Brian Fargo and Games TM interview.

[Archangelst]

For the most part the interview was very encouraging, but the part where the game size is being scaled back is very troubling. The size and scope of Wasteland 2 took the genre back to the glory days of Baldur's Gate. What exactly are we talking about here in terms of a reduction?

The interview states that only 5% of players finished Wasteland 2. I don't think that's a symptom of the game size, but rather a symptom of game accessibility and saturation. Not that it matters, but I finished WL2.

Here's the interview for reference: https://www.gamestm.co.uk/interviews/br ... d-torment/

[Dork Mage]

It would be useful if InXile gave a statement comparing WL3 size to WL2 size and if WL2 is "too big" then what would be considered for removal in WL2 (if it were to be made to the "right" size). I've finished WL2 more than twice.

[Drool]

The interview states that only 5% of players finished Wasteland 2. I don't think that's a symptom of the game size, but rather a symptom of game accessibility and saturation. Not that it matters, but I finished WL2.

Makes me wonder what the average completion rate for a large RPG is.

[undecaf]

A lot of dialing back going on with this. Skills and partymanagement, the scope... What might be next? Dialog because Torment didn't quite hit the mark?

[Gizmo]

It's funny... "Eye of the Beholder" (for PC) had the ending cinematic omitted from the disks, because they did not think enough players would complete the game; and so would never see it.

It's also interesting that FO3 was scaled back quite a bit as well.

[bokkie]

I am glad with this, in the sense that quality is more important than quantity. Wasteland 2 was cool but not good enough for me to replay (did it only until after ag/highpool) all the way. I'd rather have a bit shorter and superb game and replay it in this type of game (choice n consequences). Didn't you guys think the second half of WL2 felt much less polished?

[Gizmo]

Myself... I think I would prefer the longer game, but where any single play through branches differently for making different choices (not just good/neutral/bad, but alternative good/neutral/bad options); meaning it plays shorter, but that entire segments of the game could be brand new to the player when playing it using a different PC, and making different choices.

Imagine there was a helicopter trip that simply didn't happen the next time you played it... The PCs didn't save the helicopter, or didn't know how to fly it... So they made the trip a different way; through maps and encounters the player never knew about, and didn't see with the last party they played. Or perhaps they couldn't convince a certain NPC to aid them, and so had to side with someone else... changing all of the quests in that act of the campaign; perhaps even becoming the opposing force in quests they did in the previous sessions.

IMO... The worst kind of RPG, is the one that gives everything out on the first time through it; no matter what PC you devise to play it with.

[Grohal]

That's no new statement - in fact it was already said when the fig-campaign was still quite fresh.

I prefer a large game that takes many hours to finish over a short one I only play around 20 hours or so (thats way to short for any serious RPG-game imo). At the very least it should take 40 hours on average to finish.

But talking of WL2, beside the hubs it was quite empty - very few tiny locations and all more or less meaningless (one visit, clearing, never come back). It's ok to make the world smaler, but I want tons of tiny locations and some of them should have a meaning (like an eremit in a tiny cave that can do something for your team no one else can - maybe after some errands for him he will even join your base forsaking his lonely ways, something like that).
Give me some tiny settlemets that radio me for help every now and then, giving me new (optional) quests that boost my base due to unique ressources and maybe a recruit or two when I help them often enough.
Fill caves with random encouters mostly and some unique monsters (like that special shadow something in the mine in WL1) with unique rewards.
And so on...

In others words: If I want to levelgrind - let me. If I want to take one playthrough taking 80+ hours and some other guy wants to finish in 30 - give us both what we want.

[Gizmo]

That's no new statement - in fact it was already said when the fig-campaign was still quite fresh.

I prefer a large game that takes many hours to finish over a short one I only play around 20 hours or so (thats way to short for any serious RPG-game imo). At the very least it should take 40 hours on average to finish.

Glad to hear it; I was beginning to think I was the only one in shouting distance that thought so.

(I endured attempted derision when I claimed similar on the FO3 forums.)

[kilobug]

I also finished WL2 several times, and liked the length of the game, I would be disappointed if WL3 is much smaller.

[Dork Mage]

The interview states that only 5% of players finished Wasteland 2. I don't think that's a symptom of the game size, but rather a symptom of game accessibility and saturation. Not that it matters, but I finished WL2.

Makes me wonder what the average completion rate for a large RPG is.

(steam users)
14% completed TToN
20% complete Tyranny
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=17268&start=140#p189055

[Drool]

I prefer a large game that takes many hours to finish over a short one I only play around 20 hours or so (thats way to short for any serious RPG-game imo). At the very least it should take 40 hours on average to finish.

I prefer them longer too, but the question is "how long should the main quest be?"

I mean, without exploiting bugs, Oblivion can be beat in about half an hour (going out of bounds, it's like 5 minutes). A legit playthrough of Wasteland took me about 10-12 hours, using super-loot, I got it under 20 minutes.

Having a game where the main quest takes 20 hours, but there's another 20+ hours of side stuff is fine by me. Now, if they're aiming for 20 hours for a thorough playthrough, then we've got problems.

14% completed TToN
20% complete Tyranny

Thanks. Those WL2 numbers are awfully low, then.

[Grohal]

I prefer a large game that takes many hours to finish over a short one I only play around 20 hours or so (thats way to short for any serious RPG-game imo). At the very least it should take 40 hours on average to finish.

I prefer them longer too, but the question is "how long should the main quest be?"

I mean, without exploiting bugs, Oblivion can be beat in about half an hour (going out of bounds, it's like 5 minutes). A legit playthrough of Wasteland took me about 10-12 hours, using super-loot, I got it under 20 minutes.

Having a game where the main quest takes 20 hours, but there's another 20+ hours of side stuff is fine by me. Now, if they're aiming for 20 hours for a thorough playthrough, then we've got problems.

Absolutely right. A mainquest taking 20 hours is ok, if there is enough alternative stuff I can do - the more the better.

But around 20 hours should be the minimum, I doubt anyone enjoys an RPG that can be done in 5 hours of less. Maybe once just to see if it works, but beyond that? I can't believe that. Why would anyone do that more than once?

[demeisen]

I hadn't completed WL2 when they probably looked at those stats, but I have now. (Although, I doubt I'm included in InXile's stats even now, since I blacklist most "phone home" traffic, and I'm not even sure if the GOG version tries to report completion in the first place).

WL2 was quite long for me, although not in a bad way. I wouldn't have wanted it to be any longer, but it was OK. I'm sure if I played through again I could complete it in maybe half the time, since I wouldn't listen to / read all the voice acting and dialog. It's hard for me to compare times for that reason: sometimes people say they finish a game in 20 hours which takes me 100, since I tend to listen to all the voice work, take my time exploring to find every nook instead of relying on walkthroughs, and do all the optional content I can find.

Anyway, I hope they don't shorten it just due to a small completion percentage. That's probably true for almost any game, and getting the % up shouldn't be a goal in and of itself. However, developer resources are not infinite, and I wouldn't want it to be long because it was padded. (Honestly, WL2 bordered on feeling a little padded in a few places). I'd be OK with WL3 being a bit "tighter".

[Dork Mage]

GOG doesn't track playing-time/completion data.

[Drool]

(Honestly, WL2 bordered on feeling a little padded in a few places). I'd be OK with WL3 being a bit "tighter".

I didn't have much problem with the length as a whole, so much as specific places. Rail Nomads and Hollywood felt absolutely endless.

[demeisen]

(Honestly, WL2 bordered on feeling a little padded in a few places). I'd be OK with WL3 being a bit "tighter".

I didn't have much problem with the length as a whole, so much as specific places. Rail Nomads and Hollywood felt absolutely endless.

Yeah... I think some of that was due to all the running back and forth and back and forth you had to do to resolve the Rail Nomads quests. It added a lot of wall clock time.

I rather liked the story and plot with the Rail Nomads, but the whole thing could have been tightened up a bit if you could get the two sides to gather in one place early on, rather than only at the very end. I liked that you have to explore the zones to find them, and I liked the zones too, but I wished to say, "hey, guys... let's all get together in this here clearing and work through this."

[IHaveHugeNick]

14% completed TToN
20% complete Tyranny

Thanks. Those WL2 numbers are awfully low, then.

Nah. Both TTON and Tyranny are on the shortish side. Better comparison would be Pillars which only has 10% completion. Safe to say that 40h+ RPGs have huge drop-off rates.

[Remo]

(steam users)
14% completed TToN
20% complete Tyranny
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=17268&start=140#p189055

Interesting, I don't see any obvious causation although I would probably not understand it even it jumped at me (why does things like YouTube stats matter?!) Few questions:

1. Where do we see the completion percentage? It doesn't seem to be neatly provided by steamspy service in the link.
2. Any idea if these number include all version i.e. for both Wasteland 2 initial release and Director's Cut?
3. Tyranny is the only game that hasn't been crowdfunded, any chance it is factor? Because in my experience, ferreting out details over the long years of development can easily spoil your experience, because discovery and experimentation is part of the fun and detailed analysis of gameplay before hand tend to ruin that..
4. For perspective sake, what is the completion percentage of Witcher 3 for example?

Anyway, I hope they don't shorten it just due to a small completion percentage. That's probably true for almost any game, and getting the % up shouldn't be a goal in and of itself. However, developer resources are not infinite, and I wouldn't want it to be long because it was padded.

In terms of resource management, 10% completion rate means that they have created a lot of content that 90% of their audience has never experienced.. Which is why devs often avoid locked content.

I hadn't completed WL2 when they probably looked at those stats, but I have now. (Although, I doubt I'm included in InXile's stats even now, since I blacklist most "phone home" traffic, and I'm not even sure if the GOG version tries to report completion in the first place).

I believe that unless you are using gog galaxy, gog can't offer useful data outside of sale numbers.