 |
| Hehehe.....bear. |
In some online games, such as League of Legends, constant patching is necessary for game balance due to the nature of the game itself. The release of new characters and items often shift what becomes "viable" or "overpowered". Also, nerfing some champions or items can lead to the rise of other champions or items previously kept in check. Due to the communal animosity towards innovation, sometimes these new champions or items aren't realized until several patch cycles later once players figure out how to use and break them. Patching is important for game balance, but is also good for bug fixes and glitch removals. However, the ability to patch can lead to lazy development, since the problems can be "patched later", which overall leads to a bad experience for the gamer.
On a less PvP oriented game, updates are less important. The only time I see heavy amounts of updates is either during beta testing, or a rehaul of the entire game's system or mechanics. Nuclear Throne is one such game currently in beta that I am playing on a consistent basis. There are weekly updates and changes to each of the characters, mutations, and weapons available. The purpose of these updates is for game balancing, and I'd imagine that they would stop once the game is officially released, unless something huge slipped by. Another instance of an update I've seen is a massive rehaul of Terraria (Terraria 1.3 cycle). Playing Terraria 1.3 was like rediscovering Terraria; there was so much new things added - NPC related changes and new mechanics, as well as quality of life changes. The best part? This overhaul was FREE.
It's hard to say what amount of content I am happy with with the release of DLC. Of course the price of the DLC itself is a huge factor. I would happily pay $5 for Fallout 3: Broken Steel. It provides a level cap increase from 20 to 30, a new main mission storyline (comprising of several quests), and (most importantly) allows me to continue playing the game once done with the main storyline. I would be hard pressed to spend that same $5 on Fallout 3: Point Lookout. Both provide new content, enemies, areas, and quests. I would say that Point Lookout provides a deeper area and questline to explore compared to Broken Steel, but that level cap increase is such a plus for me. It all comes down to the player's preference, and I may be the minority in this case.
Any DLC that dramatically expands the gameplay or story of a game is one that I'm willing to buy, within my quickly shrinking funds. Dark Souls DLC: Artorias of the Abyss was one such example. The sheer amount of content added - enemies, areas, weapons, consumables, bosses, lore - was surprising to me, even though I paid $15 for it. I remember being on the fence about getting it; it was a good amount of money for an uncertain amount of enjoyment. But DLCs can add to a game, and enrich its experience. However, I. Hate. Day one DLC releases. It's a new trend for games to be released with additional content already sectioned off from the main game. It is ridiculous that I am buying a game for $60 (typical console game price), and I am not guaranteed a full game. Sometimes the DLC is also insufficient, such as Child of Light: The Golem's Plight. You get a small side quest, which can unlock a character for you to use. However, the golem character fills no role, and doesn't do anything that your already unlocked characters can't already do. It's frustrating to be spending your time and money playing content that seems to be just thrown in by the developers, or intentionally cut just for the sole purpose of having something else to sell.
As always, thanks for reading! What do you think about DLCs? Leave a comment below, discuss, and share with your friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment