- SweetTRIX
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
Doc: "i'm a pacifist"
Caboose: "your a thing that babies suck on?"
Tucker: "no dude, that's a pedephile"
Church: "tucker, i think he means a pacifier"
Posted by: BTE
Posted by: SweetTRIX
I would much rather them spend time on a longer campaign that is neatly tied off then plan ahead for DLC. Considering that ODST is not a campaign extension of Halo3, it is no surprise that it was not DLC, and quite frankly, it is too big to be DLC.
Episodic DLC content only works with certain titles and games, and if the story is told well there really wouldn't be anywhere else to go in this game that shouldn't get it's own title.
It was intended to be DLC but it grew too much and they decided to convert it into a game. But i get what he means in a way. Not on campaign though.
When Halo 3 came out, the announcement of a new map pack came out a month later. WTF, couldnt they just wait a bit and have the map pack on the game? Same thing happened with Gears of War 2. Game comes out and instantly you get the news that there is a map pack coming out shortly.
The map thing I can understand for some titles, for two reasons. One, if the title offers a decent amount of maps to begin with, you cannot really accuse the game of sandbagging to sell DLC. Two, most games go gold several months before their release, this allows time for mass production, distribution and allowing for the product to release at target dates.
I feel DLC campaign is more cheap, especially when a game feel short as it is. I'm glad that ODST grew to what it is, but it is still very short. It would come off as cheap to me to release the game with immediate DLC campaign follow-ups.