ses·qui·pe·da·lian

by TitoPaul

Are we too fixated on length? Is the clicking of the clock too heavy-handed a master? In this economy of supersizing, consumerism and rampant hyperbole that never seems too preposterous, does the size of a roleplaying game matter to a greater degree than it should?

Many of you (and if you are reading this you qualify) are roleplaying junkies, regardless of whether that stems from traditional pen and paper, computer and console, or movies and literature. And for the junkie more is 1) always good and 2) never enough. If Dragon Warrior is going to last 100+ hours, then you are getting your money’s worth.

But from an objective perspective—never easy when dealing with a passionate subject—more is not always better, because it can become too much. A game can literally drown itself in excess gaming and disrupt a high level of quality it would otherwise have maintained. Furthermore, leveling up (and I know I am attacking a time-honored pastime that for many RPGers is as important, if not more important, than any other aspect of an RPG) in some games can be taken as the equivalent of playing almost identical levels in a platform game over and over again. This is especially true of random battles…

For example, Skies of Arcadia is a decent RPG that is crippled by a deluge of random battles. Exploring the world (and the world of Skies is one of its strongest assets) becomes a chore as each additional step or sail could result in the screen churning into yet another (almost always) pointless battle where the goal is not just to win, but also to win fast. The fine line between too many battles and the perfect amount is different for everyone, but too often games fall back on repetitive filler in order to claim an extravagant amount of gameplay hours needed for victory. Is a tightly wound, intricately balanced RPG of “only” 20 hours shortchanging the player? Instead of slowly plodding through a long game just because the final boss hasn’t been reached yet, what of repeating this short game several times over?

I am not casting down the games that are chock full of so many sidequests you cannot appreciate them all, nor complete them through the first pass of the game. And there are games that make the most of their long lengths. Rather, I am pointing out that players become too consumed with how many hours of gameplay an RPG has instead of how many good hours of gameplay an RPG has. Again, to reiterate, some people love leveling up, battling similar monsters over and over again and watching as their party has all of their stats maxed out and there is nothing wrong with that, per se. It is when players pay too much attention to length, in fact, tie length so tightly to the value of a game, that quality suffers.

Everyone knows a 4 hour movie is not automatically better than a 2 hour movie, but is a great 4 hour movie better than a great 2 hour movie? For some players, there can never be enough treasure chests or monster respawns and the running time of an RPG for these gamers can stretch out almost indefinitely. But when combat is too repetitive or a game has you frequently going on long messenger quests, then completion becomes a labor of love. Ultimately game developers are forced to artificially slow down the pace of the game to achieve a longer playing time, diluting the experience in the process. And while there will always be those people who can never get enough, the product ends up suffering.