More = Better?

 

In the world of content creation there is a cult based around the fetishization of activity. The more on does, the better it is because that is more opportunities for the several thousand projects they work on to go viral at once and shoot them into tacit stardom. Those who take a step back are lazy or don't have their heart in it, or should be shot out of a canon into the stratosphere- or something. Personally, I'm of the rather sound (in my opinion) mind that actually- it's harder to give a personalised touch of beauty to the individual when you chase that allure of quantity over that special little touch of quality. What about you, do you think that sounds weird at all? I think it does. I think there's certain an appeal to being able to spit out content like a spitfire- but there also needs to be a little bit more under the hood- you know what I mean? (I hope that makes sense.)

So how can this be applied to the world of games? Well how about we opine on game development and the philosophy of 'more = better' on both a internal and external angle? And let us start with the output of games and their frequency- which I think we can all agree is trending towards the more dreadful angle, where games are becoming such an endeavour that our favourite series' are going on hiatus for nearly decades at a time. When games companies whine about ballooned development costs, they never seem to address their bloated work loads to create giant overstuffed games that end up failing to connect with anyone because they pulled an open world out their arse and scattered a slim games worth of content across it. (Forspoken!) But some companies have slid into a niche of rotating development schedules which means they can machines gun games out at a rapid pace, which is good- right?

Well for RGG that equation has worked out quiet nicely, allowing the Yakuza developers to pump out entry after entry in their legendary franchise through the merit of building upon the foundations of the game they made before. They never unnecessarily throw in some wild element which balloons development by a magnitude of three simply because some people say it is successful- they iterate upon ideas they've made before, creating games that slowly become better spread admits well written stories. Because RGG are committed and talented storytellers first with a heavy reliance on the integrity of narrative and storytelling. If only there were a company out there on the exact opposite side of the spectrum to contrast against...  

That's right! Ubisoft! The guys who have been deadset on making the exact same game for the past 11 years! Their output is similarly astronomical- with the big difference being in that face that Ubisoft are hac- I mean, that Ubisoft don't really have that same level of passion and direction that drive RGG. If the RGG studio were having a year without inspiration striking for a solid product, they would slow down their production as they have in the past. Ubisoft? They can't slow down, the machine won't let them. When you are deadset in the regular release cycle that gripes Ubisoft, it results in creative ideas and passions being squashed to fit into a otherwise corporate product with the hopes it will shine through coherently, rather than a passion led idea is formed around creativity and integrity. In many ways, it's the more games the worse for Ubisoft.

But what about the insides of games? The content within? We're always complaining about games feeling unfinished- begging for that feeling of well-roundedness that might just stave off the gaping void at the centre of all of our souls. But what if I told you that oftentimes that isn't just a case of how much content a game is packed with, but the nature of that content? You can fill a game with as many senseless side quests as you want, but if you stumble on the implementation of the main quests so badly that most people have to ask online "I'm not getting anymore quests, have I finished the game?" Well, then you might have bungled the creation of a complete feeling narrative with a coherent beginning middle and end with appropriately rising stakes and satisfying resolutions. Oh, and you've also made Assassin's Creed Valhalla. (Save it for the review, me!)

That being said it can be nice to have a grim brimming to the gills with content even when that content in question is side activities, totally inconsequential to the themes or progression of the game's heart. GTA has gotten more serious with it's side content over the years to the point where in V that they offer some activities that aren't even altered in an edgy and exciting way like you might expect. They just threw in Tennis and Yoga. Why? I honestly couldn't tell you, but they're there for you to kill some time in and make the world feel more alive. The Witcher slapped a full-blown card game in their outing called Gwent, which later got revised into an actual functioning card game for a couple of years. And, of course, Like a Dragon 8 just did Animal Crossing. Because why not.

Of course, then it can tip in the other direction where you have so much stuff to do that the player can find it overwhelming. I never have this problem myself, but I know there are particularly analytic gamers who adore the precision of exacting platformers and just can't cope when thrown into an open world with ostensible infinite options. In a similar vein, a game like Minecraft which leaves the formation of goals and purpose up to the player can be a bit too much for some people who just don't want to engage with a game on that level- expending the effort to dream up a vast compound to build or some worldly work to set down can be a tad too much to ask for someone who just wants to unwind at the end of a hard day.

So of course to coin the same strategy that got me an A on all of my English papers- the answer is that neither is correct and both are depending on the situation. Variables shift opinions and opinions shift nations- so in certain instances the right studio with the right head on straight can achieve so much with the right barrel-full of content- whereas the wrong studio who relies on volume as a crutch for talent and vision... >cough< Ubisoft >cough< merely exacerbates their worst qualities but doubling down on the amount of times they show their ass. That being said, if we force ourselves to be binary about this, I prefer a game that leaves me feeling a bit stuffed when it's all said and done. (perfectly timely games that end exactly when they should never quite feel as fufilling.)