I have recently started playing Skyrim and it got me thinking whether depth in gaming is important. If a game is longer than another and offers more play time does it make it a better game? Or is it the action or that joy it brings when playing that counts in making a game stand out from the rest?
I am currently only 7 hours into Skyrim. In most games within 7 hours the game is almost finished if not completed already. This is certainly the case with most FPS and action/adventure games that are released, e.g Call of Duty titles and Uncharted 3. Both single player campaigns take about 6-7 hours to finish. However, in Skyrim I feel I have barely touched the surface of the game in the same amount of time. There is so much to do, it consumes much more time to complete than the other titles mentioned. Does this make Skyrim a better game? Not necessarily. In the time I have played most of it has been spent walking or exploring – nothing really exciting. If we go back to Uncharted 3 there are pieces of action every second and blockbuster movie type action sequences every so often. You don’t come across many or if any of these amazing sequences in Skyrim and if you do they are few and far between. To me both Uncharted and Call of Duty titles are adrenaline packed action games from start to finish. With Skyrim, although it doesn’t set it’s self as a huge action game, you don’t get the same feeling at all.
The Skyrim map shows the huge scale of the game.
Where Skyrim does make up is its scale. It’s a huge game offering near infinite quests to complete. It’s a game which you cannot get bored of quickly – it is a game which will last a very long time. The attention to detail in the game is mind blowing and the developers have made a lot of effort into designed each and every element of the game from the huge dragons to the location of a small plate of grass. It is very impressive and provides a new experience in gaming for me. Don’t get me wrong the visuals of Uncharted are even better but it has no where near the amount of depth there is in Skyrim. However, as mentioned above there are few action set pieces and combat doesn’t feel right sometimes and at times there is a lack of excitement and action.
In my opinion depth and the longevity of a video game doesn’t make it a better game or worth more. I believe it is the action in between that counts. The short games that are released have non stop action throughout but where as in Skyrim and many other RPG titles action sequences are not as continuous. It all comes down to personal preference. So what do you think about this debate? Does the depth of a game make one title better than another? Or do you, like me, believe it’s the action in between that counts?
Assassin’s Creed is indeed another of those example games I meant. It’s big enough so you’ll have enough to explore but it’s not too big so there’s no risk of getting boring.
I love short but action packed games as well but I believe that 8-10 hours to complete a game is still a bit short. I don’t like the really big games because, like you said, they will sometimes have ‘boring’ moments, you don’t have those in games like Uncharted 3.
But what I absolutely love are games that give you the best out of two worlds, like Zelda for example. You’ll need 30-40 hours to complete the game, it’s not that big as games such as Skyrim but on the other hand it’s much bigger than games like Uncharted. Action/adventure games will also give you the opportunity to explore a little bit but the puzzles and action will claim most of your time and that’s what I love in those semi-long games.
I like those games where there is a balance between depth and action. For example assassins creed, there’s enough exploration and action to never get those boring moment, plus it is around 20 hours long. In 2012 I may pick up a zelda game on my wii, get the dust of it first though XD