When Left 4 Dead 2 was announced at E3, there was a lot of backlash from the fans who thought that this game didn’t have enough in it to be a sequel. From what I’ve seen, I would think otherwise. But this event does raise an important question: Where do we draw the line between content that could be an add-on and content that could be a sequel?
The way I see it is if the content added makes a couple major tweaks and additions to the gameplay, it should be a sequel. But I expect a sequel to be something more than that. A proper sequel improves on the first game in every way. Also, if the content added is a complete new storyline or campaign that continues the story from the first game, it would be hard to justify as downloadable content. Another thing that would definitely be part of a sequel is a graphics update. That would seem very out of place in an original game. All of these things are elements to a sequel, and probably shouldn’t be released as DLC but also shouldn’t be released on their own as a sequel (ex. the sequel only has a new campaign, but is otherwise identical).
The elements of downloadable content are simple. Downloadable content is something that will add to your gaming experience but not change the way you experience it. For example, in Oblivion, if you (god forbid) bought the horse armor DLC, you would still be playing Oblivion but you would be more powerful in the game. I don’t think anyone wants Oblivion 2 with the only thing unique being horse armor.
Here are some good examples of DLC that should be DLC and sequels that should be sequels that were recently released:
1. Burnout Paradise: The DLC kings have it down. All of their content has added to the game in a positive way, but it still feels like Burnout. Their latest content, Big Surf Island, plays to one of Burnout’s biggest strengths: massive jumps. Imagine all of the jumps in the original Burnout Paradise and mash them into one small island, while simultaneously doubling their size. You now have Big Surf Island.
2. Gears of War 2: Just like a proper sequel, Gears of War 2 improved on the first Gears of War in every way. There were better weapons, less problems with sticking to cover, and some great "holy crap moments".
3. Fallout 3: While Fallout’s DLC was more substantial than most, only one of them continued the original story and none of them changed the core mechanics of the game. You still felt like you were playing Fallout.
Reader question: What do you think? Where do we draw the line between content that could be an add-on and content that could be a sequel?