Long & one playthrgh or short & multiplaythrgh?

[Angelo85]

RPGs with a branching story / mutual exclusive major quest strings, so you have to play the game more than once to see it all. Recent example: (kinda, because it's not throughout the whole game) Witcher 2 - Chapter 2

Or RPGs with a set story that you play once and then forget about it, but are in comparisson relatively longer than the branching story / mutual exclusive major quest string RPGs - at least with one playthrough.
Recent examples would be Avadon or Mass Effect (yeah in the latter you could do a 'good guy' and 'bad guy' playthrough but aside from conversations the quests and main story basically stays virtually the same)

Let's discuss what is better / you prefer and why. Or is it an apples/oranges scenario and none is superior over the other?

 

[Skittles]

Short playthroughs. I love radically different possible outcomes. I'm not sure how many games actually fit this bill for me, though.

Also, I haven't hit any game (except maybe PS:T) where I was taken in enough by the writing to think that following a set story would ever be superior to a really excellent branching one.

Of course, the best of both worlds--a long, well told story that has radically different permutations and playthrough options--is what I dream of the most.

But is that much different from any RPG fan?

 

[Flacracker]

If a game can legitimately have a different story from making different choices then a short game would be great. Most games don't though, and the story plays out roughly the same way. In that case I would like a long game more.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I prefer something short and multi-play-through. I don't like spending tens of hours on one play-through and I love when I can replay games tens of times, especially in iron-man.

 

[laclongquan]

King of Dragon Pass, chaps.

The story is generally the same, which is your clan is built up into a tribe then a kingdom.

The difference is the randomization based on your choice in clan creation.

Short, sweet, and a pure gameplay kinda game.

 

[Stinger]

Short and branching. Means it's not likely to ever feel too long and padded out- and multipath quest design is the best.

 

[bussinrounds]

Depends on how good the game is and if it's even worth re-playing. If it is, then c&c games are the obvious choice. Not just because of re-playability, but it's great having those important decisions that actually change the course of the game, rather than ones that just lead to a few different lines of dialog, or a different cut scene or some bs. The game becomes a more personal experience where you feel like you actually had some say in how it played out, instead of just being lead through it.

I can enjoy either though, depending on the game, of course. I also think the bigger storyfag games need c&c. If i'm gonna be invested in the story, going through all this dialog and shit, it would be nice if my decisions actually fuckin meant something.

 

[Surf Solar]

I am a completionist-fag. Meaning, I try to do everything possible in one playthrough, squeezing all out and such, especially if it is a story/dialog heavy game.

But that doesn't mean that I am trying to minimize the "need" for more playthroughs. As soon as I notice that the game I am playing is worth more tries, I already know which builds I'm playing the next time.

Few games managed to invoke the urge to start over right again when played through for me, it was Fallout, PS:T, the Bloodmoon Addon for Morrowind, Bloodlines and Icewind Dale I/II (yeah I know, it sounds retarded, but starting over with an all new party is always great)

 

[MMXI]

I prefer long games without heavy scripted branching. Replays, for me, are purely down to whether the mechanics allow for multiple play styles. I don't want a game to force me to choose between being able to access town A or town B, with radically different quests in each one. I don't see the point in it. Retarded branching like that is down to the game designers trying to add dynamism through scripted binary branches instead of ever-changing numbers in a simulation layer. It's cheap and will never progress the genre. However, as it's currently going backwards, I'll take another Fallout right now.

 

[Surf Solar]

I prefer long games without heavy scripted branching. Replays, for me, are purely down to whether the mechanics allow for multiple play styles. I don't want a game to force me to choose between being able to access town A or town B, with radically different quests in each one. I don't see the point in it. Retarded branching like that is down to the game designers trying to add dynamism through scripted binary branches instead of ever-changing numbers in a simulation layer. It's cheap and will never progress the genre. However, as it's currently going backwards, I'll take another Fallout right now.

Exactly this is what I meant with the IWD comment above. It's just great to roll all new characters, see how they do in their combinatione etc. One day I will play the FRUA modules and will have a fucking good time according to the good stuff I've read - can't wait.

 

[Data4]

I'm a storyfag, and once I know how a game ends, I don't really care to go through it again, at least for a year or more. I prefer longer games for this reason.

If a game has a major divergence point, i.e. TW2, I'll save before the choice is made, then play through all sides one by one.

 

[Forest Dweller]

Either is fine, if done well.

 

[Gentle Player]

Regarding game length, quality > quantity. Same with films, most Woody Allen and Ingmar Bergman films are pretty brief (sub 90 mins), and I'm perfectly satisfied with that. Chucking in extra stuff just to pad out the length is cheap, and usually worsens the product. Then again, there are 2.5 hour+ films that are also great, and I have no problem rewatching those either. Basically what I'm saying is is that if something, be it a game, film, or novel, is good then I'd be happy to replay/rewatch/reread regardless of length. Then again, if I have two great games, both of which I like equally, then I suppose I'd be more likely to replay the shorter one, regardless of any branching story paths.

Regarding the branching story paths, I've never been too keen on them. I can't deny that having them does add replay value, but I've always seen it as a bit of gimmick. Like some of the other fellows in the thread, I'm more likely to replay a game because of gameplay mechanics (creating an entirely different party in an RPG) rather than because of dialogue choices that change certain things.

 

[commie]

The thing is that it's not just a different story that should warrant a replay. Being able to play the same game in radically different ways is as important for many games. It's not so obvious in the old party games as apart from hiring an extra mage instead of a ranger you don't really notice all that much(though the joy of replaying a game like Might and Magic is always there regardless), but in a game like Fallout, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, AP there are pacifist/lethal, stealth/rambo style approaches and even should the story remain the same, the actual way of progressing through the game can be totally different.

Branching story is also all well and good, but decisions you make are cheapened by the inevitable sequel which reduces all these differences to a different NPC in city x, and an extra e-mail, highlighting the reality that all this stuff doesn't mean shit in the wider scheme and is reduced, as said, to the part of a nice gimmick.

 

[7hm]

Depends on the game.

I'll do one playthrough of games like Baldur's Gate or Dragon Age. Or if I do more than one, they are spaced out in years. I don't give two shits about branching storylines. I'll do one of them, and that's it. When I replay, I may well do the same one.

But for more combatfag games, which I love, I'll do multiple playthroughs.

I like both for different reasons.

 

[Gregz]

Moderate-length with 2-3 major branching C&C.

I usually can't play through an entire RPG more than 3 times. If a game is fun, I'll replay it once a year or so. So, if I remember I was 'good', last time, I might try neutral or evil to see what changes.

This also works with difficulty settings. I've played and beaten Far Cry at every difficulty setting, incrementing the difficulty one step on each playthrough. The game is well designed, so you really need to change up your strategy with each difficulty setting.

 

[Gentle Player]

When I replay, I may well do the same one.

Hah, I'm prone to this too.

 

[Morkar Left]

If the game is good and about exploring I prefer long playthroughs. If the story is the main attention, I prefer shorter games. I usually play games (with the exception of strategy) only once, maybe more after several years. Even if playing a game only once I want c&c. It's a difference to have multiple paths and solutions according to the role you choose and enriches the gameplay in a huge way. It gives the player the "might" to shape the story depending on the possiblities of his char, the freedom of choice. Having only one solution everytime is just boring.

 

[mondblut]

The last non-strategy game worth "playing more than once" was released about 20 years ago, as far as I am concerned. So fuck your branching all the way to hell.

(I'll most likely abandon that hypothetical long game after a couple of hours either way, but as long as I didn't, I demand my content to be present whenever I have a whim to sample it, kthxbye).

 

[Eyeball]

Long and good enough to actually WANT to play through it more than once and with enough depth and hidden stuff for you to discover something new every time you play through it.

So yeah, PST, basically.

 

[Sordid Jester]

Don't care for branching all too much, it's additional fluff and might make the gamer nicer to go through, but it's not something I'll notice lacking if the game has topnotch character / party customization and options.

Perfectly fine with having the same written outcome repeat time and time again so long as I get to actually approach the combat or quests in different styles depending on build and such.

So in that vein, length doesn't mater much either - I tend to restart games frequently not even half-way through to try different build styles anyway (and then again when I later discover some items that work for other builds). Game length is arbitrary, just make the systems and challenges work. Granted, longer games present much more content to build around and ways for old builds to suck, whereas shorter are "okay, this worked, next." - I'm still just as likely to fiddle around as much on either account with solid presentation.

 

[PorkaMorka]

I don't generally replay games that have stories.

I find branching plots irritating, especially pointless branching. For example, a common method for branching a game is "half the team will stay on Earth and fight battles there, half the team will go to the moon and fight battles there". Then eventually the team re-unites and the side you didn't control gets some experience automatically.

I would much prefer that the game just let me command the battles in both branches, rather than cutting me off from half of it in the name of replayability. It's true that I could play out both branches, then pick whichever one I prefer and keep going with that save, but having half my results not matter is irritating.

Single player games are not really the most enjoyable and rewarding activity. They're OK, but I can usually find something better to do with my time sooner or later. So if you get me to play all the way though your game, you're lucky. Don't push it and try to force me to play it again by withholding content in the name of replayability. It's not going to happen.

 

[Renegen]

There aren't many games that have actually tried to be short + multiplaythrough. They are fun, though different. One of them that I can remember is Valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume.

Generally, games are long and a single playthrough, but then have innexpensive ways to add replayability, like multiple classes, or party members, or "good & evil".

Then there's a few games like Fallout 2 or Vampire:TM Bloodlines that are long and have a lot of sidequests, or ways to play the game and occupy the middle. Good RPGs have been possible in the past...

 

[Rhalle]

I always felt that, fundamentally, replayability was a function of how many types of character builds/playstyles that a game's core mechanics offered-- not because of big story choices; those are sort of secondary to me.

How complex the guts of the game are is what really matters.

The recent PR focus on "replayability" is a function of trying to make movie-games-- not because the game itself has grown more complex or intricate.

Today "replayability" touted as a feature is really a kind of changing of the definition to fit the whole cinematic story experience that is now central.

 

[Random]

See, the whole C&C radically changing the whole storyline is what I'm trying to go for with my project.

To answer your question, I'd prefer a longer, well done story to a short story with more choices because the longer story tends to be more meaningful.