Brian Fargo comments on DLC

Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by Brother None, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. Viliny

    Viliny Vault Senior Citizen

    Aug 19, 2008
    It's really sad what state the current game industry is. It's all become a factory line of generic goo to fit everyones faces.

    Glad to see some gems pop up here and there, but on a grand scale it really is discouraging. Seems indy titles are more likely to be good (in my opinion at least) than actual AAA titles.

    Like MassE3 that just came out, didn't even bother playing it after ME2 and the things i read about ME3. Dragon age 2... bought it and never even installed it when it was released.

    However, i bought dungeon defenders for the "lulz " and we've actually been playing the shit out of that game on 2 different occasions with the latter being just a week ago. Really fun and complex enough to be enjoyed.

    It's sad that bethesda had to buy the rights to fallout and making it 3D, so that theres no hope to get a proper fallout game anymore, but i really hope wasteland 2 sets some kind of new standard for rpg's or at least opens up a new point of view in game developers.

    What im trying to say is that i hope the "AAA" devs might go like "oh, theres a market for games like that after all".

    Meh, missing too much sleep lately and my post make no fucking sense.
     
  2. Sobboth

    Sobboth It Wandered In From the Wastes

    177
    Aug 29, 2010
    I only bought 2 DLc and it was for fallout 3 (damn i really tried to like this game, unlike a lot of people, i think there was good basic ideas in it but horibly implemented and developed) : operation anchorage and the pitt.
    Both were absolutely not worth the price.
    I heard the 2 next were better but even if it is true it would still be overpriced (price of 4 DLC=price of the original game for much less content).
    But to be honest i don't really care about the price thing , it's not the reason why i dislike DLC.
    The big problem with DLC is that when they come out it's too late, i'm too far in the main quest and they are not worth replaying the game or even going back to the game with an old save just to play the small extra content (not even talking about game balance issues).
    I could wait for the ultimate edition, it's a valid point but DLC have another disadvantage : they can't be integrated enough to the main game and not at all with other DLC.
    In term of stories you can somewhat connect DLC together but not in term of gameplay. You can't create big quests/sidequests that send you to a location included in another DLC. It's a huge design contraint.
    Developer have to create DLC that match that contrainst and the result is much less than it could be in a big expansion even when it's well done like in the FNV DLC (i supose, don' have any). You still have the feeling to play a somewhat encapsuled "module".
    In a big expansion you are able to link everything when you create the quests/sidequest/stories so it feels much more natural and you can do much more ambitious things. You avoid game balance issues too.
    Lastly :
    - i think some DLC ideas are not developed in the main game because the developers though it would be best to develop them in the future DLC. It is not a problem if everything is interesting in the main game but it's not always like that (so you substitute good contents by average one).
    - the well-known issue of abusive DLC.
    Big expansions on the other hand can do everything the DLCs do without any disadvantages except the development time. But for the gamer They are far superior in every aspects.
    Sorry for english.
     
  3. Viliny

    Viliny Vault Senior Citizen

    Aug 19, 2008
    Well, you could interlink dlc with a fairsly simple if condition.

    If the other dlc is present, then activate this quest etc...
     
  4. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Indeed. How easily people forget. 20 years ago was the era of the CDi, and some of the worst games ever made :lol:

    Some publisher sent a rather junior guy to talk to Fargo about publishing WL2 once, and for some reason the guy kept going on about red boots for like half an hour. Fargo mocked this in his Kickstarter launch video, and has been joking ever since about including it as DLC or a preorder bonus for Wasteland 2.
     
  5. Radman

    Radman It Wandered In From the Wastes

    192
    Jul 12, 2007
    Indeed there was but the quality of gaming has gone downhill in a big way in my opinion.

    The Mid 90's was the golden age of gaming, no doubt about it.

    The problem now is that publishers are only interested in selling titles to mainstream audiences, the types of people with no attention span, you know the ones I mean, the folk who like the Transformers films. :wink:
     
  6. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    There wasn't really a "golden age" of gaming. This medium is still relatively young and worthwhile games are still being made. The only problem is that it's a bigger, more mainstream market, so the volume has increased tremendously, but the proportions are more or less the same.
     
  7. Moonrabbit

    Moonrabbit First time out of the vault

    51
    Apr 20, 2012
    I waited a long time to get a system capable of playing FO3 and when I did, bought the game of the year edition.
    I played most of the main story before going into the DLCs.
    While it was ridiculously easy at my stage of the game, I found The Pitt to be the most fun.
    I'll give Mothership Zeta props for story, it had it's moments and over all was well done. But I found myself wanting to get back to the wasteland before too long.
    I liked the idea of Point Lookout, but the missions dragged on without anything happening and the enemies were really tough. They became more of a chore to deal with after a while.
    Operation Anchorage is really laggy after the first mission, which was really boring to boot. I'm not even going to bother with it.
    The rewards for beating the DLCs also seem very minor. Sometimes I just plain don't want them, and when my character is a master at just about every skill by level 27, the extra experience means zilch.
    All in all, I'm happy I didn't pay extra for any of these.

    However, I do like the idea of more weapons, armour, clothing and items. If you can throw in a few new missions, it definitely gives you more incentive to replay a game like Fallout that already has so much replay value. That's really what I like to see, things that maybe they didn't have time to throw into the original release, but want to include. And I don't mind paying for them. But realistically, if the entire game costs $60 new, when you think about what that cost covers in terms of development, marketing, production of boxed copies, etc, A $10 DLC should add a considerable amount of content. It's not too much to ask that it be every bit as good as the rest of the game.
     
  8. Radman

    Radman It Wandered In From the Wastes

    192
    Jul 12, 2007
    You're joking?

    I'm wracking my brain but severely struggling to think of any game published by a main stream studio that I would consider a 'modern classic' within the past 10 years that wasnt a sequel to an established series... and by modern classic I mean in the vain of:

    1. Fallout
    2. System Shock 1/2
    3. Xcom - Enemy Unknown (Amazingly very playable even today, I picked it up off steam and am addicted again)
    4. Resident Evil (One of my favourite console titles)
    5. Deus Ex (A later title to my list)
    6. Command & Conquer (I include Red Alert here)
    7. Age of Empires
    8. Sam & Max hit the road
    9. Half Life (For an old school shooter it still surpasses many modern releases even to this day.)
    10. Sim City 2000

    Name me 10 modern games published by the large development houses that deserve to sit amongst these titles, if you can... Im struggling to think of'em - standards have certainly slipped because more emphasis has been forced on graphics over story and originality/innovation - games are being made into linear action games/shooters because its what the console kids want and publishers know they'll sell well.

    This is what Brian Fargo is on about and I agree with him completely, there was indeed a golden age of gaming, but that time has since long passed.
     
  9. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    its not only true for games, the number of sequels, prequels, remakes, spinoffs and the like was probably never as high like today.
     
  10. Makagulfazel

    Makagulfazel Adept Bungler of Things Orderite

    Jun 14, 2007
    It is a very young medium, especially relative to other art forms such as music or painting.

    Here's my list without adding in the stuff you'll automatically "HAH!" to:
    1. Portal
    2. The Witcher
    3. Amnesia
    4. S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
    5. Mount and Blade

    Then there's the "HAH!" list of stuff not all of us will like, but are well received by most critics and users:
    1. Deus Ex: HR
    2. Fallout: NV
    3. Drakensang
    4. Trine
    5. Bastion
    6. Risen
    7. Batman: AA or AC
    8. Legend of Grimrock
    9. Dead Space
    10. King's Bounty
    +Plenty of others such as (Divine)Divinity, Alpha Protocol, Bioshock, etc.

    Do I prefer the Black Isle days? Sure. But it's not like gaming is in a dismal state. Tagaziel's just trying to say it's too early to call out a "Golden Age" of gaming.

    :shrug:

    I guess it can be whatever you want it to be. But with advancements in digital distribution and crowd funding, I'm optimistic about the future of <strike>niche</strike> gaming.
     
  11. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I guess one could find many good games even today. But when it comes to AAA titles you will have a hard time to find anything that is worth more then playing it for 2 or 3 ours. Stuff like CoD or Moh.

    And many of the other games which are very well known are "sequels".

    Particularly stuff like amnesia are great games, but they are not AAA titles.

    When it comes to that it seems that the gaming business started to "grow" up, where it becomes more and more similar to the movie industry in that part. Where you have the typical hollywood blockbuster that you enjoy once to get brainless entertainment and then you have the meaningful, deep and sometimes even controversial movies that you could almost consider a form of art. I guess that is why kickstarter is so important on one side. It offers a lot of freedom to experiment and such. Not just only with games to say that. All I hope for is that parts of kickstarter projects will find their way in to the expensive games by publishers. At least some of the ideas.
     
  12. Brother None

    Brother None This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Apr 3, 2003
    Fallout was? Planescape: Torment?

    This is a typical part of how we remember stuff compared to how reality compares from then to now. The current age has its problems, yes, but calling the mid-90s the golden age...? Are you serious? The fuck mid-90s? The golden age of fucking FMV gaming? When all the big budgets went to hiring the cast of Ripper while Fallout was a B-reel title? C'mon now.
     
  13. Platedslícer

    Platedslícer First time out of the vault

    2
    Apr 21, 2012
    Excuse me, first time posting here.

    Well, I tried to argue that games "back then" tended to be better because there were fewer mandatory affectations like voice acting and "accessibility". Sadly I couldn't convince even myself.

    Gaming today really isn't so bad from an immersion and complexity perspective. There's lots of crap but, as others have pointed out, crap has always been abundant at any given time.

    Cheap ass DLCs are just another shortsighted scheme to extract as much money as possible with as little work as possible. Nothing new here either. Sure it's lamentable, but "cancer" is a bit extreme.

    Old school RPGs have been sorely missing, true, but here's WL2 to finally try and fix that. Here's hoping they do more than just try. Cheers!
     
  14. HerrMike

    HerrMike First time out of the vault

    21
    Oct 23, 2011
    Granted I've only played Fallout DLC, but I think I prefer that release model to expansion packs. The format just makes more sense. It gives the devs (and the consumers) more options, and in the case of add-ons I think that several smaller additional adventures beats one long additional adventure.

    Whether or not you get your money's worth is always up for debate, but that hasn't changed from expansion packs. I've certainly never felt cheated by the new Fallout games. With the DLC's, F3 and New Vegas are truly monstrous games with a volume of content that dwarfs just about anything I played in the 90's. Factor in thousands of free mods, and we are some really spoiled bastards.
     
  15. grayx

    grayx It Wandered In From the Wastes

    159
    Mar 3, 2008
    Maybe things will change in the future, but for now, I find DLCs pretty useless.
    As mentioned, they come too late for me to be interested enough, that extra content is relatively small and they rarely alter some key moments of the game (maybe ME has some good swing toward the way sub-plots and dlc in general are made) for me to engage the whole process of relearning the game again (I usually forget way the game "works" by the time DLC has come).

    As for "golden age", imo it's a point for discussion, but for me, main problem is not the quality of games then and now (it's atm beside the point) - it's the way they (PR, game sites - the whole constructed system of commercials and infomercials) pushing "their opinions" up my ass. The whole presstitudes/PR complex was so biased toward some company and title, that almost any AAA title is destined to be "impressive" or around 90%, unless they really fuck up something really good to the point beyond repair...

    Meh, once upon the time, journalist were "naturally" (or by the nature of its businesses) "disgusted" toward rich company. It was default human mechanism to protect critical thinking and objectivity of ones reporting, as influence of those rich firms already have a lot of impact on reality trough commercials, hype and such. Today, CEOs, PR wackos and other "crucial" persons are, way to often, "heroes" for some hyped "journalist" and I find it troubling and maybe one of the main reasons why I have hard time to find true quality info nowadays. I'm not saying it wasn't the case in the past, but, for one or another reason, it's much much more prevalent today.

    Or, to put it simple: I know what I like and am capable to choose - I don't like to be lied or lead to believe into something that is not.
     
  16. Radman

    Radman It Wandered In From the Wastes

    192
    Jul 12, 2007
    Well as I've said name me 10 modern classics.

    You'll find it difficult, the point I'm making is that for a long time now publishers will simply 'play it safe.'

    Even sequels bases on old classics aren't safe from meddling (Fallout 3 aside anyone here played Sim City societies? Terrible game that was dumbed down for the masses because Sim City gameplay was deemed 'too hard' by EA)

    Or how about the new Sydnicate game just released? Heavily dumbed down shooter, again for the masses.

    FMV games werent all bad anyway - one such adventure game Rama was my dads favourite game.

    To say that gaming has improved now is a joke - modern games for the most part dont compare to the games I'm referring to.
     
  17. Radman

    Radman It Wandered In From the Wastes

    192
    Jul 12, 2007
    You've just proven my point, those games were developed outside the main western development/mainstream publishers - STALKER for example had a very hard time getting published and in the end the game we received was a cut down linear experience to what was promised BECAUSE of meddling from it's western publisher - HAH ;)

    I agree with you in your last point, I'm optimistic of the future because publishers now are being pushed out of the picture and developers are becoming king again.

    As to your second list, would you consider any of those games modern classics? Or groundbreaking? I wouldn't.

    One of the only modern developers who's true to form in my opinion, that actually consistently delivers is Rockstar games - their games are awesome and made to a very high standard
     
  18. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    oh no no, I am not calling it a "golden age". There definitely has been a lot of crap around as well.

    I am just saying the business as whole had a bit more room for creativity even with commercial projects. I mean maybe its just me no clue. But we didn't had so much the feeling back then as gamers that the games have been so heavily divided between games that HAVE to make money and games that tried to be a bit more creative. I doubt a company like Obsidian for example could release again a game like Planescape for example. Planescape was published by interplay after all. Back then when the industry as whole was still seen as mainly for "geeks" and not like today for the whole "family" (I wish they would get away from that at least with some games) there has been a bit more freedom with the creativity. Though I did enjoyed Crysis and Far Cry just as much as I did Half Life. So yeah not everything is just black and white of course.

    The only thing I think is strange is the quality of many games today when it comes to the content like the story. Take dragon age or mass effect. Not really "bad" games but I always had the feeling they have been written like for a 15 or 16 year old gamer and not for an adult. I am missing the evolution in the gaming market. And it seems the gamers slowly demande here more. That is if we see on the recent complains regarding Dragon Age 2 and more important with Mass Effect 3. Now what ever if the ending was bad or not, it does not feel like it was coherent with the rest of the series. The gamers are demanding "more" quality here.
     
  19. Tagaziel

    Tagaziel Panzerkatze Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Dec 10, 2003
    By which you mean "personal classics", of course. Since there's no real definition on what makes a classic a, well, classic, it's all down to the individual. But from the top, in no particular order (2001-2012).

    > S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl - an unique setting, gameplay that's a mix of arcade and realistic gunplay, well defined original history drawing on eastern European classic sci-fi novels and an unique realisticish (realistic with a twist) art style.

    > Witcher 1 & 2 - reasons should be obvious; choices and consequences implemented extremely well to the point that the game practically showcases how it should be done.

    > The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (w/ expansions) - at first ridiculed, it is now considered by some to be a flawed gem. While the gameplay is clunky (though full of potential; next games simply castrated it), the unique twist it puts on typical fantasy settings, awesome alien art style, complex sociopolitical landscape of Vvardenfell and neighbouring environs, intriguing multilayered story etc. make it a classic.

    > Assassin's Creed series - even if you don't like the games, you can't really say that it has a simplistic story, superficial setting or primitive gameplay. If anything, it's an example of how sequels ought to be done: each game in the series brings something new to the table in terms of mechanics and pushes the story forward with new content and subplots.

    > Beyond Good & Evil - self-explanatory; if you don't know why it's a modern classic, catch up real quick.

    > Arma series (from Cold War Assault to Arma II: PMC) - the Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear of war games, Arma brings together deep military gameplay with authentic weapons, large islands and interesting stories (even if it's a bit American-centric). And OFP: Resistance is a masterpiece in itself.

    > Call of Duty 2 and Modern Warfare 1 - as much as we hate the Call of Duty series here, I believe CoD2 and CoD4 are the only titles that can be considered classics. CoD2 is, for me, the definitive World War II shooter, while CoD4 took the succesful formula and developed into something new, marrying an interesting story with varied, atmospheric gameplay (really, All Ghillied Up, Death From Above and Charlie Don't Surf are chapters that pretty much warrant buying the game just for them). And it ties the story up pretty well, leaving few loose ends behind. The sequels all go downhill, though.

    > Half-Life 2 and Episodes - BN will disagree with me, but I believe that after HL1 and its expansions, HL2 is a must-play title. It's a brilliant example of world design, environmental storytelling, character animation and development etc. I'm biased, sure, but I love Valve and Half-Life.

    > Fallout: New Vegas and DLCs - apart from the game being the real Fallout 3, not just technically, but also in terms of story, choices and consequences and characters, it also pushes the envelope in terms of gameplay, providing a world that reacts to your actions and gives the player the ability to make an impact on history and choosing one of four non-color-coded fates for the Mojave. The DLCs are a separate matter and are, to me, shining examples of what DLCs ought to be. Oh yes, and Dead Money. <3> Red Faction: Guerilla - this might be a headscratcher for some, but I think RF:G is a great title that reinvigorates the stale shooter formula with fresh elements, such as fully destructible environments, inventive weapons, great open world gameplay, challenges etc. It's a great game that sucks in and provides a good amount of challenge (anyone who invaded EDF bases in Eos or the Free Fire Zone can tell that it can be mind-numbingly hard at times).

    > Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines - Troika title. 'nuff said.

    > Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura - see above.

    > Aliens vs. Predator 2 - while the expansion pack was nothing special, the core game was brilliant, combining an interesting, multi-layered story with varied, unique gameplay for all three races.

    I can go on and on; I haven't even touched strategy games and there are plenty of examples of good games there (Paradox games anyone?). Then there are titles that represent failed attempts at the sky, such as Far Cry 2 or Gothic 3, which are nonetheless very playable and worth at least a single playthrough.

    Err, no, it isn't difficult.

    Societies is a title separate from the main Sim City series. It wasn't meant to replace them, just provide a different experience than usual. There's nothing wrong with expanding the franchise in new directions.

    The implication that the original Syndicate was something more than a dumb shooter is interesting. While Syndicate Wars was indeed something more, the original was a very basic title with a somewhat varied array of weapons (most of which were useless; the minigun, long range rifle and maybe the Gauss gun were enough for the entire game).

    You're joking, right?
     
  20. Sam Ecorners

    Sam Ecorners Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jan 23, 2007
    Chronicles of Riddick
    COD 4
    Batman AA/AC
    Red Dead Redemption
    GTA series
    The Witcher series
    Braid
    F:NV
    NWN2:MOTB
    KOTOR2
    EVE online
    AC series
    Mirror's Edge
    And the list goes on.

    These are all fantastic games. And frankly, if you're gonna spend all this time trying to prove that games today are shitty, then you're hardly better than gaming press, who condition people to believe modern turds are golden.