| |
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 |
You know, you're always looking to be a jerk. Many of the posters in this thread have families of their own, so run along and try to impress some other 14 year olds.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:50 pm |
|
|
GothicGothicness
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 110
|
So you're saying that people who play roleplaying games equals people who don't get laid by beautiful women? I guess I'm an exception in that case.
But anyway my point was that it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread.
quote:
Its an honest and very accurate comment since the whole forum is filled with 40 year old men playing videogames do the math
|
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 12:12 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
You know, you're always looking to be a jerk. Many of the posters in this thread have families of their own, so run along and try to impress some other 14 year olds.
That kind of proves the first part of his point. Marriage alone kind of kills the sex drive, marriage with kids brings you full loop back to 12 years old and self love in showers or while going number 2.
Its not that i don't want to, its just that she wants me to try and make her want to. Thats just way too much effort. I never give myself a hard time. And also on birthdays and anniversaries if I try and do anything romantic I get a lot of credit. Where if I was romantic all the time I would really have to put effort into thinking of something special.
So not getting laid is the way to go really.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:08 am |
|
|
N
Guest
|
| Re: Side Quest: No Time! No Time! |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
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.
I like this concept, and some games do it mostly well. It is enjoyable to me to continue to flesh out my character beyond what is just necessary to complete the game.
I would like to add to this thought... Many times it is necessary to do these side quest to level up enough to fight through later areas... and vice versa, if you do too many side quests, sometimes the ending of the game becomes too easy.
I think that the logic behind the scenes is where the complexity needs to reside in scaling the world so that it responds more accurately to your style of play. The game should always have that epic feel, never too easy, or too hard. |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:32 am |
|
|
.Twinfalls
Guest
|
What? And you people say the Codex is a weird place? I'll just go outside and slam my head against a tree to shake out the imagery of "Elvis" Roqua's sobbing confession about how he can't sleep with his wife.
/leaves
/back
Now. Back to the topic. I can't believe this is even being discussed - or rather, that it's being discussed in terms of 'should games be shorter'.
NO. That early poster who mentioned how games used to be huge and they're not done anymore, and now 'Fable' sells a truckload, is right on the money.
The debate topic should not be 'should games be shorter'. The topic should be 'GodDAMMIT games are too short and too easy in this stupid Age of Dumbing Down, now how about people come up with strategies to get people to buy games the way they used to be - HARD and LONG'. |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:38 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I'm not arguing that games should be shorter per se - I'm suggesting that RPGs could make some changes that would produce better games and help players choose how long to play. In a nutshell, I'm saying that rather than one monolithic slab of linear storyline, give me a shorter central plot with lots more choices in terms of optional side-plots and factions. And give me a decent interface while you're at it. And don't waste my time with filler.
I loved Fallout - 20 hours of awesome gameplay. Got bored with Wiz8 - 80 hours of dreadful combat interspersed with some goodness here and there.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 3:55 am |
|
|
.Twinfalls
Guest
|
Yeah, that's fair enough - noone would argue with that Dhruin. I guess I just feel that there's nothing remotely monolithic being made anymore so there's not much point decrying excess length, even in terms of filler and repetitiveness.
I tend to get the feeling publishers/developers are thinking to themselves "A-HA! the gamers don't like it too long - here's another excuse to make things more CHEAPLY!"
You know, streamlining and all that. You have a certain studio Head Dwarf saying: "Statistically, players prefer a shorter game" as an excuse to cut out staves and skills etc, rather than being honest and saying "Our last game was incredibly tedious because the MQ was poorly written and repetitive, rather than being too long per se"
I think in the end a game should be as long or as short as the makers feels is right for them to create the experience they want, without regard to consumer demographics (eg 'how much free time they have'). With an RPG, this would tend to be towards the lengthy one would assume such is the nature of that type of game. |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:55 am |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by Paul999999
Clearly i doubt any of you have even got laid  unless she was ugly 
This is sorta like when someone blames everyone else about that stinky fart floating around the room...
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:38 am |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
The internet and MP3s have killed my gaming. I think my overall available gaming time hasn't decreased all that terribly much, even with the wife and kiddies. It's that first hour "lost" to the Dot, or playing Windows games while the music plays, that slows me down.
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:08 am |
|
|
abbaon
Guest
|
A game should last for as many hours as I need to experience everything. My ideal RPG would fully exploit the potential of its design, and then end. None of them get this quite right. Even the best RPG of recent memory - GTA: San Andreas - started to drag in parts. |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:52 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
what games don't drag? If you are really enjoying the game the drag probably doesn't feel like one at all.
I think it comes down to focus. If the game is really challenging and you are not mindlessly gettting through it, you are probably engaged and its not dragging. Or the drag parts are something you enjoy, so not really a drag.
An example would be any of the old top down or side view space shooters that have two player simaltanious options. My wife and I will play one every now and then for the snes. These are basically the most repetitive games the world has ever seen, but for some reason they are "edge-of-your-seat-exctiting." You don't get board near the end, or get into a drag. When you beat a boss you actually feel accomplishment. It actualy gets funner as you play. I always have a good time playing them, but I would never decide on my own to play one. Or buy one if they were released now.
But in those games everything is on the line. Lose all your lives you have to start over. Its exciting. Where most rpgs have the save-reload, safety method.
The only rpg in recent times to really engage me and not get repetetive was ToEE in ironman. Picking pockets is nerve racking. No battle ever becomes a chore. You actually play differently. The only kind of real roleplaying experience I ever had on a crpg was with ToEE in Ironman. In NUlb, I was beat up and really needed to rest bad, when I walked into the tavern that girl picket my pockets and we caught her. I never back out of fights but I had to then If I didnt want my party to be wiped. I spent like five minutes deciding if I was going to back down or not.
But ToEE seems to be the only rpg that was really designed with ironman in mind. The game has perfect challengge on ironman. And if you have leet skills try it out with L-whatshernames mod. Try clearing the dirst big brracks room in the temple (the one accessed through the outside) in ironman with her mod if you are looking for a challenge.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:34 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
| Re: Side Quest: No Time! No Time! |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
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.
I have the exact same feeling. I'd love a 100+ hour game, but as I've been getting older, gotten into college, etc. that behemoth of a game isn't really possible anymore, unless I want to make some major sacrifices in other areas. I don't have those long summer vacations to burn on games like Might & Magic VI or Baldur's Gate 2.
quote:
<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.
I think it is. The two general types of cRPGs: tight, story-based ones (such as many Japanese RPGs, Planescape: Torment, etc.) and free-roaming RPGs (Fallout, Chapter 2 of BG2, M&M VI, Wizardry 8, etc.) can in their own ways. In the case of story-based RPGs, playtime can be controlled through plot and area, and the content can be designed to deliver the most bang for the buck, since designers should know what the player is doing at any given time and that most content will be encountered and used. (Obviously, this has drawbacks.) Free-roaming cRPGs allow players to select and experience as much content as they want, but there's the drawback that much content will never be seen or played by the player. (Which is a waste for the game developers to create.)
quote:
<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.
Yes, this is something endemic to RPGs. Journals seem like they're added as last-minute features. I think the journals in the BG series worked fairly well, IIRC, but even then, they were vague at times.
quote:
<br>Then there’s the filler – the pointless dungeons or combat purely designed to extend the gameplay.
What really gets me is when the filler is randomized and you have to experience it over and over again or, worse, can't avoid it. It becomes a recurring nightmare.
quote:
<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.
Yes, definitely. Not only can guilds/factions provide conflict, but they can be used to create credibility in the story and world. That was one thing I really liked about Gothic. As you joined and advanced within the guilds, you also advanced the story, did quests, and met many important NPCs. In contrast was Morrowind, which had interesting ideas for guilds, except poor implementation, in my opinion. What you did in a guild never affected the fabric of the world or story. They were the equivalent of quest pez dispensers. They could've been much more. On a historical note, guilds played a vital role in medieval society, functioning in economic, political, and religious spheres. It'd be nice to see games incorporate them more into the game world as their real-life examples were in ours.
quote:
<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?
The only time I had "unlimited" gaming time was when I was in high school, and that was 5 years ago. Dating, college, work, etc. take a bite out of free time as well.  I think the right length for a cRPG lies between 40-80 hours, but it depends on the quality of the game. I wouldn't want a good game to end sooner than it should.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:13 pm |
|
|
txa1265
Magister of the Light
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 390
Location: Marlborough, MA USA |
*********************** Off Topic ************************
quote:
Originally posted by Paul999999
Its an honest and very accurate comment since the whole forum is filled with 40 year old men playing videogames do the math 
Hey - I'm only 39! 
But you seem to have fallen into the media trap that games are for kids (boys) and that any adult who plays video games is a loser. But of course, adults who swill beer in front of 8 hours of sports every Sunday are 'real men'. 
Personally, I have a wonderful and beautiful wife, two great kids, a rich and full life, and a love of my video game hobby (as well as other hobbies).
*********************** On Topic *************************
Personally I find myself with a few thoughts:
- I have railed against the '8 hour FPS' since MoHAA - I thought reviewers should have knocked off points for how short it was.
- I am similarly against any RPG-ish game under 30 hours. Fable: The Lost Chapters is particularly egregious in this regard - I sought out every action I could take throughout the game, and it still only took me <16 hours. That is just unacceptable.
- So what *is* a good game length? Personally NWN OC took me ~80 hours, and KotOR took me ~65 hours the first one or two times through, and I'm very thorough with exploration. I am quite happy with that game length - but more than willing to invest any amount of time into a good game.
- Is there 'too long'? No - it is purely contextual to the game. I'm replaying Divine Divinity, and there are some dungeon areas that are just exhausting to plough through, but it is rewarding.
- I have a problem with the 'Halo effect' - the obvious cut-and-paste to lengthen a game, or needless retracking steps. I'm playing "Legend of Heroes' (Final Fantasy-style RPG) now on the PSP, and there are times you need to return to this town or that, but (so far) it is onely one or two screens, so isn't that annoying.
- Basically - I'd rather play a 40-hour game that is 40-hours long than a 40-hour game that is 60-hours long due to stretching and other cheap tricks.
I also quite agree with Dhruin's comments that developers should be aiding players with a decent journal and annotated map - too many games play like the developers assume that games will play straight through, and have nothing to aid the re-starting of a game in progress.
Mike
_________________
Dopelar effect (n.) The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
Check out my blog. |
|
Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:57 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
You make some excellent points txa1265
Here's my 2 gold pieces...
A lengthy amount of time needed to complete a CRPG definatley contributes to the overall experience of, 'grandness' and 'epicness' that one may not walk away with when able to complete a CRPG in a 'short' amount of time.
The same can be said for the size of the world. An intangible CRPG quality really lacks when a CRPG world seems small. Case-in-point: Ultima IX, Ascension. But again, like length-of-time, the size-of-the-world is just a single ingredient among several that are needed to make a great CRPG.
So length of time alone isn't enough. You can have plenty of chocolate to make brownies with, but if you don't have other stuff like flour and eggs, you're going to end up with something, it just isn't going to be brownies. I promise, that's the last really bad analogy you'll see in this post.
CRPGs that seem to drone on and on into what becomes tedium for the player rely too heavily on extending the length of the game and not enough on the gameplay and overall content.
The opposite is true as seen in a game like Fable (though yes, Fable definatley is CRPG-Lite) where there is a good amount of varying gameplay and content, but the game is so short that it feels more like a King's Quest adventure (which isn't a bad thing if the game is supposed to be an adventure game) than an epic CRPG.
I don't mind playing a CRPG rated at 200+ hours as long as there is a steady stream of new and interesting things to do and discover interspersed at appropriate time intervals along the way. This includes new gameplay elements that are introduced where the player experiences things later in the game that they were unable to experience earlier on in the game such as:
-Obtaining a new combat ability
-Obtaining a new spell
-Being able to travel faster
-Obtaining new modes of transportation
-Being able to create something
-Being able to manipulate something
-Being able to get beyond a barrier
-Discovering a new area
One game that stands out for me personally that struck a great balance with length of time, size of world, and introduction of new experiences throughout the course of the game is Ultima VII. A more contemporary, but less successful game in that regard, would be Morrowind.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:18 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:47 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
