The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As someone will invariably say to you at one point in your life, size matters. In gaming terms, however, I believe that is not necessarily the case. Take the latest ‘best game ever’, Metal Gear Solid 2. People on these very forums have been moaning at its size - “Too easy” and “not long enough” are the typical comments. But these comments, and the argument that it’s too small are pointless taken in the wider cultural context. To say that titles like the Final Fantasy series, which require a 70 hour investment, offer true value for money is to ignore the fact that even a shorter game like MGS2 compares well to a cinema ticket. Think about it – you wouldn’t baulk at paying £5 for a 2 hour action film, so why not £40 for a 16 hour game? It’s all relative.
Continuing that theme, we don’t necessarily think a five hour movie is any better than a two hour one. Why shouldn’t the same be applied to games? Lets say for instance that we were to separate the concept of game size into two dimensions – depth, and width. Width would refer to the sheer size, including the size of environments, and the length required to complete it. Depth, on the other hand, would be a description of the games quality, including the amount of brain space it stimulates (bear with me here), the complexity of the puzzles and the challenge it provides. So what of today’s games?
Logic dictates that width is going to be inversely proportional to depth. But what happens if very wide games have a third of the depth? Numerous dull hours spent traipsing around stupidly large maps (Turok 2), or endlessly scrolling though earth-shatteringly banal text conversations (Final Fantasy again – sorry FF fans, but it has to be said). Genuinely exciting moments in very wide games are few and far between. Compare that to MGS2 where exciting moments and set pieces await you at every turn. And if even a developer is supremely talented to grunge provide moments of genuine excitement, the fact that they are so spread out makes less reliably thrilling and more watered-down experience. Would you rather have a measure of Scotch diluted in two pints of water, or drink it neat? (don’t answer that if your underage!).
It is true that some wide games turn out to be very deep (Mario and Zelda instantly spring to mind), and these games are met with public and critical acclaim simply because they are exceptions to the rule. Look closely at some of your favourite games, and ask yourself are they including stages that deliberately hinder the game in completely uninteresting ways, just to stretch the width? Thought so, most games have them. Its things like precision jumping that add to the width of the game but not to the depth of the experience.
So why, you might think, are width-heavy games like Final Fantasy so popular? I think that these games are popular because they take so long. A certain proportion of gamers, who like to be known as ‘hardcore’ because they play for 20hours, like the fact that the mass market alienate these games in favour of a Tomb Raider fix. I suppose it gives you a feeling that you are part of something. Before you criticise me, I’m the same. I liked the fact that hardly anyone liked the N64, simply because I felt proud that I did.
What do I perceive to be the game that combines both width and depth perfectly? You’ll probably expect me to say a game with great graphics on a next gen console. Well, I’m prepared to be hammered here but I think Pokemon, even on the original Game Boy, is the perfect example. It takes a very long time to complete, but not because of pointless width, it’s because of the depth of the gameplay, and the different way it can be approached.
So what of the future of games? Well, the greater storage capabilities, especially in Xbox, may be seen as an invitation to some developers to go width-crazy. For the more conscious, skilled developers though, this new opportunity could be seen as a canvas on which the digital artists can create and experiment and provide us gamers with a more fulfilling experience, and try and equate a greater feeling of depth to our favourite games. After all, it’s not the sheer number of locations that counts – its what you do when you get there that matters.
Thanks for reading
Russell
Continuing that theme, we don’t necessarily think a five hour movie is any better than a two hour one. Why shouldn’t the same be applied to games? Lets say for instance that we were to separate the concept of game size into two dimensions – depth, and width. Width would refer to the sheer size, including the size of environments, and the length required to complete it. Depth, on the other hand, would be a description of the games quality, including the amount of brain space it stimulates (bear with me here), the complexity of the puzzles and the challenge it provides. So what of today’s games?
Logic dictates that width is going to be inversely proportional to depth. But what happens if very wide games have a third of the depth? Numerous dull hours spent traipsing around stupidly large maps (Turok 2), or endlessly scrolling though earth-shatteringly banal text conversations (Final Fantasy again – sorry FF fans, but it has to be said). Genuinely exciting moments in very wide games are few and far between. Compare that to MGS2 where exciting moments and set pieces await you at every turn. And if even a developer is supremely talented to grunge provide moments of genuine excitement, the fact that they are so spread out makes less reliably thrilling and more watered-down experience. Would you rather have a measure of Scotch diluted in two pints of water, or drink it neat? (don’t answer that if your underage!).
It is true that some wide games turn out to be very deep (Mario and Zelda instantly spring to mind), and these games are met with public and critical acclaim simply because they are exceptions to the rule. Look closely at some of your favourite games, and ask yourself are they including stages that deliberately hinder the game in completely uninteresting ways, just to stretch the width? Thought so, most games have them. Its things like precision jumping that add to the width of the game but not to the depth of the experience.
So why, you might think, are width-heavy games like Final Fantasy so popular? I think that these games are popular because they take so long. A certain proportion of gamers, who like to be known as ‘hardcore’ because they play for 20hours, like the fact that the mass market alienate these games in favour of a Tomb Raider fix. I suppose it gives you a feeling that you are part of something. Before you criticise me, I’m the same. I liked the fact that hardly anyone liked the N64, simply because I felt proud that I did.
What do I perceive to be the game that combines both width and depth perfectly? You’ll probably expect me to say a game with great graphics on a next gen console. Well, I’m prepared to be hammered here but I think Pokemon, even on the original Game Boy, is the perfect example. It takes a very long time to complete, but not because of pointless width, it’s because of the depth of the gameplay, and the different way it can be approached.
So what of the future of games? Well, the greater storage capabilities, especially in Xbox, may be seen as an invitation to some developers to go width-crazy. For the more conscious, skilled developers though, this new opportunity could be seen as a canvas on which the digital artists can create and experiment and provide us gamers with a more fulfilling experience, and try and equate a greater feeling of depth to our favourite games. After all, it’s not the sheer number of locations that counts – its what you do when you get there that matters.
Thanks for reading
Russell
Page:
Good post. I agree with the other posters who prefer a mix of both sorts of games. Although thinking about it, quality just outweighs quantity
Thing with DK64 though...The game wasnt actually that much bigger than CBFD. It only took longer to complete becasue you had to do every single level with all 5 characters (which sucked in my opinion)
or minded even...
:D
:D
I agree Ortega, but I prefer a mix of both sorts again. You say you didn't want CBFD to be as tedious as DK64, but you wouldn't have finded if it were a little longer, would you?
Or†ega wrote:
Quality is the key here though, and not quantity.
------------
hhmmmm where have i seen that before?
:D
Quality is the key here though, and not quantity.
------------
hhmmmm where have i seen that before?
:D
My fave game of all time is Conkers bad fur day on the N64.
And it only took 12 hours completing first time round. Quality is the key here though, and not quantity.
I loved every minute of this game, and was sad to see it finish when I completed it. Most enjoyable game ever for me. Although it did feel short, I question whether I would have found it as enjoyable if it went on for say 20+ hours. Probably would have just got boring by then...It had a huge impact on me in the short period I played it for and I would much rather play games like this rather than boring games which last 40 hours where you just collect pointless things to open the next door..( eg DK64)
And it only took 12 hours completing first time round. Quality is the key here though, and not quantity.
I loved every minute of this game, and was sad to see it finish when I completed it. Most enjoyable game ever for me. Although it did feel short, I question whether I would have found it as enjoyable if it went on for say 20+ hours. Probably would have just got boring by then...It had a huge impact on me in the short period I played it for and I would much rather play games like this rather than boring games which last 40 hours where you just collect pointless things to open the next door..( eg DK64)
That's gonna be my mantra
Good topics, deserve good feedback :)
RM18 wrote:
> deeback >
deeback????? Feedback sorry.
:)
> deeback >
deeback????? Feedback sorry.
:)
Page: