Bethesda and DLC: Why you shouldn't hate them

DLC, a haunting shadow which looms over many gamers' mind nowadays. The horrors of games being half-finished and the other half released as extra paid content is an all too common sight. The situation has worsened with the recent introduction of 'online passes' , with developers trying to eradicate used game sales.

Now onto my main point: Bethesda make DLC for their games, but in my eyes it does not detract from the original experience. Why is it that people say "Dark souls will never have DLC therefore it's automatically better than Skyrim which will have XXX DLC packs"?

It baffles me because over the time of Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New vegas, not one of those games has had DLC that is 'required'. All 3 of those games are a unique and engaging experience, taking tens of hours to fully experience without any expansions. DLC for them is simply one of 2 things:

1. A perk (EG Horse armor)
2. A new area to explore

None of these change the fact that the vanilla game is awesome. Bethesda make games so that they can be enjoyed by many. They only make DLC so that it further fuels the gamers' interest in the game, if there's heavy demand. More importantly, Bethesda never make it feel as if the standalone game is incomplete.

And although some bethesda DLC isn't that great, they can do DLC big, and right. Just have a look at Shivering Isles, Point lookout or Old world blues and you'll realise the magic and scope they create. Many would say "PC modders have always fixed Bethesda's games this generation to unreachable new heights". They would be right. Take a Glimpse at TESnexus and you'll be blown away by what the community can do. However, sadly PC gamers, I'm taking this argument purely from a Console point of view, so please refrain from brining in the MODS loophole.

With the upcoming skyrim, I don't want people to view it as a Greedbox, where Bethesda may clip parts from the game or do day 1 DLC. It's in their heart to create good games, regardless of whether they have bugs or not. And what's even more striking is that Bethesda give players a choice, they can enjoy the game regardless of whether they buy the DLC or not, it'll still give them a lot of fun and more replay value than more games released nowadays.

The bad DLC such as Mothership zeta or Honest hearts or Knights of the nine may not have the polish, but they make it up with soul and innovation, which in my eyes is key even in bad things. The key thing is, is that Bethesda give DLC thats worth your money.

Sorry for the long winded speech, but I hope you've tried to see the point i'm trying to make and see the light in the games they make, whether you like them or not.

I still prefer an Expansion Pack.ShadowDeathX

Whatever happen to those:|

Every piece of New Vegas DLC has been awesome. I enjoy it more than main game at times.

Haven't played Lonesome Road though :( Would rebuy it all on PC, but my console character feels more "real" for some reason.

If done correctly DLC really adds to the original game in a big way. the Fallout 3 dlc springs to mind.

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]I still prefer an Expansion Pack.Promised_Trini

Whatever happen to those:|

It's easier to ripoff people with DLC. Expansion packs actually have standards.

Dark Souls will most likely to me be much better than Skyrim. But not because it doesn't have DLC. No, just because Demon's Souls was better than anything I've played from Bethesda. Bethesda will rather have to improve the core game first before they truly impress me.

"Now onto my main point: Bethesda make DLC for their games, but in my eyes it does not detract from the original experience. Why is it that people say "Dark souls will never have DLC therefore it's automatically better than Skyrim which will have XXX DLC packs"? I'm sorry,but what? People are really saying extra content is a bad thing? :|lawlessx

I've seen it far too often on these boards not to include this statement :(

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]I still prefer an Expansion Pack.Promised_Trini

Whatever happen to those:|

They found out people like cheap products, so they stripped them down and charged them individually, while wasting more money.

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]I still prefer an Expansion Pack.Promised_Trini

Whatever happen to those:|

I hate to say it, but MS happened and popularized micro transactions on consoles

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]"Now onto my main point: Bethesda make DLC for their games, but in my eyes it does not detract from the original experience. Why is it that people say "Dark souls will never have DLC therefore it's automatically better than Skyrim which will have XXX DLC packs"? I'm sorry,but what? People are really saying extra content is a bad thing? :|Ironbash

I've seen it far too often on these boards not to include this statement :(

[QUOTE="Promised_Trini"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]I still prefer an Expansion Pack.Renegade_Fury

Whatever happen to those:|

It's easier to ripoff people with DLC. Expansion packs actually have standards.

I don't "hate" DLC, but I don't buy them either, mostly because a lot of DLC i see is somewhat meaningless. That's not to say there isn't any that has done the model right, but it has cost us features that used to be standard for a game such as unlockables (skins and models for example).

For the most part, I've learned to wait for a GOTY edition from Bethesda games, which is what I will do with Skyrim. I usually aim to not pay more for a game than the MSRP. Money management and all.

[QUOTE="Promised_Trini"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"]I still prefer an Expansion Pack.BigBoss154

Whatever happen to those:|

I hate to say it, but MS happened and popularized micro transactions on consoles

Maybe if Bethesda put out more stuff like Bloodmoon and Tribunal instead of meaningless **** like Horse Armor. people wouldnt complain.

[QUOTE="Ironbash"]

[QUOTE="lawlessx"]"Now onto my main point: Bethesda make DLC for their games, but in my eyes it does not detract from the original experience. Why is it that people say "Dark souls will never have DLC therefore it's automatically better than Skyrim which will have XXX DLC packs"? I'm sorry,but what? People are really saying extra content is a bad thing? :|lawlessx

I've seen it far too often on these boards not to include this statement :(

[QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

[QUOTE="Promised_Trini"]

Whatever happen to those:|

ShadowDeathX

It's easier to ripoff people with DLC. Expansion packs actually have standards.

Expansion packs can also lead games into the wrong direction, just have a look at WoTlK or Catacylsm (Which took 2 steps forward and 2 backwards)

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"][QUOTE="Renegade_Fury"]

It's easier to ripoff people with DLC. Expansion packs actually have standards.

Ironbash

Expansion packs can also lead games into the wrong direction, just have a look at WoTlK or Catacylsm (Which took 2 steps forward and 2 backwards)

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]

[QUOTE="Promised_Trini"]

Whatever happen to those:|

lawlessx

I hate to say it, but MS happened and popularized micro transactions on consoles

I'm not saying they are completely dead, just that you'll be hard pressed to find any expansion packs with the scale of the ones in the 90s, these days.

What I mean by MS, is that they popularized micro transactions on consoles online with Xbox Live and this in turn led to the downfall of full blown expansions and a shift to overpriced splices of game content.

Oblivion and Fallout 3 vanilla games were awesome? Yeah right. They were pretty bad actually. :|DragonfireXZ95

That's your opinion. I liked fallout 3 quite a lot. And it was pretty good by 2008 standards.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Oblivion and Fallout 3 vanilla games were awesome? Yeah right. They were pretty bad actually. :|Ironbash

That's your opinion. I liked fallout 3 quite a lot. And it was pretty good by 2008 standards.

How have standards changed from 3 years ago :P I don't mind anything about your opinion of FO3, but that last bit confuses me a bit.

Oblivion and Fallout 3 vanilla games were awesome? Yeah right. They were pretty bad actually. :|DragonfireXZ95

I played and enjoyed both games on the consoles

[QUOTE="Ironbash"]

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]Oblivion and Fallout 3 vanilla games were awesome? Yeah right. They were pretty bad actually. :|calvinsora

That's your opinion. I liked fallout 3 quite a lot. And it was pretty good by 2008 standards.

How have standards changed from 3 years ago :P I don't mind anything about your opinion of FO3, but that last bit confuses me a bit.

In what way? My main point was is that 2008 had few games with as much depth as FO3 did, dwarfing many other RPG's near its time. And although the graphics and animation weren't great, they were good enough to do the job.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="Ironbash"]

That's your opinion. I liked fallout 3 quite a lot. And it was pretty good by 2008 standards.

Ironbash

How have standards changed from 3 years ago :P I don't mind anything about your opinion of FO3, but that last bit confuses me a bit.

In what way? My main point was is that 2008 had few games with as much depth as FO3 did, dwarfing many other RPG's near its time. And although the graphics and animation weren't great, they were good enough to do the job.

Braid, Brawl, Persona 4, LittleBigPlanet, Dead Space and MGS4 were released that year, it's one of my favorite gaming years ever, actually :P Persona 4 was the RPG for me that year.

I still prefer an Expansion Pack.ShadowDeathX

Bethesda think they own the word scrolls and that they can bully around smaller devs by misusing the legal system. That is why you should hate them.Marka1700