The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Gamers are just put into a social standing just like any other stereotype (goth, skater, greebo and although I hate to sound american, sadly, jocks also). However, pretty much everything on the god-given planet evolves at one time or another, be it changing to suit the needs of the user or just changing for self-enhancement, humans in themselves as a social group have evolved over the years, that's an undeniable fact. In retrospect (I hate to sound ironic with that comment, especially when you discover the meaning of this topic), let's see a show of hands to how many users of this forum have played Pac Man, played Metal Gear Solid, and then gone back to Pac Man? I'd say the vast majority without even taking a survey, and that's not because Pac Man is the superior game, because it definitely isn't.
Our old retro games raise the debate of presentation vs gameplay - our old games were quick and simple, offered cheap thrills for the casual gamer, and so gaming evolved from there, much like social stature. For instance, first was the simple play, play, die, lose a life, gain another life, die, die, die, gain a life, die, game over routine, not lasting more than a few short hours at most. However, from there, games evolved to having actual objectives such as the early Sonic and Mario games are a testament to. In turn, this protaganistic turn of events has really sparked a chain reactions which sparks the debate - did retro games open the gate for the hit titles which we see today? Would the Metal Gear Solid series really see the light of day had it not been for our residential plumber?
And so the evolution continued, to the Sega Saturn and Sony Playstation, where the longevity of games continued to extenuate to lengths never experienced before, and it was great! Or so most people thought. For the first time, the avid games player could actually immersive themselves in something for more than a few hours of loose gameplay. Now we had the challenge of beating Final Fanyasy 7, boasting over 90 hours of gameplay! Attempt 90 hours of overall gameplay with Pac Man - it just isn't going to happen. Any time soon, at least, unless you're in a padded room with a Commodore as your only escape from reality. However, that's unlikely, as you probably wouldn't be reading this post right now.
But you really have to ask yourself the question - is immersion such a good thing? Is staring at a screen for 8 hours a shot good for you? Probably not, but that's not the premise point here. What I mean is that the Saturn and Playstation (and now Playstation 2, GameCube and X-Box, of course) have stolen away the excitement, although this can be dismissed as absolute blasphemy. Basically, the quick rush of the game is quietly forgotten in today's games. The rush of running away just as a baddie is about to chomp into your chewy yellow exterior cannot be matched on any console. The thought of that last life slipping away drives fear into the hearts of reminiscing gamers all over the country. No, the planet. Ok, that won't appeal to your spoiled retinas, used to flashy graphics and the such like, but surely a man can dream?
Now, I'm all for telling a story to create suspense or whatever feeling you desire in a game, but certain games take this over the mark and to the curb across the street. Anyone whose heard of a little game called Metal Gear Solid 2 will know this. A superb game, yes I agree, but when half of the game is consumed by epic cinematics, which, while are amazing to watch, are still ridiculous in their size and length. If I really want a plot worthy of Hollywood, I'll go watch a film or read a novel. RPGs are exempt from this rule though, as the aforementioned flaw is pretty much the building blocks of the game. In turn, MGS2 began to suffer from RPG-itis.
And how does this bode for gamers? If you're thinking of sitting down for a few minutes for "a quick round of Final Fantasy 7", don't even try, you'd have to have one hell of a lucky rabbit's foot to make to a new save point. In extreme circumstances, games really do push this kind of thing to the edge, over the cliff and down to the quicksand below, such as the Resident Evil series. Ten or twenty years ago, you'd purchase a new game because you're bored of your old one, but nowadays, we purchase a new game because we've completed the previous one. One of the top selling niches of Final Fantasy 7 was the excessive play needed to complete it, and if you tried to do that in bursts of five or ten minutes, you'd be playing a long, long time.
So what am I barking at? Well, gaming has evolved, and incidentally, so have we. We expend hours and hours of time into these games, where our parents never had the chance to, but is it really that much of a great reward? To be honest, I'd rather have my Pac Man than a number of games on the market today (although not a great majority, a few dozen are definitely there). Does a B-movie storyline make a game great? Sometimes, yes, but not always, no. Gameplay is what does it for me. If a game has useless gameplay, I can't play it, I hate it, but if it has shining gameplay, I can play it, I can play it a lot and I love it. If you want a story, play a "new" game, if not, then munch that yellow little pill.
Flux.
Our old retro games raise the debate of presentation vs gameplay - our old games were quick and simple, offered cheap thrills for the casual gamer, and so gaming evolved from there, much like social stature. For instance, first was the simple play, play, die, lose a life, gain another life, die, die, die, gain a life, die, game over routine, not lasting more than a few short hours at most. However, from there, games evolved to having actual objectives such as the early Sonic and Mario games are a testament to. In turn, this protaganistic turn of events has really sparked a chain reactions which sparks the debate - did retro games open the gate for the hit titles which we see today? Would the Metal Gear Solid series really see the light of day had it not been for our residential plumber?
And so the evolution continued, to the Sega Saturn and Sony Playstation, where the longevity of games continued to extenuate to lengths never experienced before, and it was great! Or so most people thought. For the first time, the avid games player could actually immersive themselves in something for more than a few hours of loose gameplay. Now we had the challenge of beating Final Fanyasy 7, boasting over 90 hours of gameplay! Attempt 90 hours of overall gameplay with Pac Man - it just isn't going to happen. Any time soon, at least, unless you're in a padded room with a Commodore as your only escape from reality. However, that's unlikely, as you probably wouldn't be reading this post right now.
But you really have to ask yourself the question - is immersion such a good thing? Is staring at a screen for 8 hours a shot good for you? Probably not, but that's not the premise point here. What I mean is that the Saturn and Playstation (and now Playstation 2, GameCube and X-Box, of course) have stolen away the excitement, although this can be dismissed as absolute blasphemy. Basically, the quick rush of the game is quietly forgotten in today's games. The rush of running away just as a baddie is about to chomp into your chewy yellow exterior cannot be matched on any console. The thought of that last life slipping away drives fear into the hearts of reminiscing gamers all over the country. No, the planet. Ok, that won't appeal to your spoiled retinas, used to flashy graphics and the such like, but surely a man can dream?
Now, I'm all for telling a story to create suspense or whatever feeling you desire in a game, but certain games take this over the mark and to the curb across the street. Anyone whose heard of a little game called Metal Gear Solid 2 will know this. A superb game, yes I agree, but when half of the game is consumed by epic cinematics, which, while are amazing to watch, are still ridiculous in their size and length. If I really want a plot worthy of Hollywood, I'll go watch a film or read a novel. RPGs are exempt from this rule though, as the aforementioned flaw is pretty much the building blocks of the game. In turn, MGS2 began to suffer from RPG-itis.
And how does this bode for gamers? If you're thinking of sitting down for a few minutes for "a quick round of Final Fantasy 7", don't even try, you'd have to have one hell of a lucky rabbit's foot to make to a new save point. In extreme circumstances, games really do push this kind of thing to the edge, over the cliff and down to the quicksand below, such as the Resident Evil series. Ten or twenty years ago, you'd purchase a new game because you're bored of your old one, but nowadays, we purchase a new game because we've completed the previous one. One of the top selling niches of Final Fantasy 7 was the excessive play needed to complete it, and if you tried to do that in bursts of five or ten minutes, you'd be playing a long, long time.
So what am I barking at? Well, gaming has evolved, and incidentally, so have we. We expend hours and hours of time into these games, where our parents never had the chance to, but is it really that much of a great reward? To be honest, I'd rather have my Pac Man than a number of games on the market today (although not a great majority, a few dozen are definitely there). Does a B-movie storyline make a game great? Sometimes, yes, but not always, no. Gameplay is what does it for me. If a game has useless gameplay, I can't play it, I hate it, but if it has shining gameplay, I can play it, I can play it a lot and I love it. If you want a story, play a "new" game, if not, then munch that yellow little pill.
Flux.
Yesterday I loaded up Bangai-O for the DC. It's a fantastic old-school shoot-em-up marooned on a Next Gen console, a game in which getting a high score, the best time and to the next level is everything, and about as much plot as, well, PacMan.
Loved it to bits.
Loved it to bits.
Tenseiken Slash wrote:
> Flux wrote:
> Gamers are just put into a social standing just like any other
> stereotype (goth, skater, greebo and although I hate to sound
> american, sadly, jocks also). However, pretty much everything on the
> god-given planet evolves at one time or another, be it changing to
> suit the needs of the user or just changing for self-enhancement,
> humans in themselves as a social group have evolved over the years,
> that's an undeniable fact. In retrospect (I hate to sound ironic
> with
> that comment, especially when you discover the meaning of this
> topic),
> let's see a show of hands to how many users of this forum have
> played
> Pac Man, played Metal Gear Solid, and then gone back to Pac Man? I'd
> say the vast majority without even taking a survey, and that's not
> because Pac Man is the superior game, because it definitely isn't.
>
> Our old retro games raise the debate of presentation vs gameplay -
> our
> old games were quick and simple, offered cheap thrills for the
> casual
> gamer, and so gaming evolved from there, much like social stature.
> For
> instance, first was the simple play, play, die, lose a life, gain
> another life, die, die, die, gain a life, die, game over routine,
> not
> lasting more than a few short hours at most. However, from there,
> games evolved to having actual objectives such as the early Sonic
> and
> Mario games are a testament to. In turn, this protaganistic turn of
> events has really sparked a chain reactions which sparks the debate
> -
> did retro games open the gate for the hit titles which we see today?
> Would the Metal Gear Solid series really see the light of day had it
> not been for our residential plumber?
>
> And so the evolution continued, to the Sega Saturn and Sony
> Playstation, where the longevity of games continued to extenuate to
> lengths never experienced before, and it was great! Or so most
> people
> thought. For the first time, the avid games player could actually
> immersive themselves in something for more than a few hours of loose
> gameplay. Now we had the challenge of beating Final Fanyasy 7,
> boasting over 90 hours of gameplay! Attempt 90 hours of overall
> gameplay with Pac Man - it just isn't going to happen. Any time
> soon,
> at least, unless you're in a padded room with a Commodore as your
> only
> escape from reality. However, that's unlikely, as you probably
> wouldn't be reading this post right now.
>
> But you really have to ask yourself the question - is immersion such
> a
> good thing? Is staring at a screen for 8 hours a shot good for you?
> Probably not, but that's not the premise point here. What I mean is
> that the Saturn and Playstation (and now Playstation 2, GameCube and
> X-Box, of course) have stolen away the excitement, although this can
> be dismissed as absolute blasphemy. Basically, the quick rush of the
> game is quietly forgotten in today's games. The rush of running away
> just as a baddie is about to chomp into your chewy yellow exterior
> cannot be matched on any console. The thought of that last life
> slipping away drives fear into the hearts of reminiscing gamers all
> over the country. No, the planet. Ok, that won't appeal to your
> spoiled retinas, used to flashy graphics and the such like, but
> surely
> a man can dream?
>
> Now, I'm all for telling a story to create suspense or whatever
> feeling you desire in a game, but certain games take this over the
> mark and to the curb across the street. Anyone whose heard of a
> little
> game called Metal Gear Solid 2 will know this. A superb game, yes I
> agree, but when half of the game is consumed by epic cinematics,
> which, while are amazing to watch, are still ridiculous in their
> size
> and length. If I really want a plot worthy of Hollywood, I'll go
> watch
> a film or read a novel. RPGs are exempt from this rule though, as
> the
> aforementioned flaw is pretty much the building blocks of the game.
> In
> turn, MGS2 began to suffer from RPG-itis.
>
> And how does this bode for gamers? If you're thinking of sitting
> down
> for a few minutes for "a quick round of Final Fantasy 7",
> don't even try, you'd have to have one hell of a lucky rabbit's foot
> to make to a new save point. In extreme circumstances, games really
> do
> push this kind of thing to the edge, over the cliff and down to the
> quicksand below, such as the Resident Evil series. Ten or twenty
> years
> ago, you'd purchase a new game because you're bored of your old one,
> but nowadays, we purchase a new game because we've completed the
> previous one. One of the top selling niches of Final Fantasy 7 was
> the
> excessive play needed to complete it, and if you tried to do that in
> bursts of five or ten minutes, you'd be playing a long, long time.
>
> So what am I barking at? Well, gaming has evolved, and incidentally,
> so have we. We expend hours and hours of time into these games,
> where
> our parents never had the chance to, but is it really that much of a
> great reward? To be honest, I'd rather have my Pac Man than a number
> of games on the market today (although not a great majority, a few
> dozen are definitely there). Does a B-movie storyline make a game
> great? Sometimes, yes, but not always, no. Gameplay is what does it
> for me. If a game has useless gameplay, I can't play it, I hate it,
> but if it has shining gameplay, I can play it, I can play it a lot
> and
> I love it. If you want a story, play a "new" game, if not,
> then munch that yellow little pill.
>
> Flux.
>
>
> What are you talking about and why do you post so much!?
>
>
> Tenseiken Slash
> "Its because I rule" :)
Don't quote my large posts you quentisential git. You're gonna get yourself banned!
THIS...MEANS...WAR!
*Ahem*
> Flux wrote:
> Gamers are just put into a social standing just like any other
> stereotype (goth, skater, greebo and although I hate to sound
> american, sadly, jocks also). However, pretty much everything on the
> god-given planet evolves at one time or another, be it changing to
> suit the needs of the user or just changing for self-enhancement,
> humans in themselves as a social group have evolved over the years,
> that's an undeniable fact. In retrospect (I hate to sound ironic
> with
> that comment, especially when you discover the meaning of this
> topic),
> let's see a show of hands to how many users of this forum have
> played
> Pac Man, played Metal Gear Solid, and then gone back to Pac Man? I'd
> say the vast majority without even taking a survey, and that's not
> because Pac Man is the superior game, because it definitely isn't.
>
> Our old retro games raise the debate of presentation vs gameplay -
> our
> old games were quick and simple, offered cheap thrills for the
> casual
> gamer, and so gaming evolved from there, much like social stature.
> For
> instance, first was the simple play, play, die, lose a life, gain
> another life, die, die, die, gain a life, die, game over routine,
> not
> lasting more than a few short hours at most. However, from there,
> games evolved to having actual objectives such as the early Sonic
> and
> Mario games are a testament to. In turn, this protaganistic turn of
> events has really sparked a chain reactions which sparks the debate
> -
> did retro games open the gate for the hit titles which we see today?
> Would the Metal Gear Solid series really see the light of day had it
> not been for our residential plumber?
>
> And so the evolution continued, to the Sega Saturn and Sony
> Playstation, where the longevity of games continued to extenuate to
> lengths never experienced before, and it was great! Or so most
> people
> thought. For the first time, the avid games player could actually
> immersive themselves in something for more than a few hours of loose
> gameplay. Now we had the challenge of beating Final Fanyasy 7,
> boasting over 90 hours of gameplay! Attempt 90 hours of overall
> gameplay with Pac Man - it just isn't going to happen. Any time
> soon,
> at least, unless you're in a padded room with a Commodore as your
> only
> escape from reality. However, that's unlikely, as you probably
> wouldn't be reading this post right now.
>
> But you really have to ask yourself the question - is immersion such
> a
> good thing? Is staring at a screen for 8 hours a shot good for you?
> Probably not, but that's not the premise point here. What I mean is
> that the Saturn and Playstation (and now Playstation 2, GameCube and
> X-Box, of course) have stolen away the excitement, although this can
> be dismissed as absolute blasphemy. Basically, the quick rush of the
> game is quietly forgotten in today's games. The rush of running away
> just as a baddie is about to chomp into your chewy yellow exterior
> cannot be matched on any console. The thought of that last life
> slipping away drives fear into the hearts of reminiscing gamers all
> over the country. No, the planet. Ok, that won't appeal to your
> spoiled retinas, used to flashy graphics and the such like, but
> surely
> a man can dream?
>
> Now, I'm all for telling a story to create suspense or whatever
> feeling you desire in a game, but certain games take this over the
> mark and to the curb across the street. Anyone whose heard of a
> little
> game called Metal Gear Solid 2 will know this. A superb game, yes I
> agree, but when half of the game is consumed by epic cinematics,
> which, while are amazing to watch, are still ridiculous in their
> size
> and length. If I really want a plot worthy of Hollywood, I'll go
> watch
> a film or read a novel. RPGs are exempt from this rule though, as
> the
> aforementioned flaw is pretty much the building blocks of the game.
> In
> turn, MGS2 began to suffer from RPG-itis.
>
> And how does this bode for gamers? If you're thinking of sitting
> down
> for a few minutes for "a quick round of Final Fantasy 7",
> don't even try, you'd have to have one hell of a lucky rabbit's foot
> to make to a new save point. In extreme circumstances, games really
> do
> push this kind of thing to the edge, over the cliff and down to the
> quicksand below, such as the Resident Evil series. Ten or twenty
> years
> ago, you'd purchase a new game because you're bored of your old one,
> but nowadays, we purchase a new game because we've completed the
> previous one. One of the top selling niches of Final Fantasy 7 was
> the
> excessive play needed to complete it, and if you tried to do that in
> bursts of five or ten minutes, you'd be playing a long, long time.
>
> So what am I barking at? Well, gaming has evolved, and incidentally,
> so have we. We expend hours and hours of time into these games,
> where
> our parents never had the chance to, but is it really that much of a
> great reward? To be honest, I'd rather have my Pac Man than a number
> of games on the market today (although not a great majority, a few
> dozen are definitely there). Does a B-movie storyline make a game
> great? Sometimes, yes, but not always, no. Gameplay is what does it
> for me. If a game has useless gameplay, I can't play it, I hate it,
> but if it has shining gameplay, I can play it, I can play it a lot
> and
> I love it. If you want a story, play a "new" game, if not,
> then munch that yellow little pill.
>
> Flux.
>
>
> What are you talking about and why do you post so much!?
>
>
> Tenseiken Slash
> "Its because I rule" :)
Don't quote my large posts you quentisential git. You're gonna get yourself banned!
THIS...MEANS...WAR!
*Ahem*
Gamers are just put into a social standing just like any other stereotype (goth, skater, greebo and although I hate to sound american, sadly, jocks also). However, pretty much everything on the god-given planet evolves at one time or another, be it changing to suit the needs of the user or just changing for self-enhancement, humans in themselves as a social group have evolved over the years, that's an undeniable fact. In retrospect (I hate to sound ironic with that comment, especially when you discover the meaning of this topic), let's see a show of hands to how many users of this forum have played Pac Man, played Metal Gear Solid, and then gone back to Pac Man? I'd say the vast majority without even taking a survey, and that's not because Pac Man is the superior game, because it definitely isn't.
Our old retro games raise the debate of presentation vs gameplay - our old games were quick and simple, offered cheap thrills for the casual gamer, and so gaming evolved from there, much like social stature. For instance, first was the simple play, play, die, lose a life, gain another life, die, die, die, gain a life, die, game over routine, not lasting more than a few short hours at most. However, from there, games evolved to having actual objectives such as the early Sonic and Mario games are a testament to. In turn, this protaganistic turn of events has really sparked a chain reactions which sparks the debate - did retro games open the gate for the hit titles which we see today? Would the Metal Gear Solid series really see the light of day had it not been for our residential plumber?
And so the evolution continued, to the Sega Saturn and Sony Playstation, where the longevity of games continued to extenuate to lengths never experienced before, and it was great! Or so most people thought. For the first time, the avid games player could actually immersive themselves in something for more than a few hours of loose gameplay. Now we had the challenge of beating Final Fanyasy 7, boasting over 90 hours of gameplay! Attempt 90 hours of overall gameplay with Pac Man - it just isn't going to happen. Any time soon, at least, unless you're in a padded room with a Commodore as your only escape from reality. However, that's unlikely, as you probably wouldn't be reading this post right now.
But you really have to ask yourself the question - is immersion such a good thing? Is staring at a screen for 8 hours a shot good for you? Probably not, but that's not the premise point here. What I mean is that the Saturn and Playstation (and now Playstation 2, GameCube and X-Box, of course) have stolen away the excitement, although this can be dismissed as absolute blasphemy. Basically, the quick rush of the game is quietly forgotten in today's games. The rush of running away just as a baddie is about to chomp into your chewy yellow exterior cannot be matched on any console. The thought of that last life slipping away drives fear into the hearts of reminiscing gamers all over the country. No, the planet. Ok, that won't appeal to your spoiled retinas, used to flashy graphics and the such like, but surely a man can dream?
Now, I'm all for telling a story to create suspense or whatever feeling you desire in a game, but certain games take this over the mark and to the curb across the street. Anyone whose heard of a little game called Metal Gear Solid 2 will know this. A superb game, yes I agree, but when half of the game is consumed by epic cinematics, which, while are amazing to watch, are still ridiculous in their size and length. If I really want a plot worthy of Hollywood, I'll go watch a film or read a novel. RPGs are exempt from this rule though, as the aforementioned flaw is pretty much the building blocks of the game. In turn, MGS2 began to suffer from RPG-itis.
And how does this bode for gamers? If you're thinking of sitting down for a few minutes for "a quick round of Final Fantasy 7", don't even try, you'd have to have one hell of a lucky rabbit's foot to make to a new save point. In extreme circumstances, games really do push this kind of thing to the edge, over the cliff and down to the quicksand below, such as the Resident Evil series. Ten or twenty years ago, you'd purchase a new game because you're bored of your old one, but nowadays, we purchase a new game because we've completed the previous one. One of the top selling niches of Final Fantasy 7 was the excessive play needed to complete it, and if you tried to do that in bursts of five or ten minutes, you'd be playing a long, long time.
So what am I barking at? Well, gaming has evolved, and incidentally, so have we. We expend hours and hours of time into these games, where our parents never had the chance to, but is it really that much of a great reward? To be honest, I'd rather have my Pac Man than a number of games on the market today (although not a great majority, a few dozen are definitely there). Does a B-movie storyline make a game great? Sometimes, yes, but not always, no. Gameplay is what does it for me. If a game has useless gameplay, I can't play it, I hate it, but if it has shining gameplay, I can play it, I can play it a lot and I love it. If you want a story, play a "new" game, if not, then munch that yellow little pill.
Flux.
Our old retro games raise the debate of presentation vs gameplay - our old games were quick and simple, offered cheap thrills for the casual gamer, and so gaming evolved from there, much like social stature. For instance, first was the simple play, play, die, lose a life, gain another life, die, die, die, gain a life, die, game over routine, not lasting more than a few short hours at most. However, from there, games evolved to having actual objectives such as the early Sonic and Mario games are a testament to. In turn, this protaganistic turn of events has really sparked a chain reactions which sparks the debate - did retro games open the gate for the hit titles which we see today? Would the Metal Gear Solid series really see the light of day had it not been for our residential plumber?
And so the evolution continued, to the Sega Saturn and Sony Playstation, where the longevity of games continued to extenuate to lengths never experienced before, and it was great! Or so most people thought. For the first time, the avid games player could actually immersive themselves in something for more than a few hours of loose gameplay. Now we had the challenge of beating Final Fanyasy 7, boasting over 90 hours of gameplay! Attempt 90 hours of overall gameplay with Pac Man - it just isn't going to happen. Any time soon, at least, unless you're in a padded room with a Commodore as your only escape from reality. However, that's unlikely, as you probably wouldn't be reading this post right now.
But you really have to ask yourself the question - is immersion such a good thing? Is staring at a screen for 8 hours a shot good for you? Probably not, but that's not the premise point here. What I mean is that the Saturn and Playstation (and now Playstation 2, GameCube and X-Box, of course) have stolen away the excitement, although this can be dismissed as absolute blasphemy. Basically, the quick rush of the game is quietly forgotten in today's games. The rush of running away just as a baddie is about to chomp into your chewy yellow exterior cannot be matched on any console. The thought of that last life slipping away drives fear into the hearts of reminiscing gamers all over the country. No, the planet. Ok, that won't appeal to your spoiled retinas, used to flashy graphics and the such like, but surely a man can dream?
Now, I'm all for telling a story to create suspense or whatever feeling you desire in a game, but certain games take this over the mark and to the curb across the street. Anyone whose heard of a little game called Metal Gear Solid 2 will know this. A superb game, yes I agree, but when half of the game is consumed by epic cinematics, which, while are amazing to watch, are still ridiculous in their size and length. If I really want a plot worthy of Hollywood, I'll go watch a film or read a novel. RPGs are exempt from this rule though, as the aforementioned flaw is pretty much the building blocks of the game. In turn, MGS2 began to suffer from RPG-itis.
And how does this bode for gamers? If you're thinking of sitting down for a few minutes for "a quick round of Final Fantasy 7", don't even try, you'd have to have one hell of a lucky rabbit's foot to make to a new save point. In extreme circumstances, games really do push this kind of thing to the edge, over the cliff and down to the quicksand below, such as the Resident Evil series. Ten or twenty years ago, you'd purchase a new game because you're bored of your old one, but nowadays, we purchase a new game because we've completed the previous one. One of the top selling niches of Final Fantasy 7 was the excessive play needed to complete it, and if you tried to do that in bursts of five or ten minutes, you'd be playing a long, long time.
So what am I barking at? Well, gaming has evolved, and incidentally, so have we. We expend hours and hours of time into these games, where our parents never had the chance to, but is it really that much of a great reward? To be honest, I'd rather have my Pac Man than a number of games on the market today (although not a great majority, a few dozen are definitely there). Does a B-movie storyline make a game great? Sometimes, yes, but not always, no. Gameplay is what does it for me. If a game has useless gameplay, I can't play it, I hate it, but if it has shining gameplay, I can play it, I can play it a lot and I love it. If you want a story, play a "new" game, if not, then munch that yellow little pill.
Flux.