Rampant Games - Are RPGs Too Long?

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
Why is finishing sooner than 7 months appealing? The journey should be the reward, otherwise you're playing a shitty game. If I had a game that lasted 7 months and I enjoyed it, I would think gaming zen had been achieved.

The problem comes that it becomes hard to maintain the flow of the game. By the time you finish, you may have forgotten why you started out on the journey.

That's the benefit of rather "railroading" games : You always have a reason and it ain't too complex … The more complex the game is, the rather I'mn forgetting my intentions/plans after a few weeks of a pause …

You cannot use the excuse of a gamers inability to remember what they are doing or where they are up to define the what the length of a RPG game should be.

Originally Posted by Wulf
You cannot use the excuse of a gamers inability to remember what they are doing or where they are up to define the what the length of a RPG game should be.

No, but it's simply a fact that this is one of the reasons why shorter games have become more appealing to me. Good Journals help too, by the way, or the ability to replay cutscenes. I still play the long games, but now I don't enjoy them because they are long, but in spite of the length, if you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
I think you could make one full Wheel of Time novel with just Nynaeve tugging on her braid

Word!

I liked longer games when I had no family.
But now I would prefer a shorter and more intensive experience.

One of the reasons my rpg fare nowadays consists mostly of rpg-shooter hybrids, I know I have a small chance of actually completing it :-)

To me, some games should have been better if they had removed a lot of "empty filling" and concentrated on the core experience.

C

I don't need length because I want to play for that long. I need length as a player horizon to support my time investment, whatever that may be.

That's because the length of a game is so apparent these days, with the level of exposure in the media - and our own experiences with design - that you're constantly aware that the game will end at a certain point, and it's signalled precisely way before it happens.

When I'm aware of exactly when a game will end, it's a big problem if the game isn't long. Because it means I have a hard time investing myself and suspending my disbelief. I'm a huge immersion player - and I need my game to "pretend" it's an alternate reality, and that I could potentially lose myself in that world.

Well, obviously not all games can be like that - but when a great one comes along and transports me in this magical way, it's just no good if I'm too aware that it will all end any minute now.

Makes sense?

GhanBuriGhan, yes of course i understand.

We could almost conclude that the gamers own 'life-style' is the main link factor to the length of a RPG game, life-styles have changed much in recent years.

Indeed, take note that the OP link author Jay Barnson is using his own life-style factor to express his current stance.

My life-style is completely different to Jay Barnston's, you would think that from his influential position he would be more considerate and knowledgeable of other gamers aspirations of RPG length than that of his own.

I think an RPG should be as long as it needs to be …ahem…(was trying to be profound ;-) For me, a nice RPG has good mechanics (lots of character build potential, interesting permutations) and a good, engrossing and consequence-rich story with lots of opportunities to affect the way the story unfolds around your character. Some of the games which are called "RPG's" these days are simply too dull (both mechanics and story) to engage me for any length of time. They should be shorter - but also , much cheaper - so tehy can provide mindless hack'n'slash if you're bored. For an RPG, I think the main plot-line should be fairly long, and should have some sense of urgency if possible. I dislike RPG's which have endless world content, but a short plot driving your onwards. I'd rather have a long plot line, with a less free-form world but with lots of lovingly crafted interactions (NPC's, world etc) which bring the world to life and capture your attention. I could happily spend hours interacting with interesting NPC's with their own motivations, even if these are somewhat tangential to the main story. But they need to be interesting and plausible in some way. The many hours I logged in BG1&2 were, on average,very enjoyable. Perhaps because you *were* an adventurer and finding out about your dark past was an every present goad, but it also made sense that you could (and woudl) need to adventure to find fame and fortune and build up your strength once you had some sense of what was pitted against you. I also liked that in Morrowind - you were told to go out and get some skills before trying to confront what lay ahead. No artificial level scaling - you had to be up for the challenge, and to prepare yourself accordingly. That was, imho, worth investing time in and something that I consider as being necessary time in addition the main quest (as opposed to frivolous grinding time). Not sure the abortive made much sense, but there yiou have my 2 cents

Originally Posted by DArtagnan;1061151325

..I need length as a player horizon to support my time investment, whatever that may be.
..
Well, obviously not all games can be like that - but when a great one comes along and transports me in this magical way, it's just no good if I'm too aware that it will all end any minute now.

Makes sense?

Well put, and I understand.

When I read Shogun as a kid I were really sad when I reached page 550, which implied that I had less than half of the story left, only 549 pages to the end

The problem in this time of information is that we all know much more about the games we intend to play before we hit "start a new game" than we ever did before. (unless you have developed super human discipline and manage to stay away from any pitfalls "gaming sites ;-) " along the way.

C

Originally Posted by Crilloan
Well put, and I understand.

When I read Shogun as a kid I were really sad when I reached page 550, which implied that I had less than half of the story left, only 549 pages to the end

This is a great point.

Are books too long these days? Perhaps dramatic television series should also be limited to one season, because after watching many episodes over a period of years, it becomes too challenging to remember all the characters?

If I'm busy with work projects and I take a break from a game for a few months, or even a year, I always seem to pick up where I left off.

And there are games where the point is not even to "beat" it, it's more about exploring the world and developing your character. I played Oblivion for years and never finished the main quest, or most of the major faction quests, but I still enjoyed the game quite a bit and felt it was a great value for the purchase price.

Originally Posted by crpgnut
I think you could make one full Wheel of Time novel with just Nynaeve tugging on her braid

Why ? (I've never read those novels.)

Originally Posted by Wulf
I often pause an rpg and continue later.

I said; you can't.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Why ? (I've never read those novels.)

To be honest, Jordan really isn't very good at characterization. He writes about 5-10 things about each main character and then repeats these items ad nauseam instead of striving for further development. I remember reading an article very early in the wheel of time series that said it was a planned trilogy. When Jordan's books took off and became bestsellers, he stretched the story almost infinitely but didn't really add much more content. Jordan's books are very similar to crpgs that are full of filler combat. There's a very good story told by Jordan but you have to read literally thousands of pages of filler to get to it.

The first 3 Wheel of time books are great! Good pacing, interesting story, many but not TOO many character, etc. But the next N books (N is some number more than 5 and less than how many ever there were) contain less substance than probably any of those first 3. I gave up reading them after I finished one and honestly couldn't think of one thing of significance that happened in the whole book.

I disagree, I think the books get better and better, but more and more complex. That's why fans are so split, the ones who managed to follow in the advanced and complex flow, and the ones who doesn't manage to follow. It becomes more and more apparent towards the end what the purpose was for each of the things happening.

WoT books 8-10 or so were rather slow and boring if I recall correctly. Then again, I feel the same way about some of the content in A Song of Ice and Fire, which people praise as the greatest thing ever written, so there's a fat chance I don't agree with everyone.

All in all, it's all about quality vs content. A poem can be as profound as a massive brick of a book. Personally, I prefer lengthier games and books that allow me to get to know the world and the characters, but I fully understand that people with less time on their hands prefer games/books they can actually complete without spending hundreds of hours on it.

Do it like Bethesda? HELL NO

Are RPGs too long compared to which other genre?

Strategy? i have played thousands of hours of EU3 and CK2 and still can not get enough of them
Space Sims ? I once had a 6 months real time save in X2
Adventures ? well yes adventures are really short but how many play adventures?
Shooters? No idea but i guess the purpose is multiplayer where players spend hundreds of hours .
Arcades ? well yes arcades are also short but their purpose is to be played during coffee brakes.

I think RPGs are not long enough, at least the newer ones i am currently playing an oldie and after 30 or so hours i have not yet got deep into main quest .

Originally Posted by Tragos
Do it like Bethesda? HELL NO

Are RPGs too long compared to which other genre?

Strategy? i have played thousands of hours of EU3 and CK2 and still can not get enough of them
Space Sims ? I once had a 6 months real time save in X2
Adventures ? well yes adventures are really short but how many play adventures?
Shooters? No idea but i guess the purpose is multiplayer where players spend hundreds of hours .
Arcades ? well yes arcades are also short but their purpose is to be played during coffee brakes.

I think RPGs are not long enough, at least the newer ones i am currently playing an oldie and after 30 or so hours i have not yet got deep into main quest .

There is a difference with RPGs in that they are more story-based (unless you play RPGs as more like tactical games, like Wizardry and such).
A game of EU3 can take months to finish, but you can leave it and retake it 6 months later and it doesn't matter because there is not much to remember. If you stopped at 1593, when you continue it later you don't have to remember what happened in 1450 or 1499 or 1550.

Actually, I think strategy games are much harder to get back to, because you tend to have a very specific set of strategies that you're trying to implement - and the level of detail is often such that you have no chance of remembering what your forces were doing at this or that area, or why you were building this or that in whatever country/province/area.

RPGs tend to have journals (especially modern ones) - and it's easier to read up on what you were doing, and I also tend to find stories and characters more memorable than whatever strategy I might have come up with in a game.

But, still, I do NOT like leaving games and getting back to them. I don't think I've EVER left an RPG for more than a few weeks and gotten back and completed it. I almost invariably start over.

Unless, of course, it's something like Mass Effect 3. I got back to it recently, after having abandoned it a few weeks ago. But instead of starting over - I just deleted the game and my savegames. It's such a pathetic repetitive experience that I know I'll never finish it

It might be funny if it wasn't for the first game being so much better. I REALLY wanted a conclusion to what they started back in 2007. That the gameplay is so horribly uninspired and the content so obviously rushed that I can't even stomach a single playthrough - says something about Bioware.

Well, it does to me - anyway.

Originally Posted by wolfing
There is a difference with RPGs in that they are more story-based (unless you play RPGs as more like tactical games, like Wizardry and such).
A game of EU3 can take months to finish, but you can leave it and retake it 6 months later and it doesn't matter because there is not much to remember. If you stopped at 1593, when you continue it later you don't have to remember what happened in 1450 or 1499 or 1550.

My point was to make a comparison , for sure modern RPGs are not long (enough) . Yes i too leave saves for long period of times , i even keep saves after a game gets uninstalled.

I get lost figuring out what I’m doing next

Heh it is an RPG finding what to do next is part of the experience !

And then I realize that it’s been months since I last played, and there are other games waiting to be played…

Yes and? just because you have the financial ability to buy 30 games per year it doesn't mean that everybody does .

I think the guy who wrote this article will love roguelikes where you know you die sooner than later and start a new character .