Quality or quantity?

[iHeldan]

Do you want billion things to do in game when there might be occasional boredom included...

 

or do you want less but better and more meaningful things to do?

 

I don't have much spare time so I vote for shorter gameplay where every moment feels like gold.

[AGX-17]

I think it's a given that all backers and sideline supporters want quality from PE. Why would anyone want PE to play like an MMO?

[light487]

I expect the game to be atleast 40 hours for a single play through as a minimum. Anything less than that and I will feel a bit short changed.. even if it were the most high quality game.. it's just too short for an RPG. Heck, even Borderlands 1 felt short.. yet Borderlands 2 feels a good length.. and that's not even a true RPG..

 

So somewhere around the 40 to 60 hour mark with the quality that can be gained through that.

[Hormalakh]

Aye 40-60 hours at the minimum. BG2 was much much longer.

[Gelp]

If I wanted to play a game with a billion thing to do that I didn't care about, I'd be playing Skyrim.

 

Please, Obsidian, make events in the game that I can care about, not generic quests issued by generic npcs for generic dungeons.

 

Really hope this didn't triple post. Kid got a hold of keyboard.

[BearonicMan]

A story in an RPG should play the same way as a great novel is read. After you beat the game you should be able to think back on all the great characters and experiences the characters were a part of. You shouldn't be able to just run through the basic plot points in your head in a few seconds. My two cents.

[zimcub]

I think it should be quality. They can always add more stuff with expansions.

[evdk]

Quality. Quantity might have a quality of its own, but latest offerings on that front failed to wow me. (Of course, the best would be both, no balance )

[HangedMan]

65/35 between quality and quantity, please.

[Krikkert]

Quality ALWAYS comes ahead of quantity, ALWAYS. That's like a ground rule.

 

But why not have lots of quantity which is also full of quality ?

[jivex5k]

I don't have much spare time so I vote for shorter gameplay where every moment feels like gold.

Yes, hopefully they allow saving anywhere.

Were all old now...no time for 6-hour FF7 sessions.

[Grand Heresiarch]

I think that BG1 and Arcanum both achieved a great balance in this regard. The main story was incredibly strong, but there was also a huge gameworld of other crap to just explore. If the RPG is too tightly focused on the story, it loses the the feel of taking place in a wider world. There should be a huge quantity of stuff to do in order to make the game world feel like a world, not just the backdrop for the story. Yes, in some respects a good RPG should mirror a novel in terms of central story, but I think we should also celebrate the ways in which it does not. Lives do not follow a single narrative thread, but rather people engage in a wealth of activities while moving towards a general goal. Too much focus on narrative and we end up with Return to Krondor, a game that was fun in they way of a Disney ride. Only one track that was fun the first time, but really isnt any different the second or third time.

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I def favor quality over quantity, but I don't want each class to play the same, or have the same animations for everything just reskinned. I'd much rather a balanced longer fight with fewer monsters that had great ai, animations, and each member in my party having unique viable options of how to contribute, than 27 choices and like 3 of them never get used the entire game, but they make you purchase that skill in order to get the one you do want. I want everything to serve a purpose. My one caveat is that if enemy's are limited for example, I want them to be intelligent and have a personality and not mindless meat puppets waiting for me to slaughter them.

[LadyCrimson]

If I wanted to play a game with a billion thing to do that I didn't care about, I'd be playing Skyrim.

I can appreciate the sentiment.

 

I do like longer games, with "lots of things to do/explore/find", but I also want to feel like it has a bit of a purpose. I can become easily obsessed with alchemy, for example, but only if the mechanics are interesting and the long term results rewarding/useful (or funny, even). Not going to spend tons of time gathering purple flowers and black mushrooms just so I can make 100 "Grind Potions of I'll-Never-Use-This."

 

But I've played many shorter games that felt "just right" too...all depends on quality of the game and how it's made/structured. And how high the replay value might be. High replay value can make a shorter game still be awesome. Low replay value can make a short game feel like a ripoff. So...quality and replay value, that's my vote.

[maggotheart]

I don't have much spare time so I vote for shorter gameplay where every moment feels like gold.

 

I see this sentiment a lot. I don't think that design decisions should be made that cater to people who don't have time to play the game. It's a little like saying "I love baseball, but I don't have time to watch all the innings - can we please only have 3 innings? I love this show but I don't have time to watch a 42 minute episode... can we make them 10 minutes?" It's a classic RPG, it should be rather dense with lots of things to do and take a long time to finish.

 

Now, that doesn't mean the question itself doesn't have merit - sandbox or linear storyline? I think the key is to strike a good balance (how I voted). Keep the storyline tight with enough side stuff to do that makes the game more interesting but doesn't totally lose its focus.

[timobkg]

I don't have much spare time so I vote for shorter gameplay where every moment feels like gold.

I agree with this completely. Time is quickly becoming my most limited resource, and thus I want to eek the most enjoyment out of each and every moment I spend playing. I will take better and shorter over longer any day, particularly in an RPG. With how much replayability you can get in an RPG, I'd much rather have a great 20-hour game that I can replay 2-4 times than a good 40-80 hour game that I only play once.

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I agree Lady, I love exploring and building stuff in games. I just appreciate it more when it's done in a way that enhances the game play. For example if I have to collect 12 wolf pellets, lets use them to craft some clothes to sell, or the more you help someone in game, maybe over time when you return his farm is gone, or expanded and things change and his business grew over time. Sometimes we need those quick tasks to do to move us along too, but as long they aren't rinse and repeat and too samey then I'm cool.

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I don't have much spare time so I vote for shorter gameplay where every moment feels like gold.

I agree with this completely. Time is quickly becoming my most limited resource, and thus I want to eek the most enjoyment out of each and every moment I spend playing. I will take better and shorter over longer any day, particularly in an RPG. With how much replayability you can get in an RPG, I'd much rather have a great 20-hour game that I can replay 2-4 times than a good 40-80 hour game that I only play once.

 

I can relate! I finally quit WoW vanilla about 10 yrs ago because I had to sit at least 3-6 hrs in a session to accomplish anything which was a major chore. Not to mention I may not even succeed, lag kills, wipes, etc really can be discouraging. At least in these games you usually have journals that keep your goals highlighted, and you can always quick save along the way to manage your adventure.

[timobkg]

I don't have much spare time so I vote for shorter gameplay where every moment feels like gold.

I don't think that design decisions should be made that cater to people who don't have time to play the game.

I think design decisions should cater to the market. Most of the "classic RPG" market is now in their late 20s / early 30s. We now have jobs, many of us are married now, some have children. Practically none of us have as much free time as we did when the Infinity Engine games first came out.

It's a little like saying "I love this show but I don't have time to watch a 42 minute episode... can we make them 10 minutes?"

This is kind of comparing apples to oranges. TV shows are limited by their running time, so they're often challenged to squeeze everything into an episode. Games, on the other hand, are often padded out to reach "expected playing times." Like, for example, a TV show which gets renewed for a second season while the writers only planned on one season, and thus they either have to write all new material or pad out each episode to make their existing plot last across two seasons. We don't want the padding.

 

It's a classic RPG, it should be rather dense with lots of things to do and take a long time to finish.

I would argue that last part in bold. Just because they took a long time to finish doesn't mean that it was a requirement, or something we should emulate going forward. I certainly don't play with a stopwatch on my desk, recording the length and duration of every game session to make sure that I "get my money's worth" or something like that (which is a ridiculous notion since who really judges their entertainment based on duration instead of enjoyment?). I have no idea how long it took me to play through Planescape or Fallout, as their length was not what made those games memorable.

 

If a game ends and leaves me wanting more, I call that a success. It's far preferable to a game overstaying its welcome, or me losing interest part way through, or wishing that the game would just hurry up and end. In DA:O, I'd bet there were 10 cries of "Why won't these Deep Roads end already?" for every person who thought "These Deep Roads are amazing! I hope they go on forever!" A game that leaves you wanting more is, imo, the goal to aim for. It leaves you excited to replay it, and excited to play the expansion.

 

When I think back to the Infinity Engine games, I think of their great writing, interesting characters, meaningful dialog and choices, and party-based combat. That's what I want to see in PE. If given the choice between Obsidian adding more content or polishing the existing content to make it better, I'd chose the latter every time.

[Grand Heresiarch]

I am in the same boat as those who are and lack the time to sit and play for hours at a time, and yet I would have to strongly argue against making a 20ish hour game.

We, as a culture, have become too focused on completion, or winning. I would much much rather a 100+ hr game that takes me months to beat than a tightly scripted story. One of the contributors mentioned skyrim. I think there is something to be learned from that game. It has a fairly short and simple story if you only play for the story, but the game world is fairly large and allows for a great deal of sandbox play. (the interface is abysmal however and balance similarly problematic)

The end result was something that felt like a living world, or at least something close to it. (yes, they ran out of creative juice and a lot of the dungeons are just the same thing over and over)

 

I have seen a lot of people saying that everything ought to have a purpose. If by purpose you mean advancing the central story (and please correct me if this is a misrepresentation of the argument) then I would vehemently disagree. Not everything we do is directed towards an end. I like the idea of whole zones with nothing to do but explore ancient ruins and kill trolls. A story for that zone can emerge through exploration, but one that is unrelated to the central narrative. If you look back at all the *great* rpgs, they all featured large amounts of sanbox play and exploration. I worry that if we try to distill the essence of those great games without the sprawling world, we will end up with an inferior product. I think of all the recent RPGs with short (20ish hr) campaigns and I dont believe any will enter the cannon of great games.

 

I understand that the wife, kids, and jobs are competing concerns, they are for me as well. But I would rather savor a long journey than sacrifice depth.

[maggotheart]

I don't have much spare time so I vote for shorter gameplay where every moment feels like gold.

I don't think that design decisions should be made that cater to people who don't have time to play the game.

I think design decisions should cater to the market. Most of the "classic RPG" market is now in their late 20s / early 30s. We now have jobs, many of us are married now, some have children. Practically none of us have as much free time as we did when the Infinity Engine games first came out.

It's a little like saying "I love this show but I don't have time to watch a 42 minute episode... can we make them 10 minutes?"

This is kind of comparing apples to oranges. TV shows are limited by their running time, so they're often challenged to squeeze everything into an episode. Games, on the other hand, are often padded out to reach "expected playing times." Like, for example, a TV show which gets renewed for a second season while the writers only planned on one season, and thus they either have to write all new material or pad out each episode to make their existing plot last across two seasons. We don't want the padding.

 

It's a classic RPG, it should be rather dense with lots of things to do and take a long time to finish.

I would argue that last part in bold. Just because they took a long time to finish doesn't mean that it was a requirement, or something we should emulate going forward. I certainly don't play with a stopwatch on my desk, recording the length and duration of every game session to make sure that I "get my money's worth" or something like that (which is a ridiculous notion since who really judges their entertainment based on duration instead of enjoyment?). I have no idea how long it took me to play through Planescape or Fallout, as their length was not what made those games memorable.

 

If a game ends and leaves me wanting more, I call that a success. It's far preferable to a game overstaying its welcome, or me losing interest part way through, or wishing that the game would just hurry up and end. In DA:O, I'd bet there were 10 cries of "Why won't these Deep Roads end already?" for every person who thought "These Deep Roads are amazing! I hope they go on forever!" A game that leaves you wanting more is, imo, the goal to aim for. It leaves you excited to replay it, and excited to play the expansion.

 

When I think back to the Infinity Engine games, I think of their great writing, interesting characters, meaningful dialog and choices, and party-based combat. That's what I want to see in PE. If given the choice between Obsidian adding more content or polishing the existing content to make it better, I'd chose the latter every time.

 

I think the market is for a classic RPG like we all remember, not something different that is designed so I don't have to spend a lot of time playing it. I think the disconnect here is that what you view as 'eliminating padding' I view as 'watering down'. Please cite some specific examples from Baldurs Gate or Planescape Torment where the game was padded and what you would recommend eliminating from those games in order to make a more "adult friendly" version.

Edited October 18, 2012 by maggotheart

[Jojobobo]

If I had to pick I'd want quality. If a game's short but it is good quality then I'll replay it many times to re-live the evocative and interesting elements of the story, and I'll often lose interest in lots of quantity without substance. Still, like all people, I'd rather have both.

[Tsuga C]

Hands down, I favor quality because I'm an adult out in the working world. I don't have hours upon hours to sift through medocrity in search of a handful of gems. If they have enough good, solid material for a 65-hour game then that's plenty enough for me. I don't want them to pad it to stretch it to 75 or 80 hours just for the sake of creating a longer initial installment.

 

Rather, I'd have them give me a highly satisfying 65-hour game with plenty of re-play value stemming from choices that actually make a difference within the game world. As Bilbo noted, being stretched like butter drawn over too much bread is an unpleasant state of being. End the story properly and move on to an expansion pack with a new storyline or the second, non-stretched & non-padded installment of the original storyline.

 

Always, quality > quantity.

[MichaelStuart]

About 20% Quality 80% quantity

[Tsuga C]

 

About 20% Quality 80% quantity

 

Might you have accidentally tranposed those figures?