Game worlds that are too big?

B

blakjedi

Veteran
Just wondering what y'all thought about game worlds that are too big... WOuld you rather a very hot fairly short game (20-30 hours of dynamite gameplay) that was episodic versus a very long very good game (oblivion jesus it NEVER ends! :p )

I think I'd rather the short strong pop that makes me want more, rather than the long game that makes me want to get it over with...
 
Long game for me. It has to justify the 60$ CAD price tag.

There are exceptions to the rule. Shadow of the Colossus being one of them.
 
I prefer games that are between 10-20 hours of good/compelling/interesting story, to be honest. But I also don't mind the occasional long one.
 
I tend to be very thorough in playing games, and if it's big I get bored (but still keep playing). I've spent hundreds of hours on GW (RPG only) and am annoyed I haven't completed the official campaing yet! Too big annoys me. Too open annoys me too. I go exploring and there's never much to actually find - the game doesn't grow with playing size so bigger games tend to lead to just more repetition. So though I hate short games, I'm not keen on massive games either. 30-40 hours is very good value when you consider how much other hobbies cost per hour. 5-10 is way too short (ICO is a good example of a game far too short to worth playing at full price IMO). Something hugely open ended where you can spend hundreds of hours seems a waste of design time to me, crafting individual dungeons that all look much alike and all house the same monsters and barrels of random stuff.
 
I'd much rather play a short game with a great story and interesting gameplay. Not that a longer game has to be bad, but it seems like most games will throw in tons of filler to get up to that length. I'll take 30 hours of fighting for my life and saving the universe from destruction, rather than 100 hours of finding fish scales, scrounging around for certain bottles of wine, killing spiders in someone's shed, finding the ogre who took a lady's wedding ring, etc. I consider games like that to be more like work than play, since they encourage you to do boring crap for the hope of a reward (experience points, cooler looking armor and weapons, finding the treasure chest at the end of the generic dungeon, etc.), rather than keeping you playing because you're engaged and having fun RIGHT NOW. I don't give a shit whether some old lady gets her wedding ring back, but I'll do it because I feel like I'm missing something if I don't.

Now that I think about it, the only game to hold my interest for 60+ hours was Xenogears. It manages to stay fresh and interesting the whole time, without ever resorting to boring filler. Usually, a game loses my interest at around 30 hours, unless it's a damn good game.
 
I must have played Outpost Kaloki X for like ten hours yesterday... What fun that was! I'd rather buy three games at 40 bucks that have complete engaging stories rather than one very long $60 game with hundreds of quests...
 
Gubbi said:
Long is good.

Short game is good if there's good replayability (KOTOR and similar).

Cheers
Click to expand...

Well it took me 40+ hours to complete Kotor and I wasn't laying around too much, I would't call that short even if there are longer games. Kotor was long, Fable was short, Oblivion is eternity.
 
Big worlds are not that great IMO, better have a focused world with a lot of interesting things to do that a giant sandbox with nothing to do (hint hint ;) )

A game is a combination of fast paced actions, stop & watch puzzles, and some (little) cinematics to have a good sense of achievment.
It doubt a game can be that long, of course some players like long games and there shall always be some long games for them, but overall I feel like 20-40 hours is enough.

I prefer 20 hours (no less though), but CRPG having long stories to unfold may have up to 40 hours.
Any game that requires me to play longer is a no go, I won't get it, I won't play and I won't care :p

What is important to me is that I need to launch the game, play it 20 minutes and feel like I've done something worth it before switching it off to come back later.

Basically games, to my liking, should be cut into 20 minutes sequences, just like some TV show, during which I get something nice done.
 
While Oblivion is a very large game, I do find it a pleasure to play and I'm a good 30 odd hours into it and I'm not bored of it in the slightest. I usually can't get into these games at all. If its fun it can be as long as it wants. Games that aren't fun and are padded with nonsense like FFX are such a chore to play through.
 
I prefer 10-20 hours long games with constant action. I don't like too complicated games, with too many puzzles to solve. I simply loved BLACK...best game of the year (till now) for me.
 
As much as I did enjoy playing Oblivion, I think it would have been better if they had cut about half the time they took in copy and pasteing textures and meshes to create more dungeons, and invested that time in making a few new dungeons with new textures and meshes.
 
Well, as much as I love playing GTA, I thought san andreas was a tad bit huge at times. Sometimes it took me forever to drive or swim from one place to another place. I do however hope they keep a similar size for GTA4 and not make it any larger, just add more details and content.
 
Depends a lot on the game, if you can sustain my interest for 30/40 70/100 or 1000 hours fine go for it. If your trying to tell the story from an action film 8 hours might be too much.

I generally prefer linear single player games
I hated the open endedness in GTA, having said that I loved Oblivion.
In contrast if the original MGS had been much longer it would have been tedious. It was about a short intense experience.

To me it's about the overall experience, either it's good or it's not, that might be 8 hours and it might be 1000, I just don't think there is a hard and fast rule.
 
To me, of all the games I've played Oblivion was the perfect size. You could wander but didn't have to walk endlessly to come across action or things to discover. There was so much in the wilderness to discover that you wanted to wander off. A lot of games will give you a huge enviornment but one that is quite repetitive. In oblivion, you never knew what you were gonna run into.
 
For me, I look at games the same way I look at movies. If a movie is good, you don't complain that it was too short or too long. All that matters is that you enjoy the movie thoroughly and leave satisfied.

A good example of a good, short game is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. That game is only 10 hours long but it's one of the best games ever made. Would it have been better if it were 40 hours long? Probably not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
The first Evil Within still has remarkably sophisticated lighting
Replies
2
Views
1K
Phantom88
P
Rys
  • Sticky
Hello again
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
12K
homerdog
homerdog
Shortbread
Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
12K
trinibwoy
T
D
Video Game Console Cooling - A Hot Topic (pun kind of intended).
Replies
14
Views
3K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Rys
Reopening Architecture and Products + rules and guidelines changes
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
16K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
Back
Top