How much lore is too much lore?

How much lore is too much for a game? It depends on the story, but sometimes players just want to get to rest of the game instead of listening to boring conversations about the lore. Other players like lore and are disappointed when there is little or none to be found. How much lore do you guys think is good for a RPG? This is completely opinion based and if a certain choice doesn't get a lot of votes, that doesn't mean that having more or less lore is a bad thing. Different games can have different levels of lore and this is just asking what the general opinion is.

Once again, your question is wholly without merit devoid of context.

What constitutes "to little" or "too much" lore, is entirely dependent upon a host of different circumstances. How the lore will be relayed, the nature of the story, how the lore relates to the characters story arc, how the lore relates to the villains actions, how the lore relates to the conflicts in the story, etcetera, etcetera, ad infinitum.

There is no too much lore as long as you're not forcing it to your players, like a cutscene started being too long.

Does the lore have an effect on anything that happens during game play? If so, then I care. If not, then I don't.

I don't care about long dead kings unless they have a forgotten crypt filled with treasure for me to loot.

Your 5 page book about the religious beliefs of the healers at the temple mean nothing if this topic doesn't come up when I speak to them or leads to a quest.

Stories about gods that don't appear in the game or have any noticeable effect on the world bore me.

However, I would enjoy a quest about searching for books in a library to learn clues as to where a dungeon is. Or sneaking in wine and sugary snacks into a monstary for priests who cannot have these things because of their religion but do it anyways. Or if I could make contact with a god and receive blessings by choosing options that appeal to them during gameplay.

So basically the lore only means something to me if it has an effect on game play, otherwise I won't even read anything related to it.

Go read my reply in the other thread and read through the text explaining the poll. It's not about one specific game of story, it's about people and what they like. The question isn't a super serious question that makes you think about life, it's just a poll that wants to know what others think. If you want a serious question that isn't opinion based, then this thread and my other one isn't for you. Put in your vote if you want, but you're drastically overthinking this.

I've already read your response, I stand by my assessment here as well.

As the answer to both your questions are the same, there isn't one answer, because context is king.

This is the best kind of lore (At least in my opinion). For example, FNAF has a cool lore, but it has no effect on the gameplay. Lore that rewards you for listening to what it's saying gives a reason to care about the game.

Dude seriously, lighten up. Context is king where it belongs. In a question clearly not based on context, it's worthless. If you seriously can't handle a person wanting to know how much lore or what villain type a person likes, then you should head over to a thread that makes you think about context and such, but this and my other thread are just simple questions about opinions. I'm glad you love context, but it doesn't apply here because that wasn't my question. Some people just want to talk to each other without overthinking every little thing they say. Let me rephrase the question for you: Out of context, how much lore do you want in your games? Does that make you happy? You need to hate on a friendly question and call it meaningless? This is the general discussion area. If I wanted a serious question about game making, I wouldn't be here.

Yeah, I hate long cutscenes as well. There's a certain point where the information about gameplay is no longer worth the time waiting for it, no matter how important the information is. That point is different for everyone, but it still exists for everyone.

As @MMMm stated, you can have the best lore ever thought of but if it doesn't weave its way into gameplay at some point, I find no point in having it. Obviously RPGs need story, it wouldn't be a "role playing game" then. But the best way to make players care and become interested in the lore of your world and the story you're trying to tell is to weave it into your gameplay. An example would be, in my game, the player can read a book that describes a dangerous cave, the Cave of 10,000 Depths. Later on, the player will be able to go explore that cave and the further the player proceeds in the story, the deeper they can venture.

Except that no matter how much you insist the evaluation be divorced from context, it isn't.

The merit of a given bit of lore, is entirely dependent upon the context you are placing it in.

How the lore is relayed, how it relates to the story, all of these things matter, in both application, & in the evaluation of their merit.

Some people prefer different levels of lore. An example I used earlier, FNAF, has a lot of lore. Some people may like that, but others may not. The context usually decides the level of lore, but do you as an individual like it when a game has heavy lore, or do you prefer when games do not focus on lore. It's not about the context of the game. It's about your preference in games as a whole. I typically like a lot of lore in my games regardless of their theme. Others may not share my opinion and may want a simpler game.

What you're saying has only one answer that I have to keep telling you: It's not about context, it's about what YOU as a person prefer in your games.

@XIIIthHarbinger You can bring your own context and answer the question. If the context is A then here and there. MMMm did it better.

I wouldn't recommend that.

The mods prefer threads stay on topic, rather than carrying differing topics from other threads into them.


Except, that it is about context, whether you are willing to acknowledge that reality is immaterial.

The determination of whether something is pointless exposition or relevant plot information, inherent subjectivity aside, is wholly dependent upon how that bit of data relates to the larger context of the story.

The perception of something being an interesting bit of lore or superfluous waste of time, inherent subjectivity aside, depends greatly upon its method of revelation, & how it fits into the larger context of the story & gameplay.

Ok, I was willing to try and reason with you, but if you're going to tell me that reality is immaterial and all that, then after this, I'm not even going to try anymore. Apparently you don't understand the idea of someone having a preference. If you don't like or understand the question, know that I tried and am trying one last time to explain them both to you, but after this , if you're still having trouble, then there's nothing left I can do. Lore isn't always about how to play the game. Again: my example of FNAF's lore has nothing to do with the gameplay, just the story. You don't have to have a huge plotline to have a game. The lore does not help you win the game at all. It only serves to enhance the experience if you like that sort of thing. I wanted to know if people liked games that were super lore heavy or not. A game can have a ton of lore but still have incredibly simple gameplay where knowing the lore is optional. I hope this helps you, but if it didn't, please stop commenting here and on my other poll. It's fine if you want to vote, but don't call my questions without merit or meaningless when you're saying things like reality is 'immaterial'. Some people are just trying to ask or answer a simple question without someone else coming along and calling what they're saying 'without merit'. If you have a different opinion (Key word here) on what requires context or not, I don't mind hearing it but don't try and shove yours down my throat. This question is meant to use whatever context you choose to use or none at all if you want to and that's what it is and always was meant to be.

"Too much lore" doesn't exist. It's all about how it is implemented.
Just look at skyrim.

False,

I stated whether you were willing to acknowledge reality was immaterial. As in, it doesn't matter whether or not you are willing to acknowledge that even in regards to an individual's own personal subjective assessment of the material, their evaluation isn't divorced from the larger context of the game's story & playstyle, but rather defined by it.



No, I understand perfectly well the idea of a preference.

However, in all my years, in all of the places I've lived, I've yet to encounter a single individual where a preference was universal in application. Instead an item that was their preference, but was poorly formulated or ill suited was rejected, often more vehemently than anything that isn't normally a preference for them.

Simply put, those things they were found of, were often what they subjected to the most strenuous scrutiny; because for them under those circumstances context is king.


You can keep asserting that I don't understand you all you like, it doesn't change anything.

I understand your sentiments perfectly well, I simply don't share them. If you can't understand or accept that reality, then that is as they say "Your cross to bear".


You keep insisting that I've failed to understand you, yet you keep claiming my positions to be one's that I haven't asserted.

I've already stated that the merit of a given bit of lore, is dependent upon a number of factors. The inherent subjectivity the observer its relation to the story, its method of revelation, etcetera.

Are you quite certain I am the one confused here?


An evaluation you are making, by relating the lore to larger context of the story, the methods of dissemination to you the player, & yes even the gameplay whether you are willing to admit it or not.

If you were honest about it, I have little doubt you could rather quickly think of ways in which those bits of lore would be what you would consider unwelcome intrusions or boring exposition pieces.

Because, even for one such as you who wishes to claim that context has no bearing on the question, context is king.


No.


Difficult as this might be for you to countenance, you don't actually get to limit responses in your threads to, "only opinions I want to hear".

I considered your question, & stated my assessment. You decided to take umbrage at it, & consider it some kind of personal slight.


You aren't having an opinion "shoved down your throat", you started a thread, & someone disagreed with you. Which you decided to be offended by, proceeded to cast yourself as the victim, & try to tell someone who disagreed with you not to post in your thread.


& an answer was what you received. You were simply given an answer you didn't like.

You are in my thread so if you don't share my sentiments, then you either can be civil about your opinions instead of calling my thread meritless. You say I can't accept your opinion. Truth is I don't need to. You are in MY thread. I'm not going to force my opinion on you, but the question was asked by me, so I decide what it means. If I say it's opinion based, then that's that, it's opinion based. If you can't accept that then why don't you bear your own cross?


Well I asked nicely


I have no problem with your or anyone else's opinions. That's the whole reason I made the thread. I just hate when other people hate on my thread because they don't share my opinion. You don't need to agree with my ideas, but if you are going to call them meaningless then we're going to have a problem.


I don't remember asking you to come and call my thread 'without merit' just because they have a different opinion. Your unwanted 'assessment' was constructive in no way whatsoever. If you aren't going to give me useful criticism, then I would prefer none at all. If you really have a problem with my poll, you can nicely say what you want, but if you're going to give me unconstructive criticism, then it's not welcome here.


Again, I don't care if you disagree with me, that's fine. When you say that a poll, MY poll, created to see other's opinions is without merit, then yes I am offended, so would a lot of other people. And yes, I am the victim here. I made a nice poll that everyone could vote on and be friendly to each other. You didn't have to come along and critique my poll, that was your decision. If I asked for your criticism, then I would have no right to call myself the victim, but you decided that an innocent poll question just HAD to receive your criticism. If you disagree with me fine. Most people do, and I'm fine with that. If you gave me something constructive, then it still would be fine. You would just be trying to help. At very few points in anything you have said have I seen a single bit of constructive criticism and even then, it's covered up in statements about how 'fake' or meaningless' the poll is. It's mostly you trying to make me conform to your ideals. If you want to post something meaningful, go ahead, but your unconstructive and now unwanted criticism isn't welcome. If you want to continue commenting meaningful comments in this chat then that would be awesome, but I'll kindly ask you to please stop trying to tell me my poll questions need 'context' when I've made it very clear this question isn't asking for that. If you want to do this to people then you don't need to be here. There's plenty of other threads and polls that might actually want you to call them meaningless. Oh wait, no human being would ever want people calling what they say or type meritless. Looks like you're out of luck :(

Have a nice day!
As long as it's either productive or nice, I hope to see you in the chat again soon!

A question for other more helpful people: Is there a way to block people or remove them from threads? PLEASE tell me there is.

I LOVE Skyrim! This is what people should look at when making lore. Just do it like Skyrim does!

[dpost]Awesomejr44[/dpost]
If you want to add something, just use the Edit button on your earlier post and add the additional info/comment. If you want to quote more than one person, use the MultiQuote button.

@Awesomejr44 A couple of things are going on here which need attention.
First, do not post an answer to one thread in another. As well as derailing the thread you're answering in, it also means that anyone who is only following the discussion in the other one never sees the response.

Second, it is not up to you to tell someone not to post in 'your' thread. Only Mods may do that. This is 'General Discussion' and anyone may participate. If you think that someone is derailing etc., then Report their post and let the Mods decide. So far I have seen nothing which merits someone being barred from this thread. There is disagreement, certainly, but that is an integral part of anything which is genuinely a 'Discussion'.