Wonders shouldn't be part of a DLC

[apocalypse105]

So I recently bought the DLC korea DLC wit the wonders DLC for the scenario with it.


However I was really angry to see that 2kgames and firaxis made new wonders as a DLC.

New Wonders or New units or buildings things that are a new adition to the technology tree shouldn't be part of a DLC It destroys the gameplay experience

The reason Why I found this enoying is because you are basicly going to playing a other game ...

other reasons :
Lets say you are making a lets play and are using those new wonders,units other player's can't
Same goes for multipalyer


What are you thoughts about it?

[skyclad]

While I agree with you we cant stop companies from offering products and services because we don't like them I wish they came as a free patch instead of a DLC but that's hardly surprising is it?

[joncnunn]

In SP it doesn't really matter. But the DLC used is locked into the map at creation time.

If the game is using specific DLC, in order to load the game, you'll need it.

But if its shared with someone with more DLC; they can't use the extra DLC content they have for that specific game.
(e.g. If playing the Game of the Month, you can't build those three wonders even if you have it. And should you ally with a military city state, won't be granted a UU from a DLC civ)

[Steelyglint]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

New Wonders or New units or buildings things that are a new adition to the technology tree shouldn't be part of a DLC

You must have hated the Korea DLC, what with all of those new Turtle Ship and H'wacha units it had, messing up your gameplay experience.

[Sonereal]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

However I was really angry to see that 2kgames and firaxis made new wonders as a DLC.

*insert me wondering why*

New Wonders or New units or buildings things that are a new adition to the technology tree shouldn't be part of a DLC It destroys the gameplay experience

Do you prefer your statements to make sense or not make sense? This statement doesn't make sense unless you're saying the new wonders, units, and buildings that they added make the game unplayable. If that is the case, the thread title should be "the Korean DLC is bad" and the original post should say that you hate buying content that adds units, buildings, and wonders.

The reason Why I found this enoying is because you are basicly going to playing a other game ...

I agree with you on this. I hate buying content for the game that adds content to the game.

other reasons :
Lets say you are making a lets play and are using those new wonders,units other player's can't
Same goes for multipalyer

This is the only point of contention you made that makes sense. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about multiplayer to make fun of it.

What are you thoughts about it?

Here are my thoughts.

*insert me wondering why*

Do you prefer your statements to make sense or not make sense? This statement doesn't make sense unless you're saying the new wonders, units, and buildings that they added make the game unplayable. If that is the case, the thread title should be "the Korean DLC is bad" and the original post should say that you hate buying content that adds units, buildings, and wonders.

I agree with you on this. I hate buying content for the game that adds content to the game.

This is the only point of contention you made that makes sense. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about multiplayer to make fun of it.

Moderator Action: Please don't troll around.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by Steelyglint

You must have hated the Korea DLC, what with all of those new Turtle Ship and H'wacha units it had, messing up your gameplay experience.

I just don't want to see a DLC wich add new units or wonders in the future.

[smallfish]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

I just don't want to see a DLC wich add new units or wonders in the future.

When has there been a DLC that added such?

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by smallfish

When has there been a DLC that added such?

The ancient wonders DLC this added new early wonders

There hasn't been a DLC wich add new units But I hope it doesn't

[gladoscc]

DLC should be addons. Things like new maps, scenarios, civilizations. Not things like new weapons in a FPS game where you can use the new weapons against other people, or new wonders.

[The_Quasar]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

The ancient wonders DLC this added new early wonders

There hasn't been a DLC wich add new units But I hope it doesn't

Originally Posted by gladoscc

DLC should be addons. Things like new maps, scenarios, civilizations. Not things like new weapons in a FPS game where you can use the new weapons against other people, or new wonders.

There are new weapons/units (UUs) in virtually every DLC... all the new civs have them.

Apart from multiplayer, which is an exception, and almost a different game, why don't you want any extra content in DLCs? I thought that was the purpose of a DLC! New civs, new UUs, UBs & UAs. That we got 3 new Wonders in that DLC, was, to me a bonus. Although none of them are really usable on the highest levels.

Let's plays are also exceptions, and there are ones with and without DLCs, as is right...

DLCs and Expansions are Fraxis's way of making money to carry on... no one forces anyone to buy them, and it is not necessary to buy them to play the game. I however, think they make a good addition to the game... new civs, new scenarios, new resources and yes, new Wonders too, are always welcome.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by The_Quasar

There are new weapons/units (UUs) in virtually every DLC... all the new civs have them.

Apart from multiplayer, which is an exception, and almost a different game, why don't you want any extra content in DLCs? I thought that was the purpose of a DLC! New civs, new UUs, UBs & UAs. That we got 3 new Wonders in that DLC, was, to me a bonus. Although none of them are really usable on the highest levels.

Let's plays are also exceptions, and there are ones with and without DLCs, as is right...

DLCs and Expansions are Fraxis's way of making money to carry on... no one forces anyone to buy them, and it is not necessary to buy them to play the game. I however, think they make a good addition to the game... new civs, new scenarios, new resources and yes, new Wonders too, are always welcome.

It is necessary to play the game because no matter wich civilization you choose you end up not having the units or wonders in you're game so you can't use them in you're strategy you're basicly playing a other game.

If you didn't buy a civilization DLC you just can't play a civilization

But DLC that adds new units or wonders changed the game entirly its basicly a patch for the game.



Would you be happy if you had to pay for patches ?

Have you ever played age of empires 3 online there is ols dowloadable contents in form of new units and buildings as a result you are allways better of buying it or else you are on a disadvantage online and single player

[smallfish]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

Would you be happy if you had to pay for patches ?

You lost me there. Patches are stuff that fix the game, occasionally add more game content too, but mainly fixing gameplay issues.

[The_Quasar]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

It is necessary to play the game because no matter wich civilization you choose you end up not having the units or wonders in you're game so you can't use them in you're strategy you're basicly playing a other game.

No, you're playing the same game as you were... with a few embellishments... you are free to not include them in any game...

If you didn't buy a civilization DLC you just can't play a civilization

Obviously

But DLC that adds new units or wonders changed the game entirly its basicly a patch for the game.

No, a DLC adds content, a patch corrects faults in the game... there have been both patches and DLCs for Civ V (that's why it's called DLC, it stands for DownLoadable Content).

Would you be happy if you had to pay for patches ?

We don't pay for patches, so your question is irrelevant

Have you ever played age of empires 3 online there is ols dowloadable contents in form of new units and buildings as a result you are allways better of buying it or else you are on a disadvantage online and single player

Civ V is not, and is never likely to be an online game (in it's current form). Something like 98% of games are played as single-player (figure approximate and based on the survey on this site some while ago). How online games are run, imho, is not relevent here and while there is a healthy modding community here, there wouldn't be in it was an online game.

Whether I update anything, or not, is entirely up to me in a single player game. The amount of extra I download/pay for is my own choice, whether it be mods, DLC or patches.

[eris]

Originally Posted by apocalypse105

It is necessary to play the game because no matter wich civilization you choose you end up not having the units or wonders in you're game so you can't use them in you're strategy you're basicly playing a other game.

I disagree. Every time I play as a new Civ, a new map, or even just with a new strategy in mind, I am basically playing an "other" game. The reason I buy DLC is to have the game become even more "other". It is also the reason I will buy the expansion. Quite frankly, whether you or any other player plays the same game is both unlikely and irrelevant to me. I'm too busy having fun.

[BobDole]

I thought we were done debating WotAW last summer. I mean it's been out for over 8 months now.....
Anyway, it doesn't "destroy the gameplay experience." All you could argue is that it complicate multiplayer compatibility, but then again, that's a problem with EVERY DLC that's released, so that isn't a new problem. Besides, most people play Civ as a single-player game, so it doesn't really matter. If they want the DLC, they can buy it. Otherwise, it doesn't affect them at all: they can keep playing and pretend it doesn't exist.

[Ranos]

Okay I'm completely confused. You seem to like that there are DLCs or you at least don't object to them. What you object to is the fact that they add things that change the game. Which is the entire point of a DLC.

A new civ is going to change how the game plays just as much, if not more, than how new wonders are going to change the game. You don't want new units in a DLC and yet every DLC has a new civ, which has one or two new units.

If you don't like the DLCs or specific DLCs, then don't buy them. Its that easy. If you must have them for some other reason, then just make a mod that takes the content back out.

Oh, and just to warn you, there is an expansion coming that is going to be adding a bunch of new content to the game. It'll probably be available as a DLC on Steam.

[Silverfuturist]

Lets say you are making a lets play and are using those new wonders,units other player's can't
Same goes for multipalyer


If a multiplayer game is created with ancient wonders, and a player doesn't have that DLC, the game starts but the extra wonders are not included.

I have all of the DLCs except for ancient wonders, and I play multiplayer with/without the DLC civs (even though Babylon is crazy OP in MP.) Adding new wonders is a global change, I didn't like that idea.

[headcase]

I don't like it either, but gotta admit have no objective reason. I Like the DLC for new civs though (at the right price).

[claestw]

If you've played games (or rather, paid for games) back when they all come on shiny optical discs, with paper manuals and came in hard cardboard boxes, you'll realize that indeed you used to pay for patches.

Small patches that include bug fixes were mostly distributed freely. Then there were some companies that distributed free "content patches" that moderately alter the content. Say for balance reasons, or to add some new graphics, a few new items, etc.

Then there's the big "content patches" that costed a lot to develop, it contained lots of new graphics, new systems, new items, new animations. We had to pay for them. They were called "Expansions".

The DLC model is a way to incrementally sell your development efforts. Customers are more willing to pay for something if they can choose exactly what they get. DLCs are no different to expansions, they're just smaller scale.


Well, theoretically, anyway. In practice, DLCs are a way to milk your previous development efforts by providing easy to develop content (as opposed to systems) that amount to just music, artworks, animations and some configuration. It leverages your existing platform for more cashflow.

[aatami]

DLC is a small expansion.
So your statement, apocalypse, is that expansions shouldn't have wonders. Okay...