or do you like games that are big, as in grand, with lots of stuff in it and that grander is better more times than just 'in general'? large levels, many kinds of weapons, many enemies, both in types and in numbers. etc (before you continue, I'd just like to say that I had this thought much more formulated and refined when I thought of it but two of my posts on the game design forum were already active so I waited, back to the show) Metroid: great series, took a while, explored a lot of terrain Castlevania: lots of levels, and in Symphony of the Night you had lots of weapons and a big castle Armored Core: so many parts, so many missions, so little time Twisted Metal: Cyburbia is probably my favorite level, why? because it was the biggest(or seemed that way) and I was thrilled with how much larger the Twisted Metal Black levels are. RPG's, those that take days to play, as long as the story is engaging, fighting and upgrading is fun, but the desire, the need, the craving to see what happens next is what makes me go on Hellfighter(http://www.dracova.com/hellfighter/) can have dozens of ships flying around shooters, particularly Einhander, with big detailed levels and I'm making a game that will have so little graphics that the ai will probably take more processing than the graphics cause there could be so many ships, so I just wanted to see if I'm nuts Edit: (this is not the strategy game I've mentioned before, this game'll be about as basic as the graphics and is a kind of a side project) endEdit I think I'm not alone on this one though, I read the back of Kessen(?) II(feudal Japanese strategy) and it says that it'll have 500 units on the battlefield(5x more than the original) and that State of Emergency is boasting how it'll have 250 npc's all running around at the same time with their own ai's. Also, as time goes by, hard disk requirements for installing games are going up and up and up and up(I keep waiting for multiple DVDs). [edited by - RolandofGilead on April 13, 2002 3:59:50 AM]

I like grand games, but perhaps in a different sense. I prefer epic games, in the sense that you the player are immersed in a setting that is a pivotal moment in history. Having more units for units sake, or huge levels to explore aren''t what I''m really after. It''s a more nebulous concept.

In my game, the scale is pretty huge, but believe it or not, there aren''t going to be that many different kinds of units. I''d like the player to be able to design his own units, so theoretically there would be a huge variety...but my game also stresses maintenace and logistics. The more variety a player chooses, the more stressed his logistics system becomes to the point it chokes itself. Ever wonder why countries only have one assault rifle, and generally speaking one kind of Main Battle Tank?

I actually want to stress my game AWAY from that kind of thinking. I want the player to think less about WHAT kind of unit it is, to how to use it most effectively. Players tend to think of a unit in terms of its capabilities and use it like a chess piece. I want a much more subtle level of play, that factors in the aspect of command and control of a unit. Games today assume that you automatically have access to and a unit will obey your every command...and I don''t want that in my game because it draws attention away from leadership and lateral thinking...and solely into the physical superficial aspects of a units capabilities.

But on a more general note, grand and epic focuses on the big picture...not the little things like how big levels are or how many different kinds of weapons you have. Epic is really a storytelling element and gameplay element rather than a game "feature". To me, it''s not something you can objectively point out and say, "this game has 40+ hours play time, 100 different handguns, and over 60 skins to chose my avatar from!!". It''s very hard to define, so while epic and grandness to tend to have a large scale to them, it''s more a matter of impact to the big picture than anything else.