Generally there isn't such a thing as too much content, but it does matter how it's presented and structured.

A nice recent example of overwhelming content exposure is Age of Wushu. There's a lot to take in and the game figues that it will just go ahead and tell you everything immediately. And on top of that, it's a sandbox world which means you're also not limited to any one area. So new player's have their heads spinning.

A hyper structured example is WoW. No one else does it as well, some people call it hand holding, but WoW really eases new players into the game.

Originally posted by mindw0rk
Yes. Everquest 1 for example. It has alot of content that if you start now you will never experience and no motivation to go there at all.

does that make it "too much" though?

sure, you'll never experience it, but does that hurt you ?

I always said - particularly about eve's walking in stations and wow's pet battles - add as much as you want. As long as I can choose to ignore it and I'm not funneled in there, I have no problem with you adding things i have no interest in. There's no such thing as too much, I can simply not worry about it.

Let me expand OP's question to the absurd: There's millions of video games out there, no human being played more than 1% of them. Is there too much video game content 'out there' ?

If you're speaking of too much content, as in too many types of activities to do, then I'd quote most people in saying "only if the quality suffers."

If you mean too much content to level in, then I absolutely believe so. The older games that lack significant populations (EQ/2) suffer from way too much content. Each small level range has numerous oddly similar and quickly/easily burned through locations to level in. The sheer number of locations ensures that you'll rarely ever come across another player, and loads of dev time was wasted writing pointless quests and developing worthless items/rewards/npc's. I much prefer WoW's way of keeping it relatively tight... and instead of making 30 new low level zones, revamping the old ones.

Originally posted by Robokapp

Originally posted by mindw0rk
Yes. Everquest 1 for example. It has alot of content that if you start now you will never experience and no motivation to go there at all.

does that make it "too much" though?

 

sure, you'll never experience it, but does that hurt you ?

 

I always said - particularly about eve's walking in stations and wow's pet battles - add as much as you want. As long as I can choose to ignore it and I'm not funneled in there, I have no problem with you adding things i have no interest in. There's no such thing as too much, I can simply not worry about it.

 

Let me expand OP's question to the absurd: There's millions of video games out there, no human being played more than 1% of them. Is there too much video game content 'out there' ?

How can too much content hurt you? :-)   I would LOVE to be in that position in every game I played.  It just gives you something new to strive for if you ever get bored with your current initiative.

As an example, when I got bored with my SWTOR story, I had nothing to do (that I found interesting).  If there was other fun stuff (for me) to do I might have stayed with the game longer.  Nothing is worse than being bored with the main objective and have nothing else to fill your time with.

I would love to play 1 MMO and stay there, but with today's options I dont see that happening anytime soon.   Today I play 3 or 4 depending on my mood.

Let me think about this question logically.

One game contains of a subset of all the gaming I could do.  If I decide it has too many options for what to do, then what's the alternative?  If I look for a new game, that meaning I've choosen to open up *more* options for what to do.   So on the grounds of pure logic alone, I would argue that no, a game can never have "too many options".

What it sounds like to me is that the OP is projecting a completionist personality and is not seeing a nice series of plateaus that they can strive for.

Originally posted by maplestone

Let me think about this question logically.

One game contains of a subset of all the gaming I could do.  If I decide it has too many options for what to do, then what's the alternative?  If I look for a new game, that meaning I've choosen to open up *more* options for what to do.   So on the grounds of pure logic alone, I would argue that no, a game can never have "too many options".

What it sounds like to me is that the OP is projecting a completionist personality and is not seeing a nice series of plateaus that they can strive for.

 

Me, completionist?

Nah, in GW2 I was wearing green gear when there was yellow and orange as better available.

I didn't do dailies everyday though I played daily.

I didn't finish map completion.

I didn't even finish my personal story.

I didn't care at all about titles.

The only thing I completed was getting to player level cap and only one of my two crafts was leveled max. That's really only because of tradition. Each new game my first character always makes consumables - potions, food, whatever is available. I've learned over time that they pay off the best versus making gear when it drops. People always like to test consumables too and buy them to see if they give an appreciable edge.

I spent more time playing with my character testing build and finding broken skills and doing PVP for no reward and just a money sink really. My PVP bonuses never worked so I didn't even get those (game bug)though I played on a Tier 1 server meaning we had the most active and challenging PVP. We had over 50 people at a time using portals to sneak up on you everywhere. The only thing you could complete reliably was respawning and paying for armor repair. :P

Hell, I'm paying sub for a game I barely login to twice a month. I'd be pretty far from a completionist.

Thanks for all the input so far everyone, been good reading seeing other's ideas.

Originally posted by greenreen

Nah, in GW2 I was wearing green gear when there was yellow and orange as better available.

There is a concept called "The Paradox of Choice" where adding more options just leaves you feeling less happy with your choice, whatever it is.

There's actually a long tangent I could go off on here on my theory of why game designers have over-estimated the interest in story because questing systems were very good at breaking the paradox-of-choice rut people would find themselves in when they had the freedom to go anywhere and fight any mob.

Originally posted by greenreen

Has anyone ever been in a game and found themselves saying, there is too much to do, I can't possibly play this game?

 

How much is too much or is it never too much.

 

Can you prioritize what you want to excel at and the rest accept mediocrity letting someone else excel at that portion if they choose that as their priority.

 

How do completionists deal with too much content or does it just encourage them to spend time on alts spreading out talents that must be specialized to a single character.

 

As a sideline on the topic, do you consider daily/weekly/monthly tracking systems content themselves? I expect they might get brought up so it makes sense to include them on the table.

 

 

Is there such a thing as too much fun?

Never can be too much. Often there isn't enough.

Only time you hear someone complaining about too much content is usually from a person limited to casual playing and is unhappy they can't do it all. Causals need to realize they can't be completionists.

Do you consider daily/weekly/monthly tracking systems content themselves?

Yes, that is content but very shallow content. It works if you can put up with the grind, which is often going to be raiders.

Really does depend on what that content is.

I have subbed to EQ2 with the intention of playing it, discovering a world I have tried to on many occasions. I find I am assaulted at levels by a hundred different things, and then I see another hundred things that I can't get because of money issues or the fact I don't own the expansion.

For example the mercenaries feature, lets you recruit a merc to assist you on your travels, killing things and healing you or even tanking for you. This is a feature I need to unlock by spending $40, something I cannot justify. So I lost interest in the game rapidly.

I know this is a feature, but is it not features that tend to overwhelm, not content? To me content is twenty dungeons instead of ten dungeons, or five battlegrounds as opposed to three.

Now when all of the features work in harmony, you can have as many as you want to, but when they are added as after thoughts, they can at their best work, in a bad situation detract, and in the worst turn someone away completely.

Originally posted by Quirhid
Yes. When the quality suffers.

 You didn't answer fairly, you decided to twist it to "make a smart point".

Answer it AGAIN without changing any other variable.

I would have to say yes and no....

Yes because if its just repeated quest in a new look then I really don't want to waste my time with it.  I want that quality like some people have been saying.  Not run 50 lvls of go kill x y z. 

No because no matter how much you put on there there will see be people that blow through it just to get to the highest lvl as fast as possible.  Which really brings up the question does content really matter too some people.  I smell a new thread be back later lol.

Originally posted by maplestone

Originally posted by greenreen

Nah, in GW2 I was wearing green gear when there was yellow and orange as better available.

There is a concept called "The Paradox of Choice" where adding more options just leaves you feeling less happy with your choice, whatever it is.

There's actually a long tangent I could go off on here on my theory of why game designers have over-estimated the interest in story because questing systems were very good at breaking the paradox-of-choice rut people would find themselves in when they had the freedom to go anywhere and fight any mob.

You mean we should return to the old "grind and camp mob spawns until you outlevel those and move on to the next one"?

Originally posted by Quirhid

You mean we should return to the old "grind and camp mob spawns until you outlevel those and move on to the next one"?

No.  What I'm saying is that I sometimes see a mental block in discussions that equate quests with story.  Questing systems (that hand the player a series of finite, achievable goal) are an example of a layer of structure that breaks people out of the rut created by the paradox of choice.  Story is just one example of an excuse for having quests.  Bulk order deeds in UO are an example of a different questing mechanic that is not story driven. 

An MMO has a population.

An MMO has a social component.

If your content causes the population to spread out such that the social component fails... then you have too much content.

Similarly, if your content requires grouping, then a similar situation can develop.

So, yes, depending on the design, you can have too much content.