Dragon Age impressions

[Dionysus]

Who cares what you expect (with all due respect)? What do you usually get? A new expansion pack will cost you about 50% of the original game. You never ever get more than 25% of the content of the original game. This is how it always works, so unless you're complaining about all expansion packs in general, you don't really have a point.

Mask of the Betrayer was the last expansion pack I purchased. I think it was worth more than NWN2.

I don’t see a distinction between traditional expansion packs and DLC, except for the method of distribution. If Bioware bundled three Warden’s-Keep-sized quest and sold them on a disk for 25$, I’d still think it was a rip-off. I don’t buy a lot games or expansion packs at full price. Hell, I preordered DA for 80% of the MSRP.

And I’ll repeat myself in noting that the problem here isn’t that it is overpriced, but that it’s massively overpriced relative to the product that I just purchased from the same vendor. It’s like offering a dozen apples for 12$ and a baker’s dozen for 20$. It just doesn’t add up.

 

[Silellak]

There is a big distinction to be made, I think, between expansions like Mask of the Betrayer and Throne of Bhall, that add entirely new stories while often changing or adding to the gameplay of the original campaign vs. expansions like Tales of the Sword Coast or Forge of Virtue, that just add a new adventure into the existing storyline.

Personally, I much prefer the first kind, because I'd rather play the "continuing adventures of my party" than have to start a new game just to play through a new area. DA tries to do a sort of hybrid approach, because after you finish the game you're given an "epilogue save" which, in the timeline, is supposed to be before the big final battle, but allows you to continue playing with the same party you had when you finished the game - yet the only places you can travel to are areas added through DLC.

I'm not sure I like this approach all that much, either. While it's preferable to having to start a new game to see the DLC, I'd much rather have an after-the-main-story sort of thing. Hopefully we'll get that with DA, either through a true boxed expansion or a big piece of DLC. I'm not really interested in grinding through more areas with my old party OR a new party, just to get different shiny loot.

And I’ll repeat myself in noting that the problem here isn’t that it is overpriced, but that it’s massively overpriced relative to the product that I just purchased from the same vendor. It’s like offering a dozen apples for 12$ and a baker’s dozen for 20$. It just doesn’t add up.

Your food example is appropriate, if only because that sort of thing happens all the time. It's often much cheaper to buy things in bulk - be it bagels, or apples, or donuts, or slices of pizza - than to buy them individually.

The key is, regardless of the product being discussed, it's always going to be priced relative to competition - boxed games compete against other boxes games, and DLC competes against other DLC. $5 seems to be the bare minimum these days for ANY piece of DLC, so it's rare to see something come in below that unless it's something utterly retarded like horse armor.

 

[Korgan]

MULTI HEADED DICKS HITTING ASS AND LEG OH GOD ITS HEAVAN

 

[Lesifoere]

I can't buy this logic. Comparing the price to different products to determine if your money would be better spent on something else is one thing. Trying to figure out how much a product should be worth by comparing its perceived value to that of completely different products is asinine.

Er... why? Because, as many people've pointed out, the game offers far more than DLCs, at a much lower per-hour price. It's as fair a standard to go by as any--half an hour of gameplay is certainly not worth $5. As for expansions, MotB for example added a campaign with a fair length (10 hours? It's been a while), new mechanics, new assets for the toolset, for $20. Do explain to me why it's oh-so-asinine to compare the pricing of expansion packs to DLCs, or even that of the original game to DLCs.

The key is, regardless of the product being discussed, it's always going to be priced relative to competition - boxed games compete against other boxes games, and DLC competes against other DLC.

From the seller's point of view, sure. But from the buyer's point of view, not necessarily, in the sense of "hmm, do I spend $20 on these DLCs or do I spend it on Machinarium?" It's not as if we have to compare DLCs with DLCs alone.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As for expansions, MotB for example added a campaign with a fair length (10 hours? It's been a while), new mechanics, new assets for the toolset, for $20. Do explain to me why it's oh-so-asinine to compare the pricing of expansion packs to DLCs, or even that of the original game to DLCs.

MotB and SoZ are practically stand-alone games, expansions in name only. I'm talking about Tales of the Sword Coast, the Heart of Winter, etc.

In unrelated news:

On Dragon Age quest design

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Is anyone else playing it on xbox like me?

 

[Azrael the cat]

Who cares what you expect (with all due respect)? What do you usually get? A new expansion pack will cost you about 50% of the original game. You never ever get more than 25% of the content of the original game. This is how it always works, so unless you're complaining about all expansion packs in general, you don't really have a point.

[BIFF! WHAM! COUNTER-EXAMPLE!!] The Frozen Throne expansion to WC3 cost about 50% of the price, but added the same amount of gameplay. Same with Brood War for SC, Similar counter-examples can be raised with various GTA3 and 4 expansions.

Expansions should always be more value for money, not less, than the original campaign. The reason is that when making the original campaign, the developer has to actually create the engine - you know, the actual game. When making DLC and expansions (yes, I realise that some expansions - e.g. Throne of Bhaal - fall outside of this, but they are partway between expansions and sequels, and ToB was noted as such at the time), the developer is only cranking out levels and story - essentially they're doing the same that modders could do with access to the development tools, except with professional-sized teams, and professional writers, coders and so on.

But the work required to make and implement the story, where you're using the same iteration of the engine, is a miniscule fraction of the work required to produce the game itself.

Which is why expansions are usually, in terms of 'developer effort' vs 'what we pay them' rip-offs, with the exception of the aforementioned Brood War, Frozen Throne, GTA4 storypacks etc. And unlike, say, MoTB, the WK DLC didn't introduce much in the way of new mobs and mechanics - it was pretty much a well-made mod.

However, the rip-off aspect of expansions are often balanced by their targetting a more niche/dedicated market (ala MoTB), refining existing mechanics to create a much improved overall game (Frozen Throne, Brood War) or a better story focus. DLC is usually too narrow to do that, and the DA:O DLC is no exception.

Not that it bothers me - I'm happy to buy it because I'm at an age and income (correction: my WIFE is at an income, while I'm working hard to further the feminist cause by being financially supported by her while doing more interesting but lower paying academia - yeah, take THAT KOTOR-The-Restoration-Project-modder-guy! I can beat YOU at SMUGGNESS HANDS DOWN!!!) where the cost is pretty insignficant regardless. Nonetheless, I can still sit back and recognise when gamers are being ripped off.

 

[Lesifoere]

As for expansions, MotB for example added a campaign with a fair length (10 hours? It's been a while), new mechanics, new assets for the toolset, for $20. Do explain to me why it's oh-so-asinine to compare the pricing of expansion packs to DLCs, or even that of the original game to DLCs.

MotB and SoZ are practically stand-alone games, expansions in name only. I'm talking about Tales of the Sword Coast, the Heart of Winter, etc.

I wouldn't call MotB standalone if only because the campaign's relatively shorter than what you'd expect of an entire game. But even that aside: it's not like it is sold more expensively than any other expansion, whatever your personal classification of it may be. DLCs, in comparison, remain terrible per-dollar wise.

Edit: I don't have an ITS forum account. Will read it some other time, though.

 

[Chinese Jetpilot]

Is anyone else playing it on xbox like me?

I am. Though that probably wouldn't surprise anyone, when one considers I play Starcraft with the Xbox 360 gamepad.

 

[Volourn]

Lesi is right. MOTB is not a standalone game. It continues the adventures of the PC.
How is that a standlone?

 

[Silellak]

Lesi is right. MOTB is not a standalone game. It continues the adventures of the PC.
How is that a standlone?

Eh, continuing the adventures of the PC doesn't mean anything one way or the other. BG2 continues the adventures of the PC from BG1, but it's not an expansion. A more comparable example - Ultima VII Part 2 isn't an expansion to Ultima VII, despite being a direct sequel, quite a bit shorter, and utilizing the same game engine.

In fact, MotB is far less connected to the story of the NWN2 OC than Ultima VII Part 2 is to the story of Ultima VII. All you need to know about the NWN2 OC to enjoy the story of MotB can be covered in a few sentences at most. In Ultima VII Part 2, you're still chasing down the main villain from the first game - yet I don't think anyone would really argue it's an expansion, especially since it actually has an expansion of its own.

 

[Volourn]

MOTB is not a standalone so stupid with the bullshit. It's embarassing when people lie like that.

 

[Silellak]

MOTB is not a standalone so stupid with the bullshit. It's embarassing when people lie like that.

I didn't say it's a stand-alone game, but my point remains that there's a fundamental difference between expansion packs like "Tales of the Sword Coast" and expansion packs like "Mask of the Betrayer".

To me, the only real technical definition of an expansion pack is "Does it require the original game?" However, there are two clear sub-types of expansion packs - those that add content to the original game, and those that tell stand-alone stories. Those that tell stand-alone stories can often be considered on their own merits and, in that way, it is possible to consider them a "different game" from the original - while they are still technically an expansion if only because they require you have the original game installed for them to run.

 

[Volourn]

Exccept, MOTB is a continuation of the NWN2 OC story.

It's not the same as TOSC (which adds into BG1), or SOU (which is a standalone story even thoguh its a NWN1 expansion). MOTB is more akin to TOB which is a continuation of BG2.

 

[Silellak]

Exccept, MOTB is a continuation of the NWN2 OC story.

It's not the same as TOSC (which adds into BG1), or SOU (which is a standalone story even thoguh its a NWN1 expansion). MOTB is more akin to TOB which is a continuation of BG2.

MotB is a continuation of the NWN2 OC story only in that they share the same PC and a few of the events from the first game are vaguely referenced. Other than that, the story has absolutely no influence on the game, beyond the fact that the sword shard from the NWN2 OC has been removed from your chest, which is what opened the way for the Spirit Eater curse to be placed in your body (if I recall correctly). You could start a brand-new character for MotB and just treat the entire NWN2 OC as back-story and be perfectly fine.

TOB, like MotB, is enough of a standalone story to be considered on its own merits, though it's obviously more closely tied to the overall story of the BG series than MotB is to the NWN2 OC.

 

[Vault Dweller]

[BIFF! WHAM! COUNTER-EXAMPLE!!] The Frozen Throne expansion to WC3 cost about 50% of the price, but added the same amount of gameplay.

RTS' are different. Once the mechanics are in place, adding maps and a handful of new units aren't the same as adding RPG content.

Expansions should always be more value for money, not less, than the original campaign. The reason is that when making the original campaign, the developer has to actually create the engine - you know, the actual game.

Not sure I follow.

You don't buy/pay for the engine. The engine and the core (mechanics, art assets, etc) are the reason why games take so long to develop and why an expansion could be released in 3-10 months and cost a lot less than the original.

If an expansion pack would take 3 years to develop and cost as much as the original game, then I would certainly expect to get more not less. Fallout 2 / BG2 would be good examples.

 

[dragonfk]

WoW. 78 pages? WOW!

 

[Vault Dweller]

Lesi is right. MOTB is not a standalone game. It continues the adventures of the PC. How is that a standlone?

Is BG2 an expansion or a standalone game? Is the knowledge of the first game's events required? At least it drags some party members with you and the plot revolves around your nature established in the first game.

MotB is completely unrelated to the events of the first game. The main character can literally be anybody, some high level guy who just wakes up in that barrow. The original party members are ditched and left in the OC.

When MotB came out and everyone was asking "do I have to play NWN2 OC first?", what was the answer? No. That's why it's a stand alone game.

 

[Silellak]

Lesi is right. MOTB is not a standalone game. It continues the adventures of the PC. How is that a standlone?

Is BG2 an expansion or a standalone game? Is the knowledge of the first game's events required? At least it drags some party members with you and the plot revolves around your nature established in the first game.

MotB is completely unrelated to the events of the first game. The main character can literally be anybody, some high level guy who just wakes up in that barrow. The original party members are ditched and left in the OC.

When MotB came out and everyone was asking "do I have to play NWN2 OC first?", what was the answer? No. That's why it's a stand alone game.

Well, there are some incredibly small ties to the first game (references to the shard from the Silver Sword of Gith Sword, an encounter with Ammon Jerro where he can tell you what happened to your companions from the OC and returns the aforementioned sword to you), but nothing that makes playing through the NWN2 OC in any way a prerequisite for playing MotB.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I'm pretty sure the removal of the shard from the PC by Nefris and Lienna in the time between the OC and MotB is what allows the Betrayer's curse to so easily enter him. Obviously I'm getting into too much detail here, but I guess my point is that while it can't just be ANY "high level guy who wakes up in the barrow", you could easily just consider the NWN2 OC to be the character's backstory and go from there. You don't gain much, if anything, out of MotB by having played the NWN2 OC.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

No, the curse could enter the PC regardless of the shard. The reason the shard was removed was because opening the Betrayer's Gate needed the fully restored Silver Sword of Gith.

 

[Silellak]

No, the curse could enter the PC regardless of the shard. The reason the shard was removed was because opening the Betrayer's Gate needed the fully restored Silver Sword of Gith.

Ah, thanks! It's been awhile since I played MotB, obviously. For some reason I thought I remembered the "emptiness where the Shard once was being filled by an uncontrollable hunger", but on reflection it's probably just a colorful metaphor.

 

[1eyedking]

HAHAHA, OH WOW.

"MotB a stand-alone game."



MotB is an expansion pack by definition: you require the NWN2 installation to play it. Every game and expansion pack out there is "stand-alone" by your definitions, since every single sequel can obviously be played without prior knowledge of the previous games.

This is due to the episodic nature of stories. Obvious statements are obvious.

Sadly, MotB is a continuation of NWN2's main campaign. You begin where the latter ended and there's quiet a few references in the storyline. It's not mandatory to have played the original, but it adds. So that's it, it's a continuation.

Don't let me keep you from fapping to your revolutionary conceptions, though.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

When MotB came out and everyone was asking "do I have to play NWN2 OC first?", what was the answer? No. That's why it's a stand alone game.

Sure, but do I have to buy NW2 to play it ? Yes. That's why it's not a stand alone.

MotB and SoZ are practically stand-alone games, expansions in name only.

This was exagerated enough. No need to push it any further, as far as the discussion is concerned.

 

[Vault Dweller]

<snip>

 

[Silellak]

HAHAHA, OH WOW.

"MotB a stand-alone game."



MotB is an expansion pack by definition: you require the NWN2 installation to play it. Every game and expansion pack out there is "stand-alone" by your definitions, since every single sequel can obviously be played without prior knowledge of the previous games.

This is due to the episodic nature of stories. Obvious statements are obvious.

Sadly, MotB is a continuation of NWN2's main campaign. You begin where the latter ended and there's quiet a few references in the storyline. It's not mandatory to have played the original, but it adds. So that's it, it's a continuation.

Don't let me keep you from fapping to your revolutionary conceptions, though.

I really don't think it's that difficult of a concept; stand-alone means "can you judge this particular game/expansion/whatever on its own merits".

Obviously this is going to be a subjective thing, but I think most reasonable people will agree on what's worth judging as a stand-alone game and what is not. There's is no doubt that because MotB requires the original game, it is technically an expansion pack. However, I also think there's no doubt that MotB is stand-alone in that it can be judged entirely on its own merits (shitty game engine aside), rather than being reviewed as just another part of NWN2.

Another question to ask is, could you imagine a scenario where this expansion was sold as a stand-alone boxed game - albeit perhaps at a lower price? I could easily see MotB being sold for $20 or $30 without requiring the original NWN2. After all, the only thing that really keeps Ultima VII Part 2 from being an expansion pack is that it doesn't require the original game. Other than that, it fits all the aspects of the "expansion pack" definition that MotB does - same game engine, continuation of original game, and shorter than the original game. On the other hand, no one can really imagine a world where Forge of Virtue or Tales of the Sword Coast are sold as stand-alone games, and they aren't typically judged as such.

There is a significant distinction between these two types of "expansion packs", and I think it's silly to ignore that and lump them all together just because they share the requirement of having the original game installed. I'd prefer expansions like MotB or Bhaal be called something like "adventure packs" in order to distinguish them, but obviously I don't make the rules.