From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

-PS
After posting about me realizing I don't actually like the DLCs for
souls games while I was playing DS2 & Bloodborne in the What Have You
Been Playing thread I though I'd make this topic.

The main thing in souls games seems to be to give you much harder areas
and boss, which I don't really like. And if you play multiplayer they're almost manditory. I would've actually been much happier with even DS3
(my favorite of them) as it stood without DLCs. I never would've
overcome Midir which feels like quite an accomplishment, but then I
would've lived in bliss not having to go through the PTSD inducing
endless attempts over years.

DS2 they heavily nerfed spells, and I hate where they pull the rug on a mechanic that is in fact meant to be used, otherwise why would they have starting classes for spellcasters?

Elden Ring they introduced an annoying mechanic which makes you go
through every area hunting scadu to bring yourself up to the power
you're meant to have for each area, and in a somewhat specific order, in
an already exceedingly large game with a DLC the size of a normal game, exacerbating the issue with repetitiveness it has.

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

Bethesda FO3 was o.k. with new different areas, at least some of them,
but they added stuff that was a little too good for the main play a bit
too early. I enjoyed the main game well enough, and better than playing
the DLCs. Frankly I like the smaller encounters in the big world much
more. Each of the DLCs felt like a slog by the time I got through them.
I did think the ones in FONV were better than the main game, but I
didn't really like NV that much to begin with and again the DLCs were a
bit too long, and frankly I would've been fine having never played them.
I never did get around to DLCs for FO4 either, and looking back on it,
I'm probably better off I didn't. FO4 just seems too far from it's
roots, and while I did manage one playthrough I've never had an inkling
to play it again. I never got around to buying the DLCs for Skyrim
either, but then I'm not sure if I actually finished the game or not and haven't had much interest in returning to it. I hear some of the
overhaul mods are great, and at least those are free.

Then of course there's Horse Armor, which I never did buy into.

Ah, I've finally got one, the original Borderlands, I didn't get the
DLCs for a long time, and really I felt the game was meh until I got
them. I liked the game much better with them. I think BL2's were fine
too, I at least enjoyed the D&D one and Torgue EXPLOSIONS! one. I
didn't buy the ones for BL3 as it felt more like a cash grab vibe, and I
was pretty tired of BL at that point.

--
What are your thoughts on DLCs, any stand out a pure cash grab, or a
great buy?

-
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 4/1/2026 2:11 PM, Justisaur wrote:

-PS
After posting about me realizing I don't actually like the DLCs for
souls games while I was playing DS2 & Bloodborne in the What Have You
Been Playing thread I though I'd make this topic.

The main thing in souls games seems to be to give you much harder areas
and boss, which I don't really like. And if you play multiplayer they're almost manditory.  I would've actually been much happier with even DS3
(my favorite of them) as it stood without DLCs.  I never would've
overcome Midir which feels like quite an accomplishment, but then I
would've lived in bliss not having to go through the PTSD inducing
endless attempts over years.

DS2 they heavily nerfed spells, and I hate where they pull the rug on a mechanic that is in fact meant to be used, otherwise why would they have starting classes for spellcasters?

Elden Ring they introduced an annoying mechanic which makes you go
through every area hunting scadu to bring yourself up to the power
you're meant to have for each area, and in a somewhat specific order, in
an already exceedingly large game with a DLC the size of a normal game, exacerbating the issue with repetitiveness it has.

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

Bethesda FO3 was o.k. with new different areas, at least some of them,
but they added stuff that was a little too good for the main play a bit
too early. I enjoyed the main game well enough, and better than playing
the DLCs.  Frankly I like the smaller encounters in the big world much more.  Each of the DLCs felt like a slog by the time I got through them.
 I did think the ones in FONV were better than the main game, but I
didn't really like NV that much to begin with and again the DLCs were a
bit too long, and frankly I would've been fine having never played them.
 I never did get around to DLCs for FO4 either, and looking back on it, I'm probably better off I didn't.  FO4 just seems too far from it's
roots, and while I did manage one playthrough I've never had an inkling
to play it again.  I never got around to buying the DLCs for Skyrim
either, but then I'm not sure if I actually finished the game or not and haven't had much interest in returning to it.  I hear some of the
overhaul mods are great, and at least those are free.

Then of course there's Horse Armor, which I never did buy into.

Ah, I've finally got one, the original Borderlands, I didn't get the
DLCs for a long time, and really I felt the game was meh until I got
them.  I liked the game much better with them.  I think BL2's were fine too, I at least enjoyed the D&D one and Torgue EXPLOSIONS! one.  I
didn't buy the ones for BL3 as it felt more like a cash grab vibe, and I
was pretty tired of BL at that point.

--
What are your thoughts on DLCs, any stand out a pure cash grab, or a
great buy?

Never bought any. Too many are blindly obvious cash grabs, the rest
just aren't worth paying for.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

What are your thoughts on DLCs, any stand out a pure cash grab, or a great >buy?

I was also feeling pretty bleak about the value of dlc, but after some library scrolling came up with a few games where I enjoyed the dlc:
Dishonored
Knife of Dunwall & Brigmore Witches, both fun side-story dlc
Bioshock 2
Minerva's Den, often cited for its quality
Witcher 3
two large expansion packs that were major additions

rms

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 14:11:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

-PS
After posting about me realizing I don't actually like the DLCs for
souls games while I was playing DS2 & Bloodborne in the What Have You
Been Playing thread I though I'd make this topic.

The main thing in souls games seems to be to give you much harder areas
and boss, which I don't really like. And if you play multiplayer they're >almost manditory. I would've actually been much happier with even DS3
(my favorite of them) as it stood without DLCs. I never would've
overcome Midir which feels like quite an accomplishment, but then I
would've lived in bliss not having to go through the PTSD inducing
endless attempts over years.

DS2 they heavily nerfed spells, and I hate where they pull the rug on a >mechanic that is in fact meant to be used, otherwise why would they have >starting classes for spellcasters?

Elden Ring they introduced an annoying mechanic which makes you go
through every area hunting scadu to bring yourself up to the power
you're meant to have for each area, and in a somewhat specific order, in
an already exceedingly large game with a DLC the size of a normal game, >exacerbating the issue with repetitiveness it has.

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

Bethesda FO3 was o.k. with new different areas, at least some of them,
but they added stuff that was a little too good for the main play a bit
too early. I enjoyed the main game well enough, and better than playing
the DLCs. Frankly I like the smaller encounters in the big world much
more. Each of the DLCs felt like a slog by the time I got through them.
I did think the ones in FONV were better than the main game, but I
didn't really like NV that much to begin with and again the DLCs were a
bit too long, and frankly I would've been fine having never played them.
I never did get around to DLCs for FO4 either, and looking back on it,
I'm probably better off I didn't. FO4 just seems too far from it's
roots, and while I did manage one playthrough I've never had an inkling
to play it again. I never got around to buying the DLCs for Skyrim
either, but then I'm not sure if I actually finished the game or not and >haven't had much interest in returning to it. I hear some of the
overhaul mods are great, and at least those are free.

Then of course there's Horse Armor, which I never did buy into.

Ah, I've finally got one, the original Borderlands, I didn't get the
DLCs for a long time, and really I felt the game was meh until I got
them. I liked the game much better with them. I think BL2's were fine
too, I at least enjoyed the D&D one and Torgue EXPLOSIONS! one. I
didn't buy the ones for BL3 as it felt more like a cash grab vibe, and I
was pretty tired of BL at that point.

*--

I never play a game long enough or even finish one to be able to use a
DLC!
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

PW wrote:

On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 14:11:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

-PS
After posting about me realizing I don't actually like the DLCs for
souls games while I was playing DS2 & Bloodborne in the What Have You
Been Playing thread I though I'd make this topic.

The main thing in souls games seems to be to give you much harder areas
and boss, which I don't really like. And if you play multiplayer they're
almost manditory. I would've actually been much happier with even DS3
(my favorite of them) as it stood without DLCs. I never would've
overcome Midir which feels like quite an accomplishment, but then I
would've lived in bliss not having to go through the PTSD inducing
endless attempts over years.

DS2 they heavily nerfed spells, and I hate where they pull the rug on a
mechanic that is in fact meant to be used, otherwise why would they have
starting classes for spellcasters?

Elden Ring they introduced an annoying mechanic which makes you go
through every area hunting scadu to bring yourself up to the power
you're meant to have for each area, and in a somewhat specific order, in
an already exceedingly large game with a DLC the size of a normal game,
exacerbating the issue with repetitiveness it has.

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

Bethesda FO3 was o.k. with new different areas, at least some of them,
but they added stuff that was a little too good for the main play a bit
too early. I enjoyed the main game well enough, and better than playing
the DLCs. Frankly I like the smaller encounters in the big world much
more. Each of the DLCs felt like a slog by the time I got through them.
I did think the ones in FONV were better than the main game, but I
didn't really like NV that much to begin with and again the DLCs were a
bit too long, and frankly I would've been fine having never played them.
I never did get around to DLCs for FO4 either, and looking back on it,
I'm probably better off I didn't. FO4 just seems too far from it's
roots, and while I did manage one playthrough I've never had an inkling
to play it again. I never got around to buying the DLCs for Skyrim
either, but then I'm not sure if I actually finished the game or not and
haven't had much interest in returning to it. I hear some of the
overhaul mods are great, and at least those are free.

Then of course there's Horse Armor, which I never did buy into.

Ah, I've finally got one, the original Borderlands, I didn't get the
DLCs for a long time, and really I felt the game was meh until I got
them. I liked the game much better with them. I think BL2's were fine
too, I at least enjoyed the D&D one and Torgue EXPLOSIONS! one. I
didn't buy the ones for BL3 as it felt more like a cash grab vibe, and I
was pretty tired of BL at that point.

*--

I never play a game long enough or even finish one to be able to use a
DLC!

What about Dead Cells? The DLC opens up some stuff right at the
beginning. One of the required platform scrollers if you are on top of
the genre today.
--
Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a
sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage.
The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath,
whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There
Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 4/1/2026 7:12 PM, rms wrote:

What are your thoughts on DLCs, any stand out a pure cash grab, or a
great buy?

  I was also feeling pretty bleak about the value of dlc, but after
some library scrolling came up with a few games where I enjoyed the dlc:

Witcher 3
  two large expansion packs that were major additions

Hard to know on that one because I got W3 with the DLCs, The scottish
isles like place was fine, but I missed the other one which was supposed
to be the most interesting. I need to go back and play that again some
time.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 1 Apr 2026 14:11:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
said this thing:

-PS
After posting about me realizing I don't actually like the DLCs for
souls games while I was playing DS2 & Bloodborne in the What Have You
Been Playing thread I though I'd make this topic.

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

I'm more against the IDEA of DLC than the content itself. Too often
it's content ripped out of the main game to be sold after the fact,
whether it is quests and levels, or cosmetics that used to be included
with the game as extra bonuses. It just feels rapacious and greedy on
the part of the publisher.

But because of this, the DLC is often necessary to get the complete
experience. This was, for instance, especially evident in "Mass Effect
3"; the base game was stripped down and didn't feel complete. But with
all the DLC added, the adventure was far more robust and compelling.
It made an otherwise forgetable game worth playing, without which it
was a below-average experience.

Similarly, you have "American Truck Simulator". Now, I don't think I
need to express my love of /that/ particular game here. Mechanically,
the base game was quite sound... but all you get for the price of
entry is the state of California. To really get the "American"
experience, you have to buy each state individually. It was actually
my major complaint with the game when it first released, and I didn't
actually start enjoying the game until I had six or seven DLC
expansions. So, yeah, NOW I love it... but it was an expensive
investment to get to that point.

There have been DLC expansions that I really enjoyed for themselves.
Most prominent amongst these would be the "Blood and Wine" DLC for
"The Witcher 3", which added a vast new territory to the game. It had
a unique look and didn't feel like cut-content. "The Witcher 3" was a
solid game all on its own; unlike "Mass Effect 3", you can enjoy it
without the "Blood and Wine" DLC. The expansion just makes it
/better/.

And that's true for other DLC packs too. Not all of them; in fact, I'd
say the majority are skippable. But some feel like real add-ons, and
show real effort in their design ("Shivering Isles" for Oblivion might
be another example). But others are just utter crap (pretty much all
the cosmetic stuff). And some fall right in the middle (for example,
the expansions to the Mechwarrior games). Unfortunately, it isn't
always clear which will be which until you actually get them.

So I can't entirely condemn DLC... I just wish it wasn't such a
prominent and important part of the industry these days.





















(the worst thing about DLC is that --since it just adds on to an
existing game-- it doesn't add to The Number ;-)


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 07:26:41 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
said this thing:

On 4/1/2026 7:12 PM, rms wrote:

What are your thoughts on DLCs, any stand out a pure cash grab, or a
great buy?

  I was also feeling pretty bleak about the value of dlc, but after
some library scrolling came up with a few games where I enjoyed the dlc:

Witcher 3
  two large expansion packs that were major additions

Hard to know on that one because I got W3 with the DLCs, The scottish
isles like place was fine, but I missed the other one which was supposed
to be the most interesting. I need to go back and play that again some >time.

Side note: The 'Scottish Isles' map (the Skellige Isles, if you want
the proper in-game name) was part of the original game. It wasn't a
DLC addition.

The Witcher 3 received several DLC packs. Some of these were just
cosmetics or added new quests and dungeons to the existing territory
(e.g. the "Heart of Stone" DLC). But the big one was the "Blood and
Wine" DLC, which added an entirely new nation (about 1/3 the size of
the main hub map), which was notable for its colorful design. While
the base game's hues are a lot of brown and green, as it takes place
in forests and swamps of the northern climes, the terrain of "Blood
and Wine" is more akin to southern France. This is reflected in the architecture too.

I quite enjoyed the "Blood and Wine" expansion, albeit with several
caveats.

Firstly, it completely disrupts the pacing of the main quest. There
you are on a search for your adopted daughter while a war rages around
you. But then you can go play "Blood and Wine" and that whole quest is
just put on pause as you vacation in the flowery (if vampire-haunted)
environs of fantasy Toussaint. It's really better played AFTER you
finish the main game, and not as part of your first playthrough...
especially if you care about narrative structure and pacing ;-)

Secondly, by the time you finish the "Blood and Wine" DLC you will
probably be so overpowered -thanks to some very OP weapons and all the
leveling up required by the quest-- that it makes even the rest of the
game a bit of a cakewalk. Again, it really feels like something that
should be played seperately from the main adventure.

Otherwise, a very well made DLC.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

-PS
After posting about me realizing I don't actually like the DLCs for
souls games while I was playing DS2 & Bloodborne in the What Have You
Been Playing thread I though I'd make this topic.

Never played a souls game so ...
<snip>

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

For me it's the Ones (or most of them) for
Diablo and Diablo 2,
Morrowind,
Borderlands 1+2,
Guild Wars,
City of Heroes

I think that's pretty much the lot of expansions/DLCs (whatever you want
to call it) that I thought were good enough to buy and provided value
for money.

Skipped pvp expansions/DLC unless it was part of a pack or a GOTY
version of the game that came with it. Never touched them though.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 4/2/2026 9:58 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Thu, 2 Apr 2026 07:26:41 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
said this thing:

On 4/1/2026 7:12 PM, rms wrote:

What are your thoughts on DLCs, any stand out a pure cash grab, or a
great buy?

  I was also feeling pretty bleak about the value of dlc, but after
some library scrolling came up with a few games where I enjoyed the dlc:

Witcher 3
  two large expansion packs that were major additions

Hard to know on that one because I got W3 with the DLCs, The scottish
isles like place was fine, but I missed the other one which was supposed
to be the most interesting. I need to go back and play that again some
time.

Side note: The 'Scottish Isles' map (the Skellige Isles, if you want
the proper in-game name) was part of the original game. It wasn't a
DLC addition.

The Witcher 3 received several DLC packs. Some of these were just
cosmetics or added new quests and dungeons to the existing territory
(e.g. the "Heart of Stone" DLC). But the big one was the "Blood and
Wine" DLC, which added an entirely new nation (about 1/3 the size of
the main hub map), which was notable for its colorful design. While
the base game's hues are a lot of brown and green, as it takes place
in forests and swamps of the northern climes, the terrain of "Blood
and Wine" is more akin to southern France. This is reflected in the architecture too.

I quite enjoyed the "Blood and Wine" expansion, albeit with several
caveats.

Firstly, it completely disrupts the pacing of the main quest. There
you are on a search for your adopted daughter while a war rages around
you. But then you can go play "Blood and Wine" and that whole quest is
just put on pause as you vacation in the flowery (if vampire-haunted) environs of fantasy Toussaint. It's really better played AFTER you
finish the main game, and not as part of your first playthrough...
especially if you care about narrative structure and pacing ;-)

Secondly, by the time you finish the "Blood and Wine" DLC you will
probably be so overpowered -thanks to some very OP weapons and all the leveling up required by the quest-- that it makes even the rest of the
game a bit of a cakewalk. Again, it really feels like something that
should be played seperately from the main adventure.

Otherwise, a very well made DLC.

Oh I forgot you can actually do that, just start one of the DLCs instead
of a new game. That makes playing the DLC I missed more appealing. It
makes it like a mini game of the same game.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 4/2/2026 3:12 PM, Xocyll wrote:

City of Heroes

Now that's an interesting one. Originally City of Villains was a
separate game essentially even if it was a DLC. The same mechanics, but different classes, accessible world, quests, npcs etc.

And in my opinion far better than the original, and much better before
it was merged.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

On 4/2/2026 3:12 PM, Xocyll wrote:

City of Heroes

Now that's an interesting one. Originally City of Villains was a
separate game essentially even if it was a DLC. The same mechanics, but >different classes, accessible world, quests, npcs etc.

And in my opinion far better than the original, and much better before
it was merged.

It was sold separately yes and could be installed without the original
or with the original.

Of course it was a bit better since it was developed using the feedback
they'd gotten over the original Archetypes.

Then there was the Architect's Edition allowing people to make custom
missions and such.
Then Going Rogue, the third starting point for characters.

CoH and Guild Wars definitely had DLCs that were worth the cash.
Borderlands franchise, a bit hit and miss.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Fri, 3 Apr 2026 13:42:34 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
said this thing:

Oh I forgot you can actually do that, just start one of the DLCs instead
of a new game. That makes playing the DLC I missed more appealing. It >makes it like a mini game of the same game.

Heh. I wasn't aware that was an option, actually. I just meant that if
you're playing "Witcher 3", play the main game without engaging with
the DLC, and then go back and play the DLC later. The game's worth
playing twice anyway ;-)
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> writes:

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

Not that easy? Seems like I've played some DLC but really liked? I guess
one problem is, I often buy DLC fairly late so already done or bored
with the main game.

Bethesda FO3 was o.k. with new different areas, at least some of them,
but they added stuff that was a little too good for the main play a
bit too early. I enjoyed the main game well enough, and better than
playing the DLCs. Frankly I like the smaller encounters in the big
world much more. Each of the DLCs felt like a slog by the time I got
through them. I did think the ones in FONV were better than the main
game, but I didn't really like NV that much to begin with and again
the DLCs were a bit too long, and frankly I would've been fine having
never played them. I never did get around to DLCs for FO4 either,
and looking back on it, I'm probably better off I didn't.

I remember the FO3 DLC wasn't much. I liked the UFO adventure one even
if it was fairly silly but silly is kind of the point of FO. The rest of
it, I dunno. I guess liked Broken Steel since it fixed or at least
changed the end of the game and let you continue instead of the
completely needless if heroic suicide in the end.

FONV, not much to write home about that? I don't remember having much
fun with the DLCs.. There was the Lonesome Road DLC that kind of filled
in more of the story but I remember it was more weird than satisfying.

FO4 just seems too far from it's roots, and while I did manage one playthrough I've never had an inkling to play it again.

I did play the only(?) plot DLC for FO4, Far Harbor. Was OK, not
great. The other DLC seemed to be just more stuff for crafting or
something that I don't really care for. Well, other than maxing out
weapons and boosting armor and some cooking, which basically cleans up
your inventory and maxes out healing from food.

To be sure, I did like the Fallout London mod, but it's more like a full
game than DLC and free. But needs FO4 and all the DLC to run.

Ah, I've finally got one, the original Borderlands, I didn't get the
DLCs for a long time, and really I felt the game was meh until I got
them. I liked the game much better with them. I think BL2's were
fine too, I at least enjoyed the D&D one and Torgue EXPLOSIONS! one.
I didn't buy the ones for BL3 as it felt more like a cash grab vibe,
and I was pretty tired of BL at that point.

BL, well, I don't think I cared for the original BL DLCs much and got
them very late. BL2 had ridiculous amounts of it, some free. I played
some free ones, there was an Xmas themed one and some party island
themed one. Short but fun. I got the "season pass" in a sale but I don't
think I got around to playing all of them. The "D&D" themed one was fun
at least, a retelling of the game's story from a different point of
view. There was a hunting safari themed one I actually tried but it had
the thing I hate most in BL games, enemies that level up. If you're a
little underleveled to begin with and then some dork levels up a couple
of times, suddenly you can barely scratch the paint on their armor. And
either get killed or run out of ammo or both.

I did do a playthrough with the extra BL2 characters each, Gaige the mechromancer and Krieg the psycho. As I recall, I was already pretty
bored with Gaige since it was my fifth playthrough but then got a gun
that put the game (with some Mechromancer skill) into munchkin mode so
suddenly it was fun. Or at least easy. Playing as Krieg was different
enough that I did finish a sixth playthrough with him, later.

And finally, there was that free DLC just before BL3 came out. Not much
of a thing but fine for a freebie.

BL3 felt meh but I got the season pass for the first batch of DLCs. They
were OK, not great. Best part, the awful and idiotic stuff from BL3
mostly wasn't present at all. BL2/heist theme, western theme,
Lovecraftian fantasy theme. And last the Krieg themed one, it kind of
reminded me of American McGee's Alice since it happens in Krieg's
head. Wasn't that great though.

The pre-sequel Borderlands, hmm, I guess I had the season pass. I
remember I did a second play through with the doppelganger character
from a DLC and it was actually fun. Action power was just clones of
yourself as I recall, so fairly decent boost to your DPS. Quite
different play style compared to Wilhelm who just basically stood behind
his shield and sniped at enemies while the attack drone dive bombed
enemies.

I remember I tried playing as the Baroness character and Athena but meh
and then with Claptrap, to do the DLC in its mind. That was pretty weird
but I felt there could've been a lot more comments and jokes in it. I
mean, you enter whatever serves Claptrap for a mind, as Claptrap. So
should be easy to write some fun stuff? But I guess not.

BL4, I dunno. Not really into Borderlands that much any more. They did
bring back "pearlescent" rarity in a free update but I don't think I've
picked up any of those. In fact, I don't think I've played much since
that update came.

I think they have come out with a new character but really, not feeling
it. I did a playthrough and I've wondered around in the open world,
doing this and that. There's some backstory bits left to collect still
so I'll try to continue with that.

What are your thoughts on DLCs, any stand out a pure cash grab, or a
great buy?

Some good, some bad, some OK. Typically something I buy in a sale, I'd
say. Going way back, the special missions and special ops in Wing
Commander 1&2 were fun back then, as I recall. They weren't really DLC
of course, they came on floppies back then. But the idea was new and it
seemed I couldn't have enough of Wing Commander content.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> writes:

Hard to know on that one because I got W3 with the DLCs, The scottish
isles like place was fine, but I missed the other one which was
supposed to be the most interesting. I need to go back and play that
again some time.

Come to think of it, Mafia 3 DLCs were handy in that you got some good
weapons earlier and in fact I think the magical instakill throwing knife
is DLC only. These improve the game since it's fairly repetitive.

--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:53:07 +0300, Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> said this thing:

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> writes:

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

Not that easy? Seems like I've played some DLC but really liked? I guess
one problem is, I often buy DLC fairly late so already done or bored
with the main game.

Bethesda FO3 was o.k. with new different areas, at least some of them,
but they added stuff that was a little too good for the main play a
bit too early. I enjoyed the main game well enough, and better than
playing the DLCs. Frankly I like the smaller encounters in the big
world much more. Each of the DLCs felt like a slog by the time I got
through them. I did think the ones in FONV were better than the main
game, but I didn't really like NV that much to begin with and again
the DLCs were a bit too long, and frankly I would've been fine having
never played them. I never did get around to DLCs for FO4 either,
and looking back on it, I'm probably better off I didn't.

I remember the FO3 DLC wasn't much. I liked the UFO adventure one even
if it was fairly silly but silly is kind of the point of FO. The rest of
it, I dunno. I guess liked Broken Steel since it fixed or at least
changed the end of the game and let you continue instead of the
completely needless if heroic suicide in the end.

The thing I liked most about the DLC was that each one was different
enough from the others that it made getting them all worth it.
"Operation: Anchorage" played out almost like an FPS, with pretty
minimal role-playing. "Mothership Zeta" was little more than a
dungeon-crawl. "Point Lookout" added a new map that kept the same
visuals as the main game, but added some mystery and horror elements.
"The Pitt" added an entirely new region with its own unique aesthetic. Individually, none of the expansions were all that great, but taken
altogether you could see the variety and experimentation.


--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Wed, 08 Apr 2026 12:53:07 +0300, Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> said this thing:

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> writes:

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

Not that easy? Seems like I've played some DLC but really liked? I guess
one problem is, I often buy DLC fairly late so already done or bored
with the main game.

Bethesda FO3 was o.k. with new different areas, at least some of them,
but they added stuff that was a little too good for the main play a
bit too early. I enjoyed the main game well enough, and better than
playing the DLCs. Frankly I like the smaller encounters in the big
world much more. Each of the DLCs felt like a slog by the time I got
through them. I did think the ones in FONV were better than the main
game, but I didn't really like NV that much to begin with and again
the DLCs were a bit too long, and frankly I would've been fine having
never played them. I never did get around to DLCs for FO4 either,
and looking back on it, I'm probably better off I didn't.

I remember the FO3 DLC wasn't much. I liked the UFO adventure one even
if it was fairly silly but silly is kind of the point of FO. The rest of
it, I dunno. I guess liked Broken Steel since it fixed or at least
changed the end of the game and let you continue instead of the
completely needless if heroic suicide in the end.

The thing I liked most about the DLC was that each one was different
enough from the others that it made getting them all worth it.
"Operation: Anchorage" played out almost like an FPS, with pretty
minimal role-playing. "Mothership Zeta" was little more than a
dungeon-crawl. "Point Lookout" added a new map that kept the same
visuals as the main game, but added some mystery and horror elements.
"The Pitt" added an entirely new region with its own unique aesthetic. Individually, none of the expansions were all that great, but taken altogether you could see the variety and experimentation.

The concept you are describing is known as "synergy" in the
English-speaking world. You could have found this by talking to AI, but
like a chump you are one of those AI-deniers who say that AI cannot help
and that you fear the AI. Meanwhile you go on spending 200 words to
replace one English word that would have sufficed, blowhard.
--
Pharaoh was so pleased with Hadad that he gave him a
sister of his own wife, Queen Tahpenes, in marriage.
The sister of Tahpenes bore him a son named Genubath,
whom Tahpenes brought up in the royal palace. There
Genubath lived with Pharaoh’s own children.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 21:11 this Wednesday (GMT):

-PS
After posting about me realizing I don't actually like the DLCs for
souls games while I was playing DS2 & Bloodborne in the What Have You
Been Playing thread I though I'd make this topic.

The main thing in souls games seems to be to give you much harder areas
and boss, which I don't really like. And if you play multiplayer they're almost manditory. I would've actually been much happier with even DS3
(my favorite of them) as it stood without DLCs. I never would've
overcome Midir which feels like quite an accomplishment, but then I
would've lived in bliss not having to go through the PTSD inducing
endless attempts over years.

DS2 they heavily nerfed spells, and I hate where they pull the rug on a mechanic that is in fact meant to be used, otherwise why would they have starting classes for spellcasters?

Elden Ring they introduced an annoying mechanic which makes you go
through every area hunting scadu to bring yourself up to the power
you're meant to have for each area, and in a somewhat specific order, in
an already exceedingly large game with a DLC the size of a normal game, exacerbating the issue with repetitiveness it has.

I'm trying to think of any DLCs I really liked in any game.

Bethesda FO3 was o.k. with new different areas, at least some of them,
but they added stuff that was a little too good for the main play a bit
too early. I enjoyed the main game well enough, and better than playing
the DLCs. Frankly I like the smaller encounters in the big world much
more. Each of the DLCs felt like a slog by the time I got through them.
I did think the ones in FONV were better than the main game, but I
didn't really like NV that much to begin with and again the DLCs were a
bit too long, and frankly I would've been fine having never played them.
I never did get around to DLCs for FO4 either, and looking back on it,
I'm probably better off I didn't. FO4 just seems too far from it's
roots, and while I did manage one playthrough I've never had an inkling
to play it again. I never got around to buying the DLCs for Skyrim
either, but then I'm not sure if I actually finished the game or not and haven't had much interest in returning to it. I hear some of the
overhaul mods are great, and at least those are free.

Then of course there's Horse Armor, which I never did buy into.

Ah, I've finally got one, the original Borderlands, I didn't get the
DLCs for a long time, and really I felt the game was meh until I got
them. I liked the game much better with them. I think BL2's were fine
too, I at least enjoyed the D&D one and Torgue EXPLOSIONS! one. I
didn't buy the ones for BL3 as it felt more like a cash grab vibe, and I
was pretty tired of BL at that point.

--
What are your thoughts on DLCs, any stand out a pure cash grab, or a
great buy?

-
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

IMO it depends (fence sitting answer i know)

If it's just extra weapons and a new area, then no it sucks. But if its
more on the level of a whole new game, then I'm usually on board.
Something like Sonic Mania Plus, for instance...

I'm also a bit mixed on when a game is free but chapters are sold as
DLC, since on one hand it is nice to have it on one game instead of 5,
but it is a bit annoying seeing paywalls in game.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 14:50:09 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> said this thing:

IMO it depends (fence sitting answer i know)

It's not fence-sitting, not really. It's just that some DLC are good,
and some aren't. Well, a lot aren't, but that's just Sturgeon's Law*
in effect.

But because the industry is betting so heavily on post-sale
monetizations to fund itself, DLC has become a lot more prominent, and
less time is being spent by developers making sure it's actually worth
its price. And because there's so much DLC around, we as gamers buy
more of the stuff and thus encounter more of the crappy expansions.

Even back in the day there were some really bad expansions (like the semi-official add-ons to the Wolfenstein 3D games nobody remembers).
But they were a lot easier to avoid back then. Nowadays DLC is much
more in-your-face.

I don't dislike DLC. I dislike how it's become so dominant in
game-development and so important to the revenue-stream.





----
* Sturgeon's law is an adage that "ninety percent of everything is
crap", coined by science fiction author and critic Theodore Sturgeon.
It was inspired by his observation that most work in any field is
low-quality, and that science fiction is no different.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 09/04/2026 16:40, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

I don't dislike DLC. I dislike how it's become so dominant in game-development and so important to the revenue-stream.

Generally agree with one exception, turned based wargames. So I have
quite a few of them which have several DLCs. The difference I see is
that the wargame crowd (including me) can be quite particular on which
'wars' they play in. So a DLC based on France 1940 I'm all in for
whereas Iwo Jima I have no interest in.

The DLC I really dislike are were it feels like they stripped parts of
the main game out to sell it to you later. Keeping for wargames - Combat Mission Battle for Normandy. They basically used they new engine, which
still looks really old, ported the original version to it and then
stripped out a lot of the content to make it into DLCs.
--- Synchronet 3.21f-Linux NewsLink 1.2