The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I have found that some of my most enjoyable games have been short games.
Keeping games short and sweet alows the developer to concentrate more on making sure that the gameplay elements are more enjoyable during them few hours. This is opposed to say making a game 40 hours but filling it up with boring crap.
Conkers bad fur day, is probably one of my most enjoyable games to this very day. It only took me bout 12 hours to complete first time round, but it was amazing to play. This was pritty remarkable for Rare to make a platformer this enjoyable and refreshing, especially after releasing the very very boring DK64 in the same sort of shell as Banjo-kazooie.
It may be argued that even Conker was in the same sort of shell, but the gameplay style of of bad fur day were very different. It involved much more enjoyable activities, compared to collecting say 100 bananas on each level. Instead the gameplay was based much more around speach, and cut-scenes showing conker interacting with the surrounding characters which made it a much more enjoyable experience for the gamer.
Anyway, I'm straing from the point here! Conker was sooo much damn fun becasue it was short. Maybe RARE were restricted by the size of the N64 carts from making a bigger game, but maybe Conkers bad fur day was the better for it!
More and more of the latest games seem to be very short, yet very enjoyable. Devil May Cry is a very recent example of. Apparently not more than 10 hours gameplay, yet it has been acclaimed as a huge leap from its roots in the Resi series. Silent hill is another example of a short game, only 8 hours i hear.
But for all you gamers saying you are being conned, saying 8 hours gameplay isnt worth £40, then there are also titles to suit your needs. Jak and Daxter is apparently 40 hours plus, and is considered a mario beater.
Well there you have it, will the future bombard us with short games? Or will there be a fine balance of between shorties and the more in-depth longer games?
Shigsy, has stated that to appeal to younger gamers he would make games shorter...make what you will of that. But would he really release a short Zelda game?
Keeping games short and sweet alows the developer to concentrate more on making sure that the gameplay elements are more enjoyable during them few hours. This is opposed to say making a game 40 hours but filling it up with boring crap.
Conkers bad fur day, is probably one of my most enjoyable games to this very day. It only took me bout 12 hours to complete first time round, but it was amazing to play. This was pritty remarkable for Rare to make a platformer this enjoyable and refreshing, especially after releasing the very very boring DK64 in the same sort of shell as Banjo-kazooie.
It may be argued that even Conker was in the same sort of shell, but the gameplay style of of bad fur day were very different. It involved much more enjoyable activities, compared to collecting say 100 bananas on each level. Instead the gameplay was based much more around speach, and cut-scenes showing conker interacting with the surrounding characters which made it a much more enjoyable experience for the gamer.
Anyway, I'm straing from the point here! Conker was sooo much damn fun becasue it was short. Maybe RARE were restricted by the size of the N64 carts from making a bigger game, but maybe Conkers bad fur day was the better for it!
More and more of the latest games seem to be very short, yet very enjoyable. Devil May Cry is a very recent example of. Apparently not more than 10 hours gameplay, yet it has been acclaimed as a huge leap from its roots in the Resi series. Silent hill is another example of a short game, only 8 hours i hear.
But for all you gamers saying you are being conned, saying 8 hours gameplay isnt worth £40, then there are also titles to suit your needs. Jak and Daxter is apparently 40 hours plus, and is considered a mario beater.
Well there you have it, will the future bombard us with short games? Or will there be a fine balance of between shorties and the more in-depth longer games?
Shigsy, has stated that to appeal to younger gamers he would make games shorter...make what you will of that. But would he really release a short Zelda game?
Page:
Dringo wrote:
> Ah yes the future of Nintendo shorter games.
Well Conker wasn't really short
> it just had those set pieces that moved us all along much quicker, it size is in
> Zelda proportions but Zelda lacked those cut scenes that forced us in certain
> directions and those side quests weren't in Conker.
But the most impressive thing about the N64 Zelda's was being able to do things your own way when you felt like it, rather than being pushed along in a single adventure.
It worked well for Conker but it'll ruin Zelda should the same technique be implimented!
> Ah yes the future of Nintendo shorter games.
Well Conker wasn't really short
> it just had those set pieces that moved us all along much quicker, it size is in
> Zelda proportions but Zelda lacked those cut scenes that forced us in certain
> directions and those side quests weren't in Conker.
But the most impressive thing about the N64 Zelda's was being able to do things your own way when you felt like it, rather than being pushed along in a single adventure.
It worked well for Conker but it'll ruin Zelda should the same technique be implimented!
Ah yes the future of Nintendo shorter games.
Well Conker wasn't really short it just had those set pieces that moved us all along much quicker, it size is in Zelda proportions but Zelda lacked those cut scenes that forced us in certain directions and those side quests weren't in Conker.
Ortega is right Conker rules visit www.conkula.com!
oh and could this really be a Ortega GAD attempt??!?!?!?!?!?
Well Conker wasn't really short it just had those set pieces that moved us all along much quicker, it size is in Zelda proportions but Zelda lacked those cut scenes that forced us in certain directions and those side quests weren't in Conker.
Ortega is right Conker rules visit www.conkula.com!
oh and could this really be a Ortega GAD attempt??!?!?!?!?!?
I think Strafex just hit the nail bang on the head there!
I'll have to agree with ya that the difficulty settings within a game can make it appeal to to a much wider audience.
Same with Super monkey ball on the Gamecube. Appealing to different gamers at different skill levels. Although Super monkey ball is stupidly hard on expert. This can lead to 2 outcomes i think. Either you got some proper hardcore gamer, that plays on it 24/7 and finally cracks expert mode...which is unlikely. Or people have a few goes at expert mode, and just say 'sod it!'
Thing with super monkey ball, is that so much of the 'good stuf' is unlocked or is in expert mode. So a gamer could be missing out on so much of the game by not playing on expert mode, and getting his/her value for money.
I'll have to agree with ya that the difficulty settings within a game can make it appeal to to a much wider audience.
Same with Super monkey ball on the Gamecube. Appealing to different gamers at different skill levels. Although Super monkey ball is stupidly hard on expert. This can lead to 2 outcomes i think. Either you got some proper hardcore gamer, that plays on it 24/7 and finally cracks expert mode...which is unlikely. Or people have a few goes at expert mode, and just say 'sod it!'
Thing with super monkey ball, is that so much of the 'good stuf' is unlocked or is in expert mode. So a gamer could be missing out on so much of the game by not playing on expert mode, and getting his/her value for money.
Meka_Dragon wrote:
> If a game is going to be relatively short, it really needs to have a multiplayer
> option, just to keep you playing it once you've finished the single player
> game.
Yes, a multiplayer extends a game's lifesoan infinately.
Goldeneye lasted over 3 months on multiplayer alone.
As did Smash Brothers.
Still, if the game is going to be no more than 20 hours, the least the could do is add in some harder difficulty settings in order to please those looking for a challenge.
Look at Goldeneye.
I finished Agent well within a week and it was easy.
This meant that casual gamers weren't scared off and could unlock the secret characters.
00 Agent, however, and getting the cheatmodes tested experts to the limits of their skills.
That boosted the lifespan nearly as much as the multiplayer did.
> If a game is going to be relatively short, it really needs to have a multiplayer
> option, just to keep you playing it once you've finished the single player
> game.
Yes, a multiplayer extends a game's lifesoan infinately.
Goldeneye lasted over 3 months on multiplayer alone.
As did Smash Brothers.
Still, if the game is going to be no more than 20 hours, the least the could do is add in some harder difficulty settings in order to please those looking for a challenge.
Look at Goldeneye.
I finished Agent well within a week and it was easy.
This meant that casual gamers weren't scared off and could unlock the secret characters.
00 Agent, however, and getting the cheatmodes tested experts to the limits of their skills.
That boosted the lifespan nearly as much as the multiplayer did.
If a game is going to be relatively short, it really needs to have a multiplayer option, just to keep you playing it once you've finished the single player game.
Mind you, I still haven't finished Conker yet, just don't get the time to play! I would have hated to finish a game too quickly years ago, but now, getting to the end would be an achievement!
Mind you, I still haven't finished Conker yet, just don't get the time to play! I would have hated to finish a game too quickly years ago, but now, getting to the end would be an achievement!
It's true that most games that are "long" tend to be drawn-out in a contrived manner.
Personally, 15 to 20 hours game-time for an adventure is just about right. I can finish it within about a week, then put it on side and look forward to replaying it.
Personally, 15 to 20 hours game-time for an adventure is just about right. I can finish it within about a week, then put it on side and look forward to replaying it.
Sure, I'd like a game long and sweet, but recently i have noticed that long games just dont seem to "do it" for me anymore.
Maybe its a case of the developers not being able to create a long game that still remains original. To have so much differentiation over a 40 hour+ game is a hard feat to accomplish.
Also, games aint cheap to make these days. And a lot of games dont make profit. So a developer may have to decide between producing a game that is short and concentrating on the gameplay, or producing somthin very long and puting less emphasis on the gameplay.
Maybe its a case of the developers not being able to create a long game that still remains original. To have so much differentiation over a 40 hour+ game is a hard feat to accomplish.
Also, games aint cheap to make these days. And a lot of games dont make profit. So a developer may have to decide between producing a game that is short and concentrating on the gameplay, or producing somthin very long and puting less emphasis on the gameplay.
Like Zelda the Orcarina of time was.
We know that Shigsy CAN make a good epic adventure.
The only reason why he wouldn't is that he'd want it done quickly in order to get onto the next project.
He's in to making "mini games" at the moment which suits some games like Pikmin but that's not the way I want Zelda or Mario to go.
Especially when I'll be paying up to £50 for each one...
We know that Shigsy CAN make a good epic adventure.
The only reason why he wouldn't is that he'd want it done quickly in order to get onto the next project.
He's in to making "mini games" at the moment which suits some games like Pikmin but that's not the way I want Zelda or Mario to go.
Especially when I'll be paying up to £50 for each one...
I've no problem at all in paying 30 to 45 quid on a game that is short and sweet, but obviously (and I think everyone would agree) - I would much prefer a game that is "long and sweet".
Some long games like DK64 were long and boring but that doesn't neccessarily mean that was the reason why it was boring.
I think that if devellopers could easily make a 60 hour fun quest if they put their minds to it.
As for Gamecube Zelda, if I hear that it is stupidly easy and linear and lasts less than 30 hours, I will not be buying it. Instead I will rent it and Nintendo will lose the sale.
I think that if devellopers could easily make a 60 hour fun quest if they put their minds to it.
As for Gamecube Zelda, if I hear that it is stupidly easy and linear and lasts less than 30 hours, I will not be buying it. Instead I will rent it and Nintendo will lose the sale.
Page: