I fully agree with this post. It's a tough position because I also agree with Cody, though I have seen instances of DLC absolutely being a must-play and something that really changes the status quo within a game's story. I'm mostly thinking about Mass Effct. I hope that the gameplay and story elements translate properly and work well with whatever Bungie has planned.

Dammit, I still haven't played the last few pieces of Mass Effect DLC. DLC can take away from a game, too. I loved BioShock Infinite before the DLC. Now I just like it.

Mass Effect has this sneaky way of building on the main game through the DLC. It's ultimately DLC, but within that little chunk the game is tweaked and expanded. They've said, especially with the Omega ME3 DLC, that lessons were taken from their multiplayer experience. Having played both to death, I think that shines through.

It makes the DLC more satisfying, because that little chunk is expansion-like. Almost third-way-ish. Skyrim doesn't do this though, because the fundamentals don't change with the DLC, though plenty of cool things are added.

I fully agree with this post. It's a tough position because I also agree with Cody, though I have seen instances of DLC absolutely being a must-play and something that really changes the status quo within a game's story. I'm mostly thinking about Mass Effct. I hope that the gameplay and story elements translate properly and work well with whatever Bungie has planned.

Dammit, I still haven't played the last few pieces of Mass Effect DLC. DLC can take away from a game, too. I loved BioShock Infinite before the DLC. Now I just like it.

Good explanation.

Do you see why I argue one is better than the other now? Video games ARE art, and in art you want nothing wasted, and everything to have a purpose.

I'm sympathetic to this view, but there are different forms to consider with different requirements. There are loose, baggy monsters that are Henry James novels, and then there are the concise, perfectly cut small diamonds that are Raymond Carver short stories.

Destiny looks like it might be expansive and large in scope, and that means that some content might not be as important as other content, but it all adds to the whole.

Is the Lord of the Rings art? I'd say so. Is every page of those books absolutely necessary? Debatable, but I'd say that a good deal of what might be called superfluous content adds to the verisimilitude of the world created.

Do you see why I argue one is better than the other now? Video games ARE art, and in art you want nothing wasted, and everything to have a purpose.

To be fair, the Destiny content packs ARE billed as expansions, but given their publisher and their attitude towards content so far, I have my doubts.

We'll wait and see.

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

Based on this, I would be utterly shocked if you enjoyed them. Dragonborn especially is "more of what you love about Skyrim." And well, if you don't love it... haha.

You're quibbling over words. Stop, think bigger, and focus on the ideas: Additional paid content that extends a game like Destiny that will likely have no ending. If the hangup is really me typing DLC vs expansion then their is nothing to discuss because you are being purposely disenginous.

Those words mean something both to Cody, and in the general populace/lexicon. I think, gently, that you don't understand how expansions (in that they fundamentally change the fabric of the game) are different from DLC (add-ons that can ultimately be ignored). These words, I think clearly, represent two different modes of thinking.

Think back to Skyrim, and compare it to Civilzation V's "Brave New World" expansion. In Skyrim, from the moment you're in that cart on the way to be executed, does it matter AT ALL if you plan to even PLAY THROUGH Dragonborn, Dawnguard, or Hearthfire? Nope. You can play and play and play and more or less ignore it save the random vampire attacks and occassion unfamiliar orphan. The game doesn't even recognize you NOT doing them. Hell they are even called plug-ins. ;)

Now take Civ V. From even before turn one you're already considering what Ideology you'll take, how it'll affect victory conditions, how that impacts your Civ choice, map choice, the entire game is affected by that change. It's also impossible to ignore. Granted, you don't have to play with Brave New World, but don't you dare call it the same game as Vanilla, or Gods and Kings versions.

I imagine if I'm a developer, if someone says we're going to be making DLC, or making an expansion, my mind set is entirely different right from the get go because of how these terms have developed over the years.

Destiny, in all likelihood, will be a much more solid game than Skyrim, but thanks to its similar ongoing "living world" gameplay it might be able to integrate DLC just as well as Skyrim did.

That's what Bungie advertises it as, right? A changing world that players will want to come back to? You have an advantage over me via the alpha, but neither have played much story or seen the extend of the DLC packs.

From what I know, have seen, and have played, Destiny's world is certainly not a 'living world'. That really doesn't accurately describe it.

Do you disagree with that? Can Destiny's DLC be done right?

Perhaps our definitions of done right are different. I would say no, if it's DLC it cannot be done right. If it is more similar to an expansion pack, then absolutely it can be done right.

You're quibbling over words. Stop, think bigger, and focus on the ideas: Additional paid content that extends a game like Destiny that will likely have no ending. If the hangup is really me typing DLC vs expansion then their is nothing to discuss because you are being purposely disenginous.

Destiny, in all likelihood, will be a much more solid game than Skyrim, but thanks to its similar ongoing "living world" gameplay it might be able to integrate DLC just as well as Skyrim did.

From what I know, have seen, and have played, Destiny's world is certainly not a 'living world'. That really doesn't accurately describe it.

Do you disagree with that? Can Destiny's DLC be done right?

Perhaps our definitions of done right are different. I would say no, if it's DLC it cannot be done right. If it is more similar to an expansion pack, then absolutely it can be done right.

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

Look, I've gotten myself in a lot of trouble around here recently, on Bungie Day, by posting while I was angry and right now I'm angry. At you. So I'll keep this short and controlled:

I don't appreciate being told to "think bigger" only to have it revealed that you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played the game in question.

Did I say I haven't played it? I said I thought it was a bad game. BECAUSE I PLAYED IT AND IT WAS BAD.

Read what I say and do not jump to conclusions. I tried to even phrase it nicely ("I think it's a bad game"). Why bother when you don't even read.

I said: "I don't appreciate being told to "think bigger" only to have it revealed that you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played the game in question. Or maybe you've played it but don't trust me when I said the DLC was very well integrated?"

Note the part in italics. I allowed for you having played it. Cutting off someone's quote then accusing them of not reading and jumping to conclusions. Not cool.

Of course you might think the DLC is well integrated, because Skyrim was bad to begin with and itself not really that well put together. It's easy to add a piece of trash to a pile of garbage and have it not feel out of place, but toss a butterfinger wrapper on David and it will stand out and ruin the sculpture.

As to Skyrim, I think I get it now. You decided to switch to talking about your dislike of Skyrim's "aesthetics, mechanics, the entire simulation" in the middle of a discussion about DLC integration without telling me. That you went on to mention "The integration has to encompass all of that." certainly helped confuse your point. I disagree that Skyrim is a bad game, but that's largely beside the point. If you want to discuss the merits of Skyrim start a new thread...

Skyrim did DLC right. That's the point here. Destiny, in all likelihood, will be a much more solid game than Skyrim, but thanks to its similar ongoing "living world" gameplay it might be able to integrate DLC just as well as Skyrim did. Where new stories, gameplay, graphics, weapons, enemies, locations, etc can be added in a way that doesn't confuse or detract from the main game but in fact only adds to it and makes the core game better.

Do you disagree with that? Can Destiny's DLC be done right?

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

Look, I've gotten myself in a lot of trouble around here recently, on Bungie Day, by posting while I was angry and right now I'm angry. At you. So I'll keep this short and controlled:

I don't appreciate being told to "think bigger" only to have it revealed that you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played the game in question.

Did I say I haven't played it? I said I thought it was a bad game. BECAUSE I PLAYED IT AND IT WAS BAD.

Read what I say and do not jump to conclusions. I tried to even phrase it nicely ("I think it's a bad game"). Why bother when you don't even read.

Of course you might think the DLC is well integrated, because Skyrim was bad to begin with and itself not really that well put together. It's easy to add a piece of trash to a pile of garbage and have it not feel out of place, but toss a butterfinger wrapper on David and it will stand out and ruin the sculpture.

Pre-ordering a game implies a certain amount of content. Pre-ordering an album implies a certain amount of content. Season passes--you could be getting anything, nothing is certain.

"Expand your Destiny adventure with brand new story missions, cooperative activities, competitive multiplayer arenas, and a wealth of all new weapons, armor, and gear to earn. "

That's from Amazon's description of the Xbox Limited Edition. That's not anything. The first two items alone provide enough info for me to make a purchasing decision (considered alongside what I know about the game, what I've played of the game, and my past experience with Bungie).

YMMV, and that's okay.

Yeah, that's another silly thing we do, but at least we're given enough information and media to make a generally informed decision. Plus the preorder minimum is 1/12 the total cost, not 100% up front.

Paying for pre-orders is optional. Pre-ordering itself is optional. There are fans who do feel like they have enough info to make an informed decision about the expansions. It's like when the Beatles announced they would have a new album coming out in December, 1965. A lot of people were positive they wanted to buy it before they knew what the cover looked like. Others could hold off until they'd heard more.

One could say it's horrible that people are so willing to commit on so little information, but on the other hand, it's only horrible when people ending up feeling unhappy with their purchase, and at that point, pre-orders for the next thing will drop off. Being able to fill seats because of your track record is a good thing for artistic endeavors, especially those that require significant expense to produce. The creators get more leverage, which translates into more artistic freedom given by the financiers, who want to keep the goose happy.

Pre-ordering a game implies a certain amount of content. Pre-ordering an album implies a certain amount of content. Season passes--you could be getting anything, nothing is certain.

Yeah, that's another silly thing we do, but at least we're given enough information and media to make a generally informed decision. Plus the preorder minimum is 1/12 the total cost, not 100% up front.

Paying for pre-orders is optional. Pre-ordering itself is optional. There are fans who do feel like they have enough info to make an informed decision about the expansions. It's like when the Beatles announced they would have a new album coming out in December, 1965. A lot of people were positive they wanted to buy it before they knew what the cover looked like. Others could hold off until they'd heard more.

One could say it's horrible that people are so willing to commit on so little information, but on the other hand, it's only horrible when people ending up feeling unhappy with their purchase, and at that point, pre-orders for the next thing will drop off. Being able to fill seats because of your track record is a good thing for artistic endeavors, especially those that require significant expense to produce. The creators get more leverage, which translates into more artistic freedom given by the financiers, who want to keep the goose happy.

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

Look, I've gotten myself in a lot of trouble around here recently, on Bungie Day, by posting while I was angry and right now I'm angry. At you. So I'll keep this short and controlled:

I don't appreciate being told to "think bigger" only to have it revealed that you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't played the game in question. Or maybe you've played it but don't trust me when I said the DLC was very well integrated? Next time just say so instead of bringing up the "aesthetics, mechanics, the entire simulation." Next time, show a little respect and don't waste my time by spouting meaningless crap you can't back up.

I'm done here. :/

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

I feel like I'd need to play this Skyrim DLC you mention to continue this discussion, however that won't happen since I think Skyrim is a bad game.

It had big, open world gameplay, many many quests to complete, and several larger storylines that affected the world. But it also had two great optional DLCs that affected the world just as much as the main storylines. The DLCs were just as well integrated as any other part of the game. They added new locations, new enemies, new gameplay, new weapons, new abilities, but they were only a positive for players. Not having the DLCs didn't break or confuse or diminish anything in the base game in the least. Neither DLC was critical to the main story, but then Skyrim's main story wasn't exactly critical to Skyrim either. Skyrim's fun came from being in the open world of Skyrim. You could complete a major story quest, that would end with real changes to the world, or you could at the start of the game turn around and go the "wrong" way and have fun doing something else. It wasn't a TV show with a middle, beginning, and end that had to be tightly maintained, but that's why I can load it up today and still find significant new to me content some two years later.

It's not always about story. It's about aesthetics, mechanics, the entire simulation. Think bigger. The integration has to encompass all of that.

I'm not sure I get what you trying to say here. Both DLCs added significant new locations to explore with their own new aesthetics. They added new weapons to use, new gameplay mechanics to experience, and new story missions as fully voiced and animated and complex as any in the base game. They even did some cleaver things where they took some gameplay elements and subverted them to provide a nice surprise to the player while still being entirely consistent with the world and story. All in all, they complimented the base game, significantly extending it without getting in the way of it.

What bigger is there to think? I don't understand what you would want in expansions that these didn't provide.

It had big, open world gameplay, many many quests to complete, and several larger storylines that affected the world. But it also had two great optional DLCs that affected the world just as much as the main storylines. The DLCs were just as well integrated as any other part of the game. They added new locations, new enemies, new gameplay, new weapons, new abilities, but they were only a positive for players. Not having the DLCs didn't break or confuse or diminish anything in the base game in the least. Neither DLC was critical to the main story, but then Skyrim's main story wasn't exactly critical to Skyrim either. Skyrim's fun came from being in the open world of Skyrim. You could complete a major story quest, that would end with real changes to the world, or you could at the start of the game turn around and go the "wrong" way and have fun doing something else. It wasn't a TV show with a middle, beginning, and end that had to be tightly maintained, but that's why I can load it up today and still find significant new to me content some two years later.

It's not always about story. It's about aesthetics, mechanics, the entire simulation. Think bigger. The integration has to encompass all of that.

Brood War is a great example of an expansion done right, with it's good new story campaign along with it's changes to multiplayer, but I don't think it's the only way to make an expansion. The single best piece of DLC I ever bought was Mass Effect 3's Citadel DLC. It added very little in the way of new or novel gameplay, but it was extremely worth it to me because of the new, fun locations I got to visit, the characters I got to met up with again in completely different (non-combat) circumstances, and the wonderfully humorous, in-joke laden storyline it provided. In all it added three or so short combat missions and was 100% incidental to Mass Effect 3's main plot even though it was set well before that game's final missions. What I take from the Citadel DLC is a good expansion neither has to add new gameplay or affect the overall story to earn "good expansion" status.

The fact that it is optional though, means that it's integrated less than if it were part of the whole package

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I love well told story arc shows. My favorites would be Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica, but that kind of story structure is by no means the only way to do things, especially in video games.

Take Skyrim for example:

It had big, open world gameplay, many many quests to complete, and several larger storylines that affected the world. But it also had two great optional DLCs that affected the world just as much as the main storylines. The DLCs were just as well integrated as any other part of the game. They added new locations, new enemies, new gameplay, new weapons, new abilities, but they were only a positive for players. Not having the DLCs didn't break or confuse or diminish anything in the base game in the least. Neither DLC was critical to the main story, but then Skyrim's main story wasn't exactly critical to Skyrim either. Skyrim's fun came from being in the open world of Skyrim. You could complete a major story quest, that would end with real changes to the world, or you could at the start of the game turn around and go the "wrong" way and have fun doing something else. It wasn't a TV show with a middle, beginning, and end that had to be tightly maintained, but that's why I can load it up today and still find significant new to me content some two years later.

I think Destiny could very well be quite similar. The world is going to keep on spinning for the foreseeable future no matter what we do, mainly to allow brand new players to play with day one veterans. With no actual end, Bungie will be free to tell additional stories that might feel just as important and that are just as well integrated as the base game's main story without confusing anyone. All it takes is a little clever writing and a few preplanned hooks in the base game's world. Desinty's DLC could possibly be only a positive, just like Skyrim's was.