Is there a point where a game is too big?

[Gibbscape_Torment]

Do you think a game can have too much content? To me, there is nothing worse than a game that just drags on. The pacing of a story based game is crucial, and dragging it on to a point where the plot slowly creeps forward with no end in sight is where i usually stop playing. It's okay for games like Skyrim, where there is no story cohesion nor pacing; just you playing in a sand pit with awesome but independent toys.

 

I've been worrying about this new city, and whether or not it will be optional or it will be built into the main plot. More content definitely doesn't equal a better game imo.

 

What do you guys think?

[AwesomeOcelot]

Yes, but not in the way you're suggesting. An RPG should creep slowly forward and have no end in sight, if it has the right kind of freedom and game play, it shouldn't have the type of story that you can even describe as being "paced" in the first place. Fallout is my favourite game, it's the model of a great RPG, while Fallout 2 is better in almost every way in terms of game play and factions, it's too damn big, there's more characters but less memorable ones, there's more places but proportionally less great ones.

[Gibbscape_Torment]

An RPG should creep slowly forward and have no end in sight, if it has the right kind of freedom and game play, it shouldn't have the type of story that you can even describe as being "paced" in the first place.

 

Well, i definitely can't agree with that.

[AwesomeOcelot]

An RPG should creep slowly forward and have no end in sight, if it has the right kind of freedom and game play, it shouldn't have the type of story that you can even describe as being "paced" in the first place.

 

Well, i definitely can't agree with that.

 

Well you can always go play Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2.

[Bli1942]

Just depends how well it's made, how personally motivated you are to find out how the story ends and how engaging the world is. If a game was good enough it could be 80 hours long and still feel too short. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Gibbscape_Torment]

An RPG should creep slowly forward and have no end in sight, if it has the right kind of freedom and game play, it shouldn't have the type of story that you can even describe as being "paced" in the first place.

 

Well, i definitely can't agree with that.

 

Well you can always go play Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2.

 

Naaw, how cute. Such a typical response from one who has just awakened to the fact that his opinion doesn't seem to be universal.

[AwesomeOcelot]

An RPG should creep slowly forward and have no end in sight, if it has the right kind of freedom and game play, it shouldn't have the type of story that you can even describe as being "paced" in the first place.

 

Well, i definitely can't agree with that.

 

Well you can always go play Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2.

 

Naaw, how cute. Such a typical response from one who has just awakened to the fact that his opinion doesn't seem to be universal.

 

Games that you like, ****ty games, get made by publishers. Games that I like, great games, don't get made. Hence Project Eternity crowd funding, comprehend?

[Troller]

When its 1 billion hours long

[Gibbscape_Torment]

Holy mother of lol. Anyway, back on topic.

[Humanoid]

It can occur when your narrative starts to repeat itself, which makes it more of an issue of writing quality than of absolute length. In the same way there are some movies that feel too long at under two hours, yet others that can grip you for four or more hours. So there is a point, but it can, with increasing difficulty, be pushed forward indefinitely.

 

 

That said, probably best not to watch the entire ~15 hours running time of Berlin Alexanderplatz in one sitting.

[Gorth]

Relax guys, time to sheath the chainsaws...

 

For me it depends on how much of it is "awesome", how much is "filler", how is the games "replayability" and so forth. I love FO:NV, but somewhere close towards the ending I started suffering "fatigue". Luckily I invested in the DLC's and while I generally don't like the idea of DLC's they were of such a scope the they felt more than just a tacked on map and a few lines of dialogue. Being thematically different from the main game, it gave me a break and the desire to continue the game. So yes, there is such a thing as too much, if it starts feeling rather samey. I play strategy games to scratch that itch.

[Ignatius]

The pacing of a story based game is crucial, and dragging it on to a point where the plot slowly creeps forward with no end in sight is where i usually stop playing. It's okay for games like Skyrim, where there is no story cohesion nor pacing; just you playing in a sand pit with awesome but independent toys.

 

The format these games follow and what you've described with Skyrim are actually strikingly similar. For example, in BG2, you could zip straight toward the next plot point in a matter of a few quests, or you could get really obsessive and get lost handling dozens of optional quests. Every time I play BG2, I end up with about 60k gold, even though I only need 20k. Sandbox, essentially.

 

So, in a way, no, the game can't be too big, unless it's a straight 70 hour shot with no deviation from the main plot. Something like Xenogears. Oh my god, what a boring game!

Edited October 16, 2012 by Ignatius

[AlphaShard]

Do you think a game can have too much content? To me, there is nothing worse than a game that just drags on. The pacing of a story based game is crucial, and dragging it on to a point where the plot slowly creeps forward with no end in sight is where i usually stop playing. It's okay for games like Skyrim, where there is no story cohesion nor pacing; just you playing in a sand pit with awesome but independent toys.

 

I've been worrying about this new city, and whether or not it will be optional or it will be built into the main plot. More content definitely doesn't equal a better game imo.

 

What do you guys think?

 

One day I dream of a game that holds all if the lands in Faerun so no I don't think it can possibly be too big. Ever.

[Superdeluxe]

 

I've been worrying about this new city, and whether or not it will be optional or it will be built into the main plot. More content definitely doesn't equal a better game imo.

 

What do you guys think?

 

You worry too much

[Larkaloke]

Hard to say. I have never yet encountered a game that I found to be too big or too long. If I don't find everything in a game on the first playthrough, why, that's just more interesting things to turn up on future playthroughs. So long as the plot isn't one that seems terribly urgent the entire way through, I also see nothing wrong with some meandering and wandering away from the plot here and there.

[LadyCrimson]

I can often suffer from "quest overload" syndrome. Where you reach a saturation point in quests available/quests accepted and eventually I become tired of making decisions so I just ignore them all and forge ahead to the end. Does that count? Usually this stems, at least in part, from a questing system and pacing that creates too much of a sense of overload in the first place. It's not that I dislike lots of quests...I just become overwhelmed if it feels like I accept a quest, and in the process of trying to do those I encounter 3 more, which I feel must accept or I'll forget they exist, and then I encounter 3 more, and so on. So before I've even been able to finish one quest my quest log is now bursting.

 

So...do I think even RPG's can be too long? Not technically, perhaps. But depending on design and personal entertainment value, I can definitely become weary before I get to "everything."

[NerdBoner]

Do you think a game can have too much content? To me, there is nothing worse than a game that just drags on. The pacing of a story based game is crucial, and dragging it on to a point where the plot slowly creeps forward with no end in sight is where i usually stop playing. It's okay for games like Skyrim, where there is no story cohesion nor pacing; just you playing in a sand pit with awesome but independent toys.

 

I've been worrying about this new city, and whether or not it will be optional or it will be built into the main plot. More content definitely doesn't equal a better game imo.

 

What do you guys think?

sorry man, but this whole post reeks of decline from beginning to end...

 

 

i like my games with both quality AND quantity....especially a freaking unicorn project like this which will probably be the last gem of its kind until the invention of the holo-deck.

 

you want a short game so you can get back to your important life? go play one of those pop-a-mole action rpg's that are so popular now, or better yet, just quit gaming altogether.

[Ieo]

Do you think a game can have too much content? To me, there is nothing worse than a game that just drags on. The pacing of a story based game is crucial, and dragging it on to a point where the plot slowly creeps forward with no end in sight is where i usually stop playing. It's okay for games like Skyrim, where there is no story cohesion nor pacing; just you playing in a sand pit with awesome but independent toys.

 

I've been worrying about this new city, and whether or not it will be optional or it will be built into the main plot. More content definitely doesn't equal a better game imo.

 

What do you guys think?

 

This is so subjective. Did you think Torment dragged on? Or IWD? BG1 or BG2? Side quests represent optional breadth and is only the high margin in game length, by the way.

 

For me, there is too much content only if the creators couldn't keep up the quality.

[Tale]

Yes. I say this because, in my experience, stories that try to be too long end up being unsatisfactory. They end up losing track of their own themes, they have massive amounts of filler, or they have some other miscellaneous problem.

 

Is it possible to do it without problems? Theoretically, I mean that I have no mathematical proof or scientific law saying it is impossible. But in my experience, I've always enjoyed stories with a tighter focus on a few core themes and the development of a core cast. Something you have to pace out pretty well and have coherent milestones, beginnings, and endings. You can only progress towards a goal then push it back so many times before it starts to seem pointless. And you can't keep changing the goal either without the same repercussion.

[Gibbscape_Torment]

Of course it's subjective. It's precisely why i made the topic; to see other's subjective preferences on the topic at hand.

[Ieo]

Of course it's subjective. It's precisely why i made the topic; to see other's subjective preferences on the topic at hand.

 

Yeah, I thought I deleted that part of my post before posting. Heh.

 

Personally, I'm not worried. I like lots of content--it's replay value.

[Bos_hybrid]

The important thing is quality content.

 

70hrs of quality is better than 200hrs of meh.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[Ieo]

The important thing is quality content.

 

70hrs of quality is better than 200hrs of meh.

 

Yes, and at the same time, I cannot imagine Avellone producing crud narrative/dialogic content. It's, like, not possible with his genes, or something.

[GhostofAnakin]

The important thing is quality content.

 

70hrs of quality is better than 200hrs of meh.

 

This is basically it. Especially the first sentence.

 

I don't necessarily think there's such a thing as "game is too big". It really doesn't matter whether it's 20 hours long, 50 hours long, or 200 hours long, so long as the developers can maintain a consistent level of quality throughout. And yes, this includes pacing.

[Aedelric]

I do not believe a game can become too big, but one can become too repetitive.

 

I clocked over 120 hours on Skyrim, I do not play it much now because I have been to and done all the things that are unique. The only way I would spend more time on the game is with DLC that provide something completely new. So far with Guild Wars 2 I have clocked 250 hours or so and I have every intention to play more as their are still plenty more things for me to experience. Torchlight keep me playing for only a few days, it was fun but the gameplay and lack of story made me loose interest.

 

Basically Project Eternity can be as many hours long as the developer decides and people will enjoy every second of it. So long as the gameplay is kept fresh and the story is truly captivating people will be willing to go back to play for hours on end.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Aedelric