Reply to Re: Epic length
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
I disagree with most of what you say. Now I might be repeating myself, so feel free to skip on reading this. Let me just respond to a couple of statements:
We've gone 17 years without any problem in determining what is an Epic and what is not. I think some people here recently are starting to think a bit too highly of their work.
Nope, we actually have had this debate numerous times. And DMODs have been recategorized in the past. I think the absence of larger quests made categorizing something as an epic quite quickly popular.
1) The length of the main storyline: I think this might be the most important thing. The time you spend from starting the game, to getting to the end credits during your first playthrough. If it takes more than 4 hours, yes, I think it can be counted as an Epic. But this goes for just the main storyline and scenes that move the story forward. NPC conversations, over-lengthy dialogue and side-quests are just a nice plus, that should contribute to the already big adventure. I think this is the biggest reason why Malachi, for example, can't be counted as an Epic. It's longer than some Epics, but only if you count EVERYTHING. But if you leave out the parts that don't actually anyhow progress the main story, it's probably only around 2 hours long.
I really don't see why NPC conversations wouldn't be part of the main storyline. Conversations, like explorable area and fighting are all content that is part of what the DMOD has to offer. After all exploration of wilderness is part of the DMOD, in the same way that talking to NPCs is exploration of the towns. I did mention in the other thread that I dislike artificially inflated gameplay time, that shouldn't count for length. I'm for example thinking about Bill and Kill 1, which may be a quest in terms of gameplay time, but everybody instinctively knows it should be a romp.
Looking back at my own DMODs I also am guilty of artificially stretching gameplay times, especially with the Scourger...
2) The size of the map: Epics need to have a big world to explore, around the size of the original game's map or larger. Something like Initiation, for example, has a map barely bigger than some Romps I've seen. This is one of the biggest reasons why I wouldn't count it as an Epic.
Somehow you have decided that a large map is more important for an epic than a lot of dialogue, why? I see both forms of content as equally valid content. I agree that a large map helps a lot with a feeling of expansiveness, something I talked about earlier. But I feel a lot of in-depth dialogue can also provide an expansive immersion. I do feel a sizable map is important for the feel, but an absolute requirement... No.
3) The feel: This is what Metatarasal spoke about earlier. There's just a certain different "feel" to Epics, than there is to other D-Mods. I don't really know how to describe that feel. Just that it's something bigger than most D-Mods. I guess the best way to describe it would be that you're feeling like you're playing a game the size of which could've officially been sold in a store, instead of a community made add-on (remember, not talking about the quality. But the size).
Agreed on that. Somehow I don't think a frogger clone with 100 levels taking many hours to beat is an epic. Not even because of a lack of content, just a different feel.
4) The time it was released: Yes, I think the time period the D-Mod was released in does matter. I'm saying this because some D-Mods from back then wouldn't probably be accepted as Epics within the modern community. But making D-Mods was much harder back then, and it was rarer to see big D-Mods. Do you really wanna go back and change what category those D-Mods belong to, after 12 to 15 years? Times were different back then, and I don't think it's fair to go back now and change their category, just cause modern Epics might be bigger than some of the older ones. That's simply to be expected. Just like the improvement in quality is to be expected. Quest for Cheese has horrible quality by today's standards, but do you still wanna go back and give it a crap score, just because a D-Mod from back then can not compete with a D-Mod from today? I doubt it.
The system is there to provide help for players. So if a player is looking for a DMOD that is substantial but not too long he might play Malachi and skip on QfD 2. On the other hand the player enjoying large epics might play QfD 2 even though Malachi is longer. It's about helping people decide which DMODs to play, not as a sort of ranking among DMOD creators. That should be the guide. For my part we find a different set of categories for the future if that helps players better.
Edit: Putting this into two posts as they are really two seperate things.
We've gone 17 years without any problem in determining what is an Epic and what is not. I think some people here recently are starting to think a bit too highly of their work.
Nope, we actually have had this debate numerous times. And DMODs have been recategorized in the past. I think the absence of larger quests made categorizing something as an epic quite quickly popular.
1) The length of the main storyline: I think this might be the most important thing. The time you spend from starting the game, to getting to the end credits during your first playthrough. If it takes more than 4 hours, yes, I think it can be counted as an Epic. But this goes for just the main storyline and scenes that move the story forward. NPC conversations, over-lengthy dialogue and side-quests are just a nice plus, that should contribute to the already big adventure. I think this is the biggest reason why Malachi, for example, can't be counted as an Epic. It's longer than some Epics, but only if you count EVERYTHING. But if you leave out the parts that don't actually anyhow progress the main story, it's probably only around 2 hours long.
I really don't see why NPC conversations wouldn't be part of the main storyline. Conversations, like explorable area and fighting are all content that is part of what the DMOD has to offer. After all exploration of wilderness is part of the DMOD, in the same way that talking to NPCs is exploration of the towns. I did mention in the other thread that I dislike artificially inflated gameplay time, that shouldn't count for length. I'm for example thinking about Bill and Kill 1, which may be a quest in terms of gameplay time, but everybody instinctively knows it should be a romp.
Looking back at my own DMODs I also am guilty of artificially stretching gameplay times, especially with the Scourger...
2) The size of the map: Epics need to have a big world to explore, around the size of the original game's map or larger. Something like Initiation, for example, has a map barely bigger than some Romps I've seen. This is one of the biggest reasons why I wouldn't count it as an Epic.
Somehow you have decided that a large map is more important for an epic than a lot of dialogue, why? I see both forms of content as equally valid content. I agree that a large map helps a lot with a feeling of expansiveness, something I talked about earlier. But I feel a lot of in-depth dialogue can also provide an expansive immersion. I do feel a sizable map is important for the feel, but an absolute requirement... No.
3) The feel: This is what Metatarasal spoke about earlier. There's just a certain different "feel" to Epics, than there is to other D-Mods. I don't really know how to describe that feel. Just that it's something bigger than most D-Mods. I guess the best way to describe it would be that you're feeling like you're playing a game the size of which could've officially been sold in a store, instead of a community made add-on (remember, not talking about the quality. But the size).
Agreed on that. Somehow I don't think a frogger clone with 100 levels taking many hours to beat is an epic. Not even because of a lack of content, just a different feel.
4) The time it was released: Yes, I think the time period the D-Mod was released in does matter. I'm saying this because some D-Mods from back then wouldn't probably be accepted as Epics within the modern community. But making D-Mods was much harder back then, and it was rarer to see big D-Mods. Do you really wanna go back and change what category those D-Mods belong to, after 12 to 15 years? Times were different back then, and I don't think it's fair to go back now and change their category, just cause modern Epics might be bigger than some of the older ones. That's simply to be expected. Just like the improvement in quality is to be expected. Quest for Cheese has horrible quality by today's standards, but do you still wanna go back and give it a crap score, just because a D-Mod from back then can not compete with a D-Mod from today? I doubt it.
The system is there to provide help for players. So if a player is looking for a DMOD that is substantial but not too long he might play Malachi and skip on QfD 2. On the other hand the player enjoying large epics might play QfD 2 even though Malachi is longer. It's about helping people decide which DMODs to play, not as a sort of ranking among DMOD creators. That should be the guide. For my part we find a different set of categories for the future if that helps players better.
Edit: Putting this into two posts as they are really two seperate things.
