Are some games too big for their own good?

Anything to do with games at all.
Gemini73

PostAre some games too big for their own good?
by Gemini73 » Sun May 27, 2018 7:58 am

Having agreed to cover the Sunday 6am-2pm shift at work it's time for another of my gripping threads. :datass:


If one thing is true of being a video gamer it's that time is everything and for some of us a great deal of time isn't a luxury we have.

I've put in just over 30 hours playing AC Origins and while my opinion of the game hasn't changed that Ubisoft fatigue is beginning to kick in. I've reached level 26, unlocked three quarters of the map, completed at least 70% of side quests in these areas, solved a few riddles and only have two more main targets to assassinate, (according to my target list), and yet I still don't feel like I've put a massive dent in the game.

AC Origins is fantastic, no question, but I do wonder why these devs feel the need to make their games so huge. It's simply not necessary to tell their story.

So, do you think some games are just too damn big or is anything less than a 100+ hour epic not worth you time?

Over to you. :capnscotty:

User avatar
more heat than light
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: mhtl
Location: Leicestershire

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by more heat than light » Sun May 27, 2018 8:39 am

I'm obsessed with checking average completion times of games on TrueAchievements (completion as in 1000G). If it's not less than 20 hours and it's not Dark Souls then I can't usually be arsed.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:MHTL is an OG ledge
User avatar
ITSMILNER
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: UK

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by ITSMILNER » Sun May 27, 2018 9:40 am

Problem is lack of free time, I probably have about 10 hours max a week in which I can sit down and play games. This means something like a God of War could literally take me a month plus to finish if I took my time to experience everything. This then leads me to try to rush through games so I don’t appreciate what great things the game does and why opinions are so high on a game.

The Nintendo Switch has made things a bit better as the option to play portable means I can play during lunch at work or when I go to bed.

Image
User avatar
Death's Head
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Death's Head » Sun May 27, 2018 9:58 am

For me, yes. I like to complete all games I play (not every side quest, but the main game). There are very few games where I don't reach a point where I am continuing just to complete it rather than because the game is so enjoyable. I'd much rather 10 hours of the best bits than 30 hours that contained 10 hours of good stuff padded out.

Yes?
User avatar
MrBrown
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Stephen_Hitman_Brown
Location: Dundee...again.

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by MrBrown » Sun May 27, 2018 10:05 am

Since having a wee boy my games playing time has almost vanished. I tend to pick up more indie titles that have short play times. Although I’ll pick up the odd big game but rarely do I play it much past completion of the story. Agree that the switch helps squeeze in a few extra hours here and there. Swings and round abouts though. I’m sure the time will pick back up as the wee man gets older.

_____________________
Stoke me a Clipper, I'll be back for Christmas.
User avatar
Frank
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Frank » Sun May 27, 2018 10:21 am

I think with the recent shift towards "open-world" games they're definitely getting too big. Like, they'll give you an entire city to trot around in, but either A) nothing to do there (I've noticed there's very little to do in Agents of Mayhem when you're driving from the spawn to the mission), or B) too much to do there (see: the map saturation in Ass Creed).

Bigger maps don't automatically mean better games. Look at how much Majora's Mask managed to do with a small map and a whole load of recycled assets. Less is more, and developers still seem to be struggling with the idea.

Image
jawafour
Member
Joined in 2012

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by jawafour » Sun May 27, 2018 10:34 am

I do enjoy games that pack lots of clever, cool activities into a small area, but I have to say that I also love to play massive open world games. In recent years some of my favourite gaming experiences have involved exploring expansive environments; things like Fallout, Mad Max, Elder Scrolls Online, Final Fantasy XIV, Wildlands and Zelda BOTW.

But, yeah, they can require more of a time commitment!

User avatar
Tomous
Member
Joined in 2010
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Tomous » Sun May 27, 2018 10:50 am

I don’t like the trend to open world games needing to be as big as possible. As others have alluded to above, they become empty with not a lot to do. Copy and paste jobs to make the map as large as possible.

I’d much prefer smaller, tighter worlds with more detail and content.

Image
User avatar
1cmanny1
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
Location: New Zealand

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by 1cmanny1 » Sun May 27, 2018 11:04 am

I think they are - it's all about repetition.

For example in the Witcher 3 I felt like I had to do everything, and clean up the map before I moved on. Some were great, but most followed a similar pattern and it eventually became tedious. Especially since the main story was good, and I really just wanted to carry on with that. But I felt I would be missing out if I didn't finish the side quests.

But theoretically the more open world the game is, the bigger it can be. Sick of doing x quest, go and do something totally different. For example in Fallout 4, if you get sick of looting you can go and base build. If you then think of the last of us, even though the story was great, it was just go to area A, shoot, area B, shoot. No matter how good the story, if that game went on too much longer you would get sick of it.


Assassins Creed type games are probably the best example. The side quests (and even the main quests) are so tedious, I can never finish them.

Image
User avatar
Kriken
Member
Joined in 2015
AKA: Best Boy
Contact:

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Kriken » Sun May 27, 2018 1:55 pm

Yes. However, the issue will never be size but if the size is justified. If it comes at the expense of other aspects of the game. As long as its good we can't say there's too much content.

These days I have been gravitating towards smaller games that I can complete in a shorter amount of time before moving on to something new. If it is a big game where there's a lot of content I don't have the time to experience, admittedly I do feel like it's a bit of a waste if I move on to something else without experiencing it - even if I don't really feel like it.

However, this is partly because a.) there are many more games to play and b.) i have the means to experience many more games - compared to when I was growing up.

In the past I would have been more appreciative of games with tons of content because I had to eke them out. For years, Pokémon Blue was one of the only games I had on my gameboy colour, so I played that game again and again. I tried to find every little secret I could in Ocarina of Time. I obsessively pursued 100% completion on Custom Robo DS - something which I was proud of doing because I did it with no guide and I searched every nook and cranny in the game to do it. I sunk an ungodly number of hours into Morrowind.

The novelty of open world and MMO games has also worn off a bit. Not that I don't want to play them anymore but I'm a lot more choosy now, whereas in the past the idea of an open world game sounded so awesome. I'd play any.

Would I say the past is better in these regards though? Nah. We have a ton of big games and small games to appeal to people depending on their mood, time commitment or whether or not they can afford a lot of games. Part of it is also managing our expectations and accepting that some games might not be worth completing 100%.

Twitch | Twitter | Kriken_1 on Threads | Bluesky
he/they
User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Lex-Man » Sun May 27, 2018 2:41 pm

Generally I don't like open world games it's probably because i don't have a great attention span and don't have too much time to play games. I'm starting to think that Dark Souls 3 is too long although I'm still really enjoying it and I think I've opened the final boss room.

I tend to look at games like Half 2 ep 1/2 and the original Portal as being of the idle length. They don't stick around too long and feel really tight and keep things fresh.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Ironhide
Fiend
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Ironhide » Sun May 27, 2018 3:24 pm

Being somewhat limited in my choice of games I can manage to play, I don't usually mind if a game takes a long time to finish but I agree that sometimes finishing large games can be an extremely daunting task.

Earlier in the year I was heavily engrossed in Divinity: Original Sin II and was thoroughly enjoying taking my time exploring the various environments and experimenting with various combat tactics but after 100+ hours I still had at least a third of the game left to do and I just couldn't be bothered to carry on any further, I keep meaning to get back to it but so far I've not touched it or any other 'big' games in weeks and have just been playing small casual games in short bursts while doing other things.

Image
User avatar
Tragic Magic
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Leicester
Contact:

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Tragic Magic » Sun May 27, 2018 5:18 pm


User avatar
Lotus
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Lotus » Sun May 27, 2018 7:46 pm

Generally yes, I'd say. When development budgets are apparently spiralling out of control and breaking even - let alone making a profit - is more and more difficult, it baffles me why games are made to be so vast. Very, very rarely have I thought "hmm, this game needs to be bigger!" but I often find myself wishing a game was shorter or more compact.

There are some games where it works and you kind of 'need' a big world, but often they seem to be big worlds just for the sake of it, or games drawn out for no good reason.

User avatar
Bleachyleachy
Member
Joined in 2018

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Bleachyleachy » Sun May 27, 2018 9:36 pm

So long as a game is well segmented/paced then it doesn't matter to me if it lasts for 10 hours or 100. I played through Thief 2 over the course of over a year recently and found dipping in and out of it painless as the whole game is broken into 15 levels - each lasting 45 minutes to 2 hours depending on your thoroughness. Each level is varied enough with solid fundamental game mechanics that I never lost interest even after taking extended breaks

I do however dislike open world games with very few exceptions because so few get it right. Dunky recently made a video in which he said words to the effect of 'the more scripted a games' story, the less it needs an open world' which I thought was pretty spot on. (In this case he was referring to GTA5) The flip side to this is if an open world game has no structure at all and ends up being a 100 hour 'lol idk do what you feel like there's at least 30 more observation towers for you to climb' at which point my interest nosedives

Image
7256930752

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by 7256930752 » Sun May 27, 2018 10:12 pm

Bleachyleachy wrote:I do however dislike open world games with very few exceptions because so few get it right. Dunky recently made a video in which he said words to the effect of 'the more scripted a games' story, the less it needs an open world' which I thought was pretty spot on. (In this case he was referring to GTA5) The flip side to this is if an open world game has no structure at all and ends up being a 100 hour 'lol idk do what you feel like there's at least 30 more observation towers for you to climb' at which point my interest nosedives

I couldn't disagree more, the world in GTA 5 has so much character and really captures the feel of the US. AC:Origins on the other hand really doesn't justify its world as although it is beautiful to look at it mostly just feels like a Ubi open world game as the NPC's and writing is so bad. 50% of the world is completely unnecessary so they either didn't have time to add things or itsy dick waving about the land mass.

*Edit* to answer the question; yes and no. Loads of open worlds are largely pointless but I really enjoy wandering about ticking off lists.

User avatar
Photek
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Dublin

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Photek » Mon May 28, 2018 12:54 am

It depends on the game. I think Ubisoft have a pretty bad record in open world games, cramming as much as possible into their open world games means you end up doing same several things over and over.

I do caveat that with AC Origins, I’m level 32 and I think it’s because I’ve bee tackling it on and off for a while means it hasn’t gotten boring, I’m really enjoying the main storyline. It’s easily the best AC game and it’s one of my games of 2017.

I think Resident Evil 7 has the perfect length for a linear game, I was terrified all the time but couldn’t stop playing it. State of Decay 2 is sucking hours out of my life as I try to appease my survivors and take out infested houses.

I really do mix and match my games. Today it was AC Origins, SoD2 and PUBG, yesterday it was PUBG and Battlefield 1. I like jumping into Fallout 4 and Skyrim from time to time. Only whole I don’t think games are too big, if you play games till completion each time they may be for you but not me. I dip into SoT’s because I can listen to a podcast and sail the waves, it also has that slight fear of other ships, one snuck up on me Saturday but instead of attacking me they helped me catch a snake.

Image
User avatar
Jamo3103
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Manchester

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Jamo3103 » Mon May 28, 2018 6:39 pm

I think in a lot of cases they are, yes and I find it can be very off putting. For me it usually leads me to either not playing a game at all or abandoning it part way through.

In the last few years I've abandoned 3 open world games, the first two were Fallout 4 and Metal Gear Solid V which I became completely bored with before finishing. In both cases I'd put upwards of 20 hours in and I reached a point where I'd had enough and had no desire to go back. Assassin's Creed 2 is another one which I started twice and abandoned in both cases when I was presented with a city absolutely scattered with icons, something which was totally daunting and put me off. I have since gone back and completed Assassin's Creed 2 and realised that many of the map icons can be totally ignored. I have yet to go back to either F4 or MGS V but the amount of time and effort put into both feels like a total waste of time if I'm never going to end up completing either of them.

There are also a number of other games that I've never played, despite being interested in, simply because I know how big they are and it puts me off because they're a huge commitment and a big time sink. I like to play a diverse range of games so playing something for 40+ hours continually isn't generally that appealing.

Often games are full of unnecessary padding to increase the length, in open world games that usually comes in the form of travelling around and if the map isn't particularly interesting or diverse this soon becomes a chore. I've recently been playing Mafia 3 which has a pretty large open world, however apart from the aesthetics there's nothing to set one area apart from another, the same things happen for the most part in each area and there's no fast travel so lots of time is spent travelling between locations that are often quite spread out. I think you could easily knock a few hours off the length of it without these sections and it would be a better game for it. Other genre's are guilty of it too, through backtracking for items or grinding for levels/abilities.

Too many games seem to just be big for the sake of it. I'd much rather have a short, linear game than one with more freedom which thoroughly outstays its welcome.

User avatar
Vermilion
Gnome Thief
Joined in 2018
Location: Everywhere
Contact:

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Vermilion » Mon May 28, 2018 7:54 pm

I enjoy big games like AC: Origins, but then i always enjoy the open world UBISoft games anyways.

The only big game in recent times i've abandoned was Shadow of War, and that was only because of the awful fourth act which stretched things out for no reason.

User avatar
Green Gecko
Treasurer
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Are some games too big for their own good?
by Green Gecko » Tue May 29, 2018 10:15 pm

Yes :)

"It should be common sense to just accept the message Nintendo are sending out through their actions."
_________________________________________

❤ btw GRcade costs money and depends on donations - please support one of the UK's oldest video gaming forums → HOW TO DONATE

Return to “Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bertie, Christopher, DarkRula, Drej, ITSMILNER, Monkey Man, OldSoulCyborg, poshrule_uk, Red 5 stella, Robbo-92, Squinty and 338 guests