always considered Ovelord a bridge DLC because of the way the project might affect ME3 and the fact I played it post suicide mission.

[candidate88766]

Arokel wrote...

@candidate88766

I see what you mean. I have always considered Ovelord a bridge DLC because of the way the project might affect ME3 and the fact I played it post suicide mission.

I hope it does, I thought it had quite an interesting story. And it can sort of be considered a bridge in that it bridges the gap between the games timewise, but I don't think thats what Bioware meant.

[Akizora]

candidate88766 wrote...

Arokel wrote...

@candidate88766

I see what you mean. I have always considered Ovelord a bridge DLC because of the way the project might affect ME3 and the fact I played it post suicide mission.

I hope it does, I thought it had quite an interesting story. And it can sort of be considered a bridge in that it bridges the gap between the games timewise, but I don't think thats what Bioware meant.

It could yield technology to help the Quarians defeat the Geth in ME3 if you choose to side with them, just a "potential" weapon/addon to a quest. I doubt though that it will be crucial to have the DLC, it will likely just explain HOW you got your hands on it and not that you did.

[Thompson family]

candidate88766 wrote...

Not all dlc has to be story based. We got 2 new characters, 2 bridging dlcs, a standalone mission and a tonne of weapons and armour. I think that qualifies for 'plenty'. Admittedly 3 bridging dlcs would've been nice, but if arrival if of the same quality as LotSB then i'm more than happy.

Note how, on this thread and many others, the first response is the best one.

[Thalorin1919]

MajesticJazz wrote...

oldag07 wrote...

Lets see, either Bioware can spend its resources creating 7-8 "gap filling DCL", or it can use its team and resources as it has done and use the rest to finish and polish ME3 so the game can come out earlier. I think Bioware made the right choice.

When will people like you learn that there is a SEPERATE Bioware team working SPECIFICALLY on ME2 DLC? While the Bioware Edmonton team is working on ME3, the Bioware Montreal team is working on ME2 DLC and other smaller side projects and Bioware Austin in working on Star Wars: The Old Republic.

3 Different teams working on 3 different projects.

So if Bioware Montreal wanted to do 7-8 gap filling DLCs for ME2, that would IN NO WAY EFFECT the production quality for ME3 as that is handled soley by Bioware Edmonton. 

You have absolutely no idea what teams are working on what and etc.

So don't act like you do. I'm pleased with the amount of DLC that has come out for ME2. It's all been good quality, and it shows that Bioware cares. 

I don't see why some of you think you are entitled to more DLC or whatever. It's ridiculous.