The DLC Non-Fix

I recently learned that Prince of Persia on 360 is going to receive a downloadable expansion pack at the end of the month. Entitled Epilogue, the reputedly three hour expansion will add a new area of gameplay as well as wrap up the loose ends from the game's really open-ended ending. While I'm excited (despite the fact that the expansion will probably be overpriced at $10), I'm not exactly sure how to feel about the idea of an expansion for the game for two main reasons.

There's the obvious argument against DLC in the first place: that a game should be complete when it's purchased on the shelf (virtual or otherwise), and shouldn't require DLC to bring it up to a hundred percent. I'm not so much behind this argument in that sense -- PC gaming has released patches and expansions for years, and a great number of console games have shipped buggy and/or incomplete (think KOTOR II, among others). My argument instead lies with the ratio of pricing to content, something that a lot of DLC add-ons in the era of Xbox Live have failed to adequately address. PC expansions tend to be robust, and in many cases constitute a new game in and of themselves. Two of the more successful expansion packs for two of the more successful PC games of the last decade -- StarCraft: Brood War and Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal -- effectively served as new chapters in their respective series. Throne of Bhaal in particular was more like the third chapter of the Baldur's Gate saga, adding new classes, powers, and a good thirty hours or so of gameplay to what was already a hearty RPG.

So what's the point, you ask? True expansion packs such as Throne of Bhaal justify their price tags (ToB retailed for $29.99 upon its release in 2001) with substantial content. The consumer gets what he or she pays for in that case. With DLC like Fallout 3's Operation Anchorage or (possibly) Prince of Persia: Epilogue, gamers are paying $10 for an extra two or three hours of gameplay -- hardly an acceptable ratio of extra content to cost. While I certainly expect that Epilogue will be enjoyable, I'm not sure that it will justify its price tag like PC expansions usually do.

(Spoilers ahead.)

Perhaps more importantly, though, I take great issue with the artistic implications of this particular expansion. While Prince of Persia's ending was indeed open-ended, I didn't find this problematic in the least; in fact, I found it very refreshing and creative. After defeating Ahriman and Elika's father, the Prince is horrified to learn that the price for victory is Elika's life -- the magic that was keeping her alive was the very magic that was destroying the world with the tar-like corruption. The end credits roll while the player is forced to lead the Prince, grief stricken and carrying the dead body of Elika in his arms, out of the temple. The game doesn't end on such a sour note, however: The player must then lead the Prince to destroy the very wards that he spent the entire game constructing, releasing Ahriman in a desperate attempt to restore life to the woman he loves.

Despite the missed opportunity to include a monumental element of player choice and interactivity in this ending sequence (letting the player choose whether to release the wards and revive Elika, or simply to accept the tragic outcome of the Prince's heroism and ride off into the sunset), the game's ending stands as a very artistic accomplishment, both from a storytelling perspective and as an example of interactivity in the gaming medium. While Shadow of the Colossus had a strikingly similar interactive ending sequence, and the developers of Prince of Persia admittedly were influenced by Team Ico's previous games, Prince of Persia's was effective in that it provided an adequate resolution to the Prince's growth as a character while at the same time leaving the story open enough to allow for a sequel.

The problem, then, with attempting to tie up the loose ends in the story is that it effectively negates the artistic elements of the ending that make it so appealing in the first place. I am rather fond of games that don't end cheerily, or that illustrate the difficult sacrifices that a hero has to make in order for the world to be saved -- and what happens when that same hero tries to undo the tragedy that his actions have caused. Prince of Persia's ending does exactly that as-is. Shadow of the Colossus did the exact same thing, and admittedly did a better job, but imagine if Team Ico were to have released a downloadable "epilogue" to that game. Would the game still possess the same level of artistic statement that it does now? I think not.

Admittedly, Ubisoft probably cares less about artistic intent than it does about turning a profit -- it's entirely reasonable to believe that the ending was constructed specifically for sequels and/or DLC add-ons. If Epilogue sells enough at $10 a pop, they'll have no problems in that respect. Still, it makes me a bit sad to think that an ending that I found to be one of more refreshing and intriguing ones in recent memory (other than Shadow of the Colossus's) could be effectively negated, or at best neutered, by a quick, overpriced add-on.

That said, I'll still get it most likely, as Prince of Persia was one of the more enjoyable games I played last year. I just wish that the content were either more robust or less expensive -- I'd feel a lot better about an expansion pack than a downloadable epilogue.