Expansions over DLCs

[knowthyself2]

Since Owlcat is pretty good at reading these forums, I wanted to share my opinion on something.
I prefer the old CRPG model of expansion packs over the new DLC model.
Back in the day, a CRPG's expansion pack did two things: added in a continuation to the original game's campaign, and added in new mechanics that could still be used if somebody started a new run. So once you finished your first run, you could continue it with an expansion back. And you could still make a new run and enjoy the new content,
Nowadays, everybody seems to be doing DLC, where new content can only be used in the main campaign. So if you've finished your run, you have to start a new campaign just to enjoy the DLC, which is not necessarily a bad thing but could be too much of a commitment for most players.
Now, I've recently started Act IV of Rogue Trader. This is my first run. I thoroughly enjoyed everything Void Shadows added to the game. But I'll have likely finished the campaign by the time the next DLC comes out. And I don't know if I'll be wanting to do a second run to enjoy it.
My point is, I think Owlcat would get a lot of mileage out of the expansion pack model over the DLC model, because I believe that they cater to an old school CRPG fanbase who feels the same way I do.
I haven't finished the campaign and I can only imagine that a continuation of it is unfeasible, so this suggestion is more for future games than Rogue Trader

[zpc]

While I see your point the thing about Rogue Trader and the DLCs done by Owlcat is that they learned from the DLCs made for their previous game (Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous). There the feedback was the exact opposite of your opinion. People hated the separation of the DLCs and wanted it to be integrated in the main game (or something along the line). Thus the result is Rogue Trader is getting no "external" DLCs.

While it doesn't help you it is recommended to start a new game - they changed a lot of the game to make it worthwhile. Having a new run with the new mechanics, new loot tables and the DLC content really is fun - it feels like a new game TBH.

edit: I'm playing on GOG in case anybody wonders why I don't "own" the game here on Steam.

[knowthyself2]

Originally posted by zpc:

While I see your point the thing about Rogue Trader and the DLCs done by Owlcat is that they learned from the DLCs made for their previous game (Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous). There the feedback was the exact opposite of your opinion. People hated the separation of the DLCs and wanted it to be integrated in the main game (or something along the line). Thus the result is Rogue Trader is getting no "external" DLCs.

While it doesn't help you it is recommended to start a new game - they changed a lot of the game to make it worthwhile. Having a new run with the new mechanics, new loot tables and the DLC content really is fun - it feels like a new game TBH.

edit: I'm playing on GOG in case anybody wonders why I don't "own" the game here on Steam.

I think you're misreading my post. I'm not talking about a separate campaign, but rather a continuation of the previous one. Examples would be: Baldur's Gate 2: The Throne of Bhaal, Dragon Age: Origins- Awakening, Morrowind: Bloodmoon, or Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark
I'm operating under the assumption that Rogue Trader ends in such a fashion that this model won't work for Rogue Trader but it would be a good idea for future games. It was abandoned by most developers in favor of smaller transactions and live service games in the last decade but I think it would be a perfect fit for Owlcat's fanbase

[spammdc]

I think the OP is talking more about a Chapter style DLC or having a game 1.0 and DLC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc style of release.
But that is just my take on his comment.

I myself can see benefits in both styles of design.

[Starrok]

The problem with this approach is the sheer number of the ways the game can end. To continue it from that point, you need to either render all player choices irrelevant by picking one as canon, or to design the game from the start so that the impact of player decisions is minimal or at least significantly reduced.

I don't think any of this is what you want to happen.

[zpc]

Originally posted by knowthyself2:

I think you're misreading my post. I'm not talking about a separate campaign, but rather a continuation of the previous one. Examples would be: Baldur's Gate 2: The Throne of Bhaal, Dragon Age: Origins- Awakening, Morrowind: Bloodmoon, or Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark

Yeah - the examples helped. As did spammdc. Sorry, long day.

Originally posted by spammdc:

I think the OP is talking more about a Chapter style DLC or having a game 1.0 and DLC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc style of release.
But that is just my take on his comment.

I myself can see benefits in both styles of design.

Right - got it [now, hopefully ]. Mainquest -> New Mainquest -> ...

I too like both of those approaches - as long as they are connected to the "main party". Both NWN HotU and Da:O Awakening allowed playing with the old character or start a new one which made them even more accessible.

Originally posted by Starrok:

The problem with this approach is the sheer number of the ways the game can end. To continue it from that point, you need to either render all player choices irrelevant by picking one as canon, or to design the game from the start so that the impact of player decisions is minimal or at least significantly reduced.

I don't think any of this is what you want to happen.

Good point RE the multiple ending paths. Even if narrowd down to main aspects some players won't like it if "their" details got lost...

[TaKo]

Originally posted by Starrok:

The problem with this approach is the sheer number of the ways the game can end. To continue it from that point, you need to either render all player choices irrelevant by picking one as canon, or to design the game from the start so that the impact of player decisions is minimal or at least significantly reduced.

or make the expansion so separate from the main game to the point that it is just... a sequel or a spin off, at which point well, we'd just have a whole different can of worms to deal with

[Big E]

Nah, Owlcat has made the right call switching to integrated. And Rogue Trader is perfectly built for new content to be slotted in from start to finish without disrupting the main story.

I personally prefer this style of add-on

[anaris]

I have played somewhere upwards of 300 runs through Baldurs Gate 2, a game I have paid for no less than four times. I have never played Throne Of Bhaal.

When the story ends, writing a postscript is clunky. when it doesn't end, selling the base game is a ripoff.

[Star Waffle]

this is actively the reason I won't play the game. I have 0 intention of doing 2 playthroughs. I want to play 1 playthrough without DLC content suddenly being introduced 8 months after i played. I won't touch the game until well after the DLC is completed.

[spammdc]

Originally posted by zpc:

Originally posted by knowthyself2:

I think you're misreading my post. I'm not talking about a separate campaign, but rather a continuation of the previous one. Examples would be: Baldur's Gate 2: The Throne of Bhaal, Dragon Age: Origins- Awakening, Morrowind: Bloodmoon, or Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark

Yeah - the examples helped. As did spammdc. Sorry, long day.

Originally posted by spammdc:

I think the OP is talking more about a Chapter style DLC or having a game 1.0 and DLC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, etc style of release.
But that is just my take on his comment.

I myself can see benefits in both styles of design.

Right - got it [now, hopefully ]. Mainquest -> New Mainquest -> ...

I too like both of those approaches - as long as they are connected to the "main party". Both NWN HotU and Da:O Awakening allowed playing with the old character or start a new one which made them even more accessible.

Originally posted by Starrok:

The problem with this approach is the sheer number of the ways the game can end. To continue it from that point, you need to either render all player choices irrelevant by picking one as canon, or to design the game from the start so that the impact of player decisions is minimal or at least significantly reduced.

I don't think any of this is what you want to happen.

Good point RE the multiple ending paths. Even if narrowd down to main aspects some players won't like it if "their" details got lost...

IMHO, nothing wrong with posting thoughts.
I have found even if they (the people you are asking) have a simple answer it might trigger additional thoughts that spur innovation and/or incredible ideas.
As long as it is not a endless stream of trolling.

Happy New Year and Good Gaming to You

[knowthyself2]

Originally posted by Starrok:

The problem with this approach is the sheer number of the ways the game can end. To continue it from that point, you need to either render all player choices irrelevant by picking one as canon, or to design the game from the start so that the impact of player decisions is minimal or at least significantly reduced.

I don't think any of this is what you want to happen.

Yes, it definitely wouldn't work for Rogue Trader and in future games it would by default require less player impact on the finale. Either way, I'm quite happy with Rogue Trader and have high hopes for future games

[Mitth'raw'nuruodo]

Would love an expansion to Rogue Trader. Specifically an expansion to the size / class of the flagship LOL.

More on topic, I am a single-playthrough kind of person. I prefer DLCs that contribute to the main campaign. Whether the events of the DLC happens before and after the main story, i don't mind either way. But I can fully appreciate how a post-story expansion can limit the conclusion of the main story.

These days I only buy games once the development, including patches and DLCs, is fully concluded. Usually I can get everything at a much lower price, and have one definitely playthrough given the limited free time for gaming we get these days.