Game Length vs Game Freedom...which do you prefer?

[RJ 17]

Good afternoon (actually it's raining, so nevermind that...>.>) my fellow Escapists. I downloaded Saints Row III for the Games for Gold pretty much right when it became available last month, though I didn't really play it until last week. I enjoyed it...a lot, actually. So much that I went ahead and bought Saints Row IV. I'm currently playing it and I'm enjoying it just as much as I enjoyed the previous game, but really I only have one complaint about both of them: there's...not really much to them. In terms of gameplay/length.

I believe this comes from the fact that right from the git-go (especially in SRIII) you're able to do all the side-missions. You can go around and buy up all the shops and extra properties, you can do all the activities, you're completely free to do whatever you want in the city. So I spent about a day and a half (probably about 10 hours) doing the side stuff first since I prefer doing all available side stuff before doing the main story quests. In most games they give you the side quests at set intervals. In GTA V, for instance, you can't do the Assassination Missions until you've met Lester, you can't do the Bounty Hunter missions until you've got Trevor, etc.

Now, one of the complaints about the GTA franchise is that for all its freedom, it's actually quite restrictive. You start up a mission and you have to take this car to this spot and enter through this door to walk along this path. Despite being a sandbox, the missions themselves play pretty linearly. On the other hand, Saints Row gives you freedom to improvise on missions. Hell, within an hour and a half of playing SR IV, I already had a UFO that can become a hovering missile turret of death...this made pretty much all the side-missions a piece of cake since you literally just summon it to yourself with the phone and should that one get destroyed: just call in another.

As such, I beat SR III within about 4 days (I'd say probably about 20 hours worth of gameplay) and I get the feeling that, having completed all the side stuff in SR IV, I'm rapidly approaching the end of this game as well. As much as I'm loving these games, they just seem pretty short compared to most other open world sandboxes.

Which brings us to the meat of the topic: do you prefer a longer game - one that allows you to really sink your teeth into it and savor the flavor of the story - at the expense of having absolute and total freedom? Or do you prefer to have that absolute and total freedom, allowing you to become obscenely overpowered right from the start and thus just breeze through the actual game itself?

PS: The Dubstep Gun might be the greatest weapon I've ever used in any game...ever. And I'm not really that into dubstep to begin with. =P

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

I like both, to be honest. Even better if it's an option to go either way, since sometimes I just want to plough through everything and have some mindless fun, while at other times I like to spend time getting to know the game, the mechanics and the story.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Both are good. The problem is, however, that many games try to do both without enough effort put towards either one. So you end up with a game that does neither all that well.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

A vanilla compromise of both options?

 

[IllumInaTIma]

Length all the way simply because of my nature. Open games are usually always sandboxes and I simply cannot keep myself focused enough to complete them. I do enjoy them for first day or two but I inevitably abandon them. This is why I prefer more linear and focused games, like my favorites Front mission 3 and Persona 3 and 4.

 

[Frezz]

With sandbox games like GTA, Saint's Row, Skyrim, etc. I don't really consider the main "storyline" to be the main source of appeal. For example, Morrowind is one of my favorite games of all time, I've put many hundreds of hours into it if you count all the way back to when I was a kid.

I have never finished the the main quest.

A good sandbox to me is one that creates a big world that is interesting enough to be worth exploring. If they can do that, I'm pretty self-motivating, and as long as the game continues to reward me with interesting world building, little secrets and good characters (or in the case of GTA-like games, fun toys to blow up), I will continue explore every corridor of every ancient mansion with complete disregard for my duties to the main plot. I was really thankful for the fact that Morrowind actually gives you several in-story breaks/excuses to just go do your own thing for a while. I really don't like being dragged around. Even in games that don't forcibly railroad you at the beginning, I still feel weird if I'm screwing around with minigames while there's a WORL TO BE SAVED.

It's especially annoying in Fallout 3/New Vegas, since they have a relatively urgent-feeling main story that's awkward to neglect, but they also end the game (and therefore all sidequesting opportunities) once you finish it.

So yeah, I hate being restricted and I don't play sandboxes just for the main quest. That doesn't mean the main story is irrelevant, and in most cases, especially near the beginning it serves the very important purpose of introducing a new player to the mechanics and the world--which was something I really needed in GTAV, since I don't play driving/shooting games very often, but needed much less of in Skyrim. It's nice to have some signs to point around newcomers, but I don't like being dragged around on a leash.

If I want a solid, single narrative with carefully thought-out and balanced encounters I'll play a fully linear game that's put all of its effort into just that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Now, one of the complaints about the GTA franchise is that for all its freedom, it's actually quite restrictive. You start up a mission and you have to take this car to this spot and enter through this door to walk along this path. Despite being a sandbox, the missions themselves play pretty linearly.

I say this exact thing and I'm a troll in my other threads.

Anyways, having linear missions in a sandbox game defeats the whole purpose of the genre. I'll play a linear game for linearity.

 

[RJ 17]

Now, one of the complaints about the GTA franchise is that for all its freedom, it's actually quite restrictive. You start up a mission and you have to take this car to this spot and enter through this door to walk along this path. Despite being a sandbox, the missions themselves play pretty linearly.

I say this exact thing and I'm a troll in my other threads.

Following someone into another thread to attempt to reiterate your point certainly doesn't help your case in this regards.

 

[Liquidprid3]

I honestly don't care about length as long as I enjoy the experience. Someone here said that they regret purchasing the new South Park game. They said they enjoyed their playthrough greatly, but it was too short. Games are not short compared to every other medium. Going to a movie costs at least $20 including snacks, and movies are usually and hour and a half to two hours long. Sure, you can put in factors such as spending time with friends and dates, but that's not my point. People don't complain about the length of movies for what they're paying, yet they complain about games being too short, even if they enjoy them. Video games are not as expensive as people think they are, even at $60. Sure you need to have the console or proper computer, but the same could be said about a TV or other device.

Therefore, freedom is more important to me. I like to do a lot of different stuff and mix up the gameplay, even if I don't finish everything.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Now, one of the complaints about the GTA franchise is that for all its freedom, it's actually quite restrictive. You start up a mission and you have to take this car to this spot and enter through this door to walk along this path. Despite being a sandbox, the missions themselves play pretty linearly.

I say this exact thing and I'm a troll in my other threads.

Following someone into another thread to attempt to reiterate your point certainly doesn't help your case in this regards.

Why can you say it but I can't?

 

[RJ 17]

Now, one of the complaints about the GTA franchise is that for all its freedom, it's actually quite restrictive. You start up a mission and you have to take this car to this spot and enter through this door to walk along this path. Despite being a sandbox, the missions themselves play pretty linearly.

I say this exact thing and I'm a troll in my other threads.

Following someone into another thread to attempt to reiterate your point certainly doesn't help your case in this regards.

Why can you say it but I can't?

Notice the wording that I used:

Now, one of the complaints about the GTA franchise is that for all its freedom,

That's the keyphrase, and the keyword in that phrase is "complaints", aka "criticisms", aka "negative opinions".

My post acknowledges that GTA having a lack of freedom is just an opinion, "one of the complaints" that some people have with regards to it. Is that lack of freedom something that everyone who plays the game complains about? Does everyone playing the game even recognize its presence in the first place? I know I certainly don't mind it, though I can see why others would.

I acknowledge that there are other opinions contrary to my own. This entire topic, for instance, is specifically asking for what people's opinions are.

On the other hand, you've kept attempting to refute others' opinions by refusing to accept that they're as valid as your own. So you bring in your sources and your videos in an attempt to prove something that can't be proven: whether or not one game is objectively better than another. It can't be done since "is x better than y" is, by its nature, a subjective question because the definition of what makes something "good" varies from person to person. Get the most famous chef in the world, have him prepare a dish that every one of his peers agrees is perfect, and I promise you you'll still find plenty of people that will say it tastes like low-grade dog food. So too can you take a game that many are calling amazing and find plenty of other people who will say it's crap. You don't have to understand the reasoning behind their opinion, though it's nice if you at least try. What matters is that you accept that they have their reasons.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Notice the wording that I used:

Now, one of the complaints about the GTA franchise is that for all its freedom,

That's the keyphrase, and the keyword in that phrase is "complaints", aka "criticisms", aka "negative opinions".

My post acknowledges that GTA having a lack of freedom is just an opinion, "one of the complaints" that some people have with regards to it. Is that lack of freedom something that everyone who plays the game complains about? Does everyone playing the game even recognize its presence in the first place? I know I certainly don't mind it, though I can see why others would.

I acknowledge that there are other opinions contrary to my own. This entire topic, for instance, is specifically asking for what people's opinions are.

On the other hand, you've kept attempting to refute others' opinions by refusing to accept that they're as valid as your own. So you bring in your sources and your videos in an attempt to prove something that can't be proven: whether or not one game is objectively better than another. It can't be done since "is x better than y" is, by its nature, a subjective question because the definition of what makes something "good" varies from person to person. Get the most famous chef in the world, have him prepare a dish that every one of his peers agrees is perfect, and I promise you you'll still find plenty of people that will say it tastes like low-grade dog food. So too can you take a game that many are calling amazing and find plenty of other people who will say it's crap. You don't have to understand the reasoning behind their opinion, though it's nice if you at least try. What matters is that you accept that they have their reasons.

I was never trying to prove one game was better than the other, just certain aspects. Here's the paragraph about open-ended gameplay I made with my first post of the first thread:

Spoiler

The main thing that separates Watch Dogs from most sandbox games is the missions are open-ended. I don't see the point in playing a sandbox/open-world game with linear missions. You have so many options to go about completing the mission to hacking to stealth to standard shooting and you can mix and match among them freely. The AI in Rockstar's games just doesn't allow for anything along those lines. I played the first 3rd of RDR and just quit because every mission played out exactly the same with extremely subpar cover shooting; I walk past imaginary line where all enemies know my location and I have to kill them in a extremely whack-a-mole manner, not fun at all. It was on par with Winback, one of the very first cover shooters.

That is rather factual description how a lot, if not most, missions play out in Rockstar's games. I find those kind of linear structured missions just kill the experience in sandbox games for me as I can get better designed linear missions and gameplay from a linear game so I don't play GTA/RDR (which this is what your thread is about to a degree). Isn't a fact that missions in GTA/RDR are just as I described?

 

[Eve Charm]

I rather have the open world game rather then the lengthy grind. While the open world game might not be as long as a game that is one long hallway with monsters and grind walls your have to fight through, open world just has more fun to be had.

If your playing an open world game and only going from mission to mission, your doing it wrong. You should be exploring and having more fun.

 

[FPLOON]

A vanilla compromise of both options?

This to an extend...

If it's an RPG, I "expect" to sink in about 40+ hours of my time just completing the main story... Anything else can be as long or as short as possible as long as I'm able to enjoy it to it's fullest regardless...

Also, I sometimes like the illusion of "game freedom" more than the illusion of "game length", if you want to get technical...

 

[RealRT]

Neither, really, I prefer Game Quality. I like taking a third option.

 

[kilenem]

I like both. Some of my favorite games have freedom and Length. Pokemon Gold and X-men Legends. ALthough you can get pretty loss in X-men Legends causing you to get boned on the item missions

 

[Evonisia]

I'd prefer to be able to be powerful right from the get go (through the activities, obviously). I hate it when I have to go through so much of a game to get that part of the game I like so much.

Saints Row: The Third is different, simply because it is flawed in tone which removes insensitive to play it (for me, anyway).

 

[Something Amyss]

I believe this comes from the fact that right from the git-go (especially in SRIII) you're able to do all the side-missions. You can go around and buy up all the shops and extra properties, you can do all the activities, you're completely free to do whatever you want in the city. So I spent about a day and a half (probably about 10 hours) doing the side stuff first since I prefer doing all available side stuff before doing the main story quests. In most games they give you the side quests at set intervals. In GTA V, for instance, you can't do the Assassination Missions until you've met Lester, you can't do the Bounty Hunter missions until you've got Trevor, etc.

I think a bigger problem than "all the activities are available at the beginning" is that all the activities aren't that many activities. I got to 40% in the first day of playing SR3. There's simply not much to it. It's short, it has limited content, even the stores are more limited than prior games and in comparison to other free games. It's not JUST that it lets you have it all, it's that it's portion controlled. And half the game is tutorial.

Conversely, GTA has a ton of content. A ton of races, side missions, activities, etc. There's a lot to explore, and a bunch of Easter Eggs for exploring. Not only is the game longer, but it's longer because you have more content.

Now, one of the complaints about the GTA franchise is that for all its freedom, it's actually quite restrictive. You start up a mission and you have to take this car to this spot and enter through this door to walk along this path. Despite being a sandbox, the missions themselves play pretty linearly. On the other hand, Saints Row gives you freedom to improvise on missions. Hell, within an hour and a half of playing SR IV, I already had a UFO that can become a hovering missile turret of death...this made pretty much all the side-missions a piece of cake since you literally just summon it to yourself with the phone and should that one get destroyed: just call in another.

SR has fairly limited missions, though. You're "free" only because most of the missions come down to "go there and shoot this." At that point, what's the difference?

But more to the point, why can't we have both? Saints Row 2 was a bigger game than Saints Row 3/4 with more content and still more freedom. It wasn't as big as GTA V, but it will bigger, deeper, and had more stuff. At worst, it was missing hoverbikes or superpowers (both admittedly fun in the later SR games), but it didn't want for content or freedom. Hell, Volition could have made a bigger game, but they didn't. They seemed to think there was more money in smaller iterative games with ODLC and the like than there was in creating a huge, open world. And you still do have to progress in the story to get the coolest toys.

And that's another gripe about the SR games: once I have access to a lot of the coolest stuff (the best super powers, the RC gun, etc), the game world's been changed. Gangs are wiped out, territories are locked down....GTA is also more engaging because it doesn't have a true "end" state.

At the same time, there's no reason GTA has to dole things out the way it does. It could give us the activities at the beginning and still have more to do through the game. That might be a problem to you if you feel you have to do the side missions first, but for most people, it's not an issue. I would welcome the chance to tackle things as I saw fit in a world as large as GTA V's.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive (length and freedom). I also think content and presentation has an impact on both.

 

[Goliath100]

I'll say interesting mechanics. My main problem with GTA is that its mechanics are still basic, when a "good" open world would give the player a set of tool(s) and ask for every way to used it/them. The only reason why GTA 5 even has extra missions are because it has nothing mechanically to offer.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Dont care about either I play games for the experience if it provides me with something I enjoy and deem worthwhile compared to the expense of obtaining it then it has done its job.