Games With TOO Much Content?

[MrFalconfly]

Gran Turismo 5.

Too damn many boring and utterly pointless econoboxes.

Why does GT5 feature a Toyota Yaris and not the Group-B rally cars?!?

 

[DanielBrown]

Just Cause 2 fits well.
Been replaying it for the past couple of days and iirc there are 61 side quests, seven main story quests, 369 areas to discover(as well as getting 100% in) and 300 collectibles. If you really want to 100% the game you also have to complete every race, stunt jump and probably some more stuff I have forgotten about.

Huge game, but tons of fun.

 

[Zhukov]

Every open-world game ever.

There's some exceptions I'd say. Fallout circumvents it by having actual quality side-content. Red Dead Redemption circumvents it by having just enough side content for it not to become repetitive. Even those hunting quest thingies (except the flower gathering) were alright (but just alright), it's mostly those Stranger things that are pretty cool.

Which Fallout are we talking here?

The first one, sure. It was actually pretty focussed, with just a few potential detours.
The second one was a bloated and buggy mess. Nothing but detours.
Fallout 3 all felt the same no matter what you were doing.
New Vegas was just Fallout 3 again but with the green filter replaced by a brown one.

Red Dead... yeeeeaah... almost. It didn't truly overstay its welcome for me right up until the final region. That and everything after it felt like a chore. It did have some cool side content though, like the treasure maps (except the first map, that one can go suck a sweaty sausage).

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Going out of a limb here but:

D&D.

Yes. Dungeons & Dragons. I know, hate me for it, you may. I love D&D honestly but holy crap there's so freakin' much in terms of pure possibilities that I end up going for awfully plain solutions and whatnot. And it also makes DM's who aren't very creative all the more disappointing.

100% agree. I understand Wizards needs to make money but when a DM gets up to 20+ starting races and 30+ classes all with 20+ different routes to take, it becomes impossible to juggle or balance them all out evenly. It's a massive problem that D&D provides too many options for a player and not enough levels to usefully pick up a few in the lifetime of a campaign. I always feel like a lot of it is wasted.

 

[aozgolo]

Before you go giving free passes to game developers to make less "fluff" side content filler, I would advise they make their main quests a little more "dynamic". As excellent and amazing as Skyrim and KoA:R are, they are greatly bogged down by the fact that each subsequent playthrough invariably feels the same on some level due to very limited options for progressing through quests. It gets even worse in other Sandbox games like GTA and Saint's Row which let you build up an awesome arsenal of skills, weapons, and vehicles only to be shoehorned into using what's provided you for a set mission.

Without the extra content these games rapidly decline in replay value and I think that's the key. Massive amounts of content aren't there in games like Skyrim and KoA:R for a single 100% completion game run, though that is feasible, they are there to promote the idea that you can play this game more than once, start to finish and have a different experience.

 

[putowtin]

Assassin's Creed 3 was just fucking packed with useless crap, a literal overwhelming amount to 'do'. Amounted to jackshit, it did.

This. They had the formula for these games nailed with Brotherhood. Revelations was alright. Then we got...whatever the fuck 3 was.

this x2, love the Ezio based games, they have just the right amount of "other stuff" (collectables, upgrades etc) but the third was a mess of, collect xyz, take it to Tom, Dick & Harry who'll sent you to.... you knowwhat, amin missions and I quit!

CAPTCHA Charming Man... great now I'm gonna have The Smiths stuck in my head for the rest of the day!

 

[vid87]

Not so much that there's "too much," but my first playthrough with Arkham City threw a lot of stuff at me from the beginning - I have to get the Titan canisters, but there's some dudes over here I can punch and a riddle I can solve but wait now I'm tracking Deadshot and Zzas is calling me on the phone and making me travel halfway across the map now I've lost my place and OOH VR TRAINER!!

It makes you lose focus is my point.

 

[aozgolo]

I would argue that "too much" content isn't the issue, it is "too much of the same" content that is the problem.

Kingdoms of Amalur, great example btw, is a tremendous game and some of the questlines, the warrior guild questline for instance, have both clever little set pieces, tracking the merchant caravans and gathering clues, as well as story arcs that relate to the wider world. Those are fine and I would say you can never have enough of quality stuff like that.

KoA also has a metric fuckton of "deliver a letter to A", which is purely there to introduce the player to new areas and should be handled by the 'quality' content, and the good old "kill 10 wolves and brang the pelts" bollocks.

Now I would argue that GTA 5 does not do this. It has the whole "strangers and freaks" side-quest system which I would regard as quality and distinct content and not dross.

Skyrim is... I dunno, I think I'm going to have to be a tad hippoctritical here and say that I really enjoyed all the bloat. The fact I could roll up almost anywhere and be given loads of stuff to do was something I found really positive when I started playing. I guess now it is a little bit like porn you've seen loads of times before? You know what's happening next so you just put it on fast forward.

Pretty much this, although I disagree about Skyrim. I found Skyrim and Fallout 3 completely shit.

Fallout 3 in particular is my go-to example of how to make shit games, there's lots of SPACE, but not a lot of actual content, Bethesda don't actually into game design with a basic idea of what the fuck they want to actually do, and it shows, because Fallout 3 could easily been made by any other company in one year, let alone the five that Bethsoft took.

They made the game take place on the east cost, so why take ALL the major factions from previous Fallout games? Because Bethesda can't write (nor can they code, model or animate). That's why.

The game takes place in a post-apocalyptic setting, so why are weapons, ammo and food so common? Bethesda can't balance gameplay (rarer ammo could have easily been fixed by having it do more damage).

Towns should actually be poor, and be under threat from raiders. I can understand Megaton being safe for example, but Girdershade should have been taken over already from the sheer amount of raiders that appear in Fallout 3. Bethesda can't write.

Little Lamplight, it does not fit in, and why did Bethesda decide the problem with the ghost girl in Fallout 2 was that it fit in with the setting too much? Bethesda can't write (NEWS FLASH! The problem with talking Deathclaws WASN'T that it wasn't stupid enough).

The point is, it all has the same problem, Bethesda made a massive space for content, but they didn't make much content for it. There's items that don't do shit like rusted tin cans, but there isn't any roleplaying (just the usual good/bad binary) and the story is full of plot holes.

While I generally disagree with your points on Skyrim and Fallout3 as I did enjoy them quite well, I realize neither is "War & Peace" level of writing nor is it necessary to be, I grew up playing a plumber who buttstomped turtles, I have enough willing suspension of disbelief to properly enjoy both.

What I will agree on is the sense of empty space. Having played Morrowind I often felt Skyrim and Oblivion especially felt remarkably barren in the overworld, though Skyrim improved greatly in dungeon design, they still can't hold a candle to the epic-ness of finding uber loot in Morrowind's dungeons, and everything being hand placed with an explicit attention to detail definitely showed. As far as filler loot, Skyrim actually has FAAAAAR less of this than Oblivion and Morrowind did, in Morrowind you could loot every single piece of garbage you could find, and it was glorious.

Not everything needs to be there for a specific use or story purposes, in the case of Elder Scrolls it adds detail and atmosphere which makes the world much more fun to be a part of.

Plus it's a great modder's resource for expanding the game in new and interesting ways that actually makes use of these assets.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Just Cause 2 yet. Getting anywhere in that game is just like commuting in real life, only without music.

I mean, I know grapplechuteing around is more fun than driving, but it takes even longer.

All the missions are pretty same-y too.

Oh why didn't I think of that one. If you try and go almost anywhere without using a plane or a helicopter you must be glutton for punishment because even with a plane or helicopter it takes forever to get anywhere. Certainly if you're trying to go to the other side of the map anyway. And most of the side missions outside of the racing ones, which I couldn't be asked to do, just involve going to a place and blowing shit up. Also hunt for mcguffins.

 

[lapan]

There is no such thing as too much content, as long as that content is of a good quality.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Skyrim has been mentioned a billion fucking times in this thread, but seriously, Skyrim.

The radiant quest system provides a practically infinite amount of shitty quests for you to suffer through if you're into that sort of stuff.

 

[Ruzinus]

Um.

A Valley Without Wind

"Procedural Generation means the game is infinite!"

...yep, it sure is. But barely anyone seems to play it for very long.

 

[Pseudonym2]

I never got around to playing Dragon Age. One look at the back of the box revealed I'd never have enough time play it. There was an article on the Escapist a few years back talking about how modern games have gotten too long. I don't have time or the attention span for some of the longer games no matter how good they are or how they avoid repetition.

 

[EyeReaper]

I'm not sure if "content" is the right word here, but I'm going to say psychonauts, but only in the collect-a-thon qualities. Good lord those get ridiculous. let's count the ways, shall we?
anywhere from 50-100+ figments per level
5 pieces of emotional baggage per level (plus finding the 5 tags for each)
2 vaults per level
16 scavenger hunt items to find in the hubworld
and finally... (not sure if this is spoilers or not, but just in case

Spoiler

the brains of all the campers

I know that they aren't all needed to complete the game, but 100% apparently does something to the ending, I don't know, I never got all those figments

 

[Angelous Wang]

I think New Vegas is the king of this.

Fallout 3 was manageable I know that I have 100% seen and done everything in FO3, but NV there was so much more non-quest related stuff everywhere to see and do.

 

[Madman123456]

Apparently many of you guys are confusing "too much bad filler" with "too much content". If all the content in skyrim was realy good, it would disrupt the game industry for a while.

 

[geizr]

My problem with the "too much content" is that the content is often really just easily crafted filler. But, I think this phenomenon is really a result of our own demands as gamers on game developers to constantly make games that progressively ever bigger and take ever longer. We constantly want to immerse ourselves in this gigantic, sprawling pseudo-reality that we can play in forever and never have to come back to the real-world.

The problem is that no game developer can ever physically make what it is that we are looking for, if we continue on this constant expectation for an ever more epic game. Look at how, nowadays, if a game is only a mere 10-12 hours in play length, it's deemed "too short" in a dismissive manner that almost suggests the game has no possible merit because there can't possibly be enough content. But, I'd honestly rather have a short, intense, well-crafted experience that leaves me feeling satisfied for that 10-12 hours of effort than a large, empty nothingness that just goes on and on for days, weeks, or months. If a game is not loaded to the hilt with a ton of repetitive achievements, Easter-eggs, and unlocks, then it is deemed as having no replay value. To me, real replay value is a game that is just so much fun and such a satisfying experience that I want to play it again purely for the shear pleasure of experiencing it again, not because I still have more chores to complete in it.

Many of the earlier games, back in the 70s, 80s, and even probably the earliest parts of the 90s, often only lasted about 30 minutes to 1.5 hours once you actually learned how to beat them (although that process could often require days, weeks, or even a month's worth of effort). I remember many of these games as being extremely intense experiences that left your nerves completely frayed once you completed them. It was an incredible rush, and you could only stand about 1.5 hours, at the most, because your nerves were just completely shot once you got done. You were too exhausted to do any more; so, you went outside and played with your friends to recuperate. The only games that lasted significantly longer were the RPGs; those usually were 20-40 hours total play-time, and you played them in 1-2 hours chunks.

I think if gamers learned to manage their expectations away from the need for ever bigger games and game developers focused on making tighter, more intense experiences, allowing the game to be 1, 2, 8, or 12 hours instead of needing to be these multi-week opuses, I think the complaint of "too much content" might be mooted. It's not a matter of too much or too little content; it's a matter of the right kind of content that is appropriate to the game and that provides the gamer with a satisfying overall experience.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

The Witcher 2

-I admire that there is so much high quality content available in the game, but at one point, it becomes just too much(still an awesome game though)

Guild Wars 2

-What with the constant content updates, events, the sheer number of areas (and the number of vistas, collectibles, heart quests that you need to 100% a map), the crafting, guilds, World V World, it gets a bit too much, again, it is an awesome game, but the amount of content available is insane.

 

[Kolyarut]

Not so much that there's "too much," but my first playthrough with Arkham City threw a lot of stuff at me from the beginning - I have to get the Titan canisters, but there's some dudes over here I can punch and a riddle I can solve but wait now I'm tracking Deadshot and Zzas is calling me on the phone and making me travel halfway across the map now I've lost my place and OOH VR TRAINER!!

It makes you lose focus is my point.

In the case of Arkham City in particular, I rather like that they hammer you with so much stuff at once - it's perhaps a bit too intense in terms of pure game design, but I think it does a great job of telling you what life as Batman is like - he's not just the world's greatest detective, he's juggling a dozen cases at once because he works to the schedule of a never-ending tide of psychotic criminals who don't wait around for each other to finish.

I'd definitely echo all the people saying Kingdoms of Amalur. As for Skyrim... I don't know. On the one hand, yes, it's ridiculously, stupidly big, but on the other hand, I've sort of wound up breaking it down into four or five smaller games. I go back from time to time, play for as long as I'd play anything else, then wander off again and come back in a few months. That said, replaying Fallout 3 at the moment is making me thankful for slightly more sanely scoped open worlds again.

 

[aozgolo]

My problem with the "too much content" is that the content is often really just easily crafted filler. But, I think this phenomenon is really a result of our own demands as gamers on game developers to constantly make games that progressively ever bigger and take ever longer. We constantly want to immerse ourselves in this gigantic, sprawling pseudo-reality that we can play in forever and never have to come back to the real-world.

The problem is that no game developer can ever physically make what it is that we are looking for, if we continue on this constant expectation for an ever more epic game. Look at how, nowadays, if a game is only a mere 10-12 hours in play length, it's deemed "too short" in a dismissive manner that almost suggests the game has no possible merit because there can't possibly be enough content. But, I'd honestly rather have a short, intense, well-crafted experience that leaves me feeling satisfied for that 10-12 hours of effort than a large, empty nothingness that just goes on and on for days, weeks, or months. If a game is not loaded to the hilt with a ton of repetitive achievements, Easter-eggs, and unlocks, then it is deemed as having no replay value. To me, real replay value is a game that is just so much fun and such a satisfying experience that I want to play it again purely for the shear pleasure of experiencing it again, not because I still have more chores to complete in it.

Many of the earlier games, back in the 70s, 80s, and even probably the earliest parts of the 90s, often only lasted about 30 minutes to 1.5 hours once you actually learned how to beat them (although that process could often require days, weeks, or even a month's worth of effort). I remember many of these games as being extremely intense experiences that left your nerves completely frayed once you completed them. It was an incredible rush, and you could only stand about 1.5 hours, at the most, because your nerves were just completely shot once you got done. You were too exhausted to do any more; so, you went outside and played with your friends to recuperate. The only games that lasted significantly longer were the RPGs; those usually were 20-40 hours total play-time, and you played them in 1-2 hours chunks.

I think if gamers learned to manage their expectations away from the need for ever bigger games and game developers focused on making tighter, more intense experiences, allowing the game to be 1, 2, 8, or 12 hours instead of needing to be these multi-week opuses, I think the complaint of "too much content" might be mooted. It's not a matter of too much or too little content; it's a matter of the right kind of content that is appropriate to the game and that provides the gamer with a satisfying overall experience.

I think ultimately the consideration for "too much" is all a matter of time constraints. Some people don't play games as much, some don't have as much time to play games. I know personally in my teen years I had all the time in the world to play games as much as I wanted, this lasted fairly well up until I was 24-ish. This helped shape my desire for intense games that had lots of content, I admit I would often look at the suggested total playtime as a perk for buying. If an RPG boasted 100+ hours I would definitely give it a look.

Even though I have less time on my hands now with dealing with a family and working I still make plenty of time for gaming and still want deep rich fulfilling games that offer a lot. I never consider games like Fallout or The Elder Scrolls as having too much content simply because I never considered them something I had to do perfect in one sitting, or games where I would potentially miss out on something epic.

MMOs on the other hand often overwhelm me, as a bit of a completionist gamer who enjoys participating in a little of everything, MMOs, particularly older ones tend to have so much content that it's unrealistic to assume with my real life duties that I would ever have time for this game and still be able to play ANYTHING else. I remember back in my days of playing World of Warcraft and Darkfall, I didn't play any other games at all hardly unless a specific mood struck me one day but generally speaking I would become so absorbed in everything I could do I didn't want to play anything else.

Again this goes back to time constraints, if I had the time I think I would be getting into a lot more games now that I just write off as not having time for, but I still end up getting them just so I'll have them. I have numerous deep epic long campaign RPGs in my steam library now, cumulatively under 10 hours invested in all of them simply because I reserve my time for only a few specific ones now that I enjoy the most.