Discuss.

I'm talking about a single expansion vs several pieces of DLC.

Are these guys wrestlers, or are we talking about tennis?

Neither?

Uh, right... I would rather have one or two Shivering Isles style expansions than five or so DLCs.

I wouldnt mind an Op Anch DLC and a PL type of DLC. And I'll say why. Op Anch is a great little DLC in my opinion, but Point Lookout with a SLIGHT bit more work, would have felt like a full expansion.

I would like to see a lovingly crafted expansion. Alot of these Devs are from the older Fallout games, or have some grace on Van Buren, so this is their chance to say 'Hey we can do it again, and this is our shot'. New Vegas already shows itself to be outshining Fallout 3, so with a well made expansion pack, I think it could possibly break more ground in the series than Fallout 3 did.

I would love more DLC like broken steel. Point Lookout was fun, but after you beat it there is no reason to go back.

Exactly, it would have been a great way to end Fallout 3. Then they released IT :cryvaultboy:

But thats why I said, PL would have been an amazing expansion if they had gone and done sayyyyy, made the boardwalk a fortified and lively seatown. Or made alot of incentive beyond 'uh oh, my guns breaking, better find a replacement.'

Expansions all the way. Fallout games traditionally have a lot of depth, things to do and large areas to explore. The closest DLC to that was Point lookout, and even that didn't have enough quests to satisfy my desires. Anchorage was linear crap, the Pitt was let down by a small world map, broken steel was alright I guess but zeta was taking the piss. This is all my opinion of course, but to get the depth and detail needed an expansion is the only way to go.

ALL of FO 3's dlcs were bad except for point lookout..... and broken steel.... but if i had to choose..... EXPANSIONS ALL THE WAY

I like DLCs. They are cheap and fun to play. Not into spending 25$+ for a single expansion pack.

expansion pack: Usually a continuation of the story, or an expansion to the game world. adds atleast 12+ hours to the game

DLC: tiny add ons that are usually used for an extra buck by wrapping up a storyline, or introducing a tiny area of a major area in the video games lore. add around 1-5 hours of gameplay.

expansion pack all the way.

I'm happy with whatever Obsidian wants to do - assuming there is additional content. Expansions allow greater depth and DLC allow greater variety, both of these have their advantages

I'd have to say I'd like a expansion of New York. Something along the lines of you randomly find a underground subway to it. New York would be very big and would prove as a worthy expansion.

Hence, why expansions should be chosen over a DLC.

I don't see how-

1. A subway could go all the way to New York from Nevada
2. And how you explained why expansions are better than DLC?

you cant nyc if thats what your talking about, that is under water

Looks like Expansion has DLC in a figure-four leg lock...

I want an expansion in Dogtown as I've said before. Ever since I saw it in the wiki I've wanted to go there.

Why can't we have both?

i want one in las angeles... because its 40 years later and i want to see what has happened....

Individually, perhaps, they're cheap, but they also don't have much content to them, and if the designers made enough DLCs to have as much content as a full expansion pack, I reckon it would cost a lot more than 25 dollars.

Also, back in Morrowind, we could get addons that were not much different from some of the excuses that pass for downloadable content now, only Bethesda let us download them for free.



How do we know that? Since no Fallout game has taken place near New York, I fail to see how we can no what the condition of the city is in the Fallout universe.

Yes, I'd go with expansion packs too, expansion packs are large addons to a game that can include a lot of new content, DLC, on the other hand, is usually a pathetic attempt to milk extra cash from players who will buy anything as long as it has the name of their favorite game on it which might be worth getting if they were free, but are rarely worth half the price that is charged for them, of course, I have no doubt that we WILL get a few DLCs, so I just hope Obsidian goes the way Oblivion did and makes at least one proper expansion as well as downloadable content.

It really depends on price point for me. I'd rather have 4-6 DLC packs like the ones for fallout 3 than a 10 hour $30 expansion. Each of the fallout 3 DLC packs gave me at least 4 extra hours of new gameplay (I like to explore). Point lookout gave the most, but it was very buggy. My favorite of the bunch was the Pitt. It had a good mix of new story/setting and gameplay time.

Personally I'd like to see both DLC and an expansion. Just don't try and sell me the pre-order packs for $2 each a week after the game launches.

ita been said in one of the games

I, too, believe DLC is no good. When you think about it, the total playtime of FO3's five pieces of DLC is significantly lower than that of an expansion such as Shivering Isles... and it cost you $50. An expansion is regularly priced around $30.

Expansion. no contest really.

Expansions, most definitely.
Usually has a longer development cycle, sure, but in the end it's worth it most of the time as more work goes into it.

DLC is only good from a financial point of view and anyone who actually votes for DLC is a gods damned idiot or works for a company that endorses DLC.
With DLC the developer can basically crap out tiny content updates and charge $10 for it, quality tends to suffer because of this.

Prewar Los angeles and and post war lost angeles are very hard to tell apart.

People are killing each other all the time, the air is poisonous, and it looks like crap.