DLC and Storytelling

There's been a lot of outrage recently about downloadable content.  People are saying it (or at least certain uses of it) cheats players by charging money for content that should have been available as part of the original game they paid for.  Outside of ridiculous examples such as day 1 DLC, I don't agree with that; I think if the developers want to expand their vision for the game and add more content, players should have no problem dropping ten or fifteen dollars for some extra content in a game they love.  But when it comes to storytelling, there is a troubling trend I have seen as of late: leaving unanswered questions or a vague ending so the DLC can finish it or fill in the blanks.

I just finished Alan Wake, which is an absolutely fantastic game with a compelling narrative and tense atmosphere.  A week or so before I started playing that, I finished Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, which isn't quite as good and really failed as a Castlevania game, but is still a very strong title overall.  The former seems to revel in the loose ends at its conclusion.  The latter resolves everything, then has an epilogue that seems to completely ignore the ending of the story and does not explain what happened to so drastically change the outcome of the story.  In both cases, the answers were in two episodes of downloadable content.

Now when it comes to gameplay, a game is expected to deliver a certain amount of gameplay depending on its genre.  For mainstream action games, it's at least 8-10 hours.  For older JRPGs it's at least 20, and for newer ones it's more like 40+.  Open-ended western RPGs are expected to require at least 40 hours and offer 100+.  The idea that these minimum times dictate how much money the game is worth is severely misguided, as shorter games like Portal display, but the point is that a given game usually offers the expected amount of gameplay and a good progression of power and challenge, assuming it's not just a terrible game; the game itself is complete.  So when it comes to gameplay, DLC is essentially a way to add a few hours to the game and hopefully provide some thrilling new situations.  It's not all that it is really capable of, but outside of simple in-game items or weapons, it's pretty much all it's been used for.

The story works in a very similar way.  It's fine for DLC to expand on the story; provide a side mission with an interesting story like the Assassin's Creed games, add an optional character like in Mass Effect 2, or simply provide a bit more insight into the story's events.  But regardless of what DLC adds to a story, it should always do just that: add.  Never should DLC complete a story, because the story should already be complete within the game itself.  Sure, maybe some details can be added or expanded in DLC, but the story should be perfectly understandable and complete just as the game ships.

Imagine if this was done in any other medium.  Imagine if The Dark Knight Rises told its story over two and a half hours, but ended on a cliffhanger and declared that there were two half-hour DVDs for sale for $5, and buying them would reveal how the story ends.  What would happen then?

This.

It would not be okay.  No one would let that fly.  People would buy it, sure, because it's freaking Batman and they need to know how it ends, but the amount of absolute, seething hatred that would be directed toward everyone involved in the film simply would not be worth it.  People would boycott future projects and, in the long run, revenue would go down exponentially.  So why is this somehow acceptable in the world of video games and online content?

I think the only real reason is that we are dealing with a new medium, both with video games themselves and with the ability to offer content easily over the internet.  We are still learning how to use this new technology within a medium that itself is still relatively new.  It only makes sense that things like release patterns and marketing would undergo a growth period before they can truly be used effectively.  But while this lack of full comprehension of the medium and distributing technology makes it more understandable, it is no excuse.

We're smarter than that.  

Downloadable content has a great purpose; the ability to add content to a game without releasing another full-fledged game is great.  It is capable of releasing small, inexpensive extensions to games that we love, or even release games in short episodes (actual episodic release, not Valve episodic release).  The possibilities are awesome.  But we, as gamers, are used to situations where people try new things, even when they just piss us off.  As games gain more cultural respect and mainstream attention, hopefully the same group that would hate this situation in film will also hate it in video games, and publishers will be required to shape up and respect their customers.

I know I've said little here that hasn't been said before, but while this trend has existed in gameplay, it's unsettling to me to see it begin in the area of storytelling.  Let's hope this doesn't become a common occurrence.

If you agree, like Binary Narrative on Facebook, and I'll see you next week.