• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Do you think there is such a thing as too much content?

i think there is such a thing as too much, but skyrim is a bad example. until you reach the cap, everything you do equates to level-grinding...which for me is really the life's blood of an rpg. also all the content adds to the illusion. maybe i'm too old school, but i cant see getting the most out of an rpg if you don't sink dozens of hours into it. hasn't there been longer single player rpg's than skyrm?

which brings me to arkham city - a great example of too much content that won't take anything close to 60 hours to complete. what makes it too much is the sense that your tasks are all stacked together and it sort of breaks the illusion...like the phone that rings almost everywhere you go. nice enough game, but the chaotic set up wore me down a bit
 
better clarify here

Xenoblade has an immense amount of content, but it's never boring

Arkham City and its 440 Riddler trophies, on the other hand, is too much. Skyrim as well
 
For me: Yes.

I would prefer, if all games were between 2 and 20 hours, depending on what they try to achieve.

I never play games like Mass Effect although I am interested in them. They are just too long for my playing habits.
 
GillianSeed79 said:
Bare with me here. The answer I will get is probably no. But as I embark on the 60th hour of Skyrim, which is like the tip of the iceburg, I'm starting to feel that diminished returns kind of feeling. After handing over 10 bear pealts to an NPC for a minimal reward, I'm starting to question why I am doing at lot of this stuff.

Now, granted, I'm OCD. Sometimes I think Skyrim should be classified as a MSRPG. Massively Single Player Rpg. Which is cool. I just have this feeling that if I put 300 hours into this, I'll feel like about 200 was doing busy work.

Of course there is the opposite so to speak. The Witcher 2's third act kind of felt rushed.
Basically, what I'm asking is do you think that sometimes games wear out their welcome?

My big fear is that if I plow through the main quest in Skyrim, the rest of the quest lines will feel inconsequential. WIth games like this I sometimes feel that they sacrifice narrative focus for open world freedom. Ahh, what am I saying? I'm complaining about too much content. I must be crazy.
Click to expand...

agreed. much of any bethesda game's item-related content is fundamentally 'animal crossing on steroids' :) . not saying this's a bad thing (i love wild world), but that's really all that it is. myself, i'll take the size/scope of the game worlds as is, but'd prefer, as rpgs, that they focused more on quality over quantity, inventory-wise (would probably be more agreeable to the game engine they use as well :) )...
 
Is the content all of good quality? If yes then i don't think you can have too much content. If it affects the quality of the content that's when you have a problem.

Adding stuff just for the sake of it is a bad thing. So long as you can maintain a high wuality though i don't see what's wrong with having shitloads of content.

Then again i'm the type of person who pretty much picks a select few games and plays the shit out of them.

Your example with skyrim is exactly what i mean. The problem isn't that the game goes for 60 hours. The problem is that the content isn't varied enough to feel rewarding after that amount of game time (i'm not talking about my personal opinion here just on what has been said).
 
If it's required content, yes.

Very few people would want to see a 5 hour movie (though I did like Gettysburg).

If it's optional? Only if it's super repetitive I guess.
 
Depends, for me. Open-world RPGs? Never ran into one yet with too much content. Too much boring content? Yeah, okay. Subjective, but sure.

The big problem is when RPG developers hear "this is too much" they start hacking away at anything that isn't "stab/shoot something" and then you end up with homogenized garbage cluttering up the genre.

It's a definite quality v. quantity issue, but when dealing with world building and creating a sense of reality to that world, cutting out, say - flower picking may be "useless content" to one group of people, but in a genre where you're supposed to care about the world, it's the little things that matter.
 
All I know is that I've played Pac-Man than all of you have played Skyrim combined. And in 30 years, I'll still enjoy Pac-Man.
 
I certainly feel this way. Especially when I have so many other games to play... I just choose to arbitrarily ignore certain parts of games. For example, in the last few COD games, I haven't even touched the mp.
 
Skyrim has plenty of content but I have zero reason to believe it takes away from the main storyline which so far...is fairly enjoyable if a bit standard.

Arkham City has plenty of content but I actually like the story in it more than Arkham Asylum although I like the focus on location more in Arkham Asylum. The "city" in City is just a big hub and I'm not enjoying it as much as I thought I would. With all that said, I don't believe the additional content is taking away from the experience but just design decisions.

Xenoblade has a ridiculous amount of content and I don't feel it detracts from the experience at all. I think it allows for you to over-level however which I find a bit annoying.


In the end...I will never...ever complain about "too much content in games". If I don't want to do the content...I don't do it. (rare)
 
You can never have too much content.

You can have an unbalanced level and loot system that hinders the enjoyment of that content, like Skyrim and many other rpgs. If there's 100 hours of content and you're steadily finding and improving your loot and enemies are not all balanced to your current level then it's no less fun than a 20 hour game.
 
d00d3n said:
Human Revolution was way too long if you powergamed with stealth, nokill and exploring everything. At the same time the game seemed to suffer from not having a third explorable hub world towards the end of the game. In conclusion game length is a complex issue where you often want more and less content at the same time.
Click to expand...

Human Revolution's hacking is an even bigger issue. Why are there are so many computers and why does the game encourage me to farm them? Damages the game enough to be mediocre. (Adding +Exp! to everything is a bad thing.)
 
Riposte said:
Human Revolution's hacking is an even bigger issue. Why are there are so many computers and why does the game encourage me to farm them? Damages the game enough to be mediocre. (Adding +Exp! to everything is a bad thing.)
Click to expand...
Actually, in that case I think it would've helped to go EVEN FURTHER there. More specifically giving EXP just for finding the right code then inputting it, that way OCD doesn't compel us to hack anyway, not unless there's story reasons to avoid using that code or we're REALLY OCD about every last point.
 
Battlefield 3's entire singleplayer campaign is an example of unnecessary content that drags the overall product down, in my opinion.
 
skyrim had a bit too much I think. most of the quests are cut and paste from the same template, and completely meaningless. I had a gaming high for the first 2 dozen hours for so, but after that, the drabness of the quests started to drag me down.
 
WanderingWind said:
The big problem is when RPG developers hear "this is too much" they start hacking away at anything that isn't "stab/shoot something" and then you end up with homogenized garbage cluttering up the genre.
Click to expand...

I don't follow a lot of RPG series too closely, but I would have guessed the opposite.

At least in Skyrim, it feels like everything is very combat-centric in order to make content creation that much easier. I would have preferred deeper subsystems (like crafting, alchemy, lockpicking, speech, etc.) and more quests that encouraged exploration of those systems. As it is now it feels like everything that isn't "stab/shoot something" is still largely used to augment combat skills.
 
Skyrim is just about right. Mainly because I don't feel like I'm missing the "big" picture if I don't complete everything.

I like that a lot of storylines in Skyrim are completely self sustanined and not following the traditional 'all roads lead to the main story' style that is common with throughout most games. I hate in RPG's where the main story line elements are injected into all sorts of side quests (even minor) and then you feel like you properly missed out as dialogue unfolds.
 
Too much content: when I want the game to end, but there's more to do.
Too little content: when I want the game to continue, but there's nothing left.
 
Just Cause 2. I beat the campaign and beat a ton of side-missions, and eventually tired of doing the same thing over and over, destroying the same handful of camps and bases like a sandbox Groundog Day. Whatever, it was fun, have to stop some time. Checked my game stats out of curiosity, figuring I must have done pretty much everything, only to find that I had only completed a fucking miniscule fraction of the game. You've got be some kind of OCD case to 100% that shit.

Arkham City also goes totally overboard with the collectibles, it's absurd. Some are clever but the majority is just busywork.
 
This has come up before. I don't know how you can have too much content. Unless its just horrible crap like endless fetch quests.

This just seems like something developers would want to know if they can get away with less content.

There can never be too much extra content. Its when you have to do the endless fetch quests to finish a game then its bad. If its optional, I'm all for it.
 
MrBelmontvedere said:
if you basically dislike videogames, and just want them to end after 10 minutes of blasting cyborg alien space marines, the answer is yes. and if you don't like epic RPGs, you're probably best off sticking with 10 hour long FPS.
Click to expand...

What? Excuse me?

Way to trivialize not only the issue but other gamers' tastes.

You can like different genres, you know? I mean, that's perfectly fine.
 
Agree with the mandatory comment. Keep the main storyline a reasonable length with the quality content, but plenty of side mission content just adds to the value, and you can do as much as you want.

Unless you're a big fan of accomplishments and finishing 100%. Some achievements take a ridiculous amount of time to complete, and I can see that really bugging some people.
 
I'd say there's no such thing as too much good content. But since good content takes time to produce and games have a finite budget and development schedule, yes, there is a balance between quality and quantity.
 
Yes. I strongly believe in the concept of 'enough content'. Make it quality, fun content and I will gladly return to play it all again. Don't stretch resources super thin with meh filler and bullshit to pad out the game.
 
If the content is presented in a sloppy way, yes. If the developers are smart about pacing the content and knowing when not to overload you with too many tasks then no.
 
It's been a while since I felt I'd had too little content in a game. I finished Splinter Cell Conviction twice back to back because I wanted more.
 
I really loathe Rockstar's open world games. I feel like they are huge and there's heaps of crappy busy work to do.

At the same time, though, I really enjoy Skyrim. A lot of quests don't feel like filler, at least for me. Maybe I am just being biased, but Skyrim does something different to make these games extremely appealing.
 
:lol Yeah I was also pretty mad about the reward you get for the bear pelts. I almost got fucking killed getting those you bitch! Totally not worth it at all :P
 
Jockel said:
Dragon Quest VII says hi.
Loads of content is a very good thing, if it isn't just filler material.
Click to expand...

Great example. Of course, if you grind your party to all level 99 like I did, there's lots of wasted time :)

Dark Souls is another more recent RPG that I feel never had any filler. Fallout 3 is to me an example of too much meaningless, repetitive content. By the time I finished that game, I regretted spending as much time with it as I did, and it left a bad taste in my mouth.
 
since the two examples listed in OP is Witcher 2 and Skyrim, I'll just say my opinion about those 2 games, I like Witcher 2 way way more than Skyrim, with reason you kinda said it yourselves. Skyrim got a lot of content, but after 30/40 hours, the experience start to feel samey, didn't help that I find the combat really boring.

I've only played Skyrim for about 35 hours, around the same time I took to beat Witcher 2. in that 35 hours, I can't help wanting more of Witcher 2 and planning to replay it again soon, while at the same time, I'm starting to get bored with Skyrim and question if I even want to play it anymore, probably just rushed through the main quest and that's it.

what I want to say is, it's not about the amount of content, but about the quality of the content.

edit: if Skyrim got much better combat, like say, Demon/Dark Souls level combat, then yeah, I'll probably like Skyrim more. :P
 
I don't think there is such a thing as too much content, for me atleast. It's just a matter of whether the content is good and whether i want to do it.



One of the things a lot of people have brought up is Batman: Arkham City. The riddler trophies are shitty content, so yes there is too much of it. No way in hell im bothering with all of that mess.


But, likewise, Dark Souls has so many secrets to unravel, mostly around how to create items, that you can spend probably 1000 hours figuring it all out and farming up the materials. Is this too much? Depends on how you feel about Dark Souls, but I know a lot of people don't have any issue with it. They are thankful for a reason to keep playing.


A weird one for me is inFamous 2. I really loved that game but I got so bogged down in doing every single side quest that about halfway through the game I ran out of steam. I took a week off and went back to it with a "main story only" policy and had so much fun. And it's not even that I think the infamous 2 sidequests are bad, they are actually pretty fun, but that was the one time that I just got dragged down under the weight of it all. So I guess this contradicts the first sentence of this post.
 
Not necessarily, but I find games like Nobi Nobi Boy, and Animal Crossing especially, overwhelming.

Animal Crossing expects me to play every day (especially holidays) to get all the content and speak with all my villagers. And I better play regularly or I will have consequences like weeds and moving villagers.

They expect me to play.....forever.

That kind of burden is rough lol
 
bigdaddygamebot said:
Skyrim has plenty of content but I have zero reason to believe it takes away from the main storyline which so far...is fairly enjoyable if a bit standard.
Click to expand...

This is the big question that follows from the one the OP is asking - where is your game's point? If it is supposed to be the main story, and working on a hundred fetch quests means you don't have the time to put into the main story to keep it well-paced and engaging, then you've messed up. If you don't feel your "main story" is a priority, then why is it your main story? Why have one at all?

Personally I don't feel any game, even an RPG, needs 200+ hours of content; make 40 to 100 really polished hours instead. Same thing with action games - I like the 6 to 8 hour ones that are popping up because, in the right hands, those 6 to 8 hours are polished to shining.
 
Basically this is what happens when RPGs offer too much repetition in side quests.

Mass Effect is a good example. A game where you're compelled to do side stuff but a lot of it just involves exploring barren planets and fighting some enemies. Yawn. I still need to get back to that game but I really drained myself on the repetition. It's not my fault that I'm compelled to try and 100% the game.

Fallout 3 is similar, though better in some ways. The world is huge but there are so many areas that feel like the same exact thing over and over again. Most of the underground areas (including sewers, vaults, the subway, etc.) are almost identical. As a player I desire to find all of the different items and complete as many quests as possible but it's like I'm continually sent to do basically the same thing over and over again. The game is great in my eyes but it would shine brighter if the content was cut in half and most quests were entirely unique.

Even Chrono Trigger is a victim of this. Not the original game on SNES (which is absolutely perfect in terms of content), but the recent iterations like Chrono Trigger DS. Square Enix decided to add in extra optional things to do, but it all feels like unnecessary padding. There's an area added called the Lost Sanctum, which involves Reptilians basically sending you on fetch quests between two different time periods. Upon completing the quests you are more leveled up and have a fuck ton of money and some nice equipment, but getting to that point is a bit of a slog. One little mission basically has you going up a mountain and back over and over again, fighting non-optional battles each time. So damn time consuming. A good example of extra content actually bringing a game down, in my opinion. The original CT did it right and had some of the most appropriate side quests I've ever experienced; ones that actually added to the story in a meaningful way.
 
Developers learnt a long time ago that people would rather play 50 hours of mediocre dross than 5 hours of non stop fun. It's the Happy Shopper Cola effect and it permeates videogames.
 
Rash said:
Basically this is what happens when RPGs offer too much repetition in side quests.

Mass Effect is a good example. A game where you're compelled to do side stuff but a lot of it just involves exploring barren planets and fighting some enemies. Yawn. I still need to get back to that game but I really drained myself on the repetition. It's not my fault that I'm compelled to try and 100% the game.
Click to expand...
I think ME is a good example of not having too much content imo. If you ignore the searching for artifacts on various planets bullshit. You could pretty much blast your way through all the side content in a reasonable time.
Anasui Kishibe said:
Xenoblade has an immense amount of content, but it's never boring
Click to expand...
I really really like Xenoblade, but come on a lot of side quests are really boring. It burned me out of the game for a while. I'm planning to just play the main storyline from now on. It hurts my heart a bit though, since I want everyone to have happy relationships with each other. ;_____;
 
2San said:
I really really like Xenoblade, but come on a lot of side quests are really boring. It burned me out of the game for a while. I'm planning to just play the main storyline from now on. It hurts my heart a bit though, since I want everyone to have happy relationships with each other. ;_____;
Click to expand...

well the auto-completion mechanic along with insta-picking certainly helped me feeling less burned out, i wish all games had this feature

woulda been much worse if I had to search for every single one of them
 
I'm starting to feel that way about Arkham City. I tend to 100% games I really enjoy, but I'm finding that getting all the Riddler trophies is turning into a huge, massive, pain in the butt. I've gotten up to 250 and I think I'm at my limit. I don't mind doing missions and side quests as long as they are interesting and have engaging stories, but collecting random stuff for hours on end is starting to lose its appeal.
 
I say yes. Sometimes you have so much in the way of side quests that are only fun close to the beginning of a game, you lose track of the main quest...and get burnt out of the game before progressing through the actual game scenario.

Measured unlocking of side quests along with main progression seems best to me. I usually run into the above problem with open world titles, Mass Effect at certain points, and FFXII with the clan marks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How much do you think games (like AAA) should cost to make - so it's not too complex to develop, and the games could be finished much quicker?
2 3
142
4K
dispensergoinup replied
  • Poll
Do you think Nintendo is reducing the price of digital games or increasing the price of physical ones?
2
56
355
VGA-Games replied
Do you think Project Helix will be fully open windows?
39
765
PlayStaytion replied
Ex Marathon art director on Concord comparisons: “as much as the haters try online ... you can't take the thing I care about most”
Drama Cringe  2
75
752
Touch fuzZy. get BizZay replied
  • Poll
Do YOU think Emulation is the same as Piracy ?
4 5 6 7 8
364
6K
Naz93 replied
Top Bottom