Quantity vs Quality in Videogames (RDR As Reference)

Let me start off this topic by saying that I don't think Red Dead Redemption is a bad game. I've been playing it non-stop for the past week or so and it's proven to be a beautifully made game. However, there are some things about it that I ind unsettling. For those who read 'Game Informer' magazine, there was an article that discussed the problem of overcompensating in video games. Basically he talked about developers who put as much as they can into a game, despite the fact that some, if not a good half, of the content and/or missions (quests) of the game are completely unnecessary. I myself have been noticing, mostly in the beginning of the game, that the missions I was being assigned were a bit useless. Whether it be walking around a town with a dog or escorting someone to some destination. Unlike GTAIV, I find that more of the missions add to the story than the handful of unnecessary tasks in Grand Theft Auto, but it's still something I notice with the 'missions' in RDR.

My question is this: Do you prefer devs making a game with a very direct and linear story with 'missions' that pertain directly to the story or game? Or do you prefer an expansive world where you complete 'missions' that aren't always crucial to the story or experience of the game as a whole?

I dont like playing horseshoes in real life or in video games.

I hated that waste of time crap, "beat everyone at poker" to gain a new outfit?!. If i wanted to play poker I'd log on to FullTilt.

However, overall the majority of it I enjoyed

I don't particularily care if not all the missions adhere strictly to progressing the story. As long as they're fun, I don't really see any problem with it. RDR did get a little stale in the story-telling area with the beginning of every mission being "Well if you do this for us we'll help you find so and so...", but IMO the missions were fun enough that I didn't really care if they added nothing significant to the story. For me, story takes a backseat to gameplay in any game.

I dont like playing horseshoes in real life or in video games.

I hated that waste of time crap, "beat everyone at poker" to gain a new outfit?!. If i wanted to play poker I'd log on to FullTilt.

However, overall the majority of it I enjoyed

brotherwo

you don't HAVE to play horseshoes or poker. theyre just little extras for people who would like to try it out. i dont see the problem with something being in the game just as an extra when the game doesnt force you to play it.

[QUOTE="brotherwo"]

I dont like playing horseshoes in real life or in video games.

I hated that waste of time crap, "beat everyone at poker" to gain a new outfit?!. If i wanted to play poker I'd log on to FullTilt.

However, overall the majority of it I enjoyed

_SOULtoSQUEEZE_

you don't HAVE to play horseshoes or poker. theyre just little extras for people who would like to try it out. i dont see the problem with something being in the game just as an extra when the game doesnt force you to play it.

[QUOTE="_SOULtoSQUEEZE_"]

[QUOTE="brotherwo"]

I dont like playing horseshoes in real life or in video games.

I hated that waste of time crap, "beat everyone at poker" to gain a new outfit?!. If i wanted to play poker I'd log on to FullTilt.

However, overall the majority of it I enjoyed

parvie

you don't HAVE to play horseshoes or poker. theyre just little extras for people who would like to try it out. i dont see the problem with something being in the game just as an extra when the game doesnt force you to play it.

well if you're trying to get 100% completion on any game, you should expect to do some pointless things or things that you might not enjoy.

Good topic TC.When asked whether I prefer open world to linear games, I go with whatever achieves its objective well. If I'm following a script like MGS4 or making it up as I go like Fallout 3, I am happy so long as its done well and doesn't try to be something its not.

However, if you ask if I prefer quality over quantity, I've got to ask "Why can't I have both?". Some games have an awesome linear experience but it only lasts for a few short hours (CoD) while others have great quantity and seem to drag on and on (RDR). What I want is a good balance between both to keep things fun and exciting.

Assasins Creed is an excellent example of a game with great content but abusing that content really makes the game boring. Then, in AC2, they tried to fix that problem and, for me, it worked.

What I want is a balance. Show me something exciting but know when to stop so I have something to look forward to.

Great games usually have a slow intro full of pointless missions.

Good topic TC.When asked whether I prefer open world to linear games, I go with whatever achieves its objective well. If I'm following a script like MGS4 or making it up as I go like Fallout 3, I am happy so long as its done well and doesn't try to be something its not.

However, if you ask if I prefer quality over quantity, I've got to ask "Why can't I have both?". Some games have an awesome linear experience but it only lasts for a few short hours (CoD) while others have great quantity and seem to drag on and on (RDR). What I want is a good balance between both to keep things fun and exciting.

Assasins Creed is an excellent example of a game with great content but abusing that content really makes the game boring. Then, in AC2, they tried to fix that problem and, for me, it worked.

What I want is a balance. Show me something exciting but know when to stop so I have something to look forward to.

Ninja_Zombie83

Well said re: Assassin's Creed.

[QUOTE="parvie"][QUOTE="_SOULtoSQUEEZE_"]

you don't HAVE to play horseshoes or poker. theyre just little extras for people who would like to try it out. i dont see the problem with something being in the game just as an extra when the game doesnt force you to play it.

_SOULtoSQUEEZE_

well if you're trying to get 100% completion on any game, you should expect to do some pointless things or things that you might not enjoy.