The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
If someone said that to Danny DeVito, you could probably see why? At 4'1, he's hardly Mr. Tall! Mind you, at 4'1, I don't think he could cut it as Mr. Short! But we're not here to talk about Danny DeVito... we're here to talk about short games... damn them!
I'm not a big fan of short games... I've been playing games for ages... and while I didn't have every game for every console, or even a collection anywhere near of achieving that eminence, I was quite smart for my age, and with my abundance of common sense and logical thinking, I completed more games than Lennon and McCartney did Hit Singles... almost! God, I love The Beatles!
Anyway, back to the future,... games nowadays seem to be getting shorter... especially those with storylines. Now, while I prefer games with storylines, I do think that replay value and longetivity in general are decreased considerably. You see, in my opinion, there are quite a few factors that determine a games length and replay value. It isn't just how long it takes you to complete the game... but it's also what you can do different when the game is completed for the first time, and what else there is to do other than the main mode of play, and how many players can play co-operatively, or counter-operatively.
We need to take a game as an example. How about Luigi's Mansion? It is, for a gamer of average age (15), a very easy game. It can be completed in a meagre 6 hours and with no multi-player modes of play and few extras unlocked on completion it is what I would call a short game. Compare it to another GameCube game of the same or similar genre, StarFox Adventures and you can easily see what i'm talking about.
StarFox is a masterpiece on a VERY large scale. Rare have said that there's about 100 hours worth of gameplay, and to get that out of a game that "...can initially be completed in about 35 hours." is a very impressive feat!
But not all short games are bad... look at MGS2. It is, without a doubt, the best game available for any console in any country. The 15 hours that you spend on it are worth 50 hours when playing any other game... the storyline is epic, the musical score does score, and the gameplay sets an exemplary standard for all games and developers around the world! But, is Metal Gear Solid 2 a short game?!?! Sure, there's no multi-player mode and you don't really unlock much when you complete the game save for a few lack-lustre gadgets... But how many times do you think people will play the game. I've already played it through twice and I still go on it to laugh at the guardss A.I and shoot me some seaguls! I don't actually think MGS2 is a short game... the replay value is massive, and you never know if Metal Gear Solid 3 will utilise a MGS2 game save to offer extras in the game!
Conker's BFD was branded, among other things, 'short'... but there were loads of multi-player modes... and there was enough comedy in the game to play it through twice, definitely! When you call a game short, thing about what the game actually offers... the main mode of play offen only makes up 60% of the game...!
To conclude... I want to reiterate my opinion that almost all short games suck. Purely because they're really good but the quantity of gameplay time isn't there or there isn't enough to do in the game to make it a worthwhile purchase! It honestly makes me wonder why people make games like Superman 64 and Smashing Drive! When you can make game like Metal Gear Solid and StarFox Adventures... why do people settle for making such crap games...?!!!!
Anyway...
Game
I'm not a big fan of short games... I've been playing games for ages... and while I didn't have every game for every console, or even a collection anywhere near of achieving that eminence, I was quite smart for my age, and with my abundance of common sense and logical thinking, I completed more games than Lennon and McCartney did Hit Singles... almost! God, I love The Beatles!
Anyway, back to the future,... games nowadays seem to be getting shorter... especially those with storylines. Now, while I prefer games with storylines, I do think that replay value and longetivity in general are decreased considerably. You see, in my opinion, there are quite a few factors that determine a games length and replay value. It isn't just how long it takes you to complete the game... but it's also what you can do different when the game is completed for the first time, and what else there is to do other than the main mode of play, and how many players can play co-operatively, or counter-operatively.
We need to take a game as an example. How about Luigi's Mansion? It is, for a gamer of average age (15), a very easy game. It can be completed in a meagre 6 hours and with no multi-player modes of play and few extras unlocked on completion it is what I would call a short game. Compare it to another GameCube game of the same or similar genre, StarFox Adventures and you can easily see what i'm talking about.
StarFox is a masterpiece on a VERY large scale. Rare have said that there's about 100 hours worth of gameplay, and to get that out of a game that "...can initially be completed in about 35 hours." is a very impressive feat!
But not all short games are bad... look at MGS2. It is, without a doubt, the best game available for any console in any country. The 15 hours that you spend on it are worth 50 hours when playing any other game... the storyline is epic, the musical score does score, and the gameplay sets an exemplary standard for all games and developers around the world! But, is Metal Gear Solid 2 a short game?!?! Sure, there's no multi-player mode and you don't really unlock much when you complete the game save for a few lack-lustre gadgets... But how many times do you think people will play the game. I've already played it through twice and I still go on it to laugh at the guardss A.I and shoot me some seaguls! I don't actually think MGS2 is a short game... the replay value is massive, and you never know if Metal Gear Solid 3 will utilise a MGS2 game save to offer extras in the game!
Conker's BFD was branded, among other things, 'short'... but there were loads of multi-player modes... and there was enough comedy in the game to play it through twice, definitely! When you call a game short, thing about what the game actually offers... the main mode of play offen only makes up 60% of the game...!
To conclude... I want to reiterate my opinion that almost all short games suck. Purely because they're really good but the quantity of gameplay time isn't there or there isn't enough to do in the game to make it a worthwhile purchase! It honestly makes me wonder why people make games like Superman 64 and Smashing Drive! When you can make game like Metal Gear Solid and StarFox Adventures... why do people settle for making such crap games...?!!!!
Anyway...
Game
The Game wrote:
> If someone said that to Danny DeVito, you could probably see why? At 4'1, he's
> hardly Mr. Tall! Mind you, at 4'1, I don't think he could cut it as Mr. Short!
LOL : )
> look at MGS2. It is, without a doubt, the best game available for any console in
> any country.
I doubt that : P
Seriously, it's a subjective decision, so there's always doubt, different opinions et al.
The longer games typically will send you back and forth across the same landscapes to stretch things out, while a shorter game might use a similarly sized playing area, which you never revisit.
So in a way, it's kind of like replay value, recycling a game by playing it through several times - the difference being that you go through the same stuff with diffrent objectives.
So are longer games just using a couple of new objectives to enforce replayability, while short games rely on the game's appeal to create the replay value?
Obviously there will be exceptions, where longer games doing this will still have far more actual content than some shorter games, and you can't draw too close a comparison between replaying a completed game and going back and forth through a landscape to complete a game, but the analogy is interesting non the less, i think.
> If someone said that to Danny DeVito, you could probably see why? At 4'1, he's
> hardly Mr. Tall! Mind you, at 4'1, I don't think he could cut it as Mr. Short!
LOL : )
> look at MGS2. It is, without a doubt, the best game available for any console in
> any country.
I doubt that : P
Seriously, it's a subjective decision, so there's always doubt, different opinions et al.
The longer games typically will send you back and forth across the same landscapes to stretch things out, while a shorter game might use a similarly sized playing area, which you never revisit.
So in a way, it's kind of like replay value, recycling a game by playing it through several times - the difference being that you go through the same stuff with diffrent objectives.
So are longer games just using a couple of new objectives to enforce replayability, while short games rely on the game's appeal to create the replay value?
Obviously there will be exceptions, where longer games doing this will still have far more actual content than some shorter games, and you can't draw too close a comparison between replaying a completed game and going back and forth through a landscape to complete a game, but the analogy is interesting non the less, i think.
Game, I have sprayed Wheetos all over my monitor and I demand you come and clean it up. Never praise MGS2 without prior warning first.
:-D
:-D
In my experience "long" games are usually nothing else but contrived and drawn-out nonsense.
Collect this.
Collect that.
Open up this.
Open up that.
Wander back and forth like a human yoyo.
Almost all long adventure games (in particular) stink in my opinion.
So, yes sir. I like short games - with replay value of course.
Collect this.
Collect that.
Open up this.
Open up that.
Wander back and forth like a human yoyo.
Almost all long adventure games (in particular) stink in my opinion.
So, yes sir. I like short games - with replay value of course.
I don't really mind short games like Luigi's Mansion as long as there are long epic games to provide a balance
good post
good post
If someone said that to Danny DeVito, you could probably see why? At 4'1, he's hardly Mr. Tall! Mind you, at 4'1, I don't think he could cut it as Mr. Short! But we're not here to talk about Danny DeVito... we're here to talk about short games... damn them!
I'm not a big fan of short games... I've been playing games for ages... and while I didn't have every game for every console, or even a collection anywhere near of achieving that eminence, I was quite smart for my age, and with my abundance of common sense and logical thinking, I completed more games than Lennon and McCartney did Hit Singles... almost! God, I love The Beatles!
Anyway, back to the future,... games nowadays seem to be getting shorter... especially those with storylines. Now, while I prefer games with storylines, I do think that replay value and longetivity in general are decreased considerably. You see, in my opinion, there are quite a few factors that determine a games length and replay value. It isn't just how long it takes you to complete the game... but it's also what you can do different when the game is completed for the first time, and what else there is to do other than the main mode of play, and how many players can play co-operatively, or counter-operatively.
We need to take a game as an example. How about Luigi's Mansion? It is, for a gamer of average age (15), a very easy game. It can be completed in a meagre 6 hours and with no multi-player modes of play and few extras unlocked on completion it is what I would call a short game. Compare it to another GameCube game of the same or similar genre, StarFox Adventures and you can easily see what i'm talking about.
StarFox is a masterpiece on a VERY large scale. Rare have said that there's about 100 hours worth of gameplay, and to get that out of a game that "...can initially be completed in about 35 hours." is a very impressive feat!
But not all short games are bad... look at MGS2. It is, without a doubt, the best game available for any console in any country. The 15 hours that you spend on it are worth 50 hours when playing any other game... the storyline is epic, the musical score does score, and the gameplay sets an exemplary standard for all games and developers around the world! But, is Metal Gear Solid 2 a short game?!?! Sure, there's no multi-player mode and you don't really unlock much when you complete the game save for a few lack-lustre gadgets... But how many times do you think people will play the game. I've already played it through twice and I still go on it to laugh at the guardss A.I and shoot me some seaguls! I don't actually think MGS2 is a short game... the replay value is massive, and you never know if Metal Gear Solid 3 will utilise a MGS2 game save to offer extras in the game!
Conker's BFD was branded, among other things, 'short'... but there were loads of multi-player modes... and there was enough comedy in the game to play it through twice, definitely! When you call a game short, thing about what the game actually offers... the main mode of play offen only makes up 60% of the game...!
To conclude... I want to reiterate my opinion that almost all short games suck. Purely because they're really good but the quantity of gameplay time isn't there or there isn't enough to do in the game to make it a worthwhile purchase! It honestly makes me wonder why people make games like Superman 64 and Smashing Drive! When you can make game like Metal Gear Solid and StarFox Adventures... why do people settle for making such crap games...?!!!!
Anyway...
Game
I'm not a big fan of short games... I've been playing games for ages... and while I didn't have every game for every console, or even a collection anywhere near of achieving that eminence, I was quite smart for my age, and with my abundance of common sense and logical thinking, I completed more games than Lennon and McCartney did Hit Singles... almost! God, I love The Beatles!
Anyway, back to the future,... games nowadays seem to be getting shorter... especially those with storylines. Now, while I prefer games with storylines, I do think that replay value and longetivity in general are decreased considerably. You see, in my opinion, there are quite a few factors that determine a games length and replay value. It isn't just how long it takes you to complete the game... but it's also what you can do different when the game is completed for the first time, and what else there is to do other than the main mode of play, and how many players can play co-operatively, or counter-operatively.
We need to take a game as an example. How about Luigi's Mansion? It is, for a gamer of average age (15), a very easy game. It can be completed in a meagre 6 hours and with no multi-player modes of play and few extras unlocked on completion it is what I would call a short game. Compare it to another GameCube game of the same or similar genre, StarFox Adventures and you can easily see what i'm talking about.
StarFox is a masterpiece on a VERY large scale. Rare have said that there's about 100 hours worth of gameplay, and to get that out of a game that "...can initially be completed in about 35 hours." is a very impressive feat!
But not all short games are bad... look at MGS2. It is, without a doubt, the best game available for any console in any country. The 15 hours that you spend on it are worth 50 hours when playing any other game... the storyline is epic, the musical score does score, and the gameplay sets an exemplary standard for all games and developers around the world! But, is Metal Gear Solid 2 a short game?!?! Sure, there's no multi-player mode and you don't really unlock much when you complete the game save for a few lack-lustre gadgets... But how many times do you think people will play the game. I've already played it through twice and I still go on it to laugh at the guardss A.I and shoot me some seaguls! I don't actually think MGS2 is a short game... the replay value is massive, and you never know if Metal Gear Solid 3 will utilise a MGS2 game save to offer extras in the game!
Conker's BFD was branded, among other things, 'short'... but there were loads of multi-player modes... and there was enough comedy in the game to play it through twice, definitely! When you call a game short, thing about what the game actually offers... the main mode of play offen only makes up 60% of the game...!
To conclude... I want to reiterate my opinion that almost all short games suck. Purely because they're really good but the quantity of gameplay time isn't there or there isn't enough to do in the game to make it a worthwhile purchase! It honestly makes me wonder why people make games like Superman 64 and Smashing Drive! When you can make game like Metal Gear Solid and StarFox Adventures... why do people settle for making such crap games...?!!!!
Anyway...
Game