Only time you hear someone complaining about too much content is usually from a person limited to casual playing and is unhappy they can't do it all. Causals need to realize they can't be completionists.
Do you consider daily/weekly/monthly tracking systems content themselves?
Yes, that is content but very shallow content. It works if you can put up with the grind, which is often going to be raiders.
Vanguard probably has too much content (well maybe too big of a world is a better way of saying it) and EQ1 has too much content (so much so that last I heard about 80-90% of the zones no one even goes in anymore).....Usually most players find the way of least resistance to max level and dont experience the majority of content anyway.
I have subbed to EQ2 with the intention of playing it, discovering a world I have tried to on many occasions. I find I am assaulted at levels by a hundred different things, and then I see another hundred things that I can't get because of money issues or the fact I don't own the expansion.
For example the mercenaries feature, lets you recruit a merc to assist you on your travels, killing things and healing you or even tanking for you. This is a feature I need to unlock by spending $40, something I cannot justify. So I lost interest in the game rapidly.
I know this is a feature, but is it not features that tend to overwhelm, not content? To me content is twenty dungeons instead of ten dungeons, or five battlegrounds as opposed to three.
Now when all of the features work in harmony, you can have as many as you want to, but when they are added as after thoughts, they can at their best work, in a bad situation detract, and in the worst turn someone away completely.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Yes because if its just repeated quest in a new look then I really don't want to waste my time with it. I want that quality like some people have been saying. Not run 50 lvls of go kill x y z.
No because no matter how much you put on there there will see be people that blow through it just to get to the highest lvl as fast as possible. Which really brings up the question does content really matter too some people. I smell a new thread be back later lol.
Nah, in GW2 I was wearing green gear when there was yellow and orange as better available.
There is a concept called "The Paradox of Choice" where adding more options just leaves you feeling less happy with your choice, whatever it is.
There's actually a long tangent I could go off on here on my theory of why game designers have over-estimated the interest in story because questing systems were very good at breaking the paradox-of-choice rut people would find themselves in when they had the freedom to go anywhere and fight any mob.
You mean we should return to the old "grind and camp mob spawns until you outlevel those and move on to the next one"?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
You mean we should return to the old "grind and camp mob spawns until you outlevel those and move on to the next one"?
No. What I'm saying is that I sometimes see a mental block in discussions that equate quests with story. Questing systems (that hand the player a series of finite, achievable goal) are an example of a layer of structure that breaks people out of the rut created by the paradox of choice. Story is just one example of an excuse for having quests. Bulk order deeds in UO are an example of a different questing mechanic that is not story driven.
Without putting conditions to the "content" that there is more of I would say no. That's for me personally though because this OP has more to do with personal preference of the player rather than the game. If a completionist can't stand that there is more content than can be completed the quality of said content is irrelevant.
Here's how I see it. If a game has "too much" content there is an air of mystery to the rest of the game world because you know there is a bigger world out there than where you currently are. In a tighter, more compact game where everything is close at hand that mystery is gone to an extent. Imagine it your life in the real world was 10x10 city blocks. Would your view of the world be different than it is now?
The only content that I have so far grown a great disdain for would be the whole "tier 1, 2, 3, epic, ultra epic, tier 1 epic, tier 2 epic and so on" type. These games always create 2 different communities. The ones who joined early and got to group up to get that far, and the ones who joined late who typically leave when they can't find anyone on Tier 1 because everyone is already working on their EPIC OMG TIER 2 items. Plus, the "content" to support that play style usually means just repeating the same content over and over anyways (Im looking at you DCUO) but at harder levels.
The question was simply can a game have too much content, nowhere did it say at the expense of quality. Your overthinking the question. If it is the case that its at expense of quality the question needs to be better structured.
No. Completionist types may feel overwhelmed, but most others will be perfectly happy picking their own path. One of the main reasons I find leveling in EQ1 fun is that there are so many leveling paths with some much different loot available. I get tired in one zone I go level in countless other zones of that level range.
If your content causes the population to spread out such that the social component fails... then you have too much content.
Similarly, if your content requires grouping, then a similar situation can develop.
So, yes, depending on the design, you can have too much content.
This is altering the subject just like including the quality of content. Content that has no social component will fail to make for a social game. The size of it does not matter.
Similarly? You think grouping content causes the social component to fail? That doesn't make sense.
This is altering the subject just like including the quality of content. Content that has no social component will fail to make for a social game. The size of it does not matter.
Similarly? You think grouping content causes the social component to fail? That doesn't make sense.
Imagine you have 1000 players.
You make 10 zones of content, and each zone (on average) has 100 people.
You make 100 zones of content, and each zone (on average) has 10 people.
For a new player, general chat on the first MMO will be lively, and likely dead on the second - depending on level size they may not see any players at all...
If players do not meet, they do not form relationships, and a definite MMO 'hook' is lost.
It's an extremely serious problem, SWTOR suffered from the same problem (but a different cause) and was crippled by it.
---
My comment regarding grouping is similar.
If you need 10 people to form a group, and you have 1000 players and 100 zones, then a large number of zones would be incapable of forming groups. That would hurt your game.
Few MMOs suffer from 'too much content', but it is certainly possible to have too much content.
This is altering the subject just like including the quality of content. Content that has no social component will fail to make for a social game. The size of it does not matter.
Similarly? You think grouping content causes the social component to fail? That doesn't make sense.
Imagine you have 1000 players.
You make 10 zones of content, and each zone (on average) has 100 people.
You make 100 zones of content, and each zone (on average) has 10 people.
For a new player, general chat on the first MMO will be lively, and likely dead on the second - depending on level size they may not see any players at all...
If players do not meet, they do not form relationships, and a definite MMO 'hook' is lost.
It's an extremely serious problem, SWTOR suffered from the same problem (but a different cause) and was crippled by it.
---
My comment regarding grouping is similar.
If you need 10 people to form a group, and you have 1000 players and 100 zones, then a large number of zones would be incapable of forming groups. That would hurt your game.
Few MMOs suffer from 'too much content', but it is certainly possible to have too much content.
That is assuming much and is limited to a certain setup. And we aren't talking about content anymore(zones =/= content). It is now about the game's space being too large or disconnected from the rest. The game space per player of EVE is spread even more thin than SWTOR and yet it is a more sociable environment. So because of the "due to design" addition of "can there be too much content?" variable is unreliable it can't be used.
Also, I don't share your opinion that more people bumping into one another more frequently will equal a social experience. It is about what can happen in that interaction.
That is assuming much and is limited to a certain setup. And we aren't talking about content anymore(zones =/= content). It is now about the game's space being too large or disconnected from the rest. The game space per player of EVE is spread even more thin than SWTOR and yet it is a more sociable environment. So because of the "due to design" addition of "can there be too much content?" variable is unreliable it can't be used.
Also, I don't share your opinion that more people bumping into one another more frequently will equal a social experience. It is about what can happen in that interaction.
Eve has very little content. It just copies everything over and over and over... You wouldn't accept that in a "terrestrial MMORPG".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Sure I would. The content in MMORPGs is already mostly copied anyway. Same creatures/humaniods but different names and skin. Same mission objectives but different item or location. If I could trade a lot of the same type of missions for less but with more gameplay systems, I would.
Originally posted by Quirhid Yes. When the quality suffers.
In this case even deficit of quests is too much. :-)
Otherwise ... enver ever. Only thing I hate is being forced to move to next area with half quests still unfinished. Like in Wow since I guess Cata. Best solution so far I see in GW2 where level of player adapts to that of area. Incredible solution which makes all quests fun and still need work instead of one shot kills as in other games.
Honestly, there can never be too much conent as long as it is delivered clearly. The biggest issue would come from not fully divulging all the proper information which makes the content confusing. Tooltips, tutorials, introduction of content through lore and questing. All great methods for delivering understandable content. Also, the more content you have the better you can cater to the masses.
But it depends on the content - what the player prefers. For example i am not a big fan of reaching max level in like 2 weeks, i like it to take a week or so of solid playing at max, and then for there to be a gear grind. So if a game has as much endgame content, raids, pvp, proffessions etc... as possible then i am happy. Vice versa if someone likes leveling they might want months of leveling content. However where content may be an issue is balancing, for example if you have 50 classes, yeah the variety would be awesome, but there is pretty much no given way of balancing that many abilities (unique mainly). So it honestly depends on two things, 1. What content the player prefers and 2. The content being as balanced as possible. But generally more content means more to do so in simpler terms, more content is better then less.
WoW is a prime example....all the old content that was once godly legendary items are now utter crap...old raids that once took HRS, DAYz to finish can no be finished within 1hr with 1 or 2 players!
Comments
Never can be too much. Often there isn't enough.
Only time you hear someone complaining about too much content is usually from a person limited to casual playing and is unhappy they can't do it all. Causals need to realize they can't be completionists.
Do you consider daily/weekly/monthly tracking systems content themselves?
Yes, that is content but very shallow content. It works if you can put up with the grind, which is often going to be raiders.
Really does depend on what that content is.
I have subbed to EQ2 with the intention of playing it, discovering a world I have tried to on many occasions. I find I am assaulted at levels by a hundred different things, and then I see another hundred things that I can't get because of money issues or the fact I don't own the expansion.
For example the mercenaries feature, lets you recruit a merc to assist you on your travels, killing things and healing you or even tanking for you. This is a feature I need to unlock by spending $40, something I cannot justify. So I lost interest in the game rapidly.
I know this is a feature, but is it not features that tend to overwhelm, not content? To me content is twenty dungeons instead of ten dungeons, or five battlegrounds as opposed to three.
Now when all of the features work in harmony, you can have as many as you want to, but when they are added as after thoughts, they can at their best work, in a bad situation detract, and in the worst turn someone away completely.
You didn't answer fairly, you decided to twist it to "make a smart point".
Answer it AGAIN without changing any other variable.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I would have to say yes and no....
Yes because if its just repeated quest in a new look then I really don't want to waste my time with it. I want that quality like some people have been saying. Not run 50 lvls of go kill x y z.
No because no matter how much you put on there there will see be people that blow through it just to get to the highest lvl as fast as possible. Which really brings up the question does content really matter too some people. I smell a new thread be back later lol.
You mean we should return to the old "grind and camp mob spawns until you outlevel those and move on to the next one"?
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
No. What I'm saying is that I sometimes see a mental block in discussions that equate quests with story. Questing systems (that hand the player a series of finite, achievable goal) are an example of a layer of structure that breaks people out of the rut created by the paradox of choice. Story is just one example of an excuse for having quests. Bulk order deeds in UO are an example of a different questing mechanic that is not story driven.
Here's how I see it. If a game has "too much" content there is an air of mystery to the rest of the game world because you know there is a bigger world out there than where you currently are. In a tighter, more compact game where everything is close at hand that mystery is gone to an extent. Imagine it your life in the real world was 10x10 city blocks. Would your view of the world be different than it is now?
An MMO has a population.
An MMO has a social component.
If your content causes the population to spread out such that the social component fails... then you have too much content.
Similarly, if your content requires grouping, then a similar situation can develop.
So, yes, depending on the design, you can have too much content.
This is altering the subject just like including the quality of content. Content that has no social component will fail to make for a social game. The size of it does not matter.
Similarly? You think grouping content causes the social component to fail? That doesn't make sense.
Imagine you have 1000 players.
You make 10 zones of content, and each zone (on average) has 100 people.
You make 100 zones of content, and each zone (on average) has 10 people.
For a new player, general chat on the first MMO will be lively, and likely dead on the second - depending on level size they may not see any players at all...
If players do not meet, they do not form relationships, and a definite MMO 'hook' is lost.
It's an extremely serious problem, SWTOR suffered from the same problem (but a different cause) and was crippled by it.
---
My comment regarding grouping is similar.
If you need 10 people to form a group, and you have 1000 players and 100 zones, then a large number of zones would be incapable of forming groups. That would hurt your game.
Few MMOs suffer from 'too much content', but it is certainly possible to have too much content.
That is assuming much and is limited to a certain setup. And we aren't talking about content anymore(zones =/= content). It is now about the game's space being too large or disconnected from the rest. The game space per player of EVE is spread even more thin than SWTOR and yet it is a more sociable environment. So because of the "due to design" addition of "can there be too much content?" variable is unreliable it can't be used.
Also, I don't share your opinion that more people bumping into one another more frequently will equal a social experience. It is about what can happen in that interaction.
never had this problem, if are a lot to do, I just take my time.
more like if game has poor content, I'm getting bored from repetitive stuff & leave.
try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises.
Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2
I'll add when the content is "thrown in" for the sake of a developer saying "we have this feature".
Eve has very little content. It just copies everything over and over and over... You wouldn't accept that in a "terrestrial MMORPG".
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
In this case even deficit of quests is too much. :-)
Otherwise ... enver ever. Only thing I hate is being forced to move to next area with half quests still unfinished. Like in Wow since I guess Cata. Best solution so far I see in GW2 where level of player adapts to that of area. Incredible solution which makes all quests fun and still need work instead of one shot kills as in other games.
No,
But it depends on the content - what the player prefers. For example i am not a big fan of reaching max level in like 2 weeks, i like it to take a week or so of solid playing at max, and then for there to be a gear grind. So if a game has as much endgame content, raids, pvp, proffessions etc... as possible then i am happy. Vice versa if someone likes leveling they might want months of leveling content. However where content may be an issue is balancing, for example if you have 50 classes, yeah the variety would be awesome, but there is pretty much no given way of balancing that many abilities (unique mainly). So it honestly depends on two things, 1. What content the player prefers and 2. The content being as balanced as possible. But generally more content means more to do so in simpler terms, more content is better then less.
YES GOD YES! 1000x YES!
WoW is a prime example....all the old content that was once godly legendary items are now utter crap...old raids that once took HRS, DAYz to finish can no be finished within 1hr with 1 or 2 players!