Games With TOO Much Content?

EyeReaper

New member
Aug 17, 2011
859
0
0
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
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

Lord of I Don't Care
Oct 18, 2011
575
0
0
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

New member
Feb 11, 2011
590
0
0
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

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
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

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
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

New member
Nov 19, 2012
116
0
0
vid87 said:
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

New member
Mar 15, 2011
1,033
0
0
geizr said:
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.
 

Ihateregistering1

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,034
0
0
Strangely, I really liked Skyrim and didn't feel like it had too much, and if anything, the ability to mod it and add more really enhanced my love of the game.

Just Cause 2. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I started playing and looked at how absolutely ludicrously huge the map was, and I just lost interest.

Red Dead Redemption. I got completely bored with this game. It just felt like I was playing through mission after mission, and the story didn't seem to be going anywhere. Sure it had good characters and voice acting, but after 10 hours it didn't feel like I was one inch closer to John Marsten's ultimate objective.
 

quickmelt

New member
Sep 16, 2013
14
0
0
Tanis said:
I know most folks like to complain that there's not ENOUGH stuff to do in a game, but what about the flip-side of that?

Games with way TOO much stuff to do?
Only on the escapist would this be argued.
 

jetriot

New member
Sep 9, 2011
174
0
0
Sometimes I wonder if people on the escapist even like video games. People that ***** about Fallout 1, 2, 3 and NV or any other great open world game, but have obviously played them through to completion.... I mean you have your right to your opinion and everything but if you hate all this 'shit' so much than why do you bother?
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
17,139
1,265
118
Country
Argentina
Zhukov said:
Every open-world game ever.

Assassin's Creed, GTA, TES, you name it.

They always seem determined to pile on the tedious filler at every opportunity.

I find that the only way to make them bearable is to skip everything except main story quests. Except then you're missing most of the content, so what's the point?
Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction does open-world stupendously. You should try it out.

Personally, let's go with Red Dead Redemption. I just complained in another thread about how you earn shit tons of money for doing anything and there's nothing to really spend it on. While I think it's a great game, sidequests and filler would be more appreciated if the main campaign had a certain necessity for them. As it is though, earning money in RDR is purely a greed thing, since there's nothing worth buying past a few add-ons.
 

The Enquirer

New member
Apr 10, 2013
1,007
0
0
Zhukov said:
Every open-world game ever.

Assassin's Creed, GTA, TES, you name it.

They always seem determined to pile on the tedious filler at every opportunity.

I find that the only way to make them bearable is to skip everything except main story quests. Except then you're missing most of the content, so what's the point?
Saints Row 2 actually got a pretty good idea for that stuff down. In order to unlock another story mission you had to have completed a certain number of the open world activities. But you could pick whichever ones you want to do so it still gives you a lot of freedom to do what you want to do. I wouldn't have touched them after a certain point but they made me and I'm actually quite glad that they did.
 

agent_orange420

New member
Sep 30, 2011
75
0
0
Batman Arkham City. I Love Arkham Asylum, for being taut, tense and concise. I didnt feel the sequel added anything by making it 4 times the size, adding in loads more different gadgets and the riddler stuff just became a pain in the arse by the end. And Catwoman, well, just No!
 

Foolery

No.
Jun 5, 2013
1,714
0
0
Content or tedious filler? Because I can think of plenty of games that have grindtacular repetitive shit disguised as content. I try not to bother with extra stuff if I'm not having fun doing it. What sucks is when doing that stuff is required to continue.
 

windlenot

Archeoastronomist
Mar 27, 2011
329
0
0
Juste Goose said:
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.
I was also waiting for somebody to mention this. The game begs for a proper fast travel and that helicopter pilot really gets on my tits after a while.

Just Cause 2 is really the only one to come to mind... Maybe leveling yourself out in COD to the max level and prestige, but that's really you grinding out the same thing over and over, and if you like that kinda stuff, more power to you, I guess. Just not my thing.
 

KarmaTheAlligator

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,472
0
0
Bertylicious said:
I would argue that "too much" content isn't the issue, it is "too much of the same" content that is the problem.
Yeah, I agree with this.

In Saints Row 3, for example, I enjoyed doing everything I could, all the side missions and all. Same for the last GTA I played extensively (San Andreas). In Skyrim I don't enjoy trudging through the same dungeon over and over, and that's why I stopped playing it, it got too tedious; and GTA 4 was very boring. My point is that if the content is fun to do, the more the better; if not, keep it low.
 

Michael Lapierre

New member
Mar 7, 2013
13
0
0
Well, I'm an 'older than dirt' gamer, and what I do, (specifically in this case referring to Skyrim), is to make my own rules, and see what it does to the game...
My last play through was 154 hours, and this time, I'm skipping all the 'Dragonborn' stuff this time. This has changed the game TOTALLY!

Suddenly dungeons are a lot more dangerous. since you have no 'shouts' to use...Strategy and smarts are needed, since you can no longer blow people across a cave.
I will say that it is a lot different, since I have seen only one dragon, (Alduin at Helgen), in the entire game.

I let them out when I say, and it becomes MY game. But, I'm 66 so I see these as experiences to enjoy, and not games to be 'beaten'...

Of course, not all games let you circumvent the design like this, but there is usually a 'back-door', and this is my way of getting around the fetch-quest Tango!
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
For SP games (non-MMO and no MP focus), I'll echo the sentiment that Skyrim is one of those games brimming with content, also pretty much any Bethesda RPG, especially Morrowind. If we get trendy and mainstream, I'd say go for GTA V and Saints Row 4 (although SR3 wasn't too shabby about it's amount of content).

As far as I've heard, Red Dead Redemption is pretty long too, especially if you add the Undead Nightmare DLC (wich is brilliant).

Darksiders 2 is a pretty long game too, the base game without any DLC has around 30 hours of gameplay (if you don't tackle secondary quests and don't abuse the fast travel), add an extra 6 to 8 hours with the DLC, nowhere near Skyrim's legenday amount of content, but it'll definitely keep you entertained for a while.

Divinity 2 will take you a while to finish too, especially if it's the Director's Cut (PC only).

Okami is the longest Zelda clone you'll ever see (only Darksiders 2 is just as long), it's even longer than any Zelda ever made.

Metroid Prime Trilogy is an awesome deal too, each game will take you around 15 to 20 hours.
 

kilenem

New member
Jul 21, 2013
903
0
0
To much content or to much of the same content because their are some RPG's that need to cut down on grinding.