Richard Cobbett of Rock, Paper, Shotgun published a short article a few weeks back that I missed where he ponders on game length of RPGs, and when is to much enough.
More information.
Last edited:
Rock, Paper, Shotgun - Game Length @ RPS
- Thread starter Couchpotato
- Start date
D
Deleted User
Guest
I completely disagree.
I'm all for quantity. Preferably, the quantity would be of good quality as well, but give me a game that has 25 classes over 5 classes, or 20 companions over 8, even if those 20 companions aren't perfectly balanced and fleshed out to the maximum degree.
I would actually sacrifice depth of character in order to have more characters created. However, it would have to be smart. You'd have to really nail the important aspects of character building, but with less resources put into each one. Make sense?
In other words, I would have probably made double the amount of companions that Pillars of Eternity has, and given each character half as much text as they have now. Or, perhaps, simply dedicate more resources to the character companions in order to keep them at the same level of text, yet still have a higher amount of them.
But if it's impossible to do both, give me quantity any day, over "perfect balance" and that sort of thing.
I just love options in my RPGs, and unique ways to express my creativity.
Xian
Sentinel
I still enjoy the lengthy RPG games even though I have much less time to play these days. With work and family responsibilities, I often only have time to game on the weekends, and that is if we don't have other plans. A game I would have previously finished in a week might take a month or more now.
When I start a game, I usually try to complete every side or collection quest, but on some games I get to a point and then just go for the main storyline. After hitting the 100 hour mark in Skyrim for instance, I still had many unfinished quests and some story lines I hadn't started at all, the Dark Brotherhood for one, but I decided to just finish the game, maybe coming back to those one day.
When I start a game, I usually try to complete every side or collection quest, but on some games I get to a point and then just go for the main storyline. After hitting the 100 hour mark in Skyrim for instance, I still had many unfinished quests and some story lines I hadn't started at all, the Dark Brotherhood for one, but I decided to just finish the game, maybe coming back to those one day.
T
Toff
Guest
Give me meaningful well thought out content before filler anytime. I have no problem with a linear game where every encounter and every spot is planned with care.
If there is reasonable progression and interesting stuff to do and see, I like a very long game. The game world should be a place I go to escape the daily humdrum, so I really don't care if it seems a bit open ended. I've never been a speed runner in games. Sometimes I just want to schmooze with my NPC buddies in the game world, explore nooks & crannies, and whack some baddies.
40-60 hours is my sweetspot. I can go with 30-40 too, but more than 60 and chances are very high that I'll be switching to something else and never finishing the game.
D
Deleted User
Guest
What does any of that have to do with game length?
I have no idea. But I saw a good opportunity to take a stand in the name of Quantity, so I took it. :lol:
Asdraguuhl
Keeper of the Watch
I am the exact opposite and belong strongly in the "Quality over Quantity" camp.
Of course, a minimum length ought to be guaranteed and I consider 20 hours (without speeding) to be a lower limit. 40 hours (with quality content) is my reference length and everything above that is a bonus, although if it is mediocre content that they shouldn't bother adding it IMO.
A case where the game's short length really bothered me was Consortium. I enjoyed the game and I find it a very interesting concept, which is well worth developing and exploring further. However, one replay I did in one sitting and it took me a total of a mere 3 hours. That is very short especially considering the fact that you couldn't skip the dialogues in which case it would hardly reach 2 hours.
When I was talking about quantity I was talking about game length though, and I was specifically thinking of dragon age:inquisition, with all it's ubisoft/mmolike filler and Wasteland 2 which is a very long game, but had tons of quality issues.
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2014
- Messages
- 7
KaosWarMonk
Keeper of the Watch
- Joined
- April 9, 2015
- Messages
- 880
Don't mind length as long as there's not too much pointless filler. Been doing a little bit of NWN2 lately, had it for years and still haven't completed the MQ. One of the reasons is by god there's so many instances of just pointless small encounters when moving from A to B on a map. Climb this mountain path, fight half a dozen githyanki, repeat five times. Get to cave, have one interesting encounter with dialogue, then move through tunnel with another half dozen fights, each pretty much exactly the same to get to the next bit.
Tedious.
As mentioned in another thread I've got many mid game saves on my PC. Currently 30-40 hours would seem my limit with regard to finishing something in one stint. Otherwise I usually leave it and come back when the mood takes me. This can be problematic depending on how good the journal and my memory is.
-kaos
Tedious.
As mentioned in another thread I've got many mid game saves on my PC. Currently 30-40 hours would seem my limit with regard to finishing something in one stint. Otherwise I usually leave it and come back when the mood takes me. This can be problematic depending on how good the journal and my memory is.
-kaos
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Messages
- 880
D
Deleted User
Guest
I don't think we necessarily need to finish every game we play. Just enjoy the time you spend with it, whether you finish it or not.
If you're not enjoying the minute-to-minute gameplay in a game, then play something else.
That said, I do enjoy large RPGs like Baldur's Gate or the Elder Scrolls games. Those games also have a lot of toys to play with and experiment with, and you can re-play them endlessly, which is another plus for me.
If you're not enjoying the minute-to-minute gameplay in a game, then play something else.
That said, I do enjoy large RPGs like Baldur's Gate or the Elder Scrolls games. Those games also have a lot of toys to play with and experiment with, and you can re-play them endlessly, which is another plus for me.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Didn't we do this not long ago?
Quantity can be a quality. It can also not be a quality. But thinking about it as quantity versus quality is the first mistake. It's like saying graphics versus gameplay - or music versus interface. Having it all is better, right? It depends on what you're trying to achieve.
Until some article gets that, I don't think I'll bother going further
Quantity can be a quality. It can also not be a quality. But thinking about it as quantity versus quality is the first mistake. It's like saying graphics versus gameplay - or music versus interface. Having it all is better, right? It depends on what you're trying to achieve.
Until some article gets that, I don't think I'll bother going further
- Joined
- April 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
And I'll mention The Last Remnant. Again.
In this unique TB combat game, the set of ideas was perfect, done right it's be a mustplay mastepiece. It's still a mustbuy/musttry game - but for the reason to show to people how superb ideas can be turned into a garbage if developer's budget gets cut in the middle of development.
Apparently, the cash that should go to TLR got pulled in the middle of development and poured into yet another irrelevant final fantasy sequel. What happened with TLR?
1. The story got completely watered down and after first half of the game it drops even below mediocrity
2. First areas won't respawn mobs until you reenter them, later areas respawn mobs all the time
The game, during it's development, switched from chasing quality into providing annoying and repetitive quantity. And I hate it.
I won't read RPS article really. I'm pretty sure they will try to justify 10 hours max games that take half of your HDD like Wolfenstein.
I just want epic RPGs without annoying grinding as those things do exist.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,459
Yes. No grinding. I have become completely allergic to it. Even if it's optional. It's the sole reason I haven't started inquisition yet. 20-30 hours of content is perfect for me.
I don't see why quality can't be offset against quantity. It's infeasible to have both. Except maybe if you another definition or interpretation. But in general I think we know what is meant
I don't see why quality can't be offset against quantity. It's infeasible to have both. Except maybe if you another definition or interpretation. But in general I think we know what is meant
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,502
D
DArtagnan
Guest
It's because quantity isn't the same as lack of quality. One minute of supreme quality is also one minute of quantity.
Also, if you separate the concept of quality from the concept of quantity - you're saying a quality game has 0 seconds of quantity.
That would be a pretty short game, and I'm not sure how you could consider it a quality game since it wouldn't actually exist.
It's really about thinking about it in rational terms, which is the only thing that makes sense to me.
If you're talking about a game full of quantity which is very low on quality - then obviously that's not desirable.
But that's like writing a long article about water being wet.
Not really my thing, but whatever floats your boat.
Concepts don't have to be completely separate for there to be a tradeoff between and not all combinations of quality and quantity need to be defined.
But that's not that important. Sure there are extremes which are not desirable, the question was exactly what balance we like.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,502
D
DArtagnan
Guest
My point is that you need to talk about this without boiling it down to those two concepts, because they belong together - not apart.
The debate is interesting enough, but it's ruined by that confused and simplified approach.
That's because people tend to think in extremes when you give them but two things to choose between.
It's really no different than asking people to choose between being a Republican or a Democrat. They immediately start putting things into those tiny boxes - and that's how the stupidity starts.
Ah, got it. Though have some faith in humanity (and the people here at the watch)
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,502