| cannonballZ said: I feel the same way about DLC, or most DLC I should say. It usually feels like something that should have been in the game to begin with. I almost never buy DLC because of it. |
From what I've read and heard, most developers and writers produce far more content during the first stages of game creation than can actually be used. A large amount is culled out naturally for the sake of factors like time constraints, technical reasons, or to tighten the narrative. That's one reason why some DLC feels like it's a part of the original game--at one time, it was. In the past, it would simply be discarded forever.
Of course, some DLC was obvious conceived as DLC from the start.
I think Fallout: New Vegas DLC is a good example of both and shows why both can be successful. That game had some of the best DLC I've ever come across, to the point that the DLC was better than a lot of $60 games I've played. Honest Hearts continues the story of a character that is mentioned often during the course of the main adventure; playing it, I got the feeling that it was something that started as part of the original game but would have side-tracked the story too much for no real reason. Developing it as DLC allowed them to do a lot more with the fate of that character. On the other hand, the Old World Blues DLC is a completely separate and self-contained experience. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the game at all, which is part of what makes it so awesome.
Personally, I have nothing against DLC, only against bad DLC. My practice is to buy what I like and to ignore what I don't. What I really dislike is the season pass, where people are buying DLC without knowing what it is or if it's worth a damn. Consumers ultimately hold the key to the quality of DLC being created, so it's our responsibility to tell the developers what we want.
