The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When you read the title you’ll probably put on your best Kenneth Williams voice and say “Oh, matron”, but I am of course, referring to the length of games. (Heh, what else could I be referring to?) ;-D
Specifically, I’m talking about Nintendo and the recent fact or rumour that many big N games in the future will be short and sweet affairs.
It could be a possibility that the epic Mario and Zelda adventures of the past could be resigned to a place in the gaming history books.
Nintendo games like Zelda: Ocarina of Time were only really accessible to the so called ‘hardcore gamers’, and casual gamers found them too epic and time consuming to stick with. So a lot of effort on the part of the developers was only seen by the minority of gamers.
The video games industry is now huge. Globally, it is worth billions of pounds and with all that money around, more companies like Microsoft want a slice of the gaming pie. It is time for companies like Nintendo to change their strategies or be crowded out of the industry.
But does this mean that Nintendo will be ‘selling out’ their devoted fans to the mass-market if they make their games shorter and with a broader appeal?
Developing long, epic games is not good business sense. Think about it, the longer the game takes to develop, the more money you pay to the developers, testers, etc. And the longer the game, the longer it takes for gamers to finish said game. If the game was shorter however, it would cost less and take less time to develop and take less time for the gamer to finish, so a gamer would buy another new game sooner. So basically, in the space of playing one epic game, a gamer could play two or three short games.
Mario Tennis, developed by Camelot, is an example of a Nintendo game that has long lasting appeal, but which only took the developers under a year to make. Although Mario Tennis is not an epic adventure, it is a very fun game that can be enjoyed by both expert and novice gamers alike.
Luigi’s Mansion and Pikmin are both new Gamecube games that have reasonably short life spans, but are both great games.
Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil have had huge success and are examples of games that take about five hours or less to finish, but have great replay value and contained stories.
Like many other big Nintendo fans, if they do decide to make games shorter in the future, I will miss the epic adventures of old.
However, I know that Nintendo would only do such a thing if the nature of the industry decreed it. After all, this is only another chapter in the history of the games industry, and maybe in a few years, longer games will be more in demand.
It will be a shame if the new Zelda on Gamecube is too short. On the other hand, it would be good for younger gamers to enjoy a good Zelda game, and stand the chance of actually completing it, without feeling daunted by the size of the game.
As experience has taught me, trust Nintendo 100%. They haven’t let us down in the past have they?
Specifically, I’m talking about Nintendo and the recent fact or rumour that many big N games in the future will be short and sweet affairs.
It could be a possibility that the epic Mario and Zelda adventures of the past could be resigned to a place in the gaming history books.
Nintendo games like Zelda: Ocarina of Time were only really accessible to the so called ‘hardcore gamers’, and casual gamers found them too epic and time consuming to stick with. So a lot of effort on the part of the developers was only seen by the minority of gamers.
The video games industry is now huge. Globally, it is worth billions of pounds and with all that money around, more companies like Microsoft want a slice of the gaming pie. It is time for companies like Nintendo to change their strategies or be crowded out of the industry.
But does this mean that Nintendo will be ‘selling out’ their devoted fans to the mass-market if they make their games shorter and with a broader appeal?
Developing long, epic games is not good business sense. Think about it, the longer the game takes to develop, the more money you pay to the developers, testers, etc. And the longer the game, the longer it takes for gamers to finish said game. If the game was shorter however, it would cost less and take less time to develop and take less time for the gamer to finish, so a gamer would buy another new game sooner. So basically, in the space of playing one epic game, a gamer could play two or three short games.
Mario Tennis, developed by Camelot, is an example of a Nintendo game that has long lasting appeal, but which only took the developers under a year to make. Although Mario Tennis is not an epic adventure, it is a very fun game that can be enjoyed by both expert and novice gamers alike.
Luigi’s Mansion and Pikmin are both new Gamecube games that have reasonably short life spans, but are both great games.
Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil have had huge success and are examples of games that take about five hours or less to finish, but have great replay value and contained stories.
Like many other big Nintendo fans, if they do decide to make games shorter in the future, I will miss the epic adventures of old.
However, I know that Nintendo would only do such a thing if the nature of the industry decreed it. After all, this is only another chapter in the history of the games industry, and maybe in a few years, longer games will be more in demand.
It will be a shame if the new Zelda on Gamecube is too short. On the other hand, it would be good for younger gamers to enjoy a good Zelda game, and stand the chance of actually completing it, without feeling daunted by the size of the game.
As experience has taught me, trust Nintendo 100%. They haven’t let us down in the past have they?
Page:
Personally, I thought OOT could have been longer. I was sad to see it end, it could have gone on a hell of a lot longer for me.
Turbonutter wrote:
>although I think Zelda OOT was too long; I got bored and stopped playing it.
Yes, it was very long. My brother did a similar thing with Zelda: Majoras Mask.
>although I think Zelda OOT was too long; I got bored and stopped playing it.
Yes, it was very long. My brother did a similar thing with Zelda: Majoras Mask.
As long as possible. A game should be as long as the developer can make it, although it must hold interest throughout. MGS could have gone on for much longer, although I think Zelda OOT was too long; I got bored and stopped playing it.
Hurraahh!
We agree.
And i wonder if GTA3 would be as good as it is if it had smaller levels/cities? Course not.
Exploring every little bit of those cities was/is great.
What is the perfect length for a game??
MGS or Zelda length?
We agree.
And i wonder if GTA3 would be as good as it is if it had smaller levels/cities? Course not.
Exploring every little bit of those cities was/is great.
What is the perfect length for a game??
MGS or Zelda length?
Yes, of course it'll be worse. You'll get less enjoyment out of it.
MGS is a fantastic game, but definitely made worse by it apparent lack of length, even if I did play it three times.
Look at it like this:
In Zelda OOT, would the game be as good as it is if it suddenly stopped once you got to that village place? Of course it wouldn't.
MGS is a fantastic game, but definitely made worse by it apparent lack of length, even if I did play it three times.
Look at it like this:
In Zelda OOT, would the game be as good as it is if it suddenly stopped once you got to that village place? Of course it wouldn't.
The example was Zelda on the Gamecube.
If it was a shorter quest, would it be worse??
I would obviously prefer it to be a long epic adventure.
Short action games like MGS and Resident Evil have their place and so do long lasting adventures like Zelda.
If it was a shorter quest, would it be worse??
I would obviously prefer it to be a long epic adventure.
Short action games like MGS and Resident Evil have their place and so do long lasting adventures like Zelda.
Yes, and I gave you an opinion. It doesn't matter how good or Nintendo-ified a game is, if it's short it's crap. Now, whether you're counting length and longevity as the same thing is a different matter.
yea, i didn't want to get into any arguments, i just wanted to hear peoples opinions on the length of future of Nintendo games. ;)
Erm, yeah, right...
In fact, I've been here about a year, but only been actively posting for about 6 months. Also I don't try and win GAD, it just happens every now and again. So, I say again, don't get into this argument with me or you might get your fingers burnt.
In fact, I've been here about a year, but only been actively posting for about 6 months. Also I don't try and win GAD, it just happens every now and again. So, I say again, don't get into this argument with me or you might get your fingers burnt.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Erm, look, I really wouldn't get into an argument with me about this. I was
> posting better stuff on here than this before you even registered.
Yes, but in the huge 665 days you've been registered, you've only won 9 GADs. But i've done 6 reviews and won with 2 of them already.
Plus the fact that i've been playing games since you were only an itch in your daddies crotch.
> Erm, look, I really wouldn't get into an argument with me about this. I was
> posting better stuff on here than this before you even registered.
Yes, but in the huge 665 days you've been registered, you've only won 9 GADs. But i've done 6 reviews and won with 2 of them already.
Plus the fact that i've been playing games since you were only an itch in your daddies crotch.
Page: