All games have only a certain amount of content in them and that may be constrained by the media size, by the dev time - all sorts of things. It seems to me that game makers then follow one of two models;
1/ The game has a dense, detailed content. But you can play through it in 5-10 hours. The game keeps a constant pace up, rarely slowing down or repeating itself. Unless you die and repeat a few seconds to get back to where you were and try again. I would call this the "Half Life Series" model.
2/ The game has sparse content. It will take you 20-30 hours to play through. The game will often you need to complete things like "Fetch Quests" to progress, long journeys to places encountering identical enemies, grinding to earn equipment needed to pass a particular challenge, or long treks back to the fight when you die. I call this the "Skyrim" model.
One gives you a good, rich experience that may be over in a single day (which may not seem good value) the other keeps you occupied for much longer, but may not be as intensely enjoyable.
which do you prefer, and why?
1/ The game has a dense, detailed content. But you can play through it in 5-10 hours. The game keeps a constant pace up, rarely slowing down or repeating itself. Unless you die and repeat a few seconds to get back to where you were and try again. I would call this the "Half Life Series" model.
2/ The game has sparse content. It will take you 20-30 hours to play through. The game will often you need to complete things like "Fetch Quests" to progress, long journeys to places encountering identical enemies, grinding to earn equipment needed to pass a particular challenge, or long treks back to the fight when you die. I call this the "Skyrim" model.
One gives you a good, rich experience that may be over in a single day (which may not seem good value) the other keeps you occupied for much longer, but may not be as intensely enjoyable.
which do you prefer, and why?