Games benefit from limited scope

[0sacred]

This thread inspired by my current playthrough of IWD. I'm having a blast and I'm really enjoying feeling the devs' cohesive vision throughout. A very far cry from the "theme park" phenomenon of Baldur's Gate.

I feel this becomes especially obvious with games that were part of some series:

- Icewind Dale (the best of the Infinity Engine games)
- Fallout Tactics (the only Fallout with good combat)
- Dungeon Rats (the only ITS game worth playing)
- Dragon Wars (better than Bard's Tale)

and you could probably name more. Now all of those games were building on existing tech without which they probably wouldn't have been as good. But you could also point to a number of good indies for whom this is true.

Time/money constraints force devs to keep the bullshit at a minimum, both within the game and without.

 

[Butter]

I'll see your limited scope and raise you the Insane Genius.

"Have you ever considered flying to an alien planet so you can take sides in a war between Rhinomen and the Zerg, then receiving an artifact from a Sphinx so that you can fight a literal god?"

 

[smaug]

I'll see your limited scope and raise you the Insane Genius.

View attachment 59876

"Have you ever considered flying to an alien planet so you can take sides in a war between Rhinomen and the Zerg, then receiving an artifact from a Sphinx so that you can fight a literal god?"

Wiz6/7 are shit though so this is not the mog you think it is

 

[Butter]

I'll see your limited scope and raise you the Insane Genius.

View attachment 59876

"Have you ever considered flying to an alien planet so you can take sides in a war between Rhinomen and the Zerg, then receiving an artifact from a Sphinx so that you can fight a literal god?"

Wiz6/7 are shit though so this is not the mog you think it is

Silence, demon.

 

[0sacred]

I'll see your limited scope and raise you the Insane Genius.

View attachment 59876

"Have you ever considered flying to an alien planet so you can take sides in a war between Rhinomen and the Zerg, then receiving an artifact from a Sphinx so that you can fight a literal god?"

I think Wiz6 fits the template of games with limited scope, it's just one dungeon after all. Also probably a better experience than Wiz7 from a modern perspective at least, where you're not awed by the whole open world stuff.

And Wizards & Warriors wasn't open world. It's almost as if the learned a lesson from Wiz7. Its wacky character system would have profited from them staying within their original scope of making a single character game though.

 

[Devastator]

IWD is trash. FoT is not even worth speaking about.

 

[0sacred]

IWD is trash. FoT is not even worth speaking about.

Storyfag?

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

FoT is not even worth speaking about.

Then shut up.

 

[Chuck Norris]

This thread inspired by my current playthrough of IWD. I'm having a blast and I'm really enjoying feeling the devs' cohesive vision throughout. A very far cry from the "theme park" phenomenon of Baldur's Gate.

I feel this becomes especially obvious with games that were part of some series:

- Icewind Dale (the best of the Infinity Engine games)
- Fallout Tactics (the only Fallout with good combat)
- Dungeon Rats (the only ITS game worth playing)
- Dragon Wars (better than Bard's Tale)

and you could probably name more. Now all of those games were building on existing tech without which they probably wouldn't have been as good. But you could also point to a number of good indies for whom this is true.

Time/money constraints force devs to keep the bullshit at a minimum, both within the game and without.

I agree with the basic premise, but WTF are these examples

 

[The people of Duckburg]

If limited scope is better than a less limited scope, does that mean that noscope is the ideal?

The two Golden Sun games make for a good example of when a smaller scope can be better. The first one took place on part of one continent, while the second one covered the entire world map. The sequel did have its strong points, but it also meant that most of the world was empty, and you'd usually not have more than one meaningful town per area. Since the games are direct sequels, it becomes clearer that the much larger world has less content relative to its size.

 

[Iucounu]

Time/money constraints force devs to keep the bullshit at a minimum, both within the game and without.

Yes, scope should be defined as focusing on the game's unique premises, it's not about making games as simple as possible in general. For example:

- A shooter game might benefit from advanced bullet physics, but it doesn't need the ability to romance NPCs.

- An RPG might benefit from stat systems, but it doesn't need expensive voice acting and cutscenes.

- An animated movie might benefit from good visuals, but it doesn't need gameplay elements.

 

[Necrensha]

Who doesn't know this? Raise your hand.

 

[JarlFrank]

Sorry but I like maximalist excess.

 

[Serus]

Limited scope is beneficial because such games are easier to make. Not because games with limited scope are better as a rule - it is a practical difference not one of principle. If a developer is talented enough the game with larger scope might be better just harder to make. Since most developers are either mediocre, lack resources or time or everything at once, it is better for them to not overextend themselves.

 

[Kruyurk]

What I like about a limited scope is that everything is worth paying attention to. You don't need to mentally filter parts of the game unless you risk becoming tired of the bloat. But I also like games with wide scopes that can make you feel little in a big world, for example a good sandbox RPG where you can choose your own path and have a sense of freedom. You don't have this sense of freedom in IWD for example, the path is already decided for you.

 

[0sacred]

Who doesn't know this? Raise your hand.

Majority of Codex as they vote for AAA slop with big bux in their GOTY contest.

Limited scope is beneficial because such games are easier to make. Not because games with limited scope are better as a rule - it is a practical difference not one of principle. If a developer is talented enough the game with larger scope might be better just harder to make. Since most developers are either mediocre, lack resources or time or everything at once, it is better for them to not overextend themselves.

Games with a larger scope offer many more ways to fuck up, so you're basically arguing that an ideal developer could deliver a great sprawling game. In reality I'm hard pressed to think of such a game.

Also one thing you just don't get with sprawling games is a clear unifying vision. It's a matter of too many cooks, among other things I guess.

 

[Necrensha]

Who doesn't know this? Raise your hand.

Majority of Codex as they vote for AAA slop with big bux in their GOTY contest.

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that smaller games will inevitably have more attention to detail than typical open world stuff.
Also, it's not just devs, it's the corporate structure. Past a certain point it becomes a nightmare of communication to get an idea from one of the devs, pass it through 5 different managers, and finally reaching a distorted version of said idea to the director in charge.
The other problem is that of people. Most videogame studios simply have too many useless individuals around, and they have to justify their wage which often involves bloating/reworking systems or just straight up interrupting the real devs to extend development time to the maximum length of time possible.
The perfect example of all of this: Concord. 400 millions, nearly 200 devs, 8 years to make. A simple arena shooter was extended into a multimedia franchise that was gonna have a TV show, a movie, several spin-offs, all canceled of course.

 

[0sacred]

Who doesn't know this? Raise your hand.

Majority of Codex as they vote for AAA slop with big bux in their GOTY contest.

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that smaller games will inevitably have more attention to detail than typical open world stuff.

Good games have nothing to do with GOTY? Ok.

Also, it's not just devs, it's the corporate structure. Past a certain point it becomes a nightmare of communication to get an idea from one of the devs, pass it through 5 different managers, and finally reaching a distorted version of said idea to the director in charge.
The other problem is that of people. Most videogame studios simply have too many useless individuals around, and they have to justify their wage which often involves bloating/reworking systems or just straight up interrupting the real devs to extend development time to the maximum length of time possible.
The perfect example of all of this: Concord. 400 millions, nearly 200 devs, 8 years to make. A simple arena shooter was extended into a multimedia franchise that was gonna have a TV show, a movie, several spin-offs, all canceled of course.

Could just have said you agree with me.

 

[Morgoth]

Deep stuff.

 

[0sacred]

Deep stuff.

GTFO fag, you were hyped about playing Veilguard even after seeing all the shit in the thread. Literal braindead slop consumer.

 

[0sacred]

I think the thread's title may have been ambiguously worded.

To clarify: my point isn't that a reduction in scope will always result in a better/more polished game when you were ambitious starting out. My point is that those games that are limited in scope (ostensibly from the planning phase) are better games than more "ambitious" ones. I'm saying "ambitious" because that group includes a lot of AAA slop that just burns money on stupid shit.

 

[Devastator]

IWD is trash. FoT is not even worth speaking about.

Storyfag?

Maybe? You tell me.

Honestly, I have never understood the appeal of IWD. It seems to do everything worse than other IE games, except for the combat. But even the IE combat is not universally acclaimed. For example, there have been plenty of arguments here criticizing its RTwP implementation. I did finish the game and its expansion but experience felt like a massive chore best left forgotten.

I've also never been able to stick with FOT simply due to overwhelming boredom. I think I tried getting into it two or three times. Oddly enough, I didn’t even mind repetitive tasks like killing rats in Fallout 1/2, but in FOT everything felt pointless.

Maybe the limited scope is exactly what I don't like. Neither game motivated me to care about the characters, the world, or even the journey.