Content or Quality?

[Ink Blot]

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.

 

I would hope it would be removed. Why would the devs leave something in the game that they themselves feel isn't fun and not very good? Quality trumps quantity every time, IMO. I can replay a short high-quality game over and over. But a big game that's of poor quality? If I get through it once, that would be remarkable. Certainly there would be no replays.

[Monte Carlo]

I want a piece of DLC called "TeH FeeLdS oF GrinDINg" for people who want to level up and farm.

 

I'm not joking.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

^Why not just wait for the mod?

[Sarex]

^I'm just gonna use the cheat console.

[J.E. Sawyer]

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.

 

If a side quest isn't fun, we will cut it.  If a side quest is generally fun but can't have time allocated to improving it, we will probably keep it.  Size of the world and quantity of quests are important elements of the IE games.  Our quests don't all have to be masterpieces to be included, but they do have to be enjoyable on their own.

[Lephys]

Vote Quant-ality, 2014.

[Karkarov]

Quality should always trump quantity.

Let's take Junta's example of Vampire: The Masquerade. 

I know lot's of people on this forum love that game.  I have played it myself, beaten it, etc.  But does playing as a different clan (again we are talking default game) "really" change that much?  No, not really.  I will never play it again anyway.  Don't get me wrong there was stuff you could do differently, but it doesn't really change much long term.  The main story points are still the same and play out 80% the same no matter what.  That and the mechanics are pretty borked, so it was fun to play for the story but the game play was ... par at best.

 

Would that game have been better if you were stuck with a set clan and all the effort put into making the slight changes per play through due to clan had instead been put into polishing the gameplay and maybe making a couple more side quests/another main quest arc instead?  Yeah, I think it would have been.

[Lord Gorchnik]

 

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.

 

If a side quest isn't fun, we will cut it.  If a side quest is generally fun but can't have time allocated to improving it, we will probably keep it.  Size of the world and quantity of quests are important elements of the IE games.  Our quests don't all have to be masterpieces to be included, but they do have to be enjoyable on their own.

 

 

Where do we go to get the "fetch 5 bear skins" quest?

[Lephys]

Where do we go to get the "fetch 5 bear skins" quest?

Hey now... that could be a great quest!

 

Turns out the bears are people cursed by a Druid, but it turns out the person who asked for the pelts KNEW this, and sent you to just that area where he had "seen some bears living around there." Maybe they were cursed for a good reason. Maybe not. He'll pay handsomely for the pelts, though. Maybe someone else finds out and gets quite upset with you if they find out you murdered their brethren for pelt money, and/or maybe some awesome crafters join your stronghold/defense force if you turn them back into non-bears. Who knows? Not you, until you dare to tackle the quest.

 

Boom. That just happened.

[rjshae]

A problem with this question is that it is harder to quantify quality than quantity. In the context of an artform, what does it even mean to say that quality should always trump quantity when you can't actually measure the level of quality? About all you can do then is to try and be consistent on the level of quality you choose, then expand the quantity as much as possible within that constraint.

Edited May 6, 2014 by rjshae

[AlphaWhelp]

I'd rather there be a focus on quality and then give us mod tools and let the users worry about content later

[rjshae]

I'd rather there be a focus on quality and then give us mod tools and let the users worry about content later

 

A game like that wouldn't rack up high sales marks. It might result in a dedicated community, but that would be a niche market within a niche market.

Edited May 7, 2014 by rjshae

[Gorbag]

 

I'd rather there be a focus on quality and then give us mod tools and let the users worry about content later

 

A game like that wouldn't rack up high sales marks. It might result in a dedicated community, but that would be a niche market within a niche market.

 

I'd add that content-mods don't often measure up to the quality of the original game (NWN not included). If you produce an original game of very high quality, chances are mod content would clash soundly into it. 

This should not be taken as an insult to modders, I mean you have a one-guy mod and then you have Obsidian Entertainment. There's only so much a fan could do in his/her spare time.

[PrimeJunta]

A problem with this question is that it is harder to quantify quality than quantity. In the context of an artform, what does it even mean to say that quality should always trump quantity when you can't actually measure the level of quality? About all you can do then is to try and be consistent on the level of quality you choose, then expand the quantity as much as possible within that constraint.

 

Wel-l-l... I see what you mean, but I think a lot of the time quality can even be quantified, or at least expressed in terms unambiguous-enough to be workable. Bug count and severity per median gaming hour is a fairly basic and simple metric. The more "creative" qualities of a game can sometimes be fairly unambiguously assessed as well, at least at a basic level. If writing, voice acting, art direction, or animation is just plain bad, for example, most observes will agree that it's bad, occasional outliers aside.

 

Things do get more subjective once things rise above that minimal level of course, which is what you were talking about. Thing is, with computer games they rarely do. Most computer game writing is at best romance-novel quality, art direction straight-to-DVD movie quality, voice acting daytime TV quality, and so on. Which is why the ones that do go past this level stand out.

 

This is why I am such an unabashed Obsidian fanboy actually. Their creative work does generally rise above that minimal level, if not in every area at least in some. Now that they've managed to not screw up the basic level, things are looking mighty fine.