Is less, more?

[Prof Frink]

It's not an age thing, it's a situation thing - I'm 34 and I like spending hours on RPGs because I have the time available to invest. If I bought one that turned out you could finish it in a w/e with nothing to go back to in terms of a game+ mode I'd be irked. I like that these games can last me weeks, that's there's so much to do and find in terms of side quests and hidden dungeons etc. You could finish the main quest of Oblivion in a day, but there's so much more to do.

One of the greatest RPGs released in the last 12 months IMO, was Dragon Quest 8 - now this did have a lot of random battles, but they were so much fun you enjoyed them, plus it had a great story and characters, and you could easily shorten the time needed by warping everywhere - even when the end credits rolled, there were additional quests to do - a stunningly good value for money game.

Even an RPG like The Lord of the Rings: The Third Age, which isn't the most accomplished RPG ever, was a great game to play the last time I was off work sick back in 2004 - it was something I could just lay back and play for three days because it didn't require much effort of my part.

My most recent RPG purchase ( FF12 ) has been a bit irritating on the save point situation - given the amount of time you have to invest in this type of game, I'm surprised that the "hours between saves" archaic model is still clinged to in so many RPGs - just let me save where I want and save me a world of pain.

Then I also like a quick blast at Geometry Wars, or Hexic or Bejewelled - or more involved stuff like Hitman ( which requires a lot of dedication to play at the pro level with silent assassin achievements ).

It's a bit of crap analogy, but an RPG is like a novel, they take time, where-as something on XBLA might be a newspaper - ultimately both can be as satisfying to read.

I agree Marty I like to be able to play an RPG and really get stuck into it i.e. oblivion but I also love playing shmups which are the opposite end of the spectrum. At the minute on the one hand I'm playing FFXII and then I'm also playing Gears of War. I enjoy both ends of the scale I do agree though that a game does not need to be long to be great the Phoenix Wright games are a great example.

[John Beaulieu]

Its wrong to say that Gears and Graw only offer 8-10 hours gameplay - true you can complete the single player mode in that timescale, but once you get into multiplayer its a completely different story. I have put more time into Graw online than any rpg i have played in a long long time, and Gears looks like it will be the same.

the only problem for me is that there is just too much choice for when it comes to playing online, do i play graw or gears, cod2 or cod3, rainbow six is rearing its head and thats without delving into the library shelf ....

[Leon Retro]

Sit down, 1player or 2player, choose character, PLAY!

I wish arcade gaming had become the dominant style. Arcade games, 3D ones included, were all about the experience, the gameplay, nothing more!

Many modern titles would be sooo much better if they had been created as arcade experiences.

Why do home/console designed games have to have so much superfluous padding, when all people really want is to play, and enjoy!

Less can definitely be more fun!

The arcades, where less is more!

[Silvergun X]

Well said.

The most addictive games i've played have been simple games in concept. Dreamcast shooters, and most recently Beatmania IIDX. Songs that last about 2 minutes to play each, and yet i've spent more time on that than any RPG i've touched.

Well, aside from PSO/PSU...

[Leon Retro]

Well said.

The most addictive games i've played have been simple games in concept. Dreamcast shooters, and most recently Beatmania IIDX. Songs that last about 2 minutes to play each, and yet i've spent more time on that than any RPG i've touched.

Well, aside from PSO/PSU...

People often say games like Outrun2, Shooters, 2D Platformers, are simple. Are they crazy? More like blind to gameplay!

I go back to many games branded as simple experiences, and probably play them far more than the more bloated games that hog the market.

I've always liked games that are centred on the gameplay rather than ones which are brimming with superficial destractions.

There is nothing better than a solid concept wrapped in an easy to open package!

[Commander Marklar]

I love the massive multiplayer thing though, it's ace. There's a chance to get a game-in-a-game going, multi-squad tactics and micro management even when the game isn't necessarily based on those thing. Battlefield 2 is a prime example, it's awesome! It has been covered already though, heh.

Less is more though? I dunno... there's little difference between a game I've played for 80-hours and an RPG if it keeps playing. There's far too much focus on the final achievement, perhaps.

[Leon Retro]

I love the massive multiplayer thing though, it's ace. There's a chance to get a game-in-a-game going, multi-squad tactics and micro management even when the game isn't necessarily based on those thing. Battlefield 2 is a prime example, it's awesome! It has been covered already though, heh.

Less is more though? I dunno... there's little difference between a game I've played for 80-hours and an RPG if it keeps playing. There's far too much focus on the final achievement, perhaps.

When I talk about less, I'm referring to less unneeded content, such as CGI, loads of menus, and options etc...

In many ways MMORPG's are quite refined. You control a character running around a landscape, and everything is pretty straightforward- with a lack of CGI, and other nuisances.

I'm not a fan of the genre, but I do appreciate they have very pure gameplay!