This is for video gamers. I’m sure it greatly depends on if you are a completest or not.
If you get a game long enough after it came out that it now has downloadable expansion packs do you play through the main storyline first and then play through the DLC? Do you play it in the order it came out? Or do you instead treat the DLC like side missions, do them first and then finish up the main story?
That’s where I’m at with Witcher 3. I got the extended version that contained two DLC’s. I finished one before ending the main story. Now I’m thinking I’m not going to do the other one and go back to the main story. I think I’ll be too powerful to even make it interesting if I build up the character more in the other DLC.
It depends on the sort of DLC. Sometimes they’re made to be a part of the existing storyline; sometimes they’re made to be separate. If, say, it’s new character classes, then I’ll play whatever class appeals to me most, regardless of whether it’s original or new.
In Witcher 3 I would say they are the equivalent of short stories written after the novel. At least the one I’ve done already could be done before or after the main story without any difference. Really the only difference is I am a much higher level than I would have been going into the end of the main story otherwise.
If it’s a side-character story, following what someone else did during the main story, or if it appears to be set after the main storyline for other reasons, I finish the main story first. Likewise for DLC that has a completely separate story. DLC that offers a new gameplay mode/challenge level/variant gets left alone until the story is done (or forever, since those don’t usually interest me much).
If it’s the main character doing stuff that could plausibly be done in the course of the main story–extended side quests, essentially–then I will do the DLCs before finishing the story. I’m a sucker for side quests and powering up/equipping characters. This is especially true if the game has a very open story structure, like Skyrim, or I expect the main story ending to make it weird for the main character to go off on other adventures like the Fallout games.
DLC characters, I will use on my first run thru. (Or, you know, not, if it was part of a larger DLC (as opposed to one I purchased for itself) and it doesn’t appeal.)
DLC missions, I’ll do them whereever it makes sense to do them (depending on the level they’re meant for, whether they rely on anything from the main storyline, whether it makes sense for the character to do them).
Some games, you cannot wait until after finishing the vanilla story to play DLC, because the game ends (Fallout New Vegas, I’m looking at you).
and theres some dlc that if you don’t finish the game first youll get hosed because they want you to start with game finishing stats because they amped up the numbers and have godly equipment that would break the original game (syndicate 1 American revolt in looking at you )
I’m surprised you were able to do either DLC before finishing the main game - IIRC, they were both assuming you were at a level that you really could only get to at the endgame of the main quest? Which one did you do - Heart of Stone or Blood and Wine?
Regardless, I always do the main game first, then the DLCs.
The only DLC’s I’ve ever owned were for the Mass Effect games and Oblivion. I did one of the Oblivion quests before I finished the game and the DLC helped me A LOT. I can’t remember the exact name of the quest, but it ended up with me getting a kickass set of armor that left me basically untouchable for the rest of the main quest. I love being a god.
Mass Effect’s generally are just really good sidequests. I’ll do them as I see fit. The only caveat being the Citadel DLC for Mass Effect 3 because it’s best to have the characters who don’t eventually die with you for that one just for funsies. Otherwise I’ll do them because I get a better gun.
I did Heart of Stone. It was tough but not close to impossible. Blood and Wine seems a lot harder so I think I’ll go back and complete the main story first. I did all of the missions and quests that didn’t involve Gwent so I am a pretty high level already.
In Witcher are one of the DLC’s occurs on the same map so it is a bit more blended. It does have a very self contained storyline and it’s much more plot and dialogue driven than just regular side quests. The other one is in a completely different area and map.
So thinking back to Witcher 3, there were actually a bunch of side missions that apparently were DLC, but that was basically invisible to you. If you bought the game with all DLC included, they were just there, and if I didn’t look at a wiki later I’d have had no idea they were DLC. Like the mission where you have to track down the rogue Witcher from the Cat school who wiped out an entire town.
This was distinct from the Hearts of Stone & Blood and Wine expansions, where you either had to start them explicitly from the launch screen, or if you happened to wander to where they started you got a warning that you were starting an expansion (I think).
It really depends. Some DLC really makes it a different game. For example, a base release of one of the Civ games versus the packs that add civilizations, techs, units, etc. Or XCOM EU vs EW or XCOM 2 vs XCOM 2 WotC adding entirely new game play and options. In that case, it’s a question of which experience you want. Similarly, all the official expansions and DLC in Neverwinter Nights mostly just added class options that didn’t otherwise change the base game. Metagaming other modules could do that.
The problem (or advantage) of playing content in the middle is that it can overpower a character for the main line. Yes, simply playing all the side quests, grinding, etc. can do the same, but you often get advantages from the DLC you wouldn’t otherwise. For example, in Fallout New Vegas, completing Dead Money can both make your money problems go away and give you a really powerful weapon.
If I consider DLC a side quest I’ll run it in the middle. If it’s really an expansion or a mini-sequel, I’ll run it after. It’ll depend a lot on the total design.
It depends on how the DLC integrates with the game as a whole. Many are just epilogues, others are integrated and supplementing the main game. Some ones immediately coming to mind:
Witcher 3: DLC can be played before finishing the main game, but are best (IMO) as epilogues.
Bioshock: Pure stand-alone epilogues.
Skyrim: Integrated into the main game, play at any time and best enjoyed during the main game.
Borderlands: Side quests in the main game, playable any time though a bit level-gate restricted from playing too early.
Horizon Zero Dawn: Best as an epilogue, though can be played earlier.
Civilization 6: Rebuilds the whole game functions, so are really inseparable.
IIRC, I ended up doing the Skyrim vampire DLC mainly because I just got sick and tired of dealing with vampire attacks every time I showed up in Whiterun–annoying integration more than any natural progression to it.
Yup, depends. If we’re talking about like, the Xcom and Xcom2 expansion packs, as far as I am concerned, those are in the category of “stuff that should’ve been the base game in the first place” and should just be played.
If you’re talking about stuff that could potentially mess with the flow of the main game, I’m more skeptical.