Last Friday I posted about how I felt that EA’s Project $10 initiative is working, and I’m a supporter of it. Hey, I’m all for supporting developers and publishers to make money off their own products and if it came down to it, I wouldn’t mind if the used market disappeared altogether. EA has been coming back into the spotlight in a positive way with gamers these days, while Activision has gone the other way. But there’s one thing that EA is now more guilty of than others at this point that I am annoyed with: DLC for single player games. Read on for my thoughts why.

The Premise
Game publishers have definitely hopped on board the DLC bandwagon these days, as everyone is trying to make a quick buck. The Modern Warfare 2 map pack sold over 2.5 million in its first week, bringing in nearly $40 million for Microsoft and Activision. While I don’t necessarily partake in buying multiplayer DLC, I don’t outright condone it as I do think that new maps can extend the multiplayer enjoyment for games.

What I don’t like is DLC for single player content. A lot of games are doing this nowadays, and it annoys me for several different reasons. Ever read a book or watch a movie and then be told later that there was another chapter that is a part of the book or another 10 minute scene that takes place after the movie? To me, the single player experience for a game is very similar to a book or a film – it’s creative and artistic, and presented in a finite way for it to be enjoyed. Nowadays, game publishers are sticking in some random dungeon here, a hidden island there, or even “missing levels”. When I complete the single player for a game, I like for it to stay completed. Freaking finish the game in the first place or don’t release the “extra DLC” at all! Unfortunately, the game industry is not quite abiding to my wishes. Let’s look at the list of games in EA’s recent history that are guilty of what I am starting to hate.

Dante’s Inferno
I just started playing Dante’s Inferno last night, but I read that one DLC pack has already been released containing another mission and a second DLC pack is on the way. In fact, both of these DLC packs were announced before the game was even released. Come on – couldn’t the two DLC packs for this single player game have simply been released from the get go? Is DLC really the way to prevent people from selling the game? Maybe EA should have considered free DLC – then people would be more inclined to hold onto their games and I wouldn’t have this article to blog about.

Mass Effect 2 (and even the first game)
All was fine and dandy with Mass Effect 2′s DLC until the Kasumi DLC was just released for $7 (although, I’m still annoyed with even the “free missions” that were added to a supposedly complete campaign). Come on – couldn’t this character have already been included in the game to begin with? And people that already beat the game – are they really going to want to go and buy this pack just to pick up another character? They’ve already beaten the game. What’s the point? $7 buys you the ability to play with a new character but you already beat the game. As much as I dislike this Kasumi DLC, it would have actually been better if it was released at the game’s launch, so people could use Kasumi in their initial playthrough of the game. Oh and let’s not forget Mass Effect 1′s pair of silly and stupid DLC.

Army of Two: The 40th Day
The first Army of Two game had a very short campaign, and I’m pretty sure that the second one did as well. So it irks me a great deal to hear about a $10 DLC pack for this recent sequel that contains two new missions. What the heck? Sounds like the developers couldn’t finish the game on time, so they decided to just charge us for their poor planning afterward. Thanks guys. As if your first game wasn’t short enough in the first place.

Dragon Age: Origins
I played through the original Dragon Age: Origins game earlier this year and had a great time with it. It was a lengthy game, but there’s already been enough DLC (two packs and an expansion) that when combined, equal about the cost of the game itself. The DLC packs and the expansion have all gotten bad reviews, and rightly so. For a game that’s epic and already 50 hours long, to be charged $5-$7 for another mini dungeon or $40 for an 20 hour epilogue that doesn’t even really continue the main campaign’s storyline is just a slap in the face to fans. Why not just make the sequel instead of all these minor extensions to an already great and complete game?

What About Non-EA Games?
It’s easy to hate on recent EA games doing this, but to be fair, EA is not the only company partaking in selling DLC for single player games. However, major titles that come to my mind that do have single player DLC are actually a lot more thorough and not necessarily as bad. I’ve yet to play all of the DLC for Fallout 3, but one of them raises your character’s level cap from 20 to 30, which is actually very significant and I can see it contributing a lot to the single player game. Bethesda Softworks’ other 360 game, Oblivion, had all sorts of extra DLC that was totally not worth it – except for Shivering Isles. That DLC was a lengthy and engrossing adventure, and I did enjoy it. Then there’s also games like Grand Theft Auto IV and Resident Evil 5 that have their own DLC, but these DLC packs are completely different campaigns than the main one and I can’t quite hate on those since they were truly developed afterward and did something different. Assassin’s Creed II got a bit of hate with its DLC missions, as they were missing from the original release and Ubisoft was up-front admitting that they could not fit them in before the game shipped. While that was potentially more of a good reason to hate the DLC, I found it refreshing that they were honest and I also agreed with their statement that Assassin’s Creed II already had tremendous value due to its lengthy campaign so I was more willing to forgive them for putting it out there. And finally, I’ve saved the best for last: Final Fantasy XIII. When asked if there would be any Final Fantasy XIII DLC, the producer and director of the game claimed that the final product was already 100% complete. Thank you guys – it’s good to know that some game developers out there still believe in shipping a complete single player product these days.

The Messy Line Between EA’s Two Initiatives
So while we are now all aware of EA’s Project $10 strategy, not all of us were aware of EA’s second “more secretive” initiative: Project DLC Everything. I can see the reasoning behind going with both initiatives: EA of course wants to make more money (or in a sense, reduce the amount of earnable money lost through used sales). In order to do this, it’s in EA’s best interest to have gamers hold onto the games they bought new. Project $10 is a step in the right direction to getting gamers to buying EA games new, but Project DLC Everything is not the right way to keep gamers from selling their single player games. Unlike other major publishers’ DLC, EA seems to be doing whatever they can to nickle and dime us with short DLC that could have easily been included in the game’s release. Is someone really not going to sell Mass Effect 2 now because a $7 DLC pack with an extra character gets released a month after the game comes out? Come on. Compare EA’s DLC to something like GTA4′s The Lost and the Damned and we can see the right way to do DLC and the wrong way. EA should have instead made the second initiative: Project Free DLC. That would have kept more of us inclined to hold onto our games. Of course, I personally would prefer for single player games to just be 100% complete from the get-go, but I can’t fault a game company for wanting to make more money – unless it disrespects its supporters like EA has been.

I’m still in the middle of BioShock 2, so I’m going to kick this week’s gaming entries off with a gaming topic that I’ve been wrestling with for a while now: “open-world” sandbox gameplay design. It seems like it’s getting more and more popular these days, and while I may be in the minority for this, I don’t think I am a fan. Grand Theft Auto III made sandbox gameplay popular, and ever since then, we’ve seen several games in the last few years implement this “feature’ from Burnout to Halo. The addition of basically being forced to travel everywhere to actually start a mission certainly makes a game longer, but does it make a game more enjoyable?

Sandbox/open-world gameplay design is really tough to naildown, as there are many games out there that have some implementation of it while not necessarily relying on it. I think back to the old school NES days, and games like Kung-Fu, Super Mario Bros. 1-4, etc. all were pretty much focused on the missions. While the later Super Mario Bros. games started drifting towards more traveling between missions (like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World), it wasn’t until Super Mario 64 that you were forced to go open doors to start a level on a huge castle map. And it’s that jump to all this “downtime” between the missions is what is starting to annoy me. Here are some examples of recent games that tackle (or deal with) open-world gameplay.

Burnout Revenge vs Burnout Paradise
Burnout Paradise is probably one of the strongest examples of a sandbox style game. Prior to Burnout Paradise, the previous Burnout games, including my favorite, Burnout Revenge, were all level based and selectable from a mission menu. You would choose which race/challenge you wanted to compete in, and the race would start. If you lost, you could simply start the race/challenge again from the menu.

When Burnout Paradise was first released, the game was an open world so you actually had to drive everywhere in order to find a mission to start it. Is there really a lot of fun in having to drive several minutes to find a mission to take on? What if you don’t want to do that particular mission? You have to drive across town in order to do the mission you want to do? And on top of that, when the game was first released, if you lost a mission, that was it. You would end up somewhere else on the map (wherever you lost in that mission), and you would have to drive all the way back to the mission start location to start the mission again. Thankfully, that has since been patched so quick restarts are now in the game (after a lot of people complained), but my annoyance remains that I have to physically waste time driving everywhere I want to actually start a mission.

I do realize that it’s fun to play through an open world sandbox with friends online, but it’s not something that really provides a tangible benefit from gameplay. It’s like I’ve now being forced to commute anywhere I want to start a mission when it was fine before that.

Halo 3: ODST
Halo 3: ODST was the first Halo to implement a sandbox-style world, forcing you to travel through the streets of New Mombasa in order to find equipment from your squad that would trigger their flashback missions. While I still prefer no sandbox to sandbox style game design, I thought it worked quite well for ODST and I probably enjoyed the Halo 3: ODST campaign more than any other Halo’s campaign. I’m still trying to determine why I wasn’t as bothered by the Halo 3: ODST sandbox, and I think it’s most likely because the primary aspect of Halo 3: ODST, the combat, was still present during the sandbox mode. As you moved from one area to another, you still had to take on enemies, so it almost didn’t feel like a sandbox at all. In my previous example with Burnout Paradise, the driving from one mission to another was NOT the primary aspect of Burnout Paradise. Driving is not the same as racing.

Grand Theft Auto IV (& its expansions)
Having recently beaten The Lost and the Damned expansion, I was annoyed that I had to keep traveling across the map in order to get to a new mission. The problem with the Grand Theft Auto games is that if the sandbox was taken away and the game was just a series of missions, I think the game would probably fall on its face and not get the high marks it usually gets. If you could take away the driving between missions in Burnout Paradise, and even all of that hub traveling in Halo 3: ODST, both of those games would still be quite enjoyable to play, and would thus be played like a Call of Duty campaign: mission after mission after mission. And that’s honestly the gameplay design choice I would always prefer.

Grand Theft Auto IV is tough because the sandbox + mission structure are so intertwined in that both of the parts together are what make the game enjoyable. If the game was just one or the other, neither is strong enough to be entirely fun, but I can see why the kids like it. The combat system in GTA IV is laughably poor compared to any 3rd person shooter these days, and the only reason anyone would enjoy the sandbox gameplay of having to drive anywhere you need to go is because you enjoy stealing vehicles and killing civilians. It’s just not my thing. To be fair though, GTA IV implemented taxis, allowing you to fast-travel to anywhere you want to go, which was a MAJOR reason I was able to beat this game but none of the previous GTA games on the PS2. Thank you for that. And The Lost and the Damned allow you to call your friends to bring you weapons or motorcycles, which also eliminate needless commuting and errands you would be forced to run otherwise in order to actually play the game.

Assassin’s Creed 1 & 2
The Assassin’s Creed games are like historical Grand Theft Auto games, in that they are open world and you move across town in order to pick up new missions. Of course, back then you didn’t have cars so you would have to run across rooftops and use a horse to travel from one town to another. Assassin’s Creed 1 was pretty bad when it came to being forced to “commute” through its open world, but Assassin’s Creed II fixed a lot of problems that were inherent in the first game to make it much easier to play. In the sequel, you no longer had to ride a horse for like 15 minutes to get from one town to another – instead you just warped to it. Assassin’s Creed II also had fast-travel spots in various towns, allowing you to quickly move from one point to another on a map. This didn’t eliminate all “time-wasting commuting” between missions and such, but it made the game a lot less annoying. It’s a step in the right direction, and one of the reasons why I consider it to be the best sequel of 2009.

The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion & Fallout 3
Both of these games have huge sandbox style worlds from Bethesda Softworks. You could honestly travel on foot throughout both games for hours and still feel lost. I actually think that Oblivion and Fallout 3 handle their sandbox gameplay design the best. In both games, you have to physically commute to any new location in the world, but once you have gotten there, you can always fast-travel back to that spot. This allows for exploration, but doesn’t force you to waste unnecessary time commuting back to the spot. No complaints here, and if future sandbox games all incorporated fast-travel like this, maybe sandbox games are evolving.

Final Fantasy X & Final Fantasy XIII
RPGs may have been the first real games that forced this “open-world” sandbox into gaming as you had to navigate across an overworld to go from a town to a dungeon and such with random encounters along the way. But like Halo, RPG games primarily focus on combat so the random encounters in the overworld are not so bad. The Final Fantasy games are going a little bit crazier in this aspect and really evolving. When Final Fantasy X released on the PS2, it was the first Final Fantasy game with no overworld map. People were gasping that you just got in your airship, and selected the zone you wanted to travel to you and you would just start there. It may have been jarring at first, but it turned out to be awesome. The overworld was commuting that I don’t miss at all.

Final Fantasy XIII is going even one step further – apparently there are no towns in this game. I don’t know how it works since I haven’t read too much about it, but my impression is that a “town” will simply be a location you can go to, and then you will have a menu of some sort that you can navigate and pick “Armor shop”, “weapon shop”, “Item shop”, etc. all from a menu as opposed to running around town into various buildings looking for the shops. If I’m now being forced to travel through a menu to get what I need to do instead of running around a huge town for hours, that works for me.

In Conclusion
When done right, sandbox style games can work, as I’ve mentioned several games that have ways that don’t force you to commute – at least all the time. But what I’m hoping for is that the future’s games don’t rely on the sandbox gameplay design to artificially lengthen their games. If Crackdown 2 is being heralded as a 30 hour game but 15 of those hours are actually traveling to get to each mission or boss, then is it really a 30 hour game?

If I were to give my opinion to game designers, it would be to focus on the actual gameplay itself. Make everything as simple as you can such that we gamers can actually enjoy the game. Games like Burnout Revenge, Gears of War, and Modern Warfare all have missions that are forced one right after another or are selected from a menu. If you want to make players travel across a sandbox to get to these missions, please show some consideration as to whether or not the forced commuting really adds value. Sandbox gameplay is not necessarily a step forward in gameplay design!

Knights of the Nine was the first of the two major expansions released for Oblivion, and because it was released perhaps too early in the 360′s life cycle, Bethesda Softworks didn’t put any extra Achievements into this particular DLC. This expansion retails for 800 MS points ($10) online, and provides about 10 hours of extra gameplay through a major quest line that has you journeying around Oblivion’s world and assisting the knights with their quests. It’s not a bad expansion, but it pales in comparison to Shivering Isles due to the fact that it’s not only somewhat short, but it still takes place in the regular edition’s world.

Of the two expansion packs, I dove into the Shivering Isles expansion first, which may have been a slight mistake since I ultimately found Knights of the Nine to be less satisfying in comparison. Shivering Isles was the second of the two major expansions released for Oblivion, clocking in at 1600 MS Points ($20) online, with 250 extra Achievement points, and about a 20 hour major questline (along with several hours of minor subquests) in a different world as you step through what is basically a warpgate to the Shivering Isles. I enjoyed Shivering Isles a great deal because it was a living breathing world with new towns, characters, dungeons, and all sorts of landmarks. While the main questline was only 20 hours long, for completionists that are dead set on exploring everything the Shivering Isles have to offer, you’ll be clocking dozens more hours.

The two expansions come on a second disc included with the Oblivion GotY edition, so it’s actually possible to simply install the expansions onto your 360 hard drive and never need the disc again. (I believe the Fallout 3 GotY Edition second disc with the 5 expansions functions in a similar manner.) Also of note – you are able to access the expansions pretty much right away in the game. I created a new character for both the Shivering Isles expansion and the Knights of the Nine expansion.

 So what can I say about these expansions? Certainly don’t buy them for $30 online today since the full game itself with the expansion retails for $30 in stores. And how can one really judge whether it’s worth spending more money for 20-30 more hours of questline content when the original game can last you dozens, or even hundreds of hours? In a way, I do like that the expansions provide you with a major questline to follow, as playing the regular Oblivion game and only following the major quest lines would have you finishing the game in about 50-60 hours. So the pricing is right. Definitely recommended, especially those of you that never got into Oblivion, but enjoyed Fallout 3. Oblivion holds up amazingly well today, and will continue to hold up as the highest rated RPG on the 360.