Support NeoGAF

[Shadow of the BEAST]

content bloat isnt actually content bloat. Its just straight up cheap filler.

most of these collect random shite, is there simply because it cost nothing to implement.

 

[zoukka]

I agree with op. If the feature is not important to the core gameplay, it's better to just ditch it rather than make a shoddy effort to add more "value" to the package.

But it's the consumers who have wanted this and paid for it. Suffer because you deserve it.

 

[ROBOKITTYZILLA]

I completely agree about the Assassin's Creed series having this problem. As much as I like Assassin's Creed II, and it's a huge improvement over the first game, I'm struggling to complete it because of all the miscellaneous crap tacked on. I'm about 20-25 hours in and I've started skipping everything but the main scenario in an effort to just try and complete the game, and I've always been a bit of a completionist. There just seems to be way too many other things competing for my attention these days. I don't have time for that crap.

 

[Glass Rebel]

Why is there a second island in Far Cry 3, with literally none of the progression from the first island? :/

Wait, you didn't like all that "content"?

 

[KingJ2002]

Content Bloat killed Assassins Creed 3.... but I believe Sequelitis is the cause to this.... because people aren't buying new titles they're pumping "proven" franchises with new ways to play... even if it doesn't fit the game.

 

[semiconscious]

if i'm among those who enjoyed dragon's dogma more than skyrim & amalur, it's as much because of what the op is talking about as anything. intended or not, after 50+ hours, games like skyrim & amalur begin to feel more like animal crossing style activity games than adventures. which's fine if that's what you're into. i guess i'm just not so much...

i'll take a dozen well-designed individual dungeons over 100+ mix'n'match ones anytime ...

 

[SolsticeZero]

if i'm among those who enjoyed dragon's dogma more than skyrim & amalur, it's as much because of what the op is talking about as anything. intended or not, after 50+ hours, games like skyrim & amalur begin to feel more like animal crossing style activity games than adventures. which's fine if that's what you're into. i guess i'm just not so much...

i'll take a dozen well-designed individual dungeons over 100+ mix'n'match ones anytime ...

If you're into MMO's at all, you should really try Dungeons and Dragons Online, then. The dungeons in that game are so much better than any other MMO I've ever played.

 

[semiconscious]

AMEN. I swear. As much as I enjoyed it, Assassin's creed III was obese with useless garbage. manage your homestead resources/wagon trains? seriously? As much hatred as it gets, I felt the first game captured the focus of the experience PERFECTLY. you are an assassin, in the shadows. Not arguing with founding fathers in the continental congress and tracking down almanac pages for benjamin franklin.

yep. if you could slow yourself down enough, & just go along with the experience, there was a very good, & satisfying, time to be had. glad i was eventually able to...

 

[MjFrancis]

This is a disease with many symptoms:

• Collectibles
• Loot
• XP
• Crafting
• Sidequests
• Unlockables

And more.

The core problem with most of these symptoms is that they don't require any more skill to complete beyond grasping the most basic of game mechanics. The tutorial explains how it works and it goes no deeper than that. There's little challenge to it. Sure, many people are satisfied with that, but when a game is laced with so many features that are so easy to complete, others rightly become bored.

And why shouldn't they when a game's checklist of features are no more difficult than watching a DVD from beginning to end? When the question becomes one of time and not skill the results are clear. This is what happens when game development targets an OCD audience content with checking boxes and completing mundane tasks.

These are simple mechanics that require simple skillsets to finish. That's the problem with them. However, their inclusion in a game can be made interesting when they provide the player with an appropriate challenge.

 

[Freshmaker]

I for one love stopping in the middle of an intense firefight to assemble a jigsaw puzzle.

Thank you Golden Abyss. That 1850's wanted poster Drake found on the hillside while running from an armed militia that bears almost no relevance to anything enhanced my experience a thousandfold.

 

[RedSwirl]

I think a good way to know whether or not some mechanics are bloat is to ask yourself if the game would still work without them.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

A game you need to play through atleast 3 times to get all achievements?

It does a lot of things right but it's certainly not without some of the flaws highlighted in the op.

Oh my god. Talk about missing the point of the OP. Achievements in general are exactly the kind of symptom the OP was talking about. People like you, who care so much about stupid achievements, are part of the problem.

Aren't achievements themselves just padding though? Long before we had achievements and trophies, we played games because we liked them. Not to get achievements in them.

A million fucking times this. There are people out there who won't even play a game if it doesn't have trophies... urgh.

Good gods, soon we're gonna have games that are developed with achievements in mind and game design second. Bah, who am I kidding, I'm sure it's already the case. >_<

if i'm among those who enjoyed dragon's dogma more than skyrim & amalur, it's as much because of what the op is talking about as anything. intended or not, after 50+ hours, games like skyrim & amalur begin to feel more like animal crossing style activity games than adventures. which's fine if that's what you're into. i guess i'm just not so much...

i'll take a dozen well-designed individual dungeons over 100+ mix'n'match ones anytime ...

lolwat? I can't comment on Skyrim or Amalur but Dragon's Dogma had tons of filler, and the few dungeons there were, were hardly well-designed; they were linear, predictable and pretty easy, and the last dungeon was complete crap design-wise, with the same linear rooms and connected corridors. It's the laziest kind of dungeon design there is, to be honest. Compare to, say, Dark Souls, or any classic console action-RPGs, they were honestly complete garbage.

I liked Dragon's Dogma, but it had so many ridiculous flaws that I can't call it great. It was saved by its excellent combat and character progression, but they were honestly the only redeeming values...

 

[semiconscious]

lolwat? I can't comment on Skyrim or Amalur but Dragon's Dogma had tons of filler, and the few dungeons there were, were hardly well-designed; they were linear, predictable and pretty easy, and the last dungeon was complete crap design-wise, with the same linear rooms and connected corridors. It's the laziest kind of dungeon design there is, to be honest. Compare to, say, Dark Souls, or any classic console action-RPGs, they were honestly complete garbage.

I liked Dragon's Dogma, but it had so many ridiculous flaws that I can't call it great. It was saved by its excellent combat and character progression, but they were honestly the only redeeming values...

everything's relative, man. you think the dungeons in dragon's dogma were boring? play skyrim or amalur, & then get back to me ...

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Yikes, that bad? I mean, just remembering those linear square rooms connected by narrow corridors followed by more square rooms just makes me shake my head at how lazy and trite the dungeon design was. You're telling me it's worse in those games? Glad I never bothered (the rest of the gameplay wouldn't appeal to me anyway, but, wow).

 

[Mystic_Wanderer]

Ruining them for whom? Gaming has never been better to me.

Of course my favorites are SNES/PS1,due to nostalgia and childhood, but games are indisputably better nowadays.

 

[Derrick01]

Wait, you didn't like all that "content"?

Well I did feel like the 2nd island added tougher enemies and more interesting locations but at that point I was completely burned out from all of the game's side content and just rushed through the story. The wingsuit is a nice gimmick but it's exactly that, relatively useless for anything important.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

the more content developers put in their games, the less players experience and the less players want to experience.

Halo 4 is a good example imo. People never got addicted to the game like in halo 2/3 because they were faced with so much content to experience, they eventually got burnt out before they could actually find the fun. You spend 5 minutes doing everything, you dont actually feel attached to any of it and you get bored and leave. Same with skyrim, you have 500 quests, you actually get fustrated by the amount of things you can/have to do, it actually turns people off the game entirely.

Instead of having 5 clearly distinct guns you have 5 similar guns, and 15 other guns and you get fustrated because you're constantly questioning why or how these things work.

I dont agree with side things like Collectibles, minigames, or crafting, etc. Those don't actually effect the game, they just exist as a way to break up content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
this ted talk explains it pretty well. Choice actually paralyzes people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA
this ted talk explains why choice makes us unhappy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-4flnuxNV4
and this explains why we make bad choices.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Ruining them for whom? Gaming has never been better to me.

Of course my favorites are SNES/PS1,due to nostalgia and childhood, but games are indisputably better nowadays.

BS. I dispute it.

 

[Raptor]

I disagree completly with that, if a game is just straight up with no "collectibles" "no leveling" nothing just beat it then I will simply don't buy it at all, if the game has great mechanics what's wrong with shooting "1000 birds"? is fun to do it, take Crackdown for example, map was literally full with orbs and it was fun as all hell to hunt them all, also there was an achievement or somethign related to the vehivcles in the game and it was fun too take them all to the tower, sometimes not even driving them just carrying them with you hahaha shit.

The more content a game has the better IMO, all this FC3 complaints are in fact music to my ears lols, loving that it has lots of shit to do and collect and everything.

Yes I enjoyed a lot piccking all those herbs and flowers in RDR, it was amazing hunting all those animals, picking fights in all the bars of every map just because...

All great shit to me, of course the game must be fun to play if not all that becomes just tedious.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

There's no intricate balance of anything in that game. What was the point of money at all? There was so much shit you could sell, tons of side-missions that paid out and treasure boxes everywhere. The place was a resource goldmine that required ZERO effort - why the was everyone so pissed off on that island? Spend a day cutting plants and you're a millionaire!

Resources without reason are a stain on many games, yes.

If you're into MMO's at all, you should really try Dungeons and Dragons Online, then. The dungeons in that game are so much better than any other MMO I've ever played.

Cuz every time other MMOs try that nowadays, the "WHAR R LOOT PLZ HALP" crowd rages and thunders till they get nice and simple again.

the more contet developers put in their games, the less players experience and the less players want to experience.

Halo 4 is a good example imo. People never got addicted to the game like in halo 2/3 because they were faced with so much content to experience, they eventually got burnt out before they could actually find the fun. You spend 5 minutes doing everything, you dont actually feel attached to any of it and you get bored and leave. Same with skyrim, you have 500 quests, you actually get fustrated by the amount of things you can/have to do, it actually turns people off the game entirely.

I dont agree with side things like Collectibles, minigames, or crafting, etc. Those don't actually effect the game, they just exist as a way to break up differing activities.

The exotic has become the mundane.

We anticipate nothing, and progression is dead.

 

[Glass Rebel]

Well I did feel like the 2nd island added tougher enemies and more interesting locations but at that point I was completely burned out from all of the game's side content and just rushed through the story. The wingsuit is a nice gimmick but it's exactly that, relatively useless for anything important.

It wasn't only that though. The game encourages the player to explore the island and do different activities but that only ends up making the game easier. Of course, the enemies are stronger but by the time I had reached the second island I had lots of upgrades, more money than I could spend and the best weapons. And I never really tried to maximize my XP by going stealth. It's just a badly balanced game which is a bummer because the islands and the core mechanics are pretty good.

 

[RedSwirl]

Aren't achievements themselves just padding though? Long before we had achievements and trophies, we played games because we liked them. Not to get achievements in them.

Not just that, but we did ridiculous tasks to unlock actual content.

 

[thetrin]

I wish instead of having a billion quests to do, games offered exploration at a level where the player isn't led by the nose. I have so much fun exploring places I'm not supposed to be in Skyrim, Morrowind and Oblivion, and I wish that was the case in other games.

In fact, I don't even need quests. Just give me a large world, some tools to start with, and a cool reward at the end of every hidden path, cave and ransacked palace I find myself in.

Meandering and discovering what the world has to offer is way more fun than fulfilling some quest to get 5 bear asses for some guy.

 

[Y2Kev]

Games can have all the "shoot 1000 birds" shit they want. I ignore it. I have never 100%'d an ubisoft shit factory game and I never will. But far cry 3 actively takes things that make the gameplay BETTER away from the player to put them behind arbitrary, poorly designed progression systems.

Some people have OCD or whatever and will 100% games to get achievements or to scratch some preternatural itch that can't be controlled, but I never will and I don't need your deficiencies affecting my basic fps gameplay.

 

[Tawney Bomb]

If games didn't have collectibles, the time I spend on them would reduce a good deal.

 

[Squall-25]

It has definitely been overused. I don't mind it for certain games but it has virtually become standard across the board.

I recently completed the challenge accepted trophy in Borderlands 2 and it was quite the grind. I mean I had to spend several hours just opening chests hoping I would spawn a ridiculously rare spawn called Jimmy Jenkins lol.

 

[RedSwirl]

Games can have all the "shoot 1000 birds" shit they want. I ignore it. I have never 100%'d an ubisoft shit factory game and I never will. But far cry 3 actively takes things that make the gameplay BETTER away from the player to put them behind arbitrary, poorly designed progression systems.

Some people have OCD or whatever and will 100% games to get achievements or to scratch some preternatural itch that can't be controlled, but I never will and I don't need your deficiencies affecting my basic fps gameplay.

That's part of the problem too. The first time I played through Mass Effect 2, my OCD caused me to probe every single planet in the game to depletion.

 

[Y2Kev]

Wow. I mean that would really make my experience with the game a 1/10.

 

[Frankenstrat]

the first time I noticed content bloat was when I played SSX 3. it's only gotten worse since then.

I will never find all those fucking snowflakes or get all those missions done.

 

[RedSwirl]

The most insidious part about this kind of content filler is that developers have figured out the best games to soullessly rip off.

A great example in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is the recruiting system which you can tell was heavily inspired by Final Fantasy Tactics (unless I'm missing other games that do it). It's like, I'm glad they're aware of stuff like that, but still disappointed that they don't put any heart into the implementation. Now when I hear that a game has stuff like that, I just groan and try to avoid it as much as possible.

 

[Derrick01]

That's part of the problem too. The first time I played through Mass Effect 2, my OCD caused me to probe every single planet in the game to depletion.

Good god man how are you still alive? That would make a normal person lose all hope in the world and kill themselves.

 

[starchild excalibur]

It's an issue that isn't just in games, but even in some social media sites. Reddit's karma system and imgur's comment upvote system are essentially the same thing - systems designed to pander to those who seek validation and find worth in digital points.

It doesn't bother me too much in games, as I just ignore it. I had a brief point a few years ago when I got obsessed with getting all the achievement points, but now I couldn't care less for the most part. I think as long as it's not noticeably bringing down the quality of the core game, I'll just bat it off as needless fluff and move on.

I would like a game to come out, however, that was 2 modes (single player & co-op), no online achievement points and stood on its own because of its original ideas instead of relying on the need to collect.

 

[velociraptor]

OP, I agree. I abhor much of the filler content in today's games.

I would prefer a leaner, more trimmed experience compared to one lathered in fat.

Quality > Quantity, always.

This is not to say that all games must be a 6-8 hour experience. Far from it, but rather, it should only be in the game if it adds value. Mass Effect has handled this well. ME2 and ME3 took me at least 40-50 hours to complete. However, I did not get bored.

On the other hand, Far Cry 3 and Assassin's Creed III are chock full of missions which make me ponder why I even wasted my time at even attempting some of these missions in the first place. They offer absolutely no purpose.

And don't get me started on the 'collect all items' B.S. that plagues today's games.

 

[Nert]

I agree wholeheartedly with this thread's premise. "Feature creep" has made many games seem bloated and unappealing to me. Looking back at my game of the year list for 2012, everything that I enjoyed from last year was a tight, focused experience that wasn't weighed down by collectibles or the subsystems that are the equivalent of Facebook minigames. It's easy to see how many of the things being brought up in this thread would damage those games for me, too; a crafting system in Spec Ops would ruin its focus on storytelling, shitty hacking or mining minigames in FTL would make exploring feel like a chore, and so on.

 

[Ledsen]

So it seems to me that Tomb Raider is another victim of this trend?

 

[Anticitizen One]

What's ruining AAA games is that they all copy each other now, have extremly predictable set pieces (run while shit falls all around you press QTE to get out of tight spot, get on a turret and mow down waves of incoming soldiers, use cover to get close and disable a guy on a turret, use cover to inflitrate enemy camp, use QTE to win game, no boss fights)

Also the hand holding bullshit. Making games extremly linear having controls constantly coming up on screen. I don't understand why we need to know "Press L2 to use hints" or "Use r3 for zoom" halfway through the fucking game

 

[whitehawk]

It's because everyone is terrified of making a concise, solid game that does it's job and rolls credits just in case people complain "oh man, I finished this game in 6 hours, wtf guys, rip off!"

I'd much rather have a 6 hour amazing experience without all the bullshit than have it needlessly padded out with other things to do.

Dead Space was perfect for me - I started playing it when I got home from work one day at about 7pm, played through until the early hours of the morning, completed it and I was done.

Probably one of the best gaming experiences I've had this generation, and it's because it was so focused.

Sometimes I wish games were closer to the length of a movie. Often it feels like enemies are thrown into situations just to prolong the game artificially. One of the things I liked about Journey was that it was only a few a hours long.

 

[JJDinomite]

What's ruining AAA games is that they all copy each other now, have extremly predictable set pieces (run while shit falls all around you press QTE to get out of tight spot, get on a turret and mow down waves of incoming soldiers, use cover to get close and disable a guy on a turret, use cover to inflitrate enemy camp, use QTE to win game, no boss fights)

Also the hand holding bullshit. Making games extremly linear having controls constantly coming up on screen. I don't understand why we need to know "Press L2 to use hints" or "Use r3 for zoom" halfway through the fucking game

Agreed. I'm rarely excited for AAA games these days, mainly because they all end up following the same formula. I'm fine with having rpg-elements, collectables, etc. - so long as the gameplay is unique and fun.

 

[MarkusRJR]

The thing that is killing modern (and arguably not so modern) single player-only games is filler, and not a lack of multiplayer imo. Developers tend to think that a longer game for the sake of being longer is better, to the point where pacing and fun take a back seat. Nearly every AAA single player-only game this generation I've played has had some sort of filler to pad out the game, and makes me lose interest in it really quickly. It's gotten to the point where it feels like the only ones who aren't doing it are Nintendo (excluding Zelda, which has a disgusting amount if filler bullshit lately) and indies.

That isn't even getting into the lack of new ideas, bland storytelling, bad writing, and forcing multiplayer into normally single player games. Yeah, the AAA games market is becoming the games equivalent of the modern movie industry. It's only going to go downhill from here.

 

[out0v0rder]

We should call them in game caravellas

 

[vireland]

Shotguns with sniper scopes are awesome though

Arrows that work like sniper rifles (as in the new Tomb Raider) are even more ridiculous.

 

[GalacticGravy]

I used to be OCD about collecting but then I got over in a couple years ago.

For example, I just beat Dead Space 3. I only did one sidequest, and that's because I wasn't paying attention and thought it was part of the story. I crafted like 2 weapons and never used them so I didn't do that again for the entire game. I was able to, after that first accidental sidequest, sift out the BS and play the rest of the game.

Sad part is that the rest of Dead Space 3 was BS anyway. What a shame that one was.

 

[Data West]

I loved the pigeons. Gave me an excuse to see more of the city that dicking around and doing missions wouldn't give me. And I love the insane amount of unlocks for Mortal Kombat, it's almost like gambling.

Though I do hope GTA 5 adds an InFamous style 'ping' for collectibles.

 

[katkombat]

Far Cry 3 did it exceptionally well. I don't think that it can really be considered a series that didn't need it, not that it did either.

 

[RedSwirl]

So it seems to me that Tomb Raider is another victim of this trend?

Yep.

 

[Senor Kami]

I don't mind leveling and XP unless the only way to beat the game without turning it into a Ninja Gaiden-like 1,000,000 death experience is to grind forever in gameplay that's bad.

But optional content, I don't get the hate for it. It's optional. Just don't do it. You wouldn't go into a Gamestop and be like, "well, I guess I have to buy every game since it's here," would you? Probably not. Treat games the same way. If there's optional shit you don't want to do, then don't do it.

I think the gamer notion that you must do everything is stupid to me. Some people like this content and it's made for them. The devs recognize that not everyone will like it so they make it optional so that people who hate it don't have to do it. If you hate doing it but force yourself to do it anyways, well there's nobody to blame for it other than the man in the mirror.

 

[JimmyRustler]

It's a crux OP.

As a developer I can imagine that you want players to stick with a game for some time in order to avoid it being traded very fast. So you fill it with either more or less meaningless content or multiplayer.

Each is bullshit but that's the way it is. NeoGAFs "wait until the game drops to 20 $" mentality portraits the root of the problem only way to good.

Games like the original Resident Evils, Tomb Raider..... you name it.... would just not be sustainable these days as most of the people would finish those game within 2-3 days and then trade or sell em. /fact

 

[Ledsen]

I don't mind leveling and XP unless the only way to beat the game without turning it into a Ninja Gaiden-like 1,000,000 death experience is to grind forever in gameplay that's bad.

But optional content, I don't get the hate for it. It's optional. Just don't do it. You wouldn't go into a Gamestop and be like, "well, I guess I have to buy every game since it's here," would you? Probably not. Treat games the same way. If there's optional shit you don't want to do, then don't do it.

I think the gamer notion that you must do everything is stupid to me. Some people like this content and it's made for them. The devs recognize that not everyone will like it so they make it optional so that people who hate it don't have to do it. If you hate doing it but force yourself to do it anyways, well there's nobody to blame for it other than the man in the mirror.

If you read the OP, I addressed this argument already. It doesn't work like that in most games.

 

[Anticitizen One]

It's a crux OP.

As a developer I can imagine that you want players to stick with a game for some time in order to avoid it being traded very fast. So you fill it with either more or less meaningless content or multiplayer.

Each is bullshit but that's the way it is. NeoGAFs "wait until the game drops to 20 $" mentality portraits the root of the problem only way to good.

Games like the original Resident Evils, Tomb Raider..... you name it.... would just not be sustainable these days as most of the people would finish those game within 2-3 days and then trade or sell em. /fact

Those old games had collectables too. Plus Tomb Raider games were always a good length and the original Resident Evil's had separate campaigns that made the game significantly longer and it had bonus minigames like the Hunk missions and stuff.

 

[AlphaDump]

Games can have all the "shoot 1000 birds" shit they want. I ignore it. I have never 100%'d an ubisoft shit factory game and I never will. But far cry 3 actively takes things that make the gameplay BETTER away from the player to put them behind arbitrary, poorly designed progression systems.

So, so true. Far Cry 3 would have been incredible if they had just given a shit at all about what you did on the island. It's unreal how much the gameplay was held back from how everything was tacked on just to make it longer. The 2nd island actually feels like a chore to navigate.