SAMAS said:
GonzoGamer said:
My least favorite excuse for not liking a game is the "there's too much content" complaint. What the hell kind of drawback is that? Especially when most of it is optional: which is usually the case.
I remember people saying that about San Andreas. Personally, I loved the seemingly endless optional activities and massive tracks of landscape.
It's something we don't see too much anymore without paying $40+ in dlc. The only games from this gen that had close to that amount of content is Fallout 3 and maybe Borderlands.
Actually, this
can be a valid complaint. Too much optional shit can feel like it's taking away from the actual story. Especially if the player finds the main story/game lacking. It would feel like they wasted time on pointless s**t instead of doing "real" work.
Real work? It's all a game...it's all kind of pointless shit.
Besides, if the main arc of the game is really lacking that much, you probably can't argue that it has too much content or that it's a good game to begin with. And if the player thinks the side stuff is a waste of time and taking away from the story, then it's their own stupid fault for getting sidetracked.
That's the thing, if it's a good game, how can you argue it has too much content.
And who really plays a game for the story? Every time someone tells me that I have to play a game for the great story, it ends up being a really lame story. Like those dragon age games. Everyone says the story is so amazing but it's not even good for fantasy; those old Forgotten Realms books are better... except Spellfire. That book was really truly tedious and directionless - I'd rather read the entire script for DAO than that book again.
So yes, if it's a crappy game that you're only playing for the story, I can see why you wouldn't want to be sidetracked, but if it's all optional, what difference does it make.