#1 Posted by pyrodactyl (2209 posts) -

I like big games. Maybe it came from the habit of only buying lengthy games and renting the rest but that fact remains: I like big games. Not games full of filler but awesome games with a lot of content. I would take a great, somewhat iterative giant game over the great new innovative indy game any day of the week. I like to get lost in a world and soak it in. I don't think most indy releases can provide that.

I feel like even if I enjoyed papers please, gone home and rogue legacy quite a lot this year, they were still fleeting and limited experiences compared to their AAA counterparts. But that's not a fair comparison because those are 10-20$ games vs 60$ games. Comparing the 2 is just like saying that if I thought an indy game was better than a AAA release I thought was well worth the price of entry I would have no problem paying 60$ for it. Maybe it's just me but I can probably count on one hand the number of indy games ever I would've paid 60$ to play with the forknowledge of their subjective quality.

With all that in mind, I don't know if anyone on the GB staff shares my perspective anymore. I don't even know if they ever shared that opinion or if the biggest games just used to be the only worthwhile GotY candidats. Anyway, the fact that they can't seem to get as excited about most of the biggest games of the year as they were about a frisbee game from 20 years ago has made it harder and harder for me to relate.

Am I crazy for having scope as one of my primary metrics for judging the quality of a game? Am I crazy for thinking the crew used to enjoy great expensive games over any other and don't anymore? Is this real life taking away video game time from people who comment on video games for a living? Is this jaddedness? Or should I get with the times and proclaim that divekick is a better game than GTA5?

#2 Posted by Turambar (6814 posts) -

Skyrim was their GOTY 2011.

#3 Edited by TruthTellah (9363 posts) -

I don't think valuing scope is a bad thing in the least, and I'd say the guys have appreciated it plenty over the last few years. It's just another thing to consider, and some people care about it more than others.

I can understand possibly feeling like their tastes may be changing a bit in relation to your own, but that's because they're people like you and me. Our preferences change over time, and it's natural that you may feel a bit more of a separation or shared interest with the staff as time goes on.

#4 Edited by impartialgecko (1651 posts) -

Yep, I'm not with you on this one. Big games are dumb, safe and too similar to the scores of games that came before it. I'll start valuing quantity more when the subject matter isn't something I'm sick to death of. Yes, GTAV has content out the wazoo, but that's content I never want to play. Hell I didn't even want to see all the bespoke story content in that game. Short games don't get more attention from critics because real life is getting in the way, it's because if you do anything for long enough you'll get bored by it. I'm barely 20 years into this world with practically zero money to my name and I already value games that are of sufficient length rather than 40 hours long because the developers are either too in love with their own mechanics and ideas or terrified that Gamespot commentors will have a coronary over a game's length.

Gunpoint and Gone Home are super dope, you guys. I'd take them over any AAA game this year that isn't called The Last of Us. I feel super lucky to have had my tastes evolve in line with the GB crew.

#5 Posted by StarvingGamer (8391 posts) -

Nope, I don't care how big a game is if it's no fun to actually play (see Elder Scrolls / GTA). What is the point of ALL THE CONTENT if I don't want to play ANY of the content?

#6 Edited by Tyrrael (250 posts) -

I, for one, have no problem with a solid corridor shooter (Killzone: SF, Vanquish) or hack 'n slash (DmC, Metal Gear Rising) or a less than sprawling RPG (Dragon's Crown). If everyone valued "scope" the way you seem to be describing it, then games like GTA5 are the only types of games we would have, and we would have missed out on a ton of great games like the ones I listed above. I don't think you meant for it to sound like this, but you saying "...scope as one of my primary metrics for judging the quality of a game" is like saying that any game that doesn't have the scope of GTA5 is going to be unquestionably inferior. This is a bad position to be in, because you're treading on opinion territory. Just because a game isn't as big, which is what you seem to be equating "scope" to, doesn't automatically mean that it's objectively inferior to another game just for that reason. This is commonly known as a false dichotomy. You're saying that it's games like GTA5 and Skyrim versus every other type of game, like there's just one alternative type of game out there. Games are intentionally made differently. It's not like a developer sets out to create an open world game like Skyrim and inadvertently ends up with Plants vs Zombies.

To answer your question, no, I don't value scope as a primary metric for judging the quality of a game, because there are games that are intentionally not made like sprawling open worlds. If that's the type of game that it is, then I will judge that game on what it's doing, or trying to do, on it's own merits. Using that as a basis for judging all games is impossible. Why? Well, some games simply can't meet this criteria even a little bit no matter how good or fun people think they are, like Plants vs Zombies, because it was never their intention to do so. Another example would be fighting games, whose existence and popularity almost single handedly invalidates the brunt of your argument. If this is the way you intend to judge all games at the outset, you are going to be sorely disappointed in about 99.9% of all games out there for simply not being "big" enough, even if that was never their intention, which is a shame, because you'll be missing out on a lot of great games.

Please note, I didn't mean for this to sound antagonistic, even though it may have. It's just that a there are a lot of implications in your wording, especially in "Am I crazy for having scope as one of my primary metrics for judging the quality of a game?". If you had said "...judging the quality of a game that is made like this...or in this genre", then it would have been fine, but that blanket statement means that every game would have to be judged on the exact same criteria, which would be impossible for the reasons that I stated above. Using your criteria for judging which games you think you would like more than others is one thing, but judging them all on the same criteria is another one altogether.

#7 Edited by Sammo21 (3379 posts) -

Not really. I take the time I put into a game + everything I thought was good about it. The difference is that I have absolutely no interest in playing The Last of Us again but I thought it was my game of the year. GTA had a shit ton of content but most of it was, to me, a large waste of time. I still think the game is fun in small doses but the story lasts too long and is padded with too much bullshit.

#8 Posted by JasonR86 (9748 posts) -

Not really anymore. I've played big huge games with massive scope. Another one with more scope and being big and all is less impressive each time I experience it. They need to do something else. That's why when people talked about how impressive the scope of GTA 5 was I couldn't relate. It just isn't that impressive to me anymore.

#9 Edited by HurricaneIvan29 (634 posts) -

Quality, not quantity.

#10 Posted by TheMasterDS (2091 posts) -

Not always. Sometimes I want games to be over quicker if I want to see what they have to offer in a single session and move on. Other times too much game causes pacing issues. Sometimes big games are well paced though. Those games are good.

#11 Posted by ajamafalous (12058 posts) -

@starvinggamer said:

I don't care how big a game is if it's no fun to actually play (see Elder Scrolls / GTA). What is the point of ALL THE CONTENT if I don't want to play ANY of the content?

#12 Posted by probablytuna (3746 posts) -

I don't share the belief that having a bigger scope means the game is superior. They put Black Flag on the list so no doubt they like "big" games, it's just that there are some really great indie games this year.

#13 Posted by Sammo21 (3379 posts) -

If anything I think we've learned that large scope games are often the most unpolished and full of bugs/glitches. Bigger is not always better. While I do love Assassins Creed 4 it almost suffers from the same problems of GTA V where there are so many things to do yet most of them just aren't fun.

#14 Posted by GTCknight (704 posts) -

Nope, I don't care how big a game is if it's no fun to actually play (see Elder Scrolls / GTA). What is the point of ALL THE CONTENT if I don't want to play ANY of the content?

While one of my favorite games this year (Macross 30) was a open-world game. I completely agree with this post. Even more so since I don't like Skyrim or GTA.

You can have the largest (scale wise) game ever created but, if the game is terrible then it doesn't matter because no one is going to want to play it; also if the game doesn't appeal to someone then it really won't matter either way.

Ex: EVE online - Its a huge game a whole galaxy to explore but, I have no interest in mining, trading, or flying a giant ship that moves like a star destroyer. I want to do battle in my small quick fighter craft in the midst of a dogfight all in the backdrop of a interstellar war (X-wing, Tie-fighter, Freespace, Freespace 2).

#15 Posted by Skooky (477 posts) -

Mentioning scope is a way to praise all the content you never did. You have no way of knowing if the content is good or not, but it exists so it's praise worthy.

#16 Edited by pyrodactyl (2209 posts) -

@skooky said:

Mentioning scope is a way to praise all the content you never did. You have no way of knowing if the content is good or not, but it exists so it's praise worthy.

It's more of a way to praise the content I did experience and how there was enough of it for me to just soak in it.

@adam1808 said:

Yep, I'm not with you on this one. Big games are dumb, safe and too similar to the scores of games that came before it. I'll start valuing quantity more when the subject matter isn't something I'm sick to death of. Yes, GTAV has content out the wazoo, but that's content I never want to play. Hell I didn't even want to see all the bespoke story content in that game. Short games don't get more attention from critics because real life is getting in the way, it's because if you do anything for long enough you'll get bored by it. I'm barely 20 years into this world with practically zero money to my name and I already value games that are of sufficient length rather than 40 hours long because the developers are either too in love with their own mechanics and ideas or terrified that Gamespot commentors will have a coronary over a game's length.

Gunpoint and Gone Home are super dope, you guys. I'd take them over any AAA game this year that isn't called The Last of Us. I feel super lucky to have had my tastes evolve in line with the GB crew.

As a guy with limited money to put into videogames wouldn't you say Gun Point and Gone Home aren't as good as whatever full price game you enjoyed this year but didn't put in your best of list? In other words, if such a game exists (AC4, GTA5, DmC, MGS Rising, Bioshock, BF4 or any other) and we compare it to Gun Point and Gone Home we also have to say ''GP and GH are better than this game I enjoyed and paid 60$ for. So I would have no problem paying the 60$ for each of these'' because what determines a game's worth if not general quality or ''betterness'' over other games?

@tyrrael said:

I, for one, have no problem with a solid corridor shooter (Killzone: SF, Vanquish) or hack 'n slash (DmC, Metal Gear Rising) or a less than sprawling RPG (Dragon's Crown). If everyone valued "scope" the way you seem to be describing it, then games like GTA5 are the only types of games we would have, and we would have missed out on a ton of great games like the ones I listed above. I don't think you meant for it to sound like this, but you saying "...scope as one of my primary metrics for judging the quality of a game" is like saying that any game that doesn't have the scope of GTA5 is going to be unquestionably inferior. This is a bad position to be in, because you're treading on opinion territory. Just because a game isn't as big, which is what you seem to be equating "scope" to, doesn't automatically mean that it's objectively inferior to another game just for that reason. This is commonly known as a false dichotomy. You're saying that it's games like GTA5 and Skyrim versus every other type of game, like there's just one alternative type of game out there. Games are intentionally made differently. It's not like a developer sets out to create an open world game like Skyrim and inadvertently ends up with Plants vs Zombies.

To answer your question, no, I don't value scope as a primary metric for judging the quality of a game, because there are games that are intentionally not made like sprawling open worlds. If that's the type of game that it is, then I will judge that game on what it's doing, or trying to do, on it's own merits. Using that as a basis for judging all games is impossible. Why? Well, some games simply can't meet this criteria even a little bit no matter how good or fun people think they are, like Plants vs Zombies, because it was never their intention to do so. Another example would be fighting games, whose existence and popularity almost single handedly invalidates the brunt of your argument. If this is the way you intend to judge all games at the outset, you are going to be sorely disappointed in about 99.9% of all games out there for simply not being "big" enough, even if that was never their intention, which is a shame, because you'll be missing out on a lot of great games.

Please note, I didn't mean for this to sound antagonistic, even though it may have. It's just that a there are a lot of implications in your wording, especially in "Am I crazy for having scope as one of my primary metrics for judging the quality of a game?". If you had said "...judging the quality of a game that is made like this...or in this genre", then it would have been fine, but that blanket statement means that every game would have to be judged on the exact same criteria, which would be impossible for the reasons that I stated above. Using your criteria for judging which games you think you would like more than others is one thing, but judging them all on the same criteria is another one altogether.

I'm not disapointed with 99.9% of games because the majority of 60$ games that came out this year had enough in them. It's not just about open world games, it's that games need to have a grand something for me to say they're truelly great. Bioshock had a grand story and characters, BF4 has a grand (if kind of busted) multiplayer, GTA 5 and AC4 had a grand everything. You might even say DmC and MGS rising have a grand combat system, I don't know, I'm not an action game guy.

This criteria doesn't prevent me from enjoying smaller games. I just wouldn'd say they're as great as these other ones. That's fine too because I didn't have to spend nearly as much money to buy them.

#17 Posted by amani (49 posts) -

Would much much MUCH rather play a short experience that's well crafted, fun, polished, and as you said, without filler. I don't completely disagree with you though; the worlds in Majora's Mask and Wind Waker? I'll gladly explore over and over again (though maybe MM's not the best example since you kinda HAVE to...) over, say, the house in Gone Home. That said, I think the additional stuff's gotta be 1.) interesting, 2.) feel like it mattered, and/or 3.) gave me a proper reward (give me a new character to mess around with, or a new level, I don't want another goddamn trophy).

#18 Posted by huser (1090 posts) -

I respect ambitious games. Not crazy, spacewalking dreams, but ambitious plans that may or may not be fully realized. So yeah scope goes with that.

#19 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5810 posts) -

Scope is a plus, but usually quality is what matters, for 2 games with similar quality the one that's just straight up bigger or has more impressive world design is going to win out every time. So in the case of Skyrim vs Saint's Row that's a legitimate argument, in the case of Skyrim vs Dark Souls obviously Dark Souls wins. The Last of Us does have a very impressive scope to it, it is very seldom that a video game story that isn't Japanese can carry its weight for longer than 10 hours (and GTA V's story is about 10 hours with 20-30 hours of padding), but it also had the highest quality too so it didn't really matter. In the case of an extremely brief game like CoD 4 then lack of scope hurts it pretty severely, but the rail shooting doesn't help either.

The Binding of Isaac has a very impressive scope but only above average quality but something like Rogue Legacy is of normal length and size with tremendous quality. Final Fantasy XIII has extremely good gameplay and limited scope, XIII-2 has the same gameplay and a much more expansive world to explore; so XIII-2 is almost by default better.

Metroid Prime is still the all time winner for scope/world design.

#20 Posted by Chaser324 (6662 posts) -

I respect games with the ambition to try to have a large scope, but at the end of the day, it really does come down to quality far more than quantity. There are a lot of boring or just plain bad games out there with massive worlds and tons of systems.

No Man's Sky for instance, while it does look cool and ambitious and has one hell of a trailer, it still could be an awful game to play if there aren't interesting things to do in that world.

Moderator
#21 Edited by UitDeToekomst (722 posts) -

"Scope" seems to me like a far too theoretical reason to enjoy something. I have always found my reasons for liking a game to be much more guttural and instinctive. I don't really have the ability to sit back after or while playing something and say to myself "hey, that landscape is really grand, I like it!". My metric is solely pure emotional enjoyment. whether or not scope enters into it is hard to say.

#22 Posted by Superkenon (1467 posts) -

I mean, yeah, but with the caveat that 'scope' is still only as valuable as the content inherent. But you seem to understand that, so it really comes down to "did you enjoy playing the game". If the core mechanics aren't grabbing you, being longer isn't going to make it better -- in fact, it would only serve to cool you on it even further.

Of course, there's also the example where a game with awesome mechanics can suffer from having an unproportionate scope, where a game has to stretch and pad to fill the space its assets and inventions couldn't (I like to cite FFXIII as an example of this, being a game that would've been 1000% better at half its length).

If I'm talking about a game like, "man, these 20 hours are fucking fantastic, but the other 20 hours are kinda repeating themselves," and then another game like, "I played this game for 10 hours and loved every single second of it," it's the latter game that's going to stick with me as an overall more positive experience.

But yes, obviously if a game is fun to play, and stays fun to play after 100 hours, that's the best case. My top picks for 2013 were Fire Emblem and Rune Factory 4, and those were games I've absolutely sunk those kinds of hours into and not tired of, and are examples of their sheer scope and replayability being of great asset to them. They wouldn't be so outstanding as tiny adventures, but because they go SO LONG without ever faltering (and that's the key, right there), they're essentially games I can play forever. And that is, indeed, valuable.

#23 Posted by HatKing (6034 posts) -

I respect games with the ambition to try to have a large scope, but at the end of the day, it really does come down to quality far more than quantity. There are a lot of boring or just plain bad games out there with massive worlds and tons of systems.

No Man's Sky for instance, while it does look cool and ambitious and has one hell of a trailer, it still could be an awful game to play if there aren't interesting things to do in that world.

Yeah, this pretty much sums it up. A fantastic game is a fantastic game regardless how many polygons are used to comprise its environments. In fact, it might be more impressive when a game feels bigger than it actually is. Brothers, for instance, was fantastic at giving you a sense of a massive, varied world, while being relatively constrained to a singular path.

#24 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

i like PvP and killing other ppl first and foremost, but after that i REALLY like exploration, and there are basically no satisfying PvP mmos out there right now. but so the problem comes for me in that if there's no procedural generation then it's the same world every time, which is why i get petered out on skyrim a lot, because there's a huge world but not that much to actually find, whereas a game like Champions of Norrath, even though the story is linear and the combat is fairly simple, i LOVE LOVE LOVE the fact that basically every path during a playthrough is procedurally generated from tilesets, and there's no tiered "legendary" or "unique" gear that you can only get from quest rewards, it's all just random drops, so I can run that game pretty much endlessly, even WITH abusing dupes (because there's just that much stuff to find that the dupes don't take much away, i basically just dupe the weapon enchants because they're impossible to find), because every run always puts me through different dungeons.

you know what, that paragraph is probably impossible to understand, but i really don't feel like rewriting it.

#25 Edited by Soapy86 (2635 posts) -

I appreciate "scope" quite a bit. I absolutely love a big, wide open world to explore. However, just because I like "scope" a great deal doesn't mean I don't ALSO appreciate smaller, tighter, more refined games like what Platinum makes.

#26 Edited by believer258 (12020 posts) -

I do appreciate scope a hell of a lot. Skyrim is my favorite game of this generation (though it's far from the best game of this generation, something of a distinction that I often make). Something like Final Fantasy XII is impressively massive for a PS2 game, and No Man's Sky had me super excited on its premise alone. Nevermind if it plays like shit, I want to play that game just to get on my ship and travel to every planet I can, seeing what I can do and find there.

This doesn't mean that I don't appreciate games that do things on a much smaller scale. Hardly. Scope is just one possible quality that a game can have that I like.

#27 Posted by csl316 (9049 posts) -

I don't, but that's because I'm not big on open-world games. I prefer a game with many tactical options (Halo 1) or optional secret stuff (Mario World).

I like an experience that does a couple things really well, not a dozen mediocre things in a big ass world.

#28 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Depends?

#29 Posted by cthomer5000 (829 posts) -

Depends. I'm loving Persona 4, and i'm 80 hours in. I also loved Brothers, Journey, Walking Dead because they all gave me easily digestible experiences. Honestly, i pretty much prefer bite-size gaming content at this stage in my life, as i have no time for extended gameplay on weeknights, and very rare chances for weekends full of games either.

If push comes to shove, i prefer shorter game experiences. I'm not 10 years old anymore with summers off.

#30 Edited by Slag (4646 posts) -

Scope for Scope's sake is no longer valuable in itself. There was a time that it was very important due to technological limitations. But we've hit the upper limit of that being important. Games can easily be huge now.

It's no longer novel tech, now it's more about quality and depth of the experience. A big world is worthless if there isn't anything to do in it. If a game can have enormous scope and retain quality that's fantastic. But quality matters more than scope.

#31 Posted by Hamst3r (4530 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

Gunpoint and Gone Home are super dope, you guys. I'd take them over any AAA game this year that isn't called The Last of Us.

As a guy with limited money to put into videogames wouldn't you say Gun Point and Gone Home aren't as good as whatever full price game you enjoyed this year but didn't put in your best of list? In other words, if such a game exists (AC4, GTA5, DmC, MGS Rising, Bioshock, BF4 or any other) and we compare it to Gun Point and Gone Home we also have to say ''GP and GH are better than this game I enjoyed and paid 60$ for. So I would have no problem paying the 60$ for each of these'' because what determines a game's worth if not general quality or ''betterness'' over other games?

This criteria doesn't prevent me from enjoying smaller games. I just wouldn'd say they're as great as these other ones. That's fine too because I didn't have to spend nearly as much money to buy them.

I didn't buy any $60 games this year as I don't find them to be any better than Gone Home or Gunpoint. I played Antichamber, Intrusion 2, FEZ, Hotline Miami, The Swapper and several other indie games this year instead of playing those $60 games. Money well spent I'd say, I enjoyed the games immensely.

As for being "a guy with limited money", that's what sales are for, you don't have to play everything immediately upon it's release. There are Steam sales and indie bundles on PC. On a console you have the option of buying used games and are able to sell them back to the store too. There are ways to save cash.

Lastly, regarding "quality" and "betterness". What constitutes quality is a subjective thing, so what you think is better isn't necessarily what I think is better about a game. In general, I find that I'm more interested in what the indie games have to offer, as they have the qualities I want.

#32 Edited by psylah (2181 posts) -

I value Scope© as a refreshing blast of minty freshness that gives me that irresistibly cool breath that people love.

#33 Posted by Wilshere (330 posts) -

Shorter indie titles can have long lasting appeal when they have solid mechanics, since the story can be experienced once. I can see myself replaying Papers, Please few more times. Since i don't spend a lot of money on games i tend to gravitate towards evergreen games (endless replayability) like the Civilization series, Crusader Kings II and the awesome Kerbal Space Program.

#34 Edited by tourgen (4542 posts) -

Depends on the style of the game - not expecting massive scope from a fighter or puzzle game.

However,

Scope is HUGE to me. I enjoy big, open, free-movement environments. For me simply exploring a game environment is a rewarding experience. Looking at all the cool stuff that people put countless hours into, hopefully with some level of craftsmanship. Looking around at the edges and finding places the environment breaks or can be exploited. Or just looking at the little animated bird some dude decided to put on this railing over here.

It's not the only factor. If atmosphere, gameplay, or story are bad or not to my taste it can certainly wreck the overall experience. More bigger bad is still bad.

#35 Posted by joshwent (2301 posts) -

Depends?

This should just be the default text when anyone starts writing in these forums, as it's probably always the right answer.

Am I crazy for having scope as one of my primary metrics for judging the quality of a game? Am I crazy for thinking the crew used to enjoy great expensive games over any other and don't anymore? Is this real life taking away video game time from people who comment on video games for a living? Is this jaddedness? Or should I get with the times and proclaim that divekick is a better game than GTA5?

I think you just have to broaden your definition of "scope". For many, the scope of GTA5 and Divekick could actually be comparable. You're talking about physical space depth vs. gameplay depth, which can end up having equal amounts of time investment and complexity.

Consider that some of Jeff and Brad's (if not others in the GB) favorite games ever are Mortal Kombat 2/3 and Super Street Fighter II Turbo. Obviously, zero exploration of physical scope like a GTA game. But with the lack of a space with tons of scope, there is the almost endless depth of learning the characters, timing, pairings, and everything else that comes with mastering a fighter.

So in that sense, I do think scope is important for at least those two. Just maybe in a way that you weren't considering.

#36 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4856 posts) -

I don't think placing a value on scope is a bad thing at all. What's important isn't that someone is wrong for thinking Divekick is better than GTA Five, what's important is that you know your tastes and what you're in the mood for when you sit down to play.

Believe it or not, some people don't want to sink their teeth into a big juicy game that will require dozens of hours to complete. Me? I love that shit. Give me a game I can get lost in for weeks, if you please. Other people aren't like that, though. They like short games in short bursts so they have something to do in between their real hobbies. No sweat; there's plenty of room for everybody.

#37 Posted by Hunkulese (2798 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: I can't think of a game over 10 hours that didn't have a whole bunch of filler. It's one of the reasons I didn't get more than halfway through GTA V. There was some great stuff in the game but I got tired of driving across the city to start a mission which required me to drive across the city to a checkpoint and then drive somewhere else.

#38 Posted by ninjalegend (449 posts) -

Size and scope does not matter much to me. I really enjoyed GTA5 and had it high up on my game of the year list, but that was because I really enjoyed playing it. I loved Skyrim but the 5 hour Vanquish also has a very special place in my heart. It really is all about how I feel when playing the game and if the game sticks with me after I put it down. I try not to let the hype get to me too much. I picked up Persona 4 after hearing so much about it. 60+ hour game that had rave reviews from this site. Bored me out of my mind. Stuck with it for the 4 hours said to let it get going, took the game out of my vita, traded it in. The same thing with Brothers. I could not stomach the controls and the heart strings were not enough for me. I really did like Gone Home though. Just exploring that small area brought more emotion for me than Brothers ever could.

As someone who prides himself on my sometimes over analytic mind it pains me a bit to say this, here it goes anyway. (Hippie voice) You don't play games man..........you fell them.

#39 Edited by TobbRobb (4762 posts) -

Scope is definitely a thing to consider. Though the ones to really respect are directors who can manage and understand the limits of what they are working with, while still pushing the scope of the game as far as possible.

#40 Posted by liquiddragon (249 posts) -

@pyrodactyl: I love "big" games. I played ff13-2 and valkyria chronicles 2 last year and they each took 50 hours outta me but I only have so much in me to put that kinda of time into a single game in a given year. I don't really like to juggle many games at once and they are too much of a commitment. Plus I like to change genres game to game and the indie games really help to cleanse the pallet. It's hard to compare any games but I think when the Bombcrew has to in situations like the GOTY discussions, they have to look at the total package. Expectations are different when we look at a $60 product vs. a $15 one. Of course Benz' are nice but isn't a Toyota a great car for the asking price? Also, in big budget games they don't have the luxury to go for more creative, risky, and fresh gameplay ideas. AAA games rarely innovate on anything, usually just a new layer of paint over well worn, tried and true mechanics.

there are nothing like the big games. I get invested in them like nothing else but i also like to play a lot of games and the smaller ones let me do that.

#41 Posted by Hunter5024 (5849 posts) -

It's certainly a factor in the quality of the game, though bigger isn't necessarily better. I've played just as many games with too large of a scope as too small of one.

#42 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

Scope absolutely matters. is it the most important thing? No. But its a factor. I really hope the "next generation" of indie darlings isn't a bunch of gimmick overly emotional puzzle / platformers like it was this time around. Have some ambition!

I mean sometimes too much "scope" can be a bad thing. (bioshock infinite and ME3 for example) Both went too big with their stories IMO. If bioshock infinites story was a smaller story about something happening in that grand setting, it'd be alot better than the big dumb time travel multiple universe bullshit that falls apart when you think about it for 30 seconds or ME3 (or the whole series really) focusing on smaller stories in that awesome universe rather than the big scary reaper bullshit. Which is what made ME2 so good. It focused on everything else in the ME universe rather than the stupid reapers.

I mean GTA5 is probably my GOTY, i don't do that list nonsense, but if i did, GTA5 would win it as #1. Was it because of the scope? Well partly yeah. The world is HUGE and full of stuff to do. I never felt bored. The city and countryside are all finely crafted. Driving across the city never felt like a chore to me, it felt like an excuse to explore. "oh my next mission is over there? Cool. Maybe ill find something cool along the way!" I often did too. driving lengths inside missions was never boring because they always had conversations playing for those. It was also pretty grand in its length. Maybe i have too much time on my hands, and i probably do, but i LOVE good long games. Something to really sink my teeth into. None of this 3-6 hour bullshit. Give me a good 30-60 hour game and you know what? Make it good enough for me to want to replay it, cus i'll replay a game if i liked it enough.

#43 Posted by pyrodactyl (2209 posts) -

@joshwent said:

I think you just have to broaden your definition of "scope". For many, the scope of GTA5 and Divekick could actually be comparable. You're talking about physical space depth vs. gameplay depth, which can end up having equal amounts of time investment and complexity.

Consider that some of Jeff and Brad's (if not others in the GB) favorite games ever are Mortal Kombat 2/3 and Super Street Fighter II Turbo. Obviously, zero exploration of physical scope like a GTA game. But with the lack of a space with tons of scope, there is the almost endless depth of learning the characters, timing, pairings, and everything else that comes with mastering a fighter.

So in that sense, I do think scope is important for at least those two. Just maybe in a way that you weren't considering.

Yeah, not being a fighting game/action game guy I didn't consider the fact that a deep combat system could be considered when talking about the scope of a game. I guess that could also apply to arcade games like geometry wars.

@pyrodactyl: I can't think of a game over 10 hours that didn't have a whole bunch of filler. It's one of the reasons I didn't get more than halfway through GTA V. There was some great stuff in the game but I got tired of driving across the city to start a mission which required me to drive across the city to a checkpoint and then drive somewhere else.

That was also Brad's point when GTA 5 came up during the discussion for GotY. It might be a matter of taste but I personnaly enjoyed just driving around the world of GTA 5 in and out of a mission setting quite a lot. Rockstar put a lot of work into making every square foot of this giant world fun to drive in with every road, highway, dirt track and back alley unique and challenging in its own way. It's also in those ''lame ass driving missions'' that we got the best dialogue of the year. So, it's with comments like ''GTA 5's mission design is FUCKING BORING'' that I'm starting to think some of the guys might slowly be turning into jadded old men.

#44 Edited by AlexW00d (6317 posts) -

So many people in this thread seem to be mistaking Scope with Superfluous filler content.

#45 Posted by hermes (1547 posts) -

No. I can appreciate a game scope, but I don't factor it into the quality of the game. In fact, I have come to appreciate a game that is laser focus instead of trying to be too many things for too many people and feeling too thin as a result.

@alexw00d said:

So many people in this thread seem to be mistaking Scope with Superfluous filler content.

Many developers seems to do it too, otherwise they wouldn't try to advertise the map size like it was a Guinness competition.