The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yet another topic about new releases being under par? Well no, infact not, this is a more personal question for todays gamers... you guys!
I've just been reading a topic in the PS2 forum, something to do with Devil May Cry first impressions. Anyway, within this topic I saw a post that looked roughly like this;
"I thought the game looked ace, but then I read a review that said you could finish it in a weekend, so I'm not going to bother getting it now"
Now, that is, of course, the young lady or gentleman's free choice to make. I would not think to attack he/she personally. However, seeing as there does seem to be an overwhelming need for longevity in todays games I'm just beginning to wonder if we the public are getting a bit tight with our money. Afterall surely its not just quantity but, more importantly, quality that we desire from forthcoming releases.
Its happened in the video market and the music market, now video games seem to be being struck.
The prime example is music. I infact know a staggering amount of people that buy a CD and then rush home slot it into their CD player and then, I know what you're thinking, "press play right?" wrong! No infact they then look at the LCD display to find out how long the album is. If its, say a 60 minute album, they feel they've got value for money, just. If its 75+ minutes, they are as happy God was on his day off. However, if the album comes in at 45 minutes or less, they consider returning it! (This is before having heard it you understand)
Why is it that we are so eager for games to take us ages to complete? I personally would much rather have a quality game such as Metal Gear Solid and clear it in 10 hours than have a crappy RPG that lasted me months.
Its all about the experience the game gives us. If a game is short but absolutely fantastic, then surely we will play again and again for the enjoyment?
I play MGS time and again. Tony Hawks 3, I cleared in a day, (only with one character mind) yet continue to play time and again.
The industry does seem to be heeding the call for longevity though. Games are growing in length, we have Jak & Daxter just released thats set to be HUGE, luckily for we gamers it also sounds like its going to be something special; i.e. gamers will actually enjoy it enough to get right to the end and maybe even play again!
That, within the gaming industry, is becoming a rarity. Games are becoming more of a "once through" experience in some cases, but the worst cases of all are these "epic" games that, while not awful, are a little below par. Result? Unfinished games.
Have a look through your back catalogue of games, be honest now. How many games have you got or gotten rid of that are/ were unfinished? Not because they were bad necessarily, but just because the gameplay got a bit stale, or the story didn't grip you enough. How many huh?
I know I've got a few kicking about collecting dust or have been taken down the swap shop.
"Shadow man" for instance, I thought would be great. Recieved high scores (N64 version anyway) from magazines such as Edge, was supposed to be HUGE and I thought would be a pleasure to get into and.... oh no, it got real dull, real quick... I lost interest. Yes I could have stuck at it etc. But shouldn't the game make me want to do that? Or have I missed something?
Yes, I know that it largely comes down to personal coice yadda yadda yadda, but really, I'm all for games that I can play over and over, instead of epic games that are a chore to finish.
I've just been reading a topic in the PS2 forum, something to do with Devil May Cry first impressions. Anyway, within this topic I saw a post that looked roughly like this;
"I thought the game looked ace, but then I read a review that said you could finish it in a weekend, so I'm not going to bother getting it now"
Now, that is, of course, the young lady or gentleman's free choice to make. I would not think to attack he/she personally. However, seeing as there does seem to be an overwhelming need for longevity in todays games I'm just beginning to wonder if we the public are getting a bit tight with our money. Afterall surely its not just quantity but, more importantly, quality that we desire from forthcoming releases.
Its happened in the video market and the music market, now video games seem to be being struck.
The prime example is music. I infact know a staggering amount of people that buy a CD and then rush home slot it into their CD player and then, I know what you're thinking, "press play right?" wrong! No infact they then look at the LCD display to find out how long the album is. If its, say a 60 minute album, they feel they've got value for money, just. If its 75+ minutes, they are as happy God was on his day off. However, if the album comes in at 45 minutes or less, they consider returning it! (This is before having heard it you understand)
Why is it that we are so eager for games to take us ages to complete? I personally would much rather have a quality game such as Metal Gear Solid and clear it in 10 hours than have a crappy RPG that lasted me months.
Its all about the experience the game gives us. If a game is short but absolutely fantastic, then surely we will play again and again for the enjoyment?
I play MGS time and again. Tony Hawks 3, I cleared in a day, (only with one character mind) yet continue to play time and again.
The industry does seem to be heeding the call for longevity though. Games are growing in length, we have Jak & Daxter just released thats set to be HUGE, luckily for we gamers it also sounds like its going to be something special; i.e. gamers will actually enjoy it enough to get right to the end and maybe even play again!
That, within the gaming industry, is becoming a rarity. Games are becoming more of a "once through" experience in some cases, but the worst cases of all are these "epic" games that, while not awful, are a little below par. Result? Unfinished games.
Have a look through your back catalogue of games, be honest now. How many games have you got or gotten rid of that are/ were unfinished? Not because they were bad necessarily, but just because the gameplay got a bit stale, or the story didn't grip you enough. How many huh?
I know I've got a few kicking about collecting dust or have been taken down the swap shop.
"Shadow man" for instance, I thought would be great. Recieved high scores (N64 version anyway) from magazines such as Edge, was supposed to be HUGE and I thought would be a pleasure to get into and.... oh no, it got real dull, real quick... I lost interest. Yes I could have stuck at it etc. But shouldn't the game make me want to do that? Or have I missed something?
Yes, I know that it largely comes down to personal coice yadda yadda yadda, but really, I'm all for games that I can play over and over, instead of epic games that are a chore to finish.
Page:
Meanwhile, I'd finished it and wondered why there wasn't more...
I can see now that it wasn't the fact that the game wasn't big enough, it's the fact that the game was a bit too easy (apart from bosses), meaning that you'd go through quite easily.
The multiplayer was nearly great, but not quite...
I can see now that it wasn't the fact that the game wasn't big enough, it's the fact that the game was a bit too easy (apart from bosses), meaning that you'd go through quite easily.
The multiplayer was nearly great, but not quite...
Iv'e had JFG for almost a year now and still have'nt completed it as i left it for a while, am playing it now though but it's one big game.
slik ~_~
slik ~_~
Well of course multi player games are were its at for longevity, but as for one player gaming. Games should just be more fun/ interesting.
Good point about puzzle orientated games by the way. Those are obviously going to lose a lot on repeated plays. However, if a film that relies on multiple story twists can command rewatch value, then I think puzzle orientated gaming still has something to aim for.
I remember a game called "Flashback" on the SNES, that had action elements but was largely a puzzley story driven quest from A to B, but I played it through countless times because I enjoyed it sooooo much. You could clear it in a few hours easy, but I just kept goig back.
I got so good eventually that I could get through the full game in one sitting on one life on expert mode. Damn that was fun!
Renting games that are short is fine and dandy, but again I'd prefer a game that makes me want to play it time and again, same as you buy DVD films or videos that you want to watch time and again. Gaming is only just starting to head down the path of blending the two to create a cinematic re-playable experience. This is good to see, but not necessary. Games are to be played, therefore surely the prime source of interest should be playability (films you watch, music you listen, etc)
Bomberman anyone?
Good point about puzzle orientated games by the way. Those are obviously going to lose a lot on repeated plays. However, if a film that relies on multiple story twists can command rewatch value, then I think puzzle orientated gaming still has something to aim for.
I remember a game called "Flashback" on the SNES, that had action elements but was largely a puzzley story driven quest from A to B, but I played it through countless times because I enjoyed it sooooo much. You could clear it in a few hours easy, but I just kept goig back.
I got so good eventually that I could get through the full game in one sitting on one life on expert mode. Damn that was fun!
Renting games that are short is fine and dandy, but again I'd prefer a game that makes me want to play it time and again, same as you buy DVD films or videos that you want to watch time and again. Gaming is only just starting to head down the path of blending the two to create a cinematic re-playable experience. This is good to see, but not necessary. Games are to be played, therefore surely the prime source of interest should be playability (films you watch, music you listen, etc)
Bomberman anyone?
Goldeneye is a great example of a multiplayer game. While I had it, it lasted me for ages, but even when I didn't have it, it still lasted me ages. This was one multiplayer games I was good at.
There was a Sixth Form competition once, and I cam second, with one person beating me to it.
Multiplayer always adds to the longetivity of a game.
There was a Sixth Form competition once, and I cam second, with one person beating me to it.
Multiplayer always adds to the longetivity of a game.
Goten wrote:
> I also like to get my moneys worth out of a game. I love a good single player
> game, with a good plot. But, a game with multiplayer, just makes the game last
> longer.
That's something I forgot to mention. I find multiplayer almost essential when I buy a game. Goldeneye lasted 5 months (the only game I had aside from Mario64 which only lasted until I collected all 120 stars) and although it did get a little bit tiring towards the end, playing multiplayer was great fun, especially when you can make your own rules.
Pistols, Lisence to kill in the facility.
The aim was to be king of the vent.
You got into the vent using that special trick printed in various magazines and had to have a leaning/strafing shoot out with the opponent in the cramped blue tunnel.
It was great fun. We even made a rule where you can't shoot someone while they're in the toilets to put emphasis on the vent shoot-outs.
And on the subject of games being to short, I completely agree with
> you Tarrant, it really is the quality that counts, but, saying that, if your
> going to complete it then ditch it, is it worth the money. If people worry so
> much about a game being to short, why not just hire it out.
That's what I plan to with Luigi's Mansion and any other Gamecube games which are good but won't last long.
If a lot of people do this, perhaps it'll encourage devellopers you put more in the games.
> I also like to get my moneys worth out of a game. I love a good single player
> game, with a good plot. But, a game with multiplayer, just makes the game last
> longer.
That's something I forgot to mention. I find multiplayer almost essential when I buy a game. Goldeneye lasted 5 months (the only game I had aside from Mario64 which only lasted until I collected all 120 stars) and although it did get a little bit tiring towards the end, playing multiplayer was great fun, especially when you can make your own rules.
Pistols, Lisence to kill in the facility.
The aim was to be king of the vent.
You got into the vent using that special trick printed in various magazines and had to have a leaning/strafing shoot out with the opponent in the cramped blue tunnel.
It was great fun. We even made a rule where you can't shoot someone while they're in the toilets to put emphasis on the vent shoot-outs.
And on the subject of games being to short, I completely agree with
> you Tarrant, it really is the quality that counts, but, saying that, if your
> going to complete it then ditch it, is it worth the money. If people worry so
> much about a game being to short, why not just hire it out.
That's what I plan to with Luigi's Mansion and any other Gamecube games which are good but won't last long.
If a lot of people do this, perhaps it'll encourage devellopers you put more in the games.
I also like to get my moneys worth out of a game. I love a good single player game, with a good plot. But, a game with multiplayer, just makes the game last longer.
And on the subject of games being to short, I completely agree with you Tarrant, it really is the quality that counts, but, saying that, if your going to complete it then ditch it, is it worth the money. If people worry so much about a game being to short, why not just hire it out.
Games always last a reasonable long time with me, because I like to play games in short bursts. That way the game will last a lot longer, as opposed to playing it non stop and completing it on that day or the next.
And on the subject of games being to short, I completely agree with you Tarrant, it really is the quality that counts, but, saying that, if your going to complete it then ditch it, is it worth the money. If people worry so much about a game being to short, why not just hire it out.
Games always last a reasonable long time with me, because I like to play games in short bursts. That way the game will last a lot longer, as opposed to playing it non stop and completing it on that day or the next.
Personally, I like to get my money's worth from a game.
I'd rather have a good game than a dull long one but at the same time, it doesn't HAVE to get boring.
It depends on what the devellopers put into and get out of it.
Some game don't need to be long to be long lasting.
Monkey Ball and Goldeneye, for example, are split into these levels. You play through a level, trying to beat each one, being stuck on the odd level for days before moving on.
Once you finish the game, you can go back to play through your favourite level, try to get faster times, look for secrets, play on a harder difficulty setting and generally mess around.
Adventure games, on the other hand, aren't so good to come back to as a lot of it is based on puzzle solving and storyline twists which aren't so hot the second time round.
That's why I prefer these types of games to be longer.
And if some players do get bored, they don't HAVE to finish it. Just have the rest of it there to appease the more hardcore gamers who want to milk the game they spent their hard earned cash on for all its worth.
I'd rather have a good game than a dull long one but at the same time, it doesn't HAVE to get boring.
It depends on what the devellopers put into and get out of it.
Some game don't need to be long to be long lasting.
Monkey Ball and Goldeneye, for example, are split into these levels. You play through a level, trying to beat each one, being stuck on the odd level for days before moving on.
Once you finish the game, you can go back to play through your favourite level, try to get faster times, look for secrets, play on a harder difficulty setting and generally mess around.
Adventure games, on the other hand, aren't so good to come back to as a lot of it is based on puzzle solving and storyline twists which aren't so hot the second time round.
That's why I prefer these types of games to be longer.
And if some players do get bored, they don't HAVE to finish it. Just have the rest of it there to appease the more hardcore gamers who want to milk the game they spent their hard earned cash on for all its worth.
I have (tried) to complete ever game i have ever bought, But some times the game just gets sooo repetitive that you dont want to finish it.
A great example of a game that you want to play again and again is Red Faction for the PS2 now that is a game with a great storyline and it has loads of twists and turns.
A great example of a game that you want to play again and again is Red Faction for the PS2 now that is a game with a great storyline and it has loads of twists and turns.
Page: