Reply to Re: Epic length
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
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.
It's been talked about before. But never as much as recently. And the debates in the past have usually been more about Epics that should be Quests, and not the otherway around like it seems to be recently.
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.
Simply because you could spend eight hours just talking to NPCs and fighting monsters and call it an Epic. But unless the game requires you to do that to actually complete the main storyline, it shouldn't count. If it did, you could make an Epic with four screens and no storyline. Just have one screen where NPCs have three hours worth of dialogue, a screen filled with another two hours worth of fighting monsters, then a screen with lots of hidden goodies for an explorable area, and then a final screen with ending credits. This is why only things that move along the main adventure should count, because otherwise you could make anything into 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.
Because the Epic rules state "a D-Mod the size of the original game, or larger". If there's anything you can actually compare in size to the original game, it's the map. I'm not gonna nitpick about the exact amount of screens, but most Epics do use at least 75% of the available screens, which is why it's kinda wrong if a D-Mod that doesn't even use half the total screens, would get in the same category. I do see where you're coming from, with it not being a requirement, but then again, do any of the Epics really *require* a big map? No. You could fit everything in SoB in a hundred screens. But that's not what it's about. Nobody would call SoB an Epic if it did that. A lot of the epicness comes from the unusually large map, and having a big, explorable world.
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.
Again, I see where you're coming from. And I sort of actually agree. But I'm more leaning towards the fact that going back and changing the D-Mod categories after years is kind of unfair and a slap in the face of their authors. I agree that it should be a guide, but it should also fairly represent the D-Mod based on the time period it was released. For example, I don't really like AGAE much at all, but I can still see that it was a rather large and unique D-Mod for its time. Just because it isn't anymore doesn't mean it once wasn't. What if in ten years there was a 8-hour long D-Mod released every month and the "big, rare D-Mods" would be 30-hour long games with three maps? Scourger would still be an Epic for its time, even if it was a small D-Mod by that day's standards. I doubt it'd make you very happy that Scourger would be categorized as a Romp, simply because future D-Mods would be bigger. As time moves on, bigger and better is just simply to be expected. Doesn't make the past achievements any less valid.
It's been talked about before. But never as much as recently. And the debates in the past have usually been more about Epics that should be Quests, and not the otherway around like it seems to be recently.
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.
Simply because you could spend eight hours just talking to NPCs and fighting monsters and call it an Epic. But unless the game requires you to do that to actually complete the main storyline, it shouldn't count. If it did, you could make an Epic with four screens and no storyline. Just have one screen where NPCs have three hours worth of dialogue, a screen filled with another two hours worth of fighting monsters, then a screen with lots of hidden goodies for an explorable area, and then a final screen with ending credits. This is why only things that move along the main adventure should count, because otherwise you could make anything into 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.
Because the Epic rules state "a D-Mod the size of the original game, or larger". If there's anything you can actually compare in size to the original game, it's the map. I'm not gonna nitpick about the exact amount of screens, but most Epics do use at least 75% of the available screens, which is why it's kinda wrong if a D-Mod that doesn't even use half the total screens, would get in the same category. I do see where you're coming from, with it not being a requirement, but then again, do any of the Epics really *require* a big map? No. You could fit everything in SoB in a hundred screens. But that's not what it's about. Nobody would call SoB an Epic if it did that. A lot of the epicness comes from the unusually large map, and having a big, explorable world.
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.
Again, I see where you're coming from. And I sort of actually agree. But I'm more leaning towards the fact that going back and changing the D-Mod categories after years is kind of unfair and a slap in the face of their authors. I agree that it should be a guide, but it should also fairly represent the D-Mod based on the time period it was released. For example, I don't really like AGAE much at all, but I can still see that it was a rather large and unique D-Mod for its time. Just because it isn't anymore doesn't mean it once wasn't. What if in ten years there was a 8-hour long D-Mod released every month and the "big, rare D-Mods" would be 30-hour long games with three maps? Scourger would still be an Epic for its time, even if it was a small D-Mod by that day's standards. I doubt it'd make you very happy that Scourger would be categorized as a Romp, simply because future D-Mods would be bigger. As time moves on, bigger and better is just simply to be expected. Doesn't make the past achievements any less valid.
