The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
It's not the length...it's what you do with it that counts...
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.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Well I don't read your topics. I did skim it though and my comment is
> justified.
I don't read yours either.
Oh, sorry, i don't see any decent topics from you on this site.
> Well I don't read your topics. I did skim it though and my comment is
> justified.
I don't read yours either.
Oh, sorry, i don't see any decent topics from you on this site.
Well I don't read your topics. I did skim it though and my comment is justified.
Turbonutter wrote:
> Of course length is important. What a stupid topic.
If you would bother to read the full topic, you would see i was refering to the length of Nintendo games and the rumours that future Nintendo titles might be shorter!
> Of course length is important. What a stupid topic.
If you would bother to read the full topic, you would see i was refering to the length of Nintendo games and the rumours that future Nintendo titles might be shorter!
Of course length is important. What a stupid topic. I'm not going to sheel out £40, or even a GAD, for a game that lasts 10 hours no matter how visionary it is.
I think RESI is right on this one. When you finish a game quickly you are more likely to have enjoyed it and be wanting more! So you go down the shop and get another game...earning MR.Nintendo more money. Short games aint always a bad thing though...
The length of games isn't always important, Playing through metal gear solid takes a good 10+ hours but feels really short, your gagging for more just when it's all over and done with. Silent Hill 2 took me just under 10 hours but felt like an eternity, the steady pace of the game made the ending a joy to reach, Both took a similar amount of time but one felt short and one felt long meaning it's all down to content and how well it's presented.
Craw wrote:
> What about girth?
LOL, i was gonna post that.
> What about girth?
LOL, i was gonna post that.
Is it the curse of the casual gamer?
You have to be in it to win it. So does that mean that Nintendo must adopt the casual gaming approach to their games??
We've already seen evidence of this with Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, BUT....they were meant to be short games not long lasting quests like Zelda. So lets hope that Nitendo don't make all their games shorter. (Maybe we are worrying for no reason and Zelda will be big.)
You have to be in it to win it. So does that mean that Nintendo must adopt the casual gaming approach to their games??
We've already seen evidence of this with Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin, BUT....they were meant to be short games not long lasting quests like Zelda. So lets hope that Nitendo don't make all their games shorter. (Maybe we are worrying for no reason and Zelda will be big.)
Page: