Which idea do you like best?

[ThreeOhFour]

I honestly feel that there are far too many variables that come into play here for me to make an accurate choice between the two.

Length can be achieved by any number of means. What if a game was filled with pixel hunt and maze puzzles - anyone determined enough to get through it would probably have to spend hours and hours doing so, and this would (in a broad sense, anyway) make it a 'long' game.

Choices are an interesting point as well. Choices can add replayability to the game, but if a game gives me a choice, and I find the game completely uninspiring, there is no way I'm going to replay through the game again just to see what happens if I walk down the other road. Boiling Point was one game that gave the player a ton of choice and I found it uninspiring in every single way.

I agree with space boy that these choices are easy to make when your dimensions are well defined. If you're asking "Would you rather play a long game that is excellent quality or a shorter game that is equally excellent quality that has more choices to make up for the lack of length" then I would say more choices, because it means I have a game that I can finish in a comfortable length of time instead of having to marathon run it. I play a LOT of games and I often give up on games that are too long because I know there are plenty of other good games out there that will give me equal satisfaction without me having to invest so much time.

If that's not what you mean, then I doubt I can accurately answer your question.

[Emerald]

I play a LOT of games and I often give up on games that are too long because I know there are plenty of other good games out there that will give me equal satisfaction without me having to invest so much time.

If that's not what you mean, then I doubt I can accurately answer your question.

That's exactly what I mean. Thank you!
Like I said:

... I only want opinions on the concepts. It's a given that people like well-written, involving plots with deep, developed characters and an original storyline.

In other words, let's say, hypothetically, that Shakespeare, Freud and Mozart all claw their way out of their respective graves and come to join the dev team to write, think up puzzles and compose music for the game. (Let's also say, hypothetically, that you're a gentleman of refined taste, and you think Shakespeare, Freud and Mozart are 'the bomb')

Now, the choice is that they can either make a long game (which is amazing in every way), or a longer game (which is equally amazing, except that there are less choices)
Note, that the amazingness of each game is equal on a technical level - I'm not saying that you'll find both the games equally amazing, I'm saying that both games are amazing to an equal degree. So, if you prefer longer games over choicier games, you might find the latter more amazing than the former.

Hmm...
I think I've only served to amazingly muddle the whole thing even further...

[ThreeOhFour]

Hmm...
I think I've only served to amazingly muddle the whole thing even further...

Correct .

Seriously. You're asking us "If you could play the 'perfect' game, but had to sacrifice either length or amount of choices, which one would you sacrifice?"

No need for further explanation, I feel. As I said, I'd sacrifice length because, given a choice, I choose choice .

[space boy]

Yeah no offence Emerald, but your way of explaining is a bit foggy.

[Emerald]

Yeah no offence Emerald, but your way of explaining is a bit foggy.

Pfft. Maybe your way of understand is a bit foggy...

[Layabout]

If you are trying to compare yourself to mozart freud and shakespeare, you need to get a reality check.

Write your game how you want it. If you want choice, put loads of choices in! But in giving choice to break from linear gameplay, you will sacrifice you ability to control your story unless these choices lead to the same thing, which makes choice redundant.

Choice when it comes to how to tackle a puzzle, i suppose could be interesting, but then don't you just make the puzzles too easy? You should have a strict guideline on how the puzzles should be tackled. A puzzles serves to make people think alongside your story and elongate said story. Sure, some are really stupid (think like the programmer puzzles), some are easy, some are hard. Don't do puzzles for puzzles sake. Make them relevant.

As for length, you first game should not be too ambitious. This is how projects fail.

And stop being an arse to others. He was just saying your post was confusing. Which it was.

[Emerald]

Haha, I think you're missing the ironic undercurrents here.

[Layabout]

Irony doesn't work on the internets.

You act like an overambitious child. We get lots of them here.

Trying to reach perfection is an impossible dream. Just make something that you and other people would like to play. Stop trying to craft the perfect game. You will never achieve it.

[ThreeOhFour]

I think your idea - that is to get an understanding of what makes a game good - is not a bad one. But I think there are better ways of finding out. There are a bunch of quite informative articles on good adventure game design out there, that focus on a range of different things. If that is what you're chasing, let me know and I'll try and find some and post links to them on here. If you just want an opinion poll on length over choice... I don't honestly feel that you'll learn much.

EDIT: I meant to mention this, but forgot.

Layabout warns you about becoming too ambitious, and he is right to do so. I feel that you weren't actually suggesting you wanted to make the perfect game, you just used a metaphor to try and explain your angle. I think that the best way to learn about making games is to make one and let people play it. They'll tell you what they didn't like, and you improve because of it .

[Emerald]

Thanks Ben. I'm glad someone respects his fellow humans enough to bother paying full attention to what they say.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in perfection, or even what makes a good game, per se. I'm fairly certain that making a good adventure game is like making a good movie, or a good book (or a good story in general) - it's about execution more than it is about theme or subject matter. A great author or director could make any story great, regardless of those things (note for anybody not paying full attention: I am not suggesting that I am a great author or director, I'm simply making a general statement)

However, regardless of whether a story is great or not, there's always going to be people who wont like it, because the theme or subject/genre will never appeal to everyone. For example, I never really liked Schindler's List, because it always seemed a bit tear-jerky for my liking (note for anybody not paying full attention: I'm not saying I don't find the Holocaust sad, I'm saying I don't find it entertaining), but I recognise how great it is, as a piece of film.

So, my basic point is that even if I make a great game, unless the subject matter is popular, most people wont play it (for example, I don't think a single person liked the 'Columbine' idea). (note for anybody not paying full attention: I am not suggesting that I'll be able to make a great game on my first try, I'm simply speaking hypothetically)

If I did spend three years on 'Columbine', and I research every fact, call up the survivors and interview them, hire a professional artist who went to the school to do my backgrounds and sprites, and write an oscar-deserving script, complete with breath-taking voice acting, it might still sink to the bottom of the list, because (let's face it) the only people who'll probably hear about it are the people in the Adventure game community, and all of them have certain expectations for an adventure game.
(note for anybody not paying full attention: Not that there's anything wrong with that - people play games to be entertained, not to experience a representation of the cruelty of humanity)

(another note for anybody not paying full attention: I am not suggesting that you lot wouldn't appreciate an emotional game, I'm simply saying that based on the response in this thread, you lot probably wouldn't like it as much as if I put the same effort into, say, a sci-fi time-travelling game)

[Layabout]

Emerald, you may annoy me, but you do have some insightful things to say. It is true that the average adventure game player may want to play a game with a less serious subject matter than a tragic school massacre.

That said, if you intertwined something fantastic into the story, it may be something more interesting to the average adventure game player. Look at Dave Gilberts games for example. A game that deals with death. Not exactly a light subject matter. By introducing a fantasy element, he can still deal with the subject of how people deal with death. And they are fun games. A game about colombine would not be fun to play. A game about the holocost might be. Because most of the people who play the game would not have lived in that time. So, real event that happened a long time ago, ok. Real event that happened will always be in some way bad taste.