| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
When I was a kid, I had a variety of early computers – an 8088-based kit, Sinclair ZX81, Commodore 64 and others. And I gamed on all of them. They were mostly forgettable platformers and action games; oddly enough I wasn’t impressed with early cRPGs because I was actively playing various PnP campaigns, which I thought were infinitely better. It was the open-ended space-sim Elite that first completely and utterly captivated me, turning a boyish interest in games into a complete obsession – even a lifestyle. I got Elite during the Christmas holidays one year and with all the time in the world, I played for days and days on end – hundreds of hours, altogether.
Fast forward to the present. While the current cRPG market is weak, I still have a large library of older titles…and almost no time to play them.
There’s certainly been a general trend to shorter games in the last few years, although this is almost certainly driven by the cost of producing glossy content rather than any altruistic desire to look after gamers’ needs – whatever that is. It seems 10 hours is an accepted length for the single-player campaign in a shooter but cRPG fans expect a lot more – probably 40 hours plus. A handful of gamers have embraced shorter games, arguing that shorter but focused content is better than filler, while others demand a $1 / 1 hour cost ratio or some other equation. I must admit some internal conflict: I like the idea of an epic 100 hour cRPG but 30-40 hours suits my available time better. Obviously, the game design needs to be taken into account: cRPGs need enough length to allow character and story development but filler like repetitive combat just for the sake of length isn’t desirable.
Is it possible to design good cRPGs that balance the demand for “epic” while acknowledging the reality of restricted playtime for many? Is it a desirable thing to do? Honouring the core design must come first but despite the difficulties thrown up, I think it can actually improve the genre.
The first barrier is poor interface and journal design (a bugbear of mine - because frankly, it’s simply not that hard to get right). I’ve often played cRPGs with poor (or even non-existent) journals and it makes it difficult to come back to a game after a break - how often have you come back to an RPG and found you have no clue who to take the magic sword to and where they are? Maps that can be labelled, detailed journals and clearly written quests should be expected in every game.
Then there’s the filler – the pointless dungeons or combat purely designed to extend the gameplay.
Going beyond that, I think there’s room for cRPGs with somewhat shorter main storylines but much more depth with factions and optional side-quests. Joinable factions are under utilised in cRPG design – they provide an ideal opportunity to give player choices and set up conflict within the gameworld, as well as assisting replayability. Optional side-quests from a guild house or similar to gain prestige or unlock minor skills can flesh out the game while giving the player some control of the overall length of the game. It’s also an opportunity to use random quests without affecting the quality of the central gameplay. Obviously this has already been done in some games to some extent – let’s see more of it.
What do you think? Do you have limited gaming time and does it affect how/what you play? What is the right length for a cRPG? Should they be designed differently or not? |
|
|
Side Quest: No Time! No Time!
