Is there a point where a game is too big?

[Rink]

I rather see 80 hours of good gameplay than 200 hours of boring gameplay as well, but I also rather see 80 hours of almost good content than 10 hours of very good content. But let's be honest: the two things are not exclusive.

I expect quality from this project already, so it really cannot be long enough for me

[TCJ]

It depends. If something is written well, a much larger amount of content can still seem short because you enjoy it a lot and time just flies. Something written poorly seems to take twice the time to get through just because you become bored. The BG games would keep my interest because there was always something new to do, or some dialogue choice I didn't take (and thus I'd start again!) or a quest that I missed the first go around. If anything, ToB became a little boring (to me) because it was just one massive battle, really, against super epic opponents, but... it was short in itself, so it balanced.

 

What I would hope for is something of very high quality that has a lot of content, with main quests, side quests that can be linked to the main quest, and then some unrelated side quests to mix it up. If those are done well, then they can make a 200 hour game if they want to (100 hour if you skip side quests) and I'll be happy. I like my games to last a long time!

[nikolokolus]

When a game feels like it's run out of good ideas and the developers start throwing in time sinks, just to stretch out the "length" then the game has gotten too big.

 

As long as the gameplay is still compelling and there's something new to see or learn, then there really isn't some hard and fast rule about how much is too much.

[TCJ]

What I would like to NOT see is having to defeat the main villain forty-five times to finally crush him. That is what I would call dragging the game out beyond reason!

[True_Spike]

No such thing as too much content. In fact, a HUGE game would be a welcome change in today's gaming.

[IndiraLightfoot]

It depends. If the world/game feels stretched out and there are lots of "open" areas with nothing to do or find, then that would be a problem, but I wouldn't worry at all about that.

[ion.sh]

Depends on what you mean by a game. Are you talking about the game as a virtual world/sandbox or are you talking about a specific story within the game?

 

I personally don't think a game can be too big, but I do feel that a story might drag on for too long or get repetitious.

[True_Spike]

It depends. If the world/game feels stretched out and there are lots of "open" areas with nothing to do or find, then that would be a problem, but I wouldn't worry at all about that.

 

I wouldn't call huge open areas with nothing to do in them content. By a game being huge I understand it having a lot of content, not rehashing the same content over and over to create a sense of the *game world* being big.

[StreetBushido]

For me, a good example of a game that was too big was GTA: San Andreas. I liked the game, sure. It had a ton of content and loads of stuff to do, but I think the problem was that the sheer amount of stuff in the game started to dilute the experience. As has been stated in this thread: filler is no fun. I'd rather eat a really tasty little sandwich than a bland and boring footlong. However, if the game manages to be engaging and interesting all the way, regardless of its length (or amount of content) then there is really no upper limit, I think.

 

A strange comparison perhaps, but look at Portal 1. It's a short game, yet it is really good and engages throughout: it never overstays its welcome.

 

EDIT: Grammar.

Edited October 16, 2012 by StreetBushido

[Sensuki]

It is to say the least, ambitious to have two cities with the amount of content in them as Athkatla.

 

Am I worried that it will introduce scope creep into the game? Yes.

 

Baldur's Gate probably didn't have quite as much content as Athkatla did even though it felt bigger geographically. The quests were quite simple/short in most cases, even though there was a lot of them.

 

But with the lack of XP rewards for kills, they're probably going to have to borrow some leaves from other games books, like The Witcher (which I don't think many of them have played). I also haven't played New Vegas so I have no idea what they did there.

[Althernai]

Yes, you can have too much content... but $3M (which is what Obsidian will have left after paying for the swag and giving Amazon, Kickstarter and Paypal their cuts) is not going to pay for it. I'm much more worried about Project Eternity being too short than I am about it being too long.

[Sordel]

At the time I quit WoW I had about thirteen characters between level 80 and 85. For me, having more content just means having more ways to explore the gameplay systems, and that's what I like about RPGs in the first place, whether it's battle mechanics, dialogue options or side quests. I've sunk hundreds of hours each into the last three Elder Scrolls games.

 

There are loads of games I've never finished, and a few that I loved and couldn't bring myself to finish, but I've never met a game I liked where I wouldn't have wanted it to have more content.

[Arkeus]

The 'too overbloated' is the Xenoblade syndrome, where 99% of quests are 'fetchquests' and if you do even 20% of them you are 20 level too high compared to the map you are currently in. This means it makes for boring combat as well as boring quests, and you can very well find the pacing is bad.

 

OTOH, this is because of bad quests as well as badly done balance.

[Hassat Hunter]

For me, a good example of a game that was too big was GTA: San Andreas. I liked the game, sure. It had a ton of content and loads of stuff to do, but I think the problem was that the sheer amount of stuff in the game started to dilute the experience.

I agree. Also; useless boring filler countrysides. They sucked.

 

I can agree it can be a problem. I fear it mostly for the mega-dungeon idea, now that it's getting double-digit levels. Cities can be varied with countrysides, story progression, many sidequests. But how varied can a dungeon, being it's own sidestory) going on and on and on go? I kinda fear it's gotten too big.

But well, just my fear.

[Gyor]

Lots of optional quests so you can tailor the game to your tastes. Want short focus on the main plot line, want long do everything.

[Rahelron]

In my opinion if a game takes more than 100-120 hours to complete than it's too big. This because it discourages the player to start it back again when he has finished it for the first time.

 

It's something that happened me with Skyrim: I finished the game with a rogue-type character and it took me 180 hours to do everything (and I even refused to do the Assassin's guild and some Daedric quests because I was roleplaying a good character). When I thought about restarting the game with a mage I found myself discouraged. 180 hours again? No thanks. I'd still like to see how it is playing an high level mage and how the assassin's guild mission would look like, but simply I can't invest another 180 hours of my time on that game.

 

On the contrary when I played The Witcher i did 4 playthroughs just to see every quest branch and all the possible outcomes of the main story. This because completing the main campaign took 40-50 hours, not more.

[Jarmo]

Sort of. I wouldn't have minded if BG's end "chace the bad guys through endless labyrinth and whack endless amounts of monsters" had been cut to a quarter. And I have never played a game that's too short. Not even the NWN modules that'd only take a couple of hours.

 

But I've never felt any game should have less meaningful content and less quests either.

 

It's just the lets make it last longer by adding more busywork and another more hordes of enemies to slaughter that's irritating.

 

The good old sidequests: deliver this to the man so he can tell you to deliver the next thing to the woman, so she'll ask you to go see the old man, who sends you back to the woman to get peanuts, then back to the old man who now sends you back to the man (living next door to the woman) who'll ask you to go to the woods to get a stick and then tells you to go to the old man, who now gives you butter, then back to the woman who can use the stick, peanuts and butter to make peanut butter. Which you then deliver to the man and get 20XP and 5GP. And between every trip it's necessary to fight robbers and wolves and spiders.

 

And then back to the main plot.

 

Like, Mass Effect 2 wasn't a long game, what 20+ hours? But,,, was it 5 hours for the main quest, 5 hours of companion quests and interaction, and then 10 hours of busywork. I'd have been happier with a 10 hr game sans the busywork.

[Kilroy_Was_Here]

The 'too overbloated' is the Xenoblade syndrome, where 99% of quests are 'fetchquests' and if you do even 20% of them you are 20 level too high compared to the map you are currently in. This means it makes for boring combat as well as boring quests, and you can very well find the pacing is bad.

 

OTOH, this is because of bad quests as well as badly done balance.

 

A fetch quest can be well done or poorly done. In ME3 and DA2 when I was given the quest item to the NPC I often had to check my log to see what exactly I had done for them because the requests/reactions were so similar. In New Vegas even if the mechanics are technically the same the presentation is different. Help a group of explosives junkies float a WWII era bomber out of a lake. Recruit talent for a Vegas stage show. Create a sexbot named Fisto. Fix up a rocket so some ghouls can head to outer freaking space!

 

Oh, and for anyone who didn't like Xenogears... I admit it takes a looooooooong time to get going... and the manual doesn't do a good job of explaining certain game mechanics... and some events are totally inexplicable when you first see them (the intro)... yet it remains to me the greatest JRPG of all time.

[Malkaven]

I'm not to worried about the game being to "big." I don't remember being bored in a classic Obsidian game.

[wanderon]

Can a game be too big?

 

Perhaps - depending on your gaming perspective, lifestyle, and patience level. For some of those caught up in todays energy drink drive thru instant gratification lifestyle I have no doubt that there might be a tendency to prefer a shorter game to a longer one and/or a patience level or attention span that cries out "get me to the end already so I can update my status and move on" .

 

I love big games - especially if they come with options - I spent over 120 hours on a single BG/ToTSC playthrough on more than one occasion but I also got a speed run character to the final battle in less than 25 game days playing no reloads (altho I lost the battle in the end it was still a great game).

 

Am I concerned that PE will be too big with two large cities? Not at all! I just turned 64 - as long as I can finish the game several times to see most of the options within my lifetime I'm good!