| |
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
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Side Quest: No Time! No Time! |
|
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.
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>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 <em>like</em> 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.
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>Then there’s the filler – the pointless dungeons or combat purely designed to extend the gameplay.
<br>
<br>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.
<br>
<br>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? |
Sat Nov 26, 2005 1:49 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I hardly ever finish games. The ones I do finish are the shorter, more focused ones. I have a obsesive compulsive need to clear everything. I cannot do this until I clear everything before it. I never got to the second big dungeon in Divdiv because of this. The area to clear before it was huge.
IN BG2 I have to go around the whole city talking to everyone first before I start doing the quests. If its a short one I'll bang it out, like the slaves in the tavern/gladiotor thing.
I like too big, but too big drives me nuts. It would seem that really focused, easily clearable games such as Kotor would be my thing. But no.
I think it all falls down to how excited you are for the next level, next item, and especially the next fight. Are you engaged in the game? If I am really enjoying the combat the game can be 10 hours or 140 hours, I'll still want more.
In all my favourite rpgs there was character planning and mapping, strategic combat (besides Darklands), and always a carrot leading you onward.
I did enjoy and finish a lot of games that went aginst my taste mainly because they were short and focused (and entertaining), such as Arx Fatalis and Kotor 1.
Then games I really liked but couldn't finish (mainly because I didnt care about combat or getting that next level) were Bloodlines and PS:T.
I think it has less too do with length, and more to do with enjoyment. Time restraints shouldn't matter in a SP game. If you can only play 6 hours a week, a longer game you love should keep you going for a long time.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:01 pm |
|
|
skaven510
Village Dweller
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Posts: 7
Location: Taipei, Taiwan |
Are you kidding me? Don't have enough time? Ok so you and everyone else wants a short RPG where you spend 40 or 50 bucks for like 10 or 20 hours of gaming. A good example comes to mind "FABLE." I loved that game until after 10 to 20 hours later I FINISHED IT. I was dumbfounded utterly fabberglasted and some other big words that I don't know how to spell. Anyways the trend nowadays is to cut everything short and hope that the consumer will like it or add on some lame Multi player features to suck in the ppl who don't play that often.
Origin , Sir-tech, and Sierra were my all time favorite gaming companies and they made some outstanding long lasting games +60 hour games and flourished, but now they wouldn't be able to and I don't understand why? Well Sierra became a power house but it is nothing like it was back in the 90's. Origin got gobbled up by the EA machine and poor Sir-tech just flat out died. My point is that it seems that games were better quality years back and they did quite well for company's but now all the companies focus on the AVERAGE JOE or JANE to try and get them to play their game instead of focusing on their loyal following. Another good example is Fallout 1 and 2 look at the following those games have created and Interplay screwed everything by trying to make a game for everyone "fallout Brotherhood of Steel." Anyways if they the big marketers won't produce anything worthwhile then I will stick with the underdogs like spiderweb.com They have made some epic games worth playing. |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:14 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Let's see, I think I currently have 5 or 6 unfinished games on my HD. I DO plan to finish them, HONEST!! My problem, aside from time is something else comes along before I finish one game and as soon as I load up something new, the old game gets forgotten. I love long games, but I do acknowledge the need for a few shorter ones, like FATE. I think the avoidance of repetition, however, is vital. Once a game gets into a rut of same old, same old, I quickly get bored with it. For me, the classic Ultimas are the model others should follow.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:25 pm |
|
|
ShadowMoses
Head Merchant
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Location: UK |
Long games? definately... more focus, definately... If i'm forced along a path through countless dungeons for the sole purpose of getting to the end then yes more focus please... or rather make the game better! there should always be a meaningfull reason why i'm having to do something. One of the best things about PS:T was that even the fedex quests were interesting.. there was just that little more depth that made the difference.
I'm all for side activities that have no impact on the game except add a little more interaction and depth to the world... but repetition is bad!
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
Let's see, I think I currently have 5 or 6 unfinished games on my HD. I DO plan to finish them, HONEST!! My problem, aside from time is something else comes along before I finish one game and as soon as I load up something new, the old game gets forgotten...
This is the biggest problem i think and something i'm in the habit of doing as well. Games become much more rewarding if you are focussed on them and with the lack of "good" rpg's around there's no argument really for not having enough time. A little self discipline goes along way... install 1 game and play it when you can untill it's complete (or decide it's really not very good).
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Then games I really liked but couldn't finish (mainly because I didnt care about combat or getting that next level) were Bloodlines and PS:T.
*gasp* play it now!
_________________
Dak’kon: "Your reasons for your incessant clicking are not *known* to me."
-=:ASHES:=- || -=:Xenus-hq:=- |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 3:45 pm |
|
|
GhanBuriGhan
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 208
|
Both can work just fine for me. Relatively short games like KOTOR, or Arx have been good entertainment, but so have been games with hundreds f hours of potential gameplay, like the TES games. Ideally long games stilll have sort term goals available, so that short sessions are viable. |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:28 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
I hardly ever finish games. The ones I do finish are the shorter, more focused ones. I have a obsesive compulsive need to clear everything. I cannot do this until I clear everything before it. I never got to the second big dungeon in Divdiv because of this. The area to clear before it was huge.
IN BG2 I have to go around the whole city talking to everyone first before I start doing the quests. If its a short one I'll bang it out, like the slaves in the tavern/gladiotor thing.
I like too big, but too big drives me nuts. It would seem that really focused, easily clearable games such as Kotor would be my thing. But no.
I think it all falls down to how excited you are for the next level, next item, and especially the next fight. Are you engaged in the game? If I am really enjoying the combat the game can be 10 hours or 140 hours, I'll still want more.
In all my favourite rpgs there was character planning and mapping, strategic combat (besides Darklands), and always a carrot leading you onward.
I did enjoy and finish a lot of games that went aginst my taste mainly because they were short and focused (and entertaining), such as Arx Fatalis and Kotor 1.
Then games I really liked but couldn't finish (mainly because I didnt care about combat or getting that next level) were Bloodlines and PS:T.
I think it has less too do with length, and more to do with enjoyment. Time restraints shouldn't matter in a SP game. If you can only play 6 hours a week, a longer game you love should keep you going for a long time.
Who are you? Are you my lost twin? Are you watching me? Did I write this during a multiple personaility disorder spell?
What you wrote is ME exactly.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:51 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by corwin
Let's see, I think I currently have 5 or 6 unfinished games on my HD. I DO plan to finish them, HONEST!! My problem, aside from time is something else comes along before I finish one game and as soon as I load up something new, the old game gets forgotten...
Hard drive manufacturers love people like me. I refuse to delete a game off my hard drive till I beat it. I've had this policy for about 15 years and is the reason why I have nearly 2 terrabytes of hard drive storage on my machine and multiple partitiions to boot up into old O/S's like DOS.
Someday, I indeed will finish the last level of Stonekeep. Until then, that new 300GB Western Digital drive has defintley got my attention...
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:56 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by ShadowMoses
...with the lack of "good" rpg's around there's no argument really for not having enough time. A little self discipline goes along way... install 1 game and play it when you can untill it's complete (or decide it's really not very good).
Clearly you don't have a wife. Or 4 kids. Or run your own business and spend between 60 to 80 hours a week there (depending on the time of year). Or spend at least an hour at the day at the gym.
True, discipline can go a long way to seeing you through the completion of a game. But lack of time sorta trumps discipline no matter how you slice it.
But see for me, going to the gym is important. Not because it helps me feel energetic and keeps me slim. But because it betters my chances of living a longer life after retirement, when I plan to put to good use the 20 or so terabytes worth of games I will have amassed by then to play the games I never had time to play. Isn't cheap hard drive space great?
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:03 pm |
|
|
ShadowMoses
Head Merchant
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Location: UK |
quote:
Originally posted by TheMadGamer
quote:
Originally posted by ShadowMoses
...with the lack of "good" rpg's around there's no argument really for not having enough time. A little self discipline goes along way... install 1 game and play it when you can untill it's complete (or decide it's really not very good).
True, discipline can go a long way to seeing you through the completion of a game. But lack of time sorta trumps discipline no matter how you slice it.
Sure... but if you only have 30 mins each day to play (or however little time you have) splitting that time between multiple games isn't helping.
quote:
Originally posted by TheMadGamer
Clearly you don't have a wife. Or 4 kids. Or run your own business and spend between 60 to 80 hours a week there (depending on the time of year). Or spend at least an hour at the day at the gym.
Clearly you don't know me at all! 
_________________
Dak’kon: "Your reasons for your incessant clicking are not *known* to me."
-=:ASHES:=- || -=:Xenus-hq:=- |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:17 pm |
|
|
Paul999999
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 08 Oct 2002
Posts: 302
|
Clearly i doubt any of you have even got laid  unless she was ugly 
But really the people with "I have no time" yeah yeah just play games every one can make time. |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:32 pm |
|
|
GothicGothicness
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 110
|
I think there is a very simple answer to this question. As long as the developer can afford without making it too repititive and/or boring.
quote:
Clearly i doubt any of you have even got laid unless she was ugly
What kind of comment is that anyway?, it's both rude and ignorant, and probably inaccurate too. |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:19 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by TheMadGamer
Who are you? Are you my lost twin? Are you watching me? Did I write this during a multiple personaility disorder spell?
What you wrote is ME exactly.
Thats a first. Usually people point out how wrong I am.
Shadowmoses,
I played PS:T a couple times. I have made it to the area fter you save the angel a couple times, but the crappy IE combat always gets to me. I just cant stand it. But the stroy was great and almost made me really want to put up with the boring and repetitive overubundant combat.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:21 pm |
|
|
ShadowMoses
Head Merchant
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Location: UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Shadowmoses,
I played PS:T a couple times. I have made it to the area fter you save the angel a couple times, but the crappy IE combat always gets to me. I just cant stand it. But the stroy was great and almost made me really want to put up with the boring and repetitive overubundant combat.
Yeah the combat isn't the best... but you were so close to the end!
I normally wouldn't suggest this but If you're playing it for the story (and i think most people do) then CHEAT!! the story is certainly worth it!
_________________
Dak’kon: "Your reasons for your incessant clicking are not *known* to me."
-=:ASHES:=- || -=:Xenus-hq:=- |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:30 pm |
|
|
Paul999999
Leader of the Senate
Joined: 08 Oct 2002
Posts: 302
|
quote:
Originally posted by GothicGothicness
I think there is a very simple answer to this question. As long as the developer can afford without making it too repititive and/or boring.
quote:
Clearly i doubt any of you have even got laid unless she was ugly
What kind of comment is that anyway?, it's both rude and ignorant, and probably inaccurate too.
Its an honest and very accurate comment since the whole forum is filled with 40 year old men playing videogames do the math  |
|
Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
