Support NeoGAF

[DocSeuss]

You know the deal: someone announces that they're making a new expansion to game X or Y. Awesome! You'll get to play the game you like, but now with more stuff! Cool beans.

But then they say it's "a stand-alone expansion," or an expandalone.

How can a game be an expansion (adding to a game) but also be stand-alone (meaning it is a separate entity)? Isn't it just its own unique thing?

Like, hey, Alan Wake's American Nightmare? That's just a game. Call it a spinoff, call it a new side installment, whatever, but it's its own thing. It's not like Rise of Rome or Brood War or something.

For that matter, what quantifies a game as a stand-alone expansion? Why isn't Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, a smaller game than AC2 that built on the previous game's features without greatly changing them, considered a full-game where another game might not be?

Wolfenstein: The Old Blood looks like it'll be pretty cool, especially if that rumor about a 10 hour playtime (which makes it almost as large as The New Order!) turns out to be true. Sounds like a full game to me... except that the price point is awesome (and a big factor in my deciding to get it ASAP).

So is that it? Is a game a "stand-alone expansion" just 'cause it has a reasonable price point instead of a $60 one?

Seems weird, yo.

 

[Lautaro]

It's build over the same engine/codebase. It's not a game made from scratch.

 

[antitrop]

It's an expansion of the in-game universe.

 

[Papercuts]

It takes the same core mechanics and makes new scenarios with it (like any DLC) without requiring the base game.

If they tried to rename it entirely it would still be pretty obvious that something like Blood Dragon, for example, is straight up Far Cry 3 in a different setting.

I don't think I've ever seen brotherhood not considered a full game. Though stuff like spinoffs go more into story territory where everything takes a different approach as to what's a mainline game or not.

 

[Grimsen]

Isn't that what they call a comet in the game biz?

 

[jediyoshi]

It's so it doesn't raise expectations as an entirely new game. It's a summation of the expectations you should have.

 

[CompC]

Yep. It's just "expandalone" because it uses so many resources from a bigger game as a base. The reasoning behind calling it expandalone is because it's so related to the main game that people acknowledge it as in some way part of the base game.

But that's just them. If you want to think of it as its own new game, go ahead.

 

[DocSeuss]

It's build over the same engine/codebase. It's not a game made from scratch.

But the same could be said of many games. Nobody starts from absolute zero. Like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. It's not that different from AC2 and iirc uses a lot of the exact same code/assets/etc.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I was talking to a friend about something related today.

"Why is Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon branded with Far Cry 3? It has nothing to do with FC3."

"Because it's using the same engine and is basically a stand-alone 'reskin' of FC3."

I think that has something to do with it. These "stand-alone expansions" use the same engine a lot of the time.

 

[Tunavi]

Blood dragon was amazing and I never touched fc3

 

[antitrop]

But the same could be said of many games. Nobody starts from absolute zero. Like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. It's not that different from AC2 and iirc uses a lot of the exact same code/assets/etc.

Are you asking why people don't agree on the specific definition of a slang term? Or just wondering why a slang term might not be the best way to properly label something, yet easily able to fall into common usage, anyway?

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I can't see this word and not pronounce it "ex pan da lo ness"

Los expandalones spectacularrrr

 

[Night_Trekker]

Blood dragon was amazing and I never touched fc3

Same. (I just haven't gotten around to FC3 yet.)

 

[Mushroomer25]

I think it's a strange word to use, but the concept makes a lot of sense. It's hard to call it a full sequel or spin-off, since they're traditionally side-stories or other explorations of the game's content. Plus, since they're reusing a lot of the original game's elements - the expectations should be set accordingly.

 

[Lautaro]

But the same could be said of many games. Nobody starts from absolute zero. Like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. It's not that different from AC2 and iirc uses a lot of the exact same code/assets/etc.

And it should be called a stand alone expansion IMO but in the end is up to the publisher thinking "can we sell this as a new game or should we call it a stand alone expansion in order to keep expectations in check?".

Namings are arbitraries, don't expect a specific rule for this.

 

[jediyoshi]

But the same could be said of many games. Nobody starts from absolute zero. Like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. It's not that different from AC2 and iirc uses a lot of the exact same code/assets/etc.

I'm not sure how you're not seeing the difference between Alan Wake to American Nightmare and AC2 to Brotherhood.

 

[Orayn]

I'd characterize expandalones as reusing a lot of assets and/or mechanics from the base game, being smaller in scope, and lower in price point. Even then, the line between expandalone and conservative sequel is a blurry one.

ACB and ACR easily would have been straight examples if they had lower production values, were a bit smaller, and didn't add multiplayer to the series.

OTOH you have stuff like Freedom Cry and some of the planned additions to ACU that are really just modular DLC packs.

 

[DownGrader]

Think about third-party Doom expansions form 1990s. Some of them were basically completely new games, but they required the original executables to run. This is the same but with executables packaged, if one could say that.

The other example is some expansion of Il-2 Sturmovik ("1946"? I do not really remember). It could be installed as a standalone game, but technically it didn't differ that much from the original game, so it could be also installed as campaign/map/plane pack for the original.

 

[antitrop]

What about Battlefield Hardline?

 

[DocSeuss]

Are you asking why people don't agree on the specific definition of a slang term? Or just wondering why a slang term might not be the best way to properly label something, yet easily able to fall into common usage, anyway?

Moreso the latter. It amazes me we don't have a better term. The words "expansion" and "stand-alone" seem mutually exclusive.

I can't see this word and not pronounce it "ex pan da lo ness"

Los expandalones spectacularrrr

I laughed harder than I mean to.

 

[Kabouter]

For that matter, what quantifies a game as a stand-alone expansion? Why isn't Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, a smaller game than AC2 that built on the previous game's features without greatly changing them, considered a full-game where another game might not be?

Well, Brotherhood was a very large game, that aside from adding multiplayer also took place in a huge city that didn't feature in AC2, had a long campaign, had several new features (the whole brotherhood thing referred to in the title) and so on. I really don't see what on earth would qualify it as an expansion, stand-alone or otherwise, it's a sequel plain and simple. I haven't heard of anyone describing it differently.

 

[jonno394]

its a way to sell add ons to your game to people who haven't actually bought your game. Your target audience is no longer limited to people who have played/own the original title.

 

[Pudge]

Outside of a few companies, expansion packs don't really get made anymore. This is just an evolution of that. They're expansions in that they're clearly related to a bigger retail game, but they're standalone because they give a smaller dose of that retail experience and maybe get a few more customers to buy the base game after the launch hysteria has worn off.

In some ways, releasing a $20 smaller game might be doing the same things that releasing a demo did years and years ago. Hell, Metal Gear Solid did it last year and the base game hadn't even come out yet.

 

[antitrop]

Moreso the latter. It amazes me we don't have a better term. The words "expansion" and "stand-alone" seem mutually exclusive.

Not when a game is a franchise. Maybe they would be in other situations.

Wolfenstein: The Old Blood is "expanding" the Wolfenstein lore, expanding the B.J. Blazkowicz character, expanding a lot of stuff. It's not necessarily expanding The New Order, specifically.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

Personally I like it, at least with regards to achievement/trophy hunters. If you really liked the game, you can pick this up, but if you weren't a fan or had your fill from TNO, not playing this won't affect you because it's a standalone with its own separate achievement/trophy list.

But in the technical sense, I think what makes it a standalone is that you don't have to have the original game to play it. If you buy an 'expansion' for a game, you need to have that game to play it. But a 'standalone' can be played without the original game, even though it copies some assets from the original.

 

[Zeyphersan]

It's an expansion, but you don't need the base game.

So it's Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne if you didn't already need Reign of Chaos installed

Or Diablo III: Reaper of Souls if you didn't already need Diablo III installed

Basically they make an expansion on a base game, but decide that to expand their potential audience they make the base game not required to run. So with a traditional expansion it requires the base game for a lot of assets/code, the expandalones provide all that again.

 

[Bl@de]

I can't see this word and not pronounce it "ex pan da lo ness"

Los expandalones spectacularrrr

 

[Doctor Ironic]

Blood dragon was amazing and I never touched fc3

This is accurate, because Blood Dragon was only good to people who hadn't already played FC3.

It's so it doesn't raise expectations as an entirely new game. It's a summation of the expectations you should have.

Ding ding ding! This fella's correct. It's all a marketing thing.

 

[DocSeuss]

The impression I'm getting is that people need to get comfortable with the idea of great, focused, non-$60 games.

Truth be told, some of these games, like Blood Dragon, Deus Ex's DLC, American Nightmare, Case Zero/Case West... they're some of the best games I played last gen. I want more.

 

[Oxirane]

Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance was a standalone expansion.
-Without the base game you could play the new single player campaign missions but online multiplayer was limited to 1 of the 4 races (owners of both could use all the content).
-Making it standalone meant that the expansions potential customer base was larger than the install base of the base game, while maintaining some compatibility in multiplayer.

 

[Zeyphersan]

The impression I'm getting is that people need to get comfortable with the idea of great, focused, non-$60 games.

Expandalones are like the AAA version of indie games. They're smaller more focused experiences that are variably priced

Of course, the reason expandalones exist is because making a big AAA game is expensive and if you can reuse the engine/assets to save on costs that's a big bonus

 

[sn00zer]

Expansions packs make less sense as you are narrowing your potential buyer pool to only people who purchased the original game. Stand alones allow for anyone to buy the game and it works as an advertisement for the base game.

 

[Papercuts]

The impression I'm getting is that people need to get comfortable with the idea of great, focused, non-$60 games.

Truth be told, some of these games, like Blood Dragon, Deus Ex's DLC, American Nightmare, Case Zero/Case West... they're some of the best games I played last gen. I want more.

I agree that they're a great model. They're also reliant on the base already being made by the bigger more expensive game so they can make a smaller game be reusing the engine and assets.

 

[truestatic]

I prefer DLCquel.

It's all about managing the expectations, though. The label informs the player so they know exactly what they're getting without having the opportunity to rant about what a piece of derivative cash-in garbage it is as a full game.

 

[MrCunningham]

Opposing Force and Blue Shift were stand alone expansions, were they not? Same with Half-Life 2 Episode 1 and 2. I mean, those were classified as episodes, but really, they may have been stand alone expansions.

I think it's great that there are stand alone games that exist like Blood Dragon, American Nightmare and the upcoming The Old Blood. Shadowrun Dragonfall used to be an expansion that went standalone as well. Selling offshoots at discounted prices is a great way to gain interest for the main game. But at the same time, I agree with the naming convention. Calling them a stand alone expansion is a bit of a contradiction.

 

[Blooddimond]

It made sense with stuff like what Relic did, where having the previous games gave more content (Company of Heroes/Opposing Fronts/Tales of Valor, DOW/Winter Assault/Dark Crusade). But now its just considered a term for a smaller release based off a recently released game and should just be called spin-offs

 

[pupcoffee]

Not everyone who would buy a 20 dollar version of your game would buy a 60 dollar version.

 

[J 0 E]

Not requiring the original game is a good model.

 

[Coxswain]

It's just a legacy term. It used to be a literal descriptor of releases that were too large and extensive to consider just a patch/update/add-on, but not large enough to consider a sequel or a new game. "Expansion" became a shorthand for anything that slotted into that category, and now it's still used even in cases where the original game isn't strictly required to expand upon.

 

[Radec]

Not requiring the original game is a good model.

yep.

What about Battlefield Hardline?

Spin-off of BF4

 

[Oxirane]

It made sense with stuff like what Relic did, where having the previous games gave more content (Company of Heroes/Opposing Fronts/Tales of Valor, DOW/Winter Assault/Dark Crusade). But now its just considered a term for a smaller release based off a recently released game and should just be called spin-offs

I agree, the 'standalone expansion' terminology is being incorrectly applied to many games that may be standalone, but not actual expansions (which i believe requires integration in some way with the base game).

 

[pupcoffee]

I'd imagine devs appreciate having the opportunity to work on standalones because they get to work without having to start over from scratch; they get to experience the more "rewarding" period of development for a bit longer - the bit where you have finally finished all the ugly, unplayable stuff. Devs seem to have a bit more creative freedom in these things, too. There's less pressure on them to load the game with 60 dollar content. The turnaround is good. Standalones just seem good for everyone.

 

[CamHostage]

It's just terminology. It doesn't really matter whether you call it an "expansion" or a sub-game or a side-game or whatever. What you need to know is what you need (or don't need) to own in order to play it, and how much it'll cost. That's it.

I do like the term "stand-alone expansion" to a point because it gives me a good understanding of what I'm going to get. I'm going to get the same engine, the same basic gameplay mechanics, similar graphics quality, and everything that I would expect from an expansion, but all in a package that I could own even if I didn't have a copy of the original game. I don't always like to think of "stand-alone expansions" as their own games, because there's a bit of expectation laced into calling it an actual game product that might not be there with expansion (and in many of the stand-alone releases I've enjoyed, those expectations have been exceeded.) The really cool stand-alone stuff like RDR Undead Nightmare or Infamous 2 Festival of Blood or Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon, they're different enough that they could be called a new game pretty easily, but I like to understand them in the context of what they were built on, and so the term "stand-alone expansion" reminds me of the games they came from and the creative detours they took to exist.

But really, what's in a name?

I agree, the 'standalone expansion' terminology is being incorrectly applied to many games that may be standalone, but not actual expansions (which i believe requires integration in some way with the base game).

Well, I agree with you there, so maybe "sub-game" or something like that would have been a better term. I love that interesting, smaller versions of games I maybe didn't make time for can exist and give me a chance to enjoy those mechanics, but the "Sonic & Knuckles" idea that an expansion expands on something that already exists, that's still a valuable prospect to me even in the DLC era where games are being added to and manipulated constantly.

 

[FairXchange]

I think they're a great idea. I'll support ones that are worth the money.

 

[kai3345]

I prefer DLCquel.

ooo i like this term

 

[MaxiLive]

Its also more a term used for a large developer to describe a scope of a game. It will be its own thing with its own story/features yet not as grand as a full release.

 

[pupcoffee]

It's a direction AAA gaming should go further towards. Along with Kojima's idea of having "Pilot games" for new IPs (at prices better than Ground Zero's, obviously.)

 

[Dylan Sexbang]

Bungie's original price point for ODST would've made it the perfect expandalone: it's own campaign, it's own MP mode, and all of Halo 3's multi-player. Would've been an excellent expansion at $20, but instead they were pushed to $60.

I like the idea, it expands on the original game but on its own. Like First Light

 

[LesPaul]

I think it is a great buisness model...if the consumer does not want to pay full price for a game they can get a expandalone and play the same game in a condenced form.....and the publishers have a broader audience for the thing because you are not required to have the main game.

 

[erawsd]

Its a quick+cheap way to reuse code/assets/ect to sell a game. However, unlike the traditional expansion, you are widening the audience by removing the requirement of having the base game.