The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Yep, you heard me, playing games is a lot like Cadbury’s Crème-eggs. No, not in the sense that games are an edible object - nor in the sense that they have a creamy inside coated with a delicious chocolate coating that is impossible to eat cleanly without stuffing it in your gob in one go. No, I mean in the sense of Crème-eggs current advertising slogan, the ‘How do you eat yours?’ mantra - similar in the respect that it poses a question I will slightly adapt to suit the purpose of this post - namely ‘How do you play yours?’ (referring of course, to games). Ahem. Now that that somewhat tenuous and contrived link is over with (it seemed like a good idea at the time), I present you with the talking point of today’s post, namely How Different Individuals Play Games… Differently.
The nature of games is changing, and nowhere is that more evident than in the goings-on within the four walls of Nintendo HQ. Long famed for their huge time-consuming epics like Mario 64 and most noticeably Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, the birth of the Gamecube has witnessed a shift in attitude towards more compact, smaller games that offer more in the way of replay value than a 40-hour investment. Until I play it I’ll reserve my judgement on the impending Zelda, The Wind Waker (turning that into a short-lived experience certainly would have caused a stir), but games like Pikmin and Luigi’s Mansion are indicative of this new approach - Shigsy himself said he intended Pikmin to be a short game, but hoped ‘everyone would play it through at least three times’.
But what does this say of us as gamers? Is it a sign that developers research has revealed that most people simply don’t have time to sit down tackling massive games (I remember reading a letter in Edge magazine a year ago where a gamer bemoaned the fact that games like Zelda are impossible to play for a short while, and leaving it and coming back is impossible) - that, just as most of us have become accustomed to a certain mentality where ‘fast’ everything dominates, that that mentality appears to have been extended to games as well?
Not everyone has time to play these sorts of game, that is obvious. It is rare for a game to come along that can provide a short burst of enjoyment, and provide a long term challenge to the more discerning gamer - of the recent load, I’d say the Tony Hawk series has got it - brilliant to play for 10 minutes, but also possessing enough depth and the right learning curve for others. GTA: Vice City is another example - it has the longevity to enable gamers to play for hours, but its also enjoyable in spurts of madly controlled mayhem. Sadly, they are the exception than the rule - the onset of the ‘Playstation generation’ has to be credited with this shift. The PSOne, whilst undeniably bringing games to a whole new wave of people that has allowed it to enjoy the success it does today, can also be credited to causing a shift in style of play, with games like Wipeout notable. Whilst the majority of gamers are still in the 12-24 age bracket, as time goes on the youngsters who played the games of yesteryear will still be playing, and other commitments means that ‘gaming on the go’ could be the new style.
Of course, different individuals play games differently, as I stated earlier. Personally, I love the sprawling worlds of a Final Fantasy or Zelda, getting immersed in the story and really delving into all aspects of the gameplay - like films, it’s a form of escapism where you can forget your troubles for a few hours and reach into another world. Importantly, its value for money - with three consoles vying for your money and your love (more if you count the PC and GBA), the respective wallet is taking a helluva beating right now. People, whilst perhaps changing the way they play, still expect value for money, and short-style games like Luigi’s Mansion didn’t exactly provide it - just as your were settling in the end boss popped up. It represents a difficult choice on how to strike the balance between getting longevity right and ensuring its money well spent in the process.
But as well as talking about the games themselves, I also want to delve into the nature of how different people play games, regardless of their style. There’s always one on the forums who, upon release date (or soon after) announces their x% of the way through, and then proceeds to spoil it for everyone else. Are you one of those who gets a new game, runs home and then proceeds to play it all in mammoth gaming session? Personally, I prefer spreading them out - if anything, you get a little disappointed (especially if it’s a classic) when you discover you’ve already done 30% in one night, and again it all goes back to that value for money thing.
Furthermore, are we enjoying our games to the maximum potential? Is every item collected, every target attained… maximum difficulty attempted? As much as it pains my games playing ego to say it, I know I have switched to the ‘easy’ setting mid-game because I wanted to reach the end quicker, or because the next big thing was on the horizon? Don’t pretend you don’t do it either, you know you do. But is that really getting the best out of the game? A lot of games only bring out the extra good stuff for the hardest difficulty, and one thing’s for sure, you feel a helluva lot better completing a level on hard difficulty than if you cheated and wimped your way to the end. With many games offering different levels of difficulty, maybe we should look at the way we’re playing and see if we’re really getting the best out of them.
To quote Austin Powers… ‘and I’m spent’. Thanks for reading.
The nature of games is changing, and nowhere is that more evident than in the goings-on within the four walls of Nintendo HQ. Long famed for their huge time-consuming epics like Mario 64 and most noticeably Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, the birth of the Gamecube has witnessed a shift in attitude towards more compact, smaller games that offer more in the way of replay value than a 40-hour investment. Until I play it I’ll reserve my judgement on the impending Zelda, The Wind Waker (turning that into a short-lived experience certainly would have caused a stir), but games like Pikmin and Luigi’s Mansion are indicative of this new approach - Shigsy himself said he intended Pikmin to be a short game, but hoped ‘everyone would play it through at least three times’.
But what does this say of us as gamers? Is it a sign that developers research has revealed that most people simply don’t have time to sit down tackling massive games (I remember reading a letter in Edge magazine a year ago where a gamer bemoaned the fact that games like Zelda are impossible to play for a short while, and leaving it and coming back is impossible) - that, just as most of us have become accustomed to a certain mentality where ‘fast’ everything dominates, that that mentality appears to have been extended to games as well?
Not everyone has time to play these sorts of game, that is obvious. It is rare for a game to come along that can provide a short burst of enjoyment, and provide a long term challenge to the more discerning gamer - of the recent load, I’d say the Tony Hawk series has got it - brilliant to play for 10 minutes, but also possessing enough depth and the right learning curve for others. GTA: Vice City is another example - it has the longevity to enable gamers to play for hours, but its also enjoyable in spurts of madly controlled mayhem. Sadly, they are the exception than the rule - the onset of the ‘Playstation generation’ has to be credited with this shift. The PSOne, whilst undeniably bringing games to a whole new wave of people that has allowed it to enjoy the success it does today, can also be credited to causing a shift in style of play, with games like Wipeout notable. Whilst the majority of gamers are still in the 12-24 age bracket, as time goes on the youngsters who played the games of yesteryear will still be playing, and other commitments means that ‘gaming on the go’ could be the new style.
Of course, different individuals play games differently, as I stated earlier. Personally, I love the sprawling worlds of a Final Fantasy or Zelda, getting immersed in the story and really delving into all aspects of the gameplay - like films, it’s a form of escapism where you can forget your troubles for a few hours and reach into another world. Importantly, its value for money - with three consoles vying for your money and your love (more if you count the PC and GBA), the respective wallet is taking a helluva beating right now. People, whilst perhaps changing the way they play, still expect value for money, and short-style games like Luigi’s Mansion didn’t exactly provide it - just as your were settling in the end boss popped up. It represents a difficult choice on how to strike the balance between getting longevity right and ensuring its money well spent in the process.
But as well as talking about the games themselves, I also want to delve into the nature of how different people play games, regardless of their style. There’s always one on the forums who, upon release date (or soon after) announces their x% of the way through, and then proceeds to spoil it for everyone else. Are you one of those who gets a new game, runs home and then proceeds to play it all in mammoth gaming session? Personally, I prefer spreading them out - if anything, you get a little disappointed (especially if it’s a classic) when you discover you’ve already done 30% in one night, and again it all goes back to that value for money thing.
Furthermore, are we enjoying our games to the maximum potential? Is every item collected, every target attained… maximum difficulty attempted? As much as it pains my games playing ego to say it, I know I have switched to the ‘easy’ setting mid-game because I wanted to reach the end quicker, or because the next big thing was on the horizon? Don’t pretend you don’t do it either, you know you do. But is that really getting the best out of the game? A lot of games only bring out the extra good stuff for the hardest difficulty, and one thing’s for sure, you feel a helluva lot better completing a level on hard difficulty than if you cheated and wimped your way to the end. With many games offering different levels of difficulty, maybe we should look at the way we’re playing and see if we’re really getting the best out of them.
To quote Austin Powers… ‘and I’m spent’. Thanks for reading.
Make that 2 people! :)
I reckon that no matter how hard they try to make sure a game is both playable and enjoyable for anyone, of any age, it just won't be possible. Make a game short for the older gamers with very little free-time, and it's just too-short for the youngsters. But by keeping gamers 'longer', the 'experienced' gamers just won't have the appropriate time to play it through, properly.
I sort of fear for the day when I will be too-old and too-busy to spend even several hours a week on the latest RPG-adventure, after having had all-the-time-in-the-world (more-or-less...) to do so as a kid.
That's why I try to play as many different types of games now, while I can still get the most of them, before I get back into the real world. :)
Being young is all about having fun, while you can!
But how could a game be made that is somewhere half-way between the shortness that an adult gamer needs, and the longevity that a younger gamer has all the time to enjoy?
I noticed something in your post that gave me an idea - about creating shorter games, but creating them with lots of hidden little extras to collect, find, and discover, that'll bring in a bit of replay-value, for the kiddies. Without using cheats, people are always coming back to the Grand Theft Auto games for the hard-to-find weapons, or the Tank.
But with some games, that just isn't possible. And despite what some may think after Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, and even Mario SunShine, I doubt that Zelda: The Wind Waker will be anything short of what it normally is!
It's an adventure, after all. But the different endings in games like Pikmin; and different ways-to-do-things in Shenmue - those help.
I reckon that no matter how hard they try to make sure a game is both playable and enjoyable for anyone, of any age, it just won't be possible. Make a game short for the older gamers with very little free-time, and it's just too-short for the youngsters. But by keeping gamers 'longer', the 'experienced' gamers just won't have the appropriate time to play it through, properly.
I sort of fear for the day when I will be too-old and too-busy to spend even several hours a week on the latest RPG-adventure, after having had all-the-time-in-the-world (more-or-less...) to do so as a kid.
That's why I try to play as many different types of games now, while I can still get the most of them, before I get back into the real world. :)
Being young is all about having fun, while you can!
But how could a game be made that is somewhere half-way between the shortness that an adult gamer needs, and the longevity that a younger gamer has all the time to enjoy?
I noticed something in your post that gave me an idea - about creating shorter games, but creating them with lots of hidden little extras to collect, find, and discover, that'll bring in a bit of replay-value, for the kiddies. Without using cheats, people are always coming back to the Grand Theft Auto games for the hard-to-find weapons, or the Tank.
But with some games, that just isn't possible. And despite what some may think after Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, and even Mario SunShine, I doubt that Zelda: The Wind Waker will be anything short of what it normally is!
It's an adventure, after all. But the different endings in games like Pikmin; and different ways-to-do-things in Shenmue - those help.
I know, it was half-baked attempt to compel people to read the post - which, judging by the looks of it, has yielded one result.
Ok, now I've read it, and agree completely, that people should try and play their games differently (That's what you were trying to say, right?). Though, I like perfectly well the way I play mine, play when I get home, play all weekend, play when I'm sent to bed, etc.
THis has no relation to anything in the post, except the title. If gaming was like créme eggs, than I'd hate gaming. WHich is clearly untrue.
Oh, and, I only read the first paragraph or so, now I'll read the rest.
Oh, and, I only read the first paragraph or so, now I'll read the rest.
Yep, you heard me, playing games is a lot like Cadbury’s Crème-eggs. No, not in the sense that games are an edible object - nor in the sense that they have a creamy inside coated with a delicious chocolate coating that is impossible to eat cleanly without stuffing it in your gob in one go. No, I mean in the sense of Crème-eggs current advertising slogan, the ‘How do you eat yours?’ mantra - similar in the respect that it poses a question I will slightly adapt to suit the purpose of this post - namely ‘How do you play yours?’ (referring of course, to games). Ahem. Now that that somewhat tenuous and contrived link is over with (it seemed like a good idea at the time), I present you with the talking point of today’s post, namely How Different Individuals Play Games… Differently.
The nature of games is changing, and nowhere is that more evident than in the goings-on within the four walls of Nintendo HQ. Long famed for their huge time-consuming epics like Mario 64 and most noticeably Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, the birth of the Gamecube has witnessed a shift in attitude towards more compact, smaller games that offer more in the way of replay value than a 40-hour investment. Until I play it I’ll reserve my judgement on the impending Zelda, The Wind Waker (turning that into a short-lived experience certainly would have caused a stir), but games like Pikmin and Luigi’s Mansion are indicative of this new approach - Shigsy himself said he intended Pikmin to be a short game, but hoped ‘everyone would play it through at least three times’.
But what does this say of us as gamers? Is it a sign that developers research has revealed that most people simply don’t have time to sit down tackling massive games (I remember reading a letter in Edge magazine a year ago where a gamer bemoaned the fact that games like Zelda are impossible to play for a short while, and leaving it and coming back is impossible) - that, just as most of us have become accustomed to a certain mentality where ‘fast’ everything dominates, that that mentality appears to have been extended to games as well?
Not everyone has time to play these sorts of game, that is obvious. It is rare for a game to come along that can provide a short burst of enjoyment, and provide a long term challenge to the more discerning gamer - of the recent load, I’d say the Tony Hawk series has got it - brilliant to play for 10 minutes, but also possessing enough depth and the right learning curve for others. GTA: Vice City is another example - it has the longevity to enable gamers to play for hours, but its also enjoyable in spurts of madly controlled mayhem. Sadly, they are the exception than the rule - the onset of the ‘Playstation generation’ has to be credited with this shift. The PSOne, whilst undeniably bringing games to a whole new wave of people that has allowed it to enjoy the success it does today, can also be credited to causing a shift in style of play, with games like Wipeout notable. Whilst the majority of gamers are still in the 12-24 age bracket, as time goes on the youngsters who played the games of yesteryear will still be playing, and other commitments means that ‘gaming on the go’ could be the new style.
Of course, different individuals play games differently, as I stated earlier. Personally, I love the sprawling worlds of a Final Fantasy or Zelda, getting immersed in the story and really delving into all aspects of the gameplay - like films, it’s a form of escapism where you can forget your troubles for a few hours and reach into another world. Importantly, its value for money - with three consoles vying for your money and your love (more if you count the PC and GBA), the respective wallet is taking a helluva beating right now. People, whilst perhaps changing the way they play, still expect value for money, and short-style games like Luigi’s Mansion didn’t exactly provide it - just as your were settling in the end boss popped up. It represents a difficult choice on how to strike the balance between getting longevity right and ensuring its money well spent in the process.
But as well as talking about the games themselves, I also want to delve into the nature of how different people play games, regardless of their style. There’s always one on the forums who, upon release date (or soon after) announces their x% of the way through, and then proceeds to spoil it for everyone else. Are you one of those who gets a new game, runs home and then proceeds to play it all in mammoth gaming session? Personally, I prefer spreading them out - if anything, you get a little disappointed (especially if it’s a classic) when you discover you’ve already done 30% in one night, and again it all goes back to that value for money thing.
Furthermore, are we enjoying our games to the maximum potential? Is every item collected, every target attained… maximum difficulty attempted? As much as it pains my games playing ego to say it, I know I have switched to the ‘easy’ setting mid-game because I wanted to reach the end quicker, or because the next big thing was on the horizon? Don’t pretend you don’t do it either, you know you do. But is that really getting the best out of the game? A lot of games only bring out the extra good stuff for the hardest difficulty, and one thing’s for sure, you feel a helluva lot better completing a level on hard difficulty than if you cheated and wimped your way to the end. With many games offering different levels of difficulty, maybe we should look at the way we’re playing and see if we’re really getting the best out of them.
To quote Austin Powers… ‘and I’m spent’. Thanks for reading.
The nature of games is changing, and nowhere is that more evident than in the goings-on within the four walls of Nintendo HQ. Long famed for their huge time-consuming epics like Mario 64 and most noticeably Zelda: The Ocarina of Time, the birth of the Gamecube has witnessed a shift in attitude towards more compact, smaller games that offer more in the way of replay value than a 40-hour investment. Until I play it I’ll reserve my judgement on the impending Zelda, The Wind Waker (turning that into a short-lived experience certainly would have caused a stir), but games like Pikmin and Luigi’s Mansion are indicative of this new approach - Shigsy himself said he intended Pikmin to be a short game, but hoped ‘everyone would play it through at least three times’.
But what does this say of us as gamers? Is it a sign that developers research has revealed that most people simply don’t have time to sit down tackling massive games (I remember reading a letter in Edge magazine a year ago where a gamer bemoaned the fact that games like Zelda are impossible to play for a short while, and leaving it and coming back is impossible) - that, just as most of us have become accustomed to a certain mentality where ‘fast’ everything dominates, that that mentality appears to have been extended to games as well?
Not everyone has time to play these sorts of game, that is obvious. It is rare for a game to come along that can provide a short burst of enjoyment, and provide a long term challenge to the more discerning gamer - of the recent load, I’d say the Tony Hawk series has got it - brilliant to play for 10 minutes, but also possessing enough depth and the right learning curve for others. GTA: Vice City is another example - it has the longevity to enable gamers to play for hours, but its also enjoyable in spurts of madly controlled mayhem. Sadly, they are the exception than the rule - the onset of the ‘Playstation generation’ has to be credited with this shift. The PSOne, whilst undeniably bringing games to a whole new wave of people that has allowed it to enjoy the success it does today, can also be credited to causing a shift in style of play, with games like Wipeout notable. Whilst the majority of gamers are still in the 12-24 age bracket, as time goes on the youngsters who played the games of yesteryear will still be playing, and other commitments means that ‘gaming on the go’ could be the new style.
Of course, different individuals play games differently, as I stated earlier. Personally, I love the sprawling worlds of a Final Fantasy or Zelda, getting immersed in the story and really delving into all aspects of the gameplay - like films, it’s a form of escapism where you can forget your troubles for a few hours and reach into another world. Importantly, its value for money - with three consoles vying for your money and your love (more if you count the PC and GBA), the respective wallet is taking a helluva beating right now. People, whilst perhaps changing the way they play, still expect value for money, and short-style games like Luigi’s Mansion didn’t exactly provide it - just as your were settling in the end boss popped up. It represents a difficult choice on how to strike the balance between getting longevity right and ensuring its money well spent in the process.
But as well as talking about the games themselves, I also want to delve into the nature of how different people play games, regardless of their style. There’s always one on the forums who, upon release date (or soon after) announces their x% of the way through, and then proceeds to spoil it for everyone else. Are you one of those who gets a new game, runs home and then proceeds to play it all in mammoth gaming session? Personally, I prefer spreading them out - if anything, you get a little disappointed (especially if it’s a classic) when you discover you’ve already done 30% in one night, and again it all goes back to that value for money thing.
Furthermore, are we enjoying our games to the maximum potential? Is every item collected, every target attained… maximum difficulty attempted? As much as it pains my games playing ego to say it, I know I have switched to the ‘easy’ setting mid-game because I wanted to reach the end quicker, or because the next big thing was on the horizon? Don’t pretend you don’t do it either, you know you do. But is that really getting the best out of the game? A lot of games only bring out the extra good stuff for the hardest difficulty, and one thing’s for sure, you feel a helluva lot better completing a level on hard difficulty than if you cheated and wimped your way to the end. With many games offering different levels of difficulty, maybe we should look at the way we’re playing and see if we’re really getting the best out of them.
To quote Austin Powers… ‘and I’m spent’. Thanks for reading.