Comfortable length for RPG games

[Metro]

As much as game needs to build proper narrative.

Some RPG can be 10 hours some may be 100h

There's more to an rpg than narrative.

 

[Bubbles]

The better term is ludonarrative.

 

[Azrael the cat]

It really depends on what the game is trying to achieve. The universal rule for me these days, though, is no filler combat. That doesn't mean no trash mobs - a combat focused game like WL2 can have a lot of encounters, but it gives you a way to skip random ambushes, and each progression in enemies brings a new tactical element, whether that's spreading out once red skorpion grenadiers show up, breaking your 'get cover and focus fire' habit to ensure that you have guys chasing down multiple enemies with rocket launchers, or basing your tactics around taking out the energy gun synthetics in the knowledge that their squad mates can't do a lot of quick damage against your heavily armoured end game party.

Similarly, BG2 makes the most out of its enormous scope by dividing it into a huge number of bite sized dungeon crawls that you can knock off in one play session. Most of them only through a couple of standard 'mooks attack' at you before mixing it up - orcs, then orcs with kobolds shooting fire arrows, then a gauntlet with the kobolds firing at you through a protective grate. By switching to its '4 combat zones' model, Bioware made much smaller games feel like much more of a slog.

Occasionally a long slog can have a thematic effect. Not a crpg, but FEAR used its length (and some simple but effective design work in having the light outside track the transition from dusk to dawn) to create a 'this has been a fucking long night' feel to it - 40 miles of hard road.

So i'd put encounter design and a macro plan for the games 'feel' ahead of a general rule on length. The old design goal of 'large game, short play-sessions' seemed to fall by the wayside once open world crpgs and procedurally generated content took off, even in games that have neither of those things.

Conversely, if your game isn't about combat, don't put trash mobs in just to pad the time between plot points. That Bioware writer who wanted an option to skip combat deserved some of the flak that resulted, but she isn't totally without a point. Much of the combat in Bioware games serves no purpose, and even the most hardened combat-fag ends up clicking through while waiting for something to happen, where that something is inevitably plot progression. Sure, ideally you'd fix the damn combat, but realistically developers are always going to have a particular aspect of the game that they prioritise, saying 'this is what our game does well', while other factors are left simple or skimmed over. This is the great flaw with Bioware design - if their selling point is 'let's tell a cinematic summer blockbuster', why the fuck would you make that less than 5% of the play time, while the other 95% is spent grinding through trash mobs? It really would be better to give the option to skip that shit, and maybe it would force Bioware to actually come up with the quality of story and C&C to which they so clearly aspire.

Even PS:T could have trimmed its already small amount of combat. The heart of the game is as an adventure /crpg hybrid, where combat exists either to give character to an area, to show TNOs transition to near godlike power (to then set the stage for realising how useless that is to him), and for major plot critical encounters with very well developed NPCs. Yes, again the ideal solution would be to fix the damn combat, but I'm not sure that time and budget would have allowed that to be developed simultaneously with the games experimental explore-through-dialogue focus. And it might have even been detrimental by pulling the players' focus away from the heart of the game (same if FO had been full of tactically challenging encounters, instead of flavour and a few memorable set pieces - sure, it could have been improved, but Wiz8 levels of tactical combat would have destroyed the game's feel).

If it went the other way, and limited the combat to plot/character/setting relevant encounters, it would have enhanced the sense that combat is just one of many tasks around which you can build your character. Even the combat itself may have benefited, as the designers could craft the combat around fewer, more interesting, encounters.

TL;DR, length isn't an issue, it's the way it's divided up, plus encounter design and synergy with the game's intended feel.

 

[Supernomz]

Generally, I like my RPGs on the 35+ hours side. It's most enjoyable when I can sink my teeth deep into a title over a long Sunday night or something, because as others have mentioned in this thread, I as well don't have a whole lot of free time.

Right now, Divinity:OS is filling that role for me, and very much anticipating getting to play more this weekend.

But if it's a really tight,polished experience (FTL for example), I don't think the short playtime detracts from the enjoyment.

There's also titles where mileage-may-vary per user. I can put 2 hours or 10 hours into a Dorf Fort run and still have a good time, regardless of how long the run took to play.

 

[octavius]

It's kind of ironic, but I actually use more time finishing one Master of Orion/Civilization game on the largest map, or some of the more intricate user made maps for Age of Wonder: Shadow Magic than I do on most CRPGs (or FPS for that matter). I used 2 months to complete Wizardry 7, but I think I used more time to complete the Fight for Light map for SM.

Wizardry 7 dragged on a bit due to the dynamic NPCs system fizzling out midway in the game, and because the game kept throwing the same tired encounters at me all the time, but with no fat loot to reward me.
In comparison another very long game - Might&Magic 2 - stayed fresh until the very end, because of the random monster mixes, the rarity of the top level monsters (if you don't grind you'll probably never even see some of the monsters), and because there was always a chance of finding new useful items.

 

[laclongquan]

Even PS:T could have trimmed its already small amount of combat. The heart of the game is as an adventure /crpg hybrid, where combat exists either to give character to an area, to show TNOs transition to near godlike power (to then set the stage for realising how useless that is to him), and for major plot critical encounters with very well developed NPCs. Yes, again the ideal solution would be to fix the damn combat, but I'm not sure that time and budget would have allowed that to be developed simultaneously with the games experimental explore-through-dialogue focus. And it might have even been detrimental by pulling the players' focus away from the heart of the game (same if FO had been full of tactically challenging encounters, instead of flavour and a few memorable set pieces - sure, it could have been improved, but Wiz8 levels of tactical combat would have destroyed the game's feel).

Dear Lord no~ I know lots of folk here dont like PST combat but in my book it's better than BG1, if only barely.To skip combat is to make character creation pointless, because why would we choose FIGHTER/THIEF build? Just Mage for the win~

 

[DemonKing]

I'm very time-poor at the moment so a game has to be really good for me to have a chance to finish it if it is much more than 20 hours in length these days. Any more than that and I usually get distracted by something else.

Saying that if a game really works for me I can still give it the time needed to finish - I just can't burn through it like I would have back in the pre-kids days.

 

[tuluse]

Dear Lord no~ I know lots of folk here dont like PST combat but in my book it's better than BG1, if only barely.To skip combat is to make character creation pointless, because why would we choose FIGHTER/THIEF build? Just Mage for the win~

But that's what happens in PST. Did you forget you are immortal?

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

I prefer 20-30. Anything past 40 hours and I'll get burned out and have to finish it later never.

Fixed the lie.

 

[laclongquan]

Dear Lord no~ I know lots of folk here dont like PST combat but in my book it's better than BG1, if only barely.To skip combat is to make character creation pointless, because why would we choose FIGHTER/THIEF build? Just Mage for the win~

But that's what happens in PST. Did you forget you are immortal?

Did you forget that you have to WALK all the way from the resurrection point to where you were killed? THAT is all the motivation I need to not get killed.

BG trivilizied deaths by allowing dead bodies floating along the party to where they can get res service, with no need for inventory rearrangement if I remember correctly.

 

[tuluse]

Did you forget that you have to WALK all the way from the resurrection point to where you were killed? THAT is all the motivation I need to not get killed.

BG trivilizied deaths by allowing dead bodies floating along the party to where they can get res service, with no need for inventory rearrangement if I remember correctly.

Dead people drop all their stuff.

 

[laclongquan]

The inconvenience of being death are three folds:

The dropped inventory.
The drop dead body, which should have been heaviest, equal to all other stuff combined.
The walk from the drop dead location to the resurrection location.

 

[tuluse]

Of course in PST you get an ability that lets you raise companions on the spot. Something I don't believe you get in BG1 (too low levels).

 

[WhiteGuts]

Same for Fo3-FoNV. You can safely remove 75% of the game stuff (combats/travelling/looting/travelling/checking random lines) and the game wouldn't suffer for it. It would even be improved.
If you swim into actual unique content, you won't be bored. If you spent a huge ammount of time doing repetitive shit, you won't be impressed by the tiny bit of good content. You would just want to be done with the game.

World-building is one of the greatest things about New Vegas. Exploring the hidden locations and stuff felt actually pretty great.

 

[Ellef]

Dear Lord no~ I know lots of folk here dont like PST combat but in my book it's better than BG1, if only barely.To skip combat is to make character creation pointless, because why would we choose FIGHTER/THIEF build? Just Mage for the win~

But that's what happens in PST. Did you forget you are immortal?

Did you forget that you have to WALK all the way from the resurrection point to where you were killed? THAT is all the motivation I need to not get killed.

BG trivilizied deaths by allowing dead bodies floating along the party to where they can get res service, with no need for inventory rearrangement if I remember correctly.

I don't know anybody who didn't just reload when somebody died.

 

[naossano]

WhiteGuts >
Exploring and worldbuilding would be a billion times better without continuous gameworld, and the tons of useless empty generic mini-dungeon where walking, fighting generic critters and looting generic shelves is all you do.
Better have expanded the Strip and other relevant locations, than waste develloppers and players time with all that uselessness.

 

[WhiteGuts]

You can't just go from setpiece to setpiece, men. You gotta have some stuff inbetween to create a believable world. I'm afraid a small amount of filler content is always necessary, and I feel like that it was decently done in New Vegas.

 

[laclongquan]

Of course in PST you get an ability that lets you raise companions on the spot. Something I don't believe you get in BG1 (too low levels).

Two words: BGT/Tutu

 

[naossano]

You can't just go from setpiece to setpiece, men. You gotta have some stuff inbetween to create a believable world. I'm afraid a small amount of filler content is always necessary, and I feel like that it was decently done in New Vegas.

Emphasis on the small.
Having a lot of filler is really troublesome.
As said earlier, it should be less than 50% IMO. And even if it less than 50% when the game lenght is 200H, even 10% of fillers means a lot of fillers.

 

[Johannes]

I rather get two games of 20-30 hours length than one worth 50 hours, even if the two games use the same ruleset / gfx.

 

[Sykar]

100+ hours imho.

 

[Lilura]

Even PS:T could have trimmed its already small amount of combat.

PS:T needed more and better combat encounters, not fewer.

The heart of the game is as an adventure /crpg hybrid,

Only unwittingly, and due to external factors (to which you yourself allude).

And it might have even been detrimental by pulling the players' focus away from the heart of the game

Do you really believe that? srs q, I don't see how..

but Wiz8 levels of tactical combat would have destroyed the game's feel).

Wiz8 "tactical" combat (u forreal?) is tedious, and blemishes even Wiz8. Point is, fixing PS:T's major flaw (combat) would take nothing from its virtues.

Basically, people should probably stop giving excuses for PS:T's bad combat by saying "it isn't that sort of game" - when it only doesn't have solid combat because it failed utterly in that respect. Black Isle could have crafted some interesting and original encounters in such a setting, but they just didn't have the wherewithal - so they inflicted upon us horrid stuff like Curst Prison and Under Sigil.

 

[mondblut]

recent attempts...tons of filler...

You must be new.

BUT most of it will not be available during a single playthrough and the playthroughs are not intended to be lengthy.

What do you think about this?

And what is your preferable length for a single playthrough?

Playing through a 10 hour long game 10 times is infinitely more retarded than playing through a 100 hour long game once.

Also, what is this whole obsession with "finishing"? Gaming is not fucking sex. You play it for as long as it entertains you, then you move over. I could name dozens of games I got bored of 75-95% into completion, and never felt I owe it anybody (least of all myself) to persevere in order to see the ending credits. Most of the better games are sandboxes without "finish" to begin with. Pen and paper RPGs the CRPGs are supposed to emulate are sandboxes without "finish". Leave this crap to peasant arcade and adventure genres.

 

[naossano]

Could you at least start a beginning of a little bit of explanation before saying it is retarded ? We aren't in your head.

Playing 10 times a games could be about two things :
- Great replayability. Two playthrough aren't the same and all your actions have some impact. Playing Fallout 2 as a smart guy and a moron, as a sexy woman or a ugly being make the whole game totally different. Not a single character would have the same things to say to you. And i am not even taking into account the choices you make after you created your character. The game is meant to be played more than once, to be fully completed.
- Times between you replay it. You remember you had a great time playing Planescape Torment five years ago. You miss that time and your memory of it tend to become blurred. Time to replay it now.

About playing a 100 hours game, even if it is only for one time, well, don't tell us no one explained you why they want it or not.

 

[Athelas]

Basically, people should probably stop giving excuses for PS:T's bad combat by saying "it isn't that sort of game"

It wasn't that sort of game - there are multi-level areas like the Mortuary with not a single hostile enemy. The combat in PS:T feels more like the result of the 'every RPG has lots of combat, so we must too' mentality that still exists today. Unsurprisingly, it ended up being half-assed.