Support NeoGAF

[DryvBy]

Since reading is difficult: This is not in any way a thread about Zelda, TotK being an expansion pack, or anything against or for Zelda. I love Zelda and I can't wait to play it Sunday when Amazon finally delivers it. With that said....

With the new Zelda TotK out and getting perfect scores, people are bringing up how the game just looks exactly the same as the original with some tweaks. This isn't the first big release that received glowing reviews and had an online backlash for being too familiar (Miles Morales had the same complaint).

I was trying to think about this with a friend after seeing the "TotK is only getting away with this because Nintendo" online complaints and I can't really think what I really consider an expansion vs a full sequel. And really, it doesn't matter if an expansion is the case if the $70 expansion feels like a $70 value.

Here's just a list of things that can define this and I hope GAF can give some insight to what they think without people turning this into a Zelda thread. This is about the title with Zelda as an example.

1. Graphics/audio: does the v/a need to be different or can they just be tweaked? How much of a difference do you need if any? Does the game need to look the same aesthetically but different in lighting and quality to be a checkmark for you?

2. World and story: does the world need to feel different? Does the story need to be a brand new experience? Where do you draw the line for expansion to the world or new game different?

3. Gameplay mechanics: does the gameplay mean king and everything else can be the same but the gameplay to be a sequel? Does it need to reinvent the wheel or just put more air in the tire?

Do these changes need to be huge or minor? Give examples of what you feel is a true sequel vs an expansion to a game.

And last, does it matter what you call it if it's priced accordingly?

---------

I will say I think new world/story and graphics/audio are more sequel worthy than gameplay unless the gameplay has been entirely redone. But I also don't hate expansions to great games if they're full of content, not this nickle and dime DLC crap we get today.

 

[theStartupSound]

I would expect something new in all three areas from a sequel. An expansion could skip the graphics/audio upgrade, but needs additional areas in the world. I would like to have new game mechanics but maybe this depends on the game/genre.

 

[RagnarokIV]

Any PC game expansion pack, pre-PS360/DLC era, was the gold standard.

 

[nightmare-slain]

Using Witcher 3 as an example, the Hearts of Stone is an expansion. It is "bolted on" to the base game. It's about 20 hours long and there is a new story/campaign, expanded map area, some new gameplay stuff, and other various changes. Blood & Wine expansion adds a whole new map area (not expanded map). The base game came with 4 separate maps and Blood & Wine added a 5th. Hearts of Stone expanded upon 1 of the original 4 maps. Not only that but Blood & Wine runs on an upgraded engine with improved graphics and performance. As for the length it took me about 40-50 hours to beat it so in many ways it feels like it could've been The Witcher 4.

I haven't played TOTK yet (my copy literally arrived while typing this post) and I do get why people were saying it is BOTW DLC or a $70 standalone expansion. It has the "same" map and they share similar graphics so at first glance you'd think it is BOTW dlc. I wouldn't call it DLC or an expansion though because you don't need to own BOTW or even have played it to play TOTK. It might share the "same" map but as I understand it they have added two new layers to the map (sky and underground), gave it a whole new story, completely changed links abilities, how weapons work, improved dungeons, etc. I think the point that it is completely separate from BOTW is the main reason it's a sequel.

TOTK graphics aren't significantly better than BOTW. From what I've seen it does look slightly better. Maybe more so in the sky islands (and maybe underground?) but on the ground it only looks a little better. Audio seems to be improved with new soundtracks and sound direction.

As for world, the game obviously has ground hyrule but adds the sky and underground. Story is completely new and another major reason it is a sequel.

gameplay mechanics are almost completely different. Links abilities being changed is a big change and it seems like you can summon companions which BOTW didn't have except for charge up skills you got from beating a dungeon. I don't know how they compare (again, haven't played it yet). It does seem to share some basic things from BOTW like shrines/korok seeds.

tl;dr if i can't play an expansion without a base game then it's an expansion. if i can play something without paying for two different products then it's a sequel. it also needs major changes across the board and TOTK seemingly does this so i think TOTK is a sequel not DLC/expansion.

 

[Captain Toad]

Are we seriously doing this? Are you suggesting, in any way, that Tears of the Kingdom shouldn't be a full priced game?

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

If you gamed in the 90s and early 2000s, you would know exactly what an expansion is. First of all you wouldnt wait years for one and second, its a few more missions, usually shorter in total length than the main game. Then again Opposing Force was pretty much the same length as original Half-Life. If there is a 4-5 year wait between games I usually want a proper overhaul. Not only Zelda but I cant say I was WOWed by new Horizon or GoW Ragnarok because it felt like I already saw this before just now in 4K and some minor details. Guess making AAA games today is way more expensive and its more profitable to just use assets from the previos game and work on those.

 

[Madflavor]

Re-used map, assets, graphics, music, animations, items, etc. I know TotK does plenty of new things and is a larger game overall. But for some people the 6 year wait was too long to justify how samey TotK feels from BotW.

Put in this way, if you didn’t like BotW’s approach to Zelda, then it’s likely been 12 years at this point since you last got a traditional Zelda you liked, assuming you liked SS. Right now we have “Breath of the Wild, but better!” But given the timetable and/or your taste, it’s not enough.

 

[DryvBy]

Are we seriously doing this? Are you suggesting, in any way, that Tears of the Kingdom shouldn't be a full priced game?

Ok so you knee jerked and didn't read my post lol. I think it doesn't matter if it is or isn't, but I lean that it is a sequel.

Please read the post.

 

[Walter Matthau]

A sequel is a new game. An expansion is additional content for an existing game.

 

[DryvBy]

A sequel is a new game. An expansion is additional content for an existing game.

Thats fine but then we have stand alone expansions.

 

[MirageMew2]

Xenoblade: Torna - The Golden Country meets your criteria as a sequel and is considered a standalone expansion (IIRC had its own physical cart as well). You could own and play it independent of owning XC2 or purchase it directly through XC2 and launch it through there.

 

[NightmareFarm]

Sequels usually change up enough to feel like a different game.

"Expansion pack" sequels don't change up enough to the point where it feels like it's just DLC or an Expansion pack for the previous game.

A classic example of an expansion pack-esque sequel is Tales of Xillia 2. I am not exaggurating when I say like at least 80% of the assets in that game are copy pasted from the first. Graphics look entirely the same, UIs look the same, gameplay is pretty much the same but with a DMC style bar(not complaining though since this makes it twice as fun). And the story feels more like a spin off or DLC than a proper continuation of the first, it's mostly just episodic time travel plots set in locations from the first game and feature a completely new main character who wasn't even in the first game.

 

[mrmustard]

Pretty simple:

You like the platform it's on = sequel
You don't like it = expansion pack

 

[Kataploom]

Well, Totk is so different than BOTW that it only looks similar, and even then not even that so much... And I barely reached Hyrule from the sky

 

[SeraphJan]

Graphic is easily distinguishable so is the World and maps

What is vague is the word "gameplay", and since its vague people could justify what they liked and dismiss what they do not like without a clear criteria, people often gets their wires crossed when they are discussing gameplay. How much of a change would make the gameplay feel like a sequel? Which area of gameplay change make it feel like a sequel? there is no criteria. Not to mention for some game, the mechanic could be altered drastically without affecting its core aesthetic, while some will interfere with what it intend to achieve.

--------------------------------------------

From my point of view, a game is a good sequel if it had drastic improvement in the aesthetic it intend to achieve, it could be world, it could be play loop, it could be story, it could be atmosphere, they all serves different type of audience. The problem occur if one person use the standard of one aesthetic to judge another one.

For example, RDR2's core play loop might plays similar to its predecessor, however the level of realism, atmosphere, landscapes, culture representation are drastically improved, if you judge this game purely based on play loop, its an unfair and shallow assessment. The game did exact what it intend to do, it pleased its targeted audience received acclaim from its targeted group, sold more than 50 millions of copy, if you don't like it because of similar play loop, that is because the game was not made for you, because you do not appreciate its core aesthetic.

Another example, Resident Evil 7 core play loop might be the same, however the atmosphere, the story structure, the horror aspect is drastically improve compare to its predecessors, it satisfied its core audience. But for people who do not appreciate Resident Evil game's core aesthetic, they might think they are all the same.

Some time you could keep most of the stuff identical with only minor improvement, but have a much bigger scope of story continuation with new characters and bosses, the PS2 GoW 1 and GoW 2 are good example of this.

The same could be said about many other successful games.

 

[semiconscious]

Re-used map, assets, graphics, music, animations, items, etc. I know TotK does plenty of new things and is a larger game overall. But for some people the 6 year wait was too long to justify how samey TotK feels from BotW.

Put in this way, if you didn’t like BotW’s approach to Zelda, then it’s likely been 12 years at this point since you last got a traditional Zelda you liked, assuming you liked SS. Right now we have “Breath of the Wild, but better!” But given the timetable and/or your taste, it’s not enough.

of course: since a traditional god of war? it's been 10 years & counting. since a traditional final fantasy? it's been over 20 years & counting. i mean, it happens, eh? things change, & you can't always please everyone. some i'm personally happy with, & some i'm not, but, hey...

 

[Black_Stride]

Whatever the fuck the devs decide.

Blood and Wine is called an expansion.
First Light is called a standalone expansion.
Miles Morales is called a "spinoff/sequel"

I got about the same amount of "new game" from all those.
So whatever the hell devs decide to call their product ill bite, but if you are charging me 60-70 dollars, I expect quite a bit of work to be put in.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Calling tears of the kingdom an “expansion pack” is insane, I think about Majoras mask there’s no way that people called Majoras mask an ocarina of time expansion.

 

[Madflavor]

of course: since a traditional god of war? it's been 10 years & counting. since a traditional final fantasy? it's been over 20 years & counting. i mean, it happens, eh? things change, & you can't always please everyone. some i'm personally happy with, & some i'm not, but, hey...

Overall it’s fine for now, but I think if they make a BotW 3, a lot more people are gonna have a problem.

 

[SF Kosmo]

It's been a meaningless distinction for some time. "Standalone expansions" tend to be shorter, smaller in scope, and released relatively soon after a previous game, none of which is true of TotK, but in all other regards, a lot of expansion games could be sequels.

 

[Matt_Fox]

Yeah, expansion packs were pretty clear cut in the 90s. Usually cost about £19.99 and you needed the base game to play them. It was the same game engine, but you got some extra levels and some new vehicle / weapon types... If it was a game I liked then I was all in for the expansion pack.

 

[LakeOf9]

First Ragnarok was an expansion

Now Tears of the Kingdom is an expansion

What will be the next GOTY caliber expansion

 

[hemo memo]

How would anyone with a brain consider TotK an expansion when it is as long if not longer than BotW?

 

[Drizzlehell]

I wouldn't overthink it tbh. Expansion pack is when it's called an "expansion pack", and it's a sequel when it has a higher number at the end of the title.

I remember some games in the past that were shat on for being being a half-sequel (eg. Bioshock 2, Far Cry 4) but overall, in most cases, I think was a bit exaggerated. You could argue that they didn't change the formula enough but if the formula was good in the first place, and you get a whole new package of a decently-sized game with a few new additions that weren't in the original then that's good enough for me. As long as those games are fun and can stand on their own, then I don't see what's the big deal.

Witcher 3 expansions were a bit of an anomaly, because they were pretty much what you would get as a separately boxed product with a big "expansion pack" label on the cover back in the day, and their size would totally merit that sort of treatment. But they were still expansions that required base game to run. Now, there used to be this thing called a "standalone expansion" too, but what separated those from any regular expansion pack is that you didn't require base game to run. But as far as how they were built - using the same assets, usually sold at lower price for shorter runtime - they were just expansion packs too.

 

[hemo memo]

Yakuza games take place in the same city/map and I’ve played them all and I wouldn’t call them expansions.

 

[kyussman]

Everyone knows what an expansion pack vs a sequel(or actual full game)is......what is this thread.

 

[DryvBy]

Everyone knows what an expansion pack vs a sequel(or actual full game)is......what is this thread.

A thread about expansion packs vs sequels. And if you read the comments from here a d search around the net, no one really has a definitive definition.

This isn't about Zelda. I'm going to edit the original post with that in bold so panties will quit twisting.

 

[Walter Matthau]

Thats fine but then we have stand alone expansions.

An expansion for an existing game that can be played by itself

 

[lh032]

TOTK is AAA expansion pack.

 

[Laieon]

To me, an expansion pack is something lets you continue the adventure while retaining your progress, or something like AoE II: Age of Kings where nothing is "deleted" and instead you just get more units, missions, whatever. Expansion packs expand on the initial experience.

I think standalone expansions get a little murky (which is why I tend to prefer the term "spinoff") and they're a bit of column A and B, but in general I'd say it's pretty clear they're not "sequels" because it's just obvious that they were never intended to be based on the length, budget, and overall experience. Torna, Undead Nightmare, and Blood Dragon off the top of my head were clearly not designed to be full fledged sequels to their "base" games.

I wouldn't count, say, Tears of the Kingdom as an expansion because nothing really carries over. I don't start with the armor I had at the end of my BOTW adventure, I don't start with my currency, I don't start with anything. It's very clear that right off the bat this is intended to be a new experience. It's also very obvious that the developers intend TOTK to be just as long, meatier, and overall "bigger" than BOTW. Right off the bat, marketing made it clear that TOTK is an expansion.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

I'm interested to see what the inverse of this looks like: how big and good is shadow of the erdtree going to be?

 

[ViolentP]

Sequel = +1
Expansion = .5

 

[RoboFu]

So is Zelda totk the best sequel of all time or the best expansion of all time is what you are asking?

 

[Tams]

OP, if you were asking about the difference between an expansion and DLC, then I could understand.

But sequels are very clear.

Anyway, you're barely hidden criticism of TotK just shows ignorance. I understand from just looking at the promotional material it may come across as more like an expansion, but it really isn't. And we can say that for certain now as we can all play it.