The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
My point was that Goldeneye's single player was long lasting...
But you'r right. With that multiplayer in too, it lasted as my only N64 for nearly 6 months.
Now THAT's serious longevity!
But you'r right. With that multiplayer in too, it lasted as my only N64 for nearly 6 months.
Now THAT's serious longevity!
Strafex wrote:
>Goldeneye wasn't exactly huge, but the difficulty of the game meant that it still took ages to complete.
And it has the best multi player mode ever.
> As a result, to last
> long it has to be long.
If Nintendo make it short and sweet, it'll be ruined.
I agree, we want the epic adventures to remain. That's part of what Zelda is, the huge adventure. A shorter quest wouldn't give it the same atmosphere.
>Goldeneye wasn't exactly huge, but the difficulty of the game meant that it still took ages to complete.
And it has the best multi player mode ever.
> As a result, to last
> long it has to be long.
If Nintendo make it short and sweet, it'll be ruined.
I agree, we want the epic adventures to remain. That's part of what Zelda is, the huge adventure. A shorter quest wouldn't give it the same atmosphere.
I stand by the solution being multiple paths and side quests.
Length in depth, but an straight, narrow and easy path for those that want it.
The thing is there are so many people that want Zelda to be an epic, anything less will disappoint, so I don't see why Nintendo would even consider it for Zelda. Other games maybe, but not Zelda.
No doubt Star Fox will be quite epic, mind, given that it's Rare,and they've had years to develop it.
Length in depth, but an straight, narrow and easy path for those that want it.
The thing is there are so many people that want Zelda to be an epic, anything less will disappoint, so I don't see why Nintendo would even consider it for Zelda. Other games maybe, but not Zelda.
No doubt Star Fox will be quite epic, mind, given that it's Rare,and they've had years to develop it.
Length isn't always important.
Longevity is the main thing.
Smash Brothers, for example isn't long but the multiplayer outlasts any giant solo player game.
Goldeneye wasn't exactly huge, but the difficulty of the game meant that it still took ages to complete.
Zelda is different.
It's not fustratingly hard, it isn't a multiplayer game, and because a lot of the game is based around puzzle solving, it doesn't have huge replayabilty value.
As a result, to last long it has to be long.
If Nintendo make it short and sweet, it'll be ruined.
Longevity is the main thing.
Smash Brothers, for example isn't long but the multiplayer outlasts any giant solo player game.
Goldeneye wasn't exactly huge, but the difficulty of the game meant that it still took ages to complete.
Zelda is different.
It's not fustratingly hard, it isn't a multiplayer game, and because a lot of the game is based around puzzle solving, it doesn't have huge replayabilty value.
As a result, to last long it has to be long.
If Nintendo make it short and sweet, it'll be ruined.
What about girth?
There are a number of things needed to make a game good and I would say length is a part of this. There is no point in a game that takes you 40 mins to complete from start to finish. It just wouldn't be worth it at all.
A lot of developers add extras just to pro long the time you spend playing it, new features when you finish the game that can be used next time you play, hidden secrets you have to find, multiplayer modes etc.
I think that long games give you more pleasure and a greater sense of achievement when you finish them, you also feel it is money well spent. There are a lot of games out there that we wish were longer or had extra features but due to restrictions on disk space and time needed by developers to do these extra features we just don't see them but in future we will.
A lot of developers add extras just to pro long the time you spend playing it, new features when you finish the game that can be used next time you play, hidden secrets you have to find, multiplayer modes etc.
I think that long games give you more pleasure and a greater sense of achievement when you finish them, you also feel it is money well spent. There are a lot of games out there that we wish were longer or had extra features but due to restrictions on disk space and time needed by developers to do these extra features we just don't see them but in future we will.
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: