Content or Quality?

[Namutree]

I was wondering what matters more to the forum community; a large game with lots of in game content, or a deep and well designed game engine with quality content? How important to is it that the game has alot of content, and how important is the quality of content? 

[Volourn]

Both?

 

Afterall, lots of crap is still crap. And, I'm not one of those fools who believe  in the motto 'too much of a good thing'. That's a ridiculously retarded myth. You can NEVER have too much of a good thing!

[Namutree]

Both?

 

Afterall, lots of crap is still crap. And, I'm not one of those fools who believe  in the motto 'too much of a good thing'. That's a ridiculously retarded myth. You can NEVER have too much of a good thing!

Fair enough, but what's the priority? Lets say in PoE there is a side quest that isn't very fun, and doesn't give a good reward. Would you remove it? If you do, the game will be shorter. If you don't, the game has lower quality content.

[PrimeJunta]

There are areas where I would be willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. Others not so much.

For example, I'd be OK with cutting a few corners with animations, models, and FX if it meant they can put in more different kinds of monsters, spells, and attacks. I'd also tolerate a certain amount of sloppiness in mechanics to get that variety.

However, I would be much less willing to compromise on quest reactivity to get more quests, companion interaction depth to get more companions, or map variety to get more maps. Fetch quests, NPC's that are little more than an attitude and some combat barks, or another generic dungeon corridor map don't really enhance my enjoyment much.

Put another way, NWN2 would have been much better if Grobnar, Paladin Whatshisname, Zhaeve, and Qara had been cut, with that attention put into fleshing out rewriting Elanee, Khelgar, Neeshka, Sand, and Bishop, and IWD 2 would have been better if half the repetitive, generic corridor maps and trash mobs had been cut in favor of fewer but more thoughtfully designed maps and encounters.

[Namutree]

There are areas where I would be willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. Others not so much.

 

For example, I'd be OK with cutting a few corners with animations, models, and FX if it meant they can put in more different kinds of monsters, spells, and attacks. I'd also tolerate a certain amount of sloppiness in mechanics to get that variety.

 

However, I would be much less willing to compromise on quest reactivity to get more quests, companion interaction depth to get more companions, or map variety to get more maps. Fetch quests, NPC's that are little more than an attitude and some combat barks, or another generic dungeon corridor map don't really enhance my enjoyment much.

 

Put another way, NWN2 would have been much better if Grobnar, Paladin Whatshisname, Zhaeve, and Qara had been cut, with that attention put into fleshing out rewriting Elanee, Khelgar, Neeshka, Sand, and Bishop, and IWD 2 would have been better if half the repetitive, generic corridor maps and trash mobs had been cut in favor of fewer but more thoughtfully designed maps and encounters.

I agree. I also wish a few of the npcs in BG1 had ben cut in exchange for better versions of the npcs that I wouldn`t cut. I think I`d cut about 1/4th of them. Starting with Sharteel.

[Nonek]

Quality is paramount personally, in recent games what one has been asked to do for experience and loot has felt rather insultive, a barely disguised skinner box with not even a maze to negotiate just straight corridors with waves of enemies. Absolutely pathetic and uninspired. In a recent game, whose name I will not mention, my character was merely farming golden exclamation marks in between combats. I did not even have the option to accept or refuse a quest, they were automatically added to my journal upon picking up certain items, that is truly degenerate design and in the end I did not even bother to open or read the quest log, simply followed the markers and accrued loot and xp for unknown reasons. 

 

I swear one of the epic quests I undertook was to return a hat that smelled of ale from the dungeon where i'd picked it up, utterly ridiculous and pure padding.

[IndiraLightfoot]

There are areas where I would be willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. Others not so much.

 

For example, I'd be OK with cutting a few corners with animations, models, and FX if it meant they can put in more different kinds of monsters, spells, and attacks. I'd also tolerate a certain amount of sloppiness in mechanics to get that variety.

 

However, I would be much less willing to compromise on quest reactivity to get more quests, companion interaction depth to get more companions, or map variety to get more maps. Fetch quests, NPC's that are little more than an attitude and some combat barks, or another generic dungeon corridor map don't really enhance my enjoyment much.

 

Put another way, NWN2 would have been much better if Grobnar, Paladin Whatshisname, Zhaeve, and Qara had been cut, with that attention put into fleshing out rewriting Elanee, Khelgar, Neeshka, Sand, and Bishop, and IWD 2 would have been better if half the repetitive, generic corridor maps and trash mobs had been cut in favor of fewer but more thoughtfully designed maps and encounters.

Can these arguments be made into a poster and be mailed home to me?

[Namutree]

 

There are areas where I would be willing to sacrifice quality for quantity. Others not so much.

 

For example, I'd be OK with cutting a few corners with animations, models, and FX if it meant they can put in more different kinds of monsters, spells, and attacks. I'd also tolerate a certain amount of sloppiness in mechanics to get that variety.

 

However, I would be much less willing to compromise on quest reactivity to get more quests, companion interaction depth to get more companions, or map variety to get more maps. Fetch quests, NPC's that are little more than an attitude and some combat barks, or another generic dungeon corridor map don't really enhance my enjoyment much.

 

Put another way, NWN2 would have been much better if Grobnar, Paladin Whatshisname, Zhaeve, and Qara had been cut, with that attention put into fleshing out rewriting Elanee, Khelgar, Neeshka, Sand, and Bishop, and IWD 2 would have been better if half the repetitive, generic corridor maps and trash mobs had been cut in favor of fewer but more thoughtfully designed maps and encounters.

Can these arguments be made into a poster and be mailed home to me?

 

No.

[Hormalakh]

quantity means a long boring game that never gets played by me nor completed. quality means a game that i'll replay many times over.

[PrimeJunta]

@Hormalakh I disagree... to an extent, and depending on your definition of 'quality.'

 

For example, Half-Life 2 is extremely high quality. The gameplay is exquisitely balanced, it's virtually bug-free, and even after all this time it looks pretty damn good. Yet there's not a whole lot there, there, after you've played it through once.

 

Conversely, Vampire: Bloodlines (without Wesp's glorious work) is a god-awful mess, yet there's a tremendous amount of replayability there. I played it through as a Malkavian, Nosferatu, Toreador, and Gangrel, and will probably crack it open again one of these years to play as the rest of the clans as well. It's the quantity that makes for the replayability -- the different mechanics, dialog twists, and reactivity. Yet both are Source engine-based first-person games.

[Volourn]

"Lets say in PoE there is a side quest that isn't very fun, and doesn't give a good reward. Would you remove it?"
 

I'd rather they take the time and effort that it took to make that quest and make a quest that is fun instead in the first place.

[Namutree]

"Lets say in PoE there is a side quest that isn't very fun, and doesn't give a good reward. Would you remove it?"

 

I'd rather they take the time and effort that it took to make that quest and make a quest that is fun instead in the first place.

Lets say the guy who made it thought it would be fun. Only once he finished it did he realize it was lame. Now you're back to the scenario I put you in. Would you remove the quest? The point of the question is to establish your priority. Quality or content? Both isn't an option in the case I have presented.

[Sarex]

Lets say the guy who made it thought it would be fun. Only once he finished it did he realize it was lame. Now you're back to the scenario I put you in. Would you remove the quest? The point of the question is to establish your priority. Quality or content? Both isn't an option in the case I have presented.

 

You make is sound so black and white when it obviously isn't. Even if all the quest are of top quality to the guy who made them, they won't be to the people playing them. Everyone likes different things and so not everyone will think of every quest as quality content. Thus the more quest you have the greater the probability that there will be something for everyone. You are also under the impression that game developers leave bad content in the game, those things are either scraped or reworked.

[Bryy]

"Lets say in PoE there is a side quest that isn't very fun, and doesn't give a good reward. Would you remove it?"

 

I'd rather they take the time and effort that it took to make that quest and make a quest that is fun instead in the first place.

Vol, you know that's a ridiculous post hoc argument.

Edited May 4, 2014 by Bryy

[Namutree]

 

Lets say the guy who made it thought it would be fun. Only once he finished it did he realize it was lame. Now you're back to the scenario I put you in. Would you remove the quest? The point of the question is to establish your priority. Quality or content? Both isn't an option in the case I have presented.

 

You make is sound so black and white when it obviously isn't. Even if all the quest are of top quality to the guy who made them, they won't be to the people playing them. Everyone likes different things and so not everyone will think of every quest as quality content. Thus the more quest you have the greater the probability that there will be something for everyone. You are also under the impression that game developers leave bad content in the game, those things are either scraped or reworked.

 

The reason Im making it so black and white is because the point of the question was to figure out his priority. Also in IWD2 there was a lot of poorly designed content in the game; so yes, sometimes designers prioritize content over quality. Heck, some quests in Morrowind were so bad Modders altered them just to make them playable.

[Sarex]

The reason Im making it so black and white is because the point of the question was to figure out his priority. Also in IWD2 there was a lot of poorly designed content in the game; so yes, sometimes designers prioritize content over quality. Heck, some quests in Morrowind were so bad Modders altered them just to make them playable.

 

And to me everything in IWD2 was pure quality, my favorite game. Not to mention that the game was made in 10 months. As I said everyone likes something different, that the dev thinks something he made is of quality doesn't mean it is.

 

You question is flawed, everyone wants more content that is good. The devs aren't going to release content that is bad, but not everything they release will be good. While you may want to make it black and white, it simply doesn't work like that.

 

But if you really want an answer to your question, I want as much quality content as they can make with the money they have.

[teknoman2]

> as much quality content as they can make with the money they have.

and that sums up what most people here think

[Death Machine Miyagi]

Too much content over quality, the game bores me and go I find something else to do. 

 

Too much quality over content, I play the game, enjoy it, then get annoyed when it ends so fast and/or discover how locked on railroad tracks it is. 

 

Since the latter at least involves enjoying the game before getting annoyed, I'd say it wins by default. 

[Namutree]

 

The reason Im making it so black and white is because the point of the question was to figure out his priority. Also in IWD2 there was a lot of poorly designed content in the game; so yes, sometimes designers prioritize content over quality. Heck, some quests in Morrowind were so bad Modders altered them just to make them playable.

 

And to me everything in IWD2 was pure quality, my favorite game. Not to mention that the game was made in 10 months. As I said everyone likes something different, that the dev thinks something he made is of quality doesn't mean it is.

 

You question is flawed, everyone wants more content that is good. The devs aren't going to release content that is bad, but not everything they release will be good. While you may want to make it black and white, it simply doesn't work like that.

 

But if you really want an answer to your question, I want as much quality content as they can make with the money they have.

 

I actually agree with you that the quality of content is subjective on a personal level. For the sake of the question; let's assume the developer is aware that 99% of the customers will not enjoy the quest, nor will they hate it. You already answered me, but I'm still waiting for a definitive answer from Vol. His answers so far have been just dodging my question.

[BrainMuncher]

Namutree, I have to agree that the question is flawed. You are treating it as a binary decision, and treating quest quality as absolute. Deciding whether or not to cut quest content in the context you describe would almost certainly based on judgement of quality relative to the other quests.

 

I'm not a game developer but here is one (overly simplified) way I imagine it might be done:

 

 

In the above image, A, B, and C are quests that have been assessed for quality and given a rating. The red line is an arbitrary threshold, quest to the left are cut, quests to the right make it in.

 

What I sense you are really asking with this thread is "where would you place the red line?". Personally I would place it as far to the left as possible without making the game too long. Which is another way of saying as far to the right as possible without making the game too short.

 

If you approximated the length of quests, you could simply start from the right and move the line left until you'd reached the desired length of your game.

 

 

Now, that process I just pulled out of my arse might not be anything close to what actually happens, but my point is that you original question is oversimplified to the point where it is impossible to give a meaningful answer. Whether you prioritise game length over quality or vice versa can depend on a number of outside factors. If your game is too short you might allow some questionable stuff, the opposite is also true but likely much less common.

You might have too many druid quests and not enough paladin quests, and end up cutting a pretty great druid quest in favour of a mediocre paladin quest to even out the distribution. And so on.

Edited May 5, 2014 by BrainMuncher

[nikolokolus]

I've played plenty of RPGs that were long on quantity and short on quality (*ahem* Two Worlds, Neverwinter Nights OC, etc.) but I've also played some RPGs that had both great content and an enormous amount of stuff to do (Baldur's Gate series, Arcanum, etc.) so I don't see the two as being mutually exclusive. If I were forced to pick, I'd choose a short-ish game (~20-30 hrs) with deeply engaging gameplay and/or great writing any day of the week over a mediocre slog.

[Monte Carlo]

"Quantity has a quality all of it's own."

 

Josef Stalin.

[rjshae]

I'd say: respectable quality (20%), solid mechanics (15%), good story/interaction (30%), nice level of variety (15%), and longer than average length (20%).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'd prefer a good amount of high quality content. Not a fan of trash mobs or filler, so if the game runs a little shorter due to the lack of that I'll be good.

[Kjaamor]

Absolutely loads of crap, please. I hope PoE consists of an absolutely patience-mashing collection of terrible quests, awful npcs, woeful combat mechanics and an overarching plot you would chew through your own wrists to get away from.

 

What I certainly don't want, and I assume that this is true for everyone, is a quality game of reasonable length. If it has to be a twelve second long Nirvana, then so be it, as long as it's completely all or none.