123
-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0|430|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
Socoder -> Question of the Day -> QOTD - Quality or Quantity?

Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 15:01
Jayenkai
What's better, 100 levels, or 10 really good levels?

(Assuming that each level is around about the same size.)

-=-=-
''Load, Next List!''
Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 15:14
HoboBen
I think a healthy mix of both quality and quantity is good.

I think that it also depends on the definition of quality - the quality of the art/sound/presentation/etc, or quality defined by how fun it is.

-=-=-

Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 15:17
Scherererer
Again, i think this is another "Depends on the game" situation. If i'm making an FPS i'd want 10 good levels; if i'm making a puzzle game i would probably want 100 levels.

-=-=-
YouTube Twitter
Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 15:19
hyruleknight
it needs both, if a game is too sort no one will play it no matter how good the levels are because it makes the qualtiy of the game goes down

-=-=-
i like green haired girls...
Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 15:24
power mousey
it depends upon how short is short.

and also both the quality,quantity of each level. for me...
maybe a few levels of gradual ever-increasing difficulty and puzzle/quest action. Or that each level builds upon the previous level and goes up with a mix of difficulty,challenge and other extra goodies and activities.

cheers,
power mousey

Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 15:35
magicman
quality by far.
Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 17:09
garand
Yes, but would you buy a $50 game and come home and find out it only has 5-10 levels and beat it in a week?
Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 17:14
HoboBen
I suppose a lot could depend on the replay value. A randomly generated game is great too! (Almost infinite quantity)

-=-=-

Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 18:49
power mousey

I wouldn't pay 50$ for a game...anyway.

Maybe around $30 or so for a big and great game.

Look at Titans Quest. When it first came out around $50 or so. Now, its under 30 bucks at the local Walmart store.
Still waiting for that price drop on the PS2.

seriousness,
power mousey
Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 18:50
JL235
Sometimes you only want something to pass the time. I think quantity is an important aspect, any game that's short is too short, Black and White 2 for example is fantastic, but I found disappointingly short. Panzer Dragoon Saga, again fantastic, but an RPG that's only 12 hours long after almost mastering it.

Quake 4 wasn't amazing, but had enough quantity and quality to keep me entertained. I bought Quake 4 purely as something to pass the time, and because it was different. Repetition ruins a game, and having a change of scenery from Half Life 2 to Quake 4 can be refreshing, even though I would clearly define Quake 4 as being of a lower 'quality' then Half Life 2. But I'd say quality is more important then quantity, partly because it improves replay value, and so diminishes the feeling of repetition and deja-vu. Golden Eye is a really short game, you can do it in one afternoon, but I have replayed Golden Eye's levels more then any other FPS. A true sign of real quality.

Replay value isn't always due to quality however, or at least down to all aspects of quality. For example I didn't start FF7 straight again after completing it. But unlike Quake 4, I know one day I will load up FF7 again. The replay value will always shine through from a game eventually, if it has a high level of quality.

However the real question we should be asking is, 'what is quality?' Then we could really answer this topic.

-=-=-
PlayMyCode.com - build and play in your browser, Blog, Twitter.
Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 18:56
power mousey
good question...

what is quality? and in the sense of in gaming, and with both video games and computer games.
Many genres , sub generes of games and whole hybrids and varieties of combinations. Though, maybe not as huge and double helix winding as DNA.
also, there are a lot of people with varying tastes, styles, perspectives, and circumstances. And also reflected in their personalities,thinking,feelings, and tastes and choices as well.

true,
power mousey
Posted : Wednesday, 29 November 2006, 19:07
power mousey

um...any takers on Diablo question and also my question and comments too.
true...its your choice and with your time as well. Rather than all of us sit on the boards and wait...wait...wait.
<sometimes I don't like being the Grand Initiator or opening with various topics and conversations!>

oh well... bunga!!!
later all and cool...I'm going to watch SUperman Returns on DVD .

bye for now,
cheers,

power mousey
Posted : Thursday, 30 November 2006, 03:24
Jayenkai
Strip gameplay down to it's elements and you soon see the difference between Quality and Quantity.
Take Manic Miner. That only had 16 levels, yet look how complex each and every level was. Featuring backtracking that wasn't longwinded. Timed elements that required careful planning. Pixel based elements that required extreme caution.
All that, in pretty much every single level.
Quality levels.

Nowadays we tend to get levels which slowly introduce every element of a game, bit by bit, as you go along. The first 20 or so levels seems to be still adding new things. It means more levels get tweaked out of the engine. But if the creators had instead thrown you right in there, with all elements right there, and instead made every level count in terms of complexity... Would that necessarily make a better game?

-=-=-
''Load, Next List!''
Posted : Thursday, 30 November 2006, 11:37
power mousey

I like a few levels in a game with some of the basic quests/puzzles. Then within a certain range of levels...increase the complexity and challenge a little.
Also, increase the rewards and the Rolling Stones 'Satisfaction' factor....for two things within the game.

I do like some of these puzzle games...and I will play them from time to time. And maybe for a few hours.
Yet, I will 'get into' or immerse myself in a really cool adventure or role playing game. I like and want characters, stories, plots, sub-plots, quests and sub quests,motivations, really whole worlds in it.
Especially Might and Magic series....and within them especially Might and Magic 3,5,6,8 and matching and setting the pace and style of the game with certain music such as Expose:
'Point of No Return', 'Love is My Destiny', 'December'
and also some of Metallica and White Zombie songs. true.

cheers,
power mousey

Posted : Tuesday, 02 October 2007, 04:28
oracle
Sorry, it's taken so long to respond but I have only just joined. But I reckon it doesn't matter on whether the game has 10 good levels or 100 ok levels, it matters on how long you keep their butt in the seat playing the game and how much they rave bout it! That is what makes the best games!