86 réponses à ce sujet

[ziloe]

88mphSlayer wrote...

well if you're given the choice of creating content for an old game or creating content for a new game which would you pick? i'd pick new, which is why in many ways the dlc for ME2 felt like experiments for ME3's development

Even so, when it comes to ME:3, wouldn't you prefer they have more then 4 or 5 DLCs that actually consist of real adventures and not just aesthetic upgrades? 

[Rurik_Niall]

No, I'd prefer they not have any DLC and instead include those adventures in the game from the start, or failing that in a proper expansion pack.

[RE0305]

ziloe wrote...

 For a company that prides itself on both creating a fantastic, award winning game that includes downloadable content for further playthroughs... why is it that we've barely seen anything new?
Sure, there's "Arrival" which I quite enjoyed. But, why has it been months since Shadow Broker? I understand making a game takes time, but this side mission was only two hours long.
I mean, sure there's some replay value, but I don't want to keep restarting my game. I want to use the hero I worked hard developing, taking him on further missions - and preferably, with my party members I worked so hard gaining, and keeping alive. I know this can be done too, because games such as White Knight Chronicles, continue to produce dungeon crawls that are spit out monthly. So with that said, where's our continuous DLC?
This shouldn't have to stop at four or five small titles and you have a big enough fan base that I'm sure you wouldn't be losing any money either. In fact, I'm quite positive that if you continued this with quality content, you'd have a lot larger fan base due to production and would be making a lot more. So, this is both in your interest, and ours.

Does not compute....

Besides, id rather have them concentrating their efforts on Mass Effect 3

Maybe the fact that White Knight Chronicles and Mass Effect have recived  very different ratings from
the critics shows that Bioware has the right approach.

[leianajade]

I'm probably going to go with a somewhat unpopular opinion and say that I think DLC is unnecessary and jarring. I want a great experience from the start, not to go through the game and then find out that there's a little bit more to the game - have to pick up the game again, try and get in the "mood" for it, and play another little piece of content.

To me, that's like picking up a book, reading to a satisfying conclusion, and then being handed another chapter or two at a time. It's just jarring.

If a game is great, trust me, I'll replay it lots. I can't tell you how many times I've played Kotor over the years, without so much as looking at mods for it. I don't need DLC. Just give me a fantastic game from the start. If that's what they're doing with ME3, so much the better.

[ziloe]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

No, I'd prefer they not have any DLC and instead include those adventures in the game from the start, or failing that in a proper expansion pack.

DLC should not be used to only to make some extra cash, it should be for an idea to continue something where you left off. Like, maybe they let out the game and think, you know, we should have added something like this, etc.  Because you have to also consider that certain things we do now, may not work well for ME:3's storyline.

[Rurik_Niall]

That was covered in the "or failing that in a proper expansion pack." part.

[ziloe]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

That was covered in the "or failing that in a proper expansion pack." part.

Obviously.

But the content would be spread out, thus not having as much pressure with building something that would be say, 25 hours long.

i,e DA:A for example

Modifié par ziloe, 18 avril 2011 - 05:01 .

[Chuvvy]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

It had been months between LOTSB and Arrival because of the PS3 version, not because BioWare was too lazy.

This. There was no reason for them to release DLC (major dlc) until after the PS3 version was released.

[Rurik_Niall]

ziloe wrote...
Obviously.

But the content would be spread out, thus not having as much pressure with building something that would be say, 25 hours long.

i,e DA:A for example

And therein lies one of my primary issues with DLC, I'd much rather pay up $30 for a good expansion that adds a good twenty hours worth of gameplay, new weapons and armour, maybe even a new squad mate or two, and best of all a physical copy that I can hold in my hands than for maybe ten hours of extra content which is pure data in the form of DLC.

Modifié par Rurik_Niall, 18 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[ziloe]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

ziloe wrote...
Obviously.

But the content would be spread out, thus not having as much pressure with building something that would be say, 25 hours long.

i,e DA:A for example

And therein lies one of my primary issues with DLC, I'd much rather pay up $30 for a good expansion that adds a good twenty hours worth of gameplay, new weapons and armour, maybe even a new squad mate or two, and best of all a physical copy that I can hold in my hands than for maybe ten hours of extra content which is pure data in the form of DLC.

But there's the difference. Waiting months or a year for a 25hr DLC, or something that might take a few weeks or months for a couple hours individually.  

[Rurik_Niall]

Yeah, I'll happily wait a year, thanks. Good things come to those who wait, unless you can show me one single piece of DLC that's even half as good as Throne of Bhaal I'll take the expansion pack over DLC any day.

[ziloe]

Rurik_Niall wrote...

Yeah, I'll happily wait a year, thanks. Good things come to those who wait, unless you can show me one single piece of DLC that's even half as good as Throne of Bhaal I'll take the expansion pack over DLC any day.

Yes, but not everything we wait for turns out to be as amazing as we thought and our nostalgia and expectation gets the better of us. *cough*DA:2*cough* Sorry, I had something in my throat...