General News - Are RPG's Too Long?

Originally Posted by Fluent
Longer the better for me. The whole premise of an RPG is undertaking an epic quest. The more epic and huge the quest, the better the sense of immersion in the game. Give me a 100+ hour beast of an RPG any day.

Unfortunately for me, my memory can only hold so much story. After the 30th hour my mind starts drifting, by the 40th I start going through the motions, without remembering what I'm doing and why, just following the quest markers. After the 50th hour I usually drop everything else (exploration, side quests, etc) and beeline for the end of the main quest.

Well, I don't care how long an RPG is, but most long RPG's might start out pretty great but get worse and worse towards the end. Especially western RPG's suffer from this. Probably because they usually have so many different options and it just becomes too much for the creators to keep up with that through the entire game.

Originally Posted by wolfing
Unfortunately for me, my memory can only hold so much story. After the 30th hour my mind starts drifting, by the 40th I start going through the motions, without remembering what I'm doing and why, just following the quest markers. After the 50th hour I usually drop everything else (exploration, side quests, etc) and beeline for the end of the main quest.

Another issue I see with most RPGs with lots of side content / filler content is that it ultimately detracts from the main storyline / quest… The "the longer, the better" camp seem to be in consensus that an RPG of considerable length increases the player's immersion. However, since most RPGs have a main storyline about saving the world (or at least saving someone important to the main character from something), there should be a sense of urgency.

Most recently, I noticed this problem in The Witcher 3. Geralt ostensibly wanted to find Ciri as quickly as possible (i.e., before The Wild Hunt got her)… yet of course being an open world RPG, there was tons of side quests to distract you and no actual danger of Ciri being caught by TWH if you took your sweet time hunting monsters, looking for random treasure, playing Gwent, having fist fights tournaments, or sleeping with women. And while much of that side content is certainly fun, you can lose yourself in it and Geralt seemingly completely forgets that his daughter is in great danger. And even once you find Ciri, Geralt presumably wants to defeat The Wild Hunt fast so that Ciri isn't ambushed while he's away questing. But where's the urgency?

In my own playthrough of TW3 I ended up doing every side quest I could before finishing the main story line (one reason for this was that I realized Geralt needed to be a certain level before he could equip some of the best Feline armor / weapons that I crafted).

When the storyline calls for a sense of urgency but the game doesn't actually convey that, I see it as a huge blow to the immersion. And I don't really have a perfect solution either; I'm reluctant to say that more RPGs should have an actual (ingame) time requirement. Fallout 1 did this, and while it did "work" to an extent, it was also a common source of frustration, particularly for completionists (which I actually sort of am, despite my preference for less filler content). But perhaps at the very least, many RPGs should have a certain "point of no return" where all side quests are suspended until after the urgent threat has been dealt with. Some RPGs do this, but the the problem is they usually give the player ample warning (i.e., an NPC essentially says, "Make sure all your affairs are in order before we go slay the Big Bad") so you can still ultimately delay saving the world to play mini-games, go on a date, or find a little girl's lost cat.

That is a good point by Daveyd - thank you for such a thoughtful post with some good insight.

Being someone who does enjoy a long game, as long as I find said game enjoyable, I also struggle with it. FO4 was the worst in this regard. You son was kidnapped, your wife shot … the first thing any good parent/husband would do (and the cinematics, dialogue, and initial set up implies you are a decent husband I think) is track down what happened. Yes you do need to learn the ropes of the new world but since the game has a nice crumb trail for you to follow … wouldn't you? Shouldn't you? The game does give you a nice "pause" point where the pressure is off but that comes a bit later in the game.

I thought Skyrim was just a tad better in that I felt it important to track down Alduin (or vampires) but also felt I couldn't do so until I was prepared to face them. There was urgency but also an understanding it couldn't be done at once (to me at least). But this applies to any big game I think. Some handle it better than others though.

That being said I detest timers. They just add stress and potential frustration to the game (for me) and I am strongly against them. Oh a timed side quest is fine but don't give me oodles of fun side quests and then force me to not do them because of a timer on the main quest.

I would also like to give an alternative view on the distraction to the main quest. In many ways the side quests in a game can be a great deal of fun and I don't think they need to be considered less important than the main quest.

I think Joxer mentioned limits on how far you can go in the main quest based on how much "side" content you have done. I would not go that far as some folks like to focus on the main quest (I sometimes prefer to focus on the main quest to satisfy curiosity and then play again for all the side stuff - but that is heavily dependent on the style of game). But having the main quest have various "pause" points or breathing space that encourage the player to explore and do other things makes good sense.

Otherwise why even make games with side content if it just distracts from the main quest? I love side content and would hate to see it go as much as I would hate to see the big RPG's reduced to 10-20 hour games. I don't mind those games now and then but my preference is still a big game I can sink into just like a big book series.

I have been playing (still playing) Morrowind since it first came out in 2002. I would estimate that I have played it for a couple of thousand hours (I don't have a life). This came (thanks to all the plugins) never gets old. I am still playing it and am barely into the first quests. Depending on the game, some are just not long enough…Gothic series is another good game

Originally Posted by greywolf00

Originally Posted by luj1
It doesn't have to be length in a linear sense.

I think cinematic linear RPGs like Kotor are cool and I love Kotor.. but I play Morrowind for 13 years and still find new stuff…. I like free-form, non-linear experiences like that best. Nearly unlimited replayability. And you can play 1 character forever. Now add modding tools. Ouch

Yeah, I'm not a part of that camp. I need a story to propel more forward or I lose interest.

There is a main story that can propel you , if you'd desire.


I just prefer wandering and getting drowned in political intrigue and hand-crafted believable mythos

Originally Posted by luj1
There is a main story that can propel you , if you'd desire.


I just prefer wandering and getting drowned in political intrigue and hand-crafted believable mythos

Bethesda's writing has never been compelling to me. I've tried FO3, Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. Skyrim is the only one I could stomach for more than 20 hours, but lost interest before finishing it.

Originally Posted by daveyd
When the storyline calls for a sense of urgency but the game doesn't actually convey that, I see it as a huge blow to the immersion.

Dragon Age Inquisition suffer from that as well. You are told to hurry to gather allies and stop the big bad but got all that side content to explore.

Open world design doesn't go well with "end of the world" and other type of plots that has urgency as a core element. Something like BG1's plot is much better (the investigate the ore shortage and bandits issues in the region) because the plot is telling you to explore.

Originally Posted by wolfgrimdark
That being said I detest timers.

I do, too - but Oblivion would have benefited if after a certain amount of time the towns were destroyed like Kvatch, one every 5 or 10 hours (gaming, not game-world hours). It definitely would have lent weight to the main quest in a way that makes sense and adds to immersion.

A focused story can be better then a 100 hours of filler.

I will use a non rpg as an example….the last of us…it wasn't the longest game(I think around 15 hours) but all of those 15 hours were amazing.

On the other hand some of the games you can sink 100's of hours into give you something a bit different. It gives you enjoyment over a longer period, maybe not as many high points though.

Are RPGs too long? Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. Sometimes even the really long ones simply aren't long enough for those who fall in love with the setting and gameplay. Sometimes you can play for a few hours and feel like your approaching a coma…

A problem with shortening an open-world game is that different players come at it with different interests and expectations. You may end up satisfying far fewer people. If, for example, Skyrim had cut out most of the stuff not related to the main quest, then I would have found the game a lot less enjoyable.

One way to handle the problem of urgency is by having the whole game be a 'flashback'. Game starts with you about to finish the game, and then you go to a flashback where you start at level 1 and do all the side quests and exploration you want, and when you're ready, you end the flashback and continue with the urgent part of the story.

Originally Posted by wolfing
One way to handle the problem of urgency is by having the whole game be a 'flashback'. Game starts with you about to finish the game, and then you go to a flashback where you start at level 1 and do all the side quests and exploration you want, and when you're ready, you end the flashback and continue with the urgent part of the story.

Eh, flashbacks?
Rpg's with the best pacing (of the the ones that I've played) all shared sort of an investigatory plot with behind the scenes antagonist(s), slowly being revealed throughout the game. Arcanum, Baldurs Gate I…for example. Problem is with tying protagonist's motivation to it in a believable way.
This would pass as "too boring" today, as with wider audience they've become a bit more oriented toward giving instant gratification.