The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As someone will invariably say to you at one point in your life, size matters. In gaming terms, however, I believe that is not necessarily the case. Take the latest ‘best game ever’, Metal Gear Solid 2. People on these very forums have been moaning at its size - “Too easy” and “not long enough” are the typical comments. But these comments, and the argument that it’s too small are pointless taken in the wider cultural context. To say that titles like the Final Fantasy series, which require a 70 hour investment, offer true value for money is to ignore the fact that even a shorter game like MGS2 compares well to a cinema ticket. Think about it – you wouldn’t baulk at paying £5 for a 2 hour action film, so why not £40 for a 16 hour game? It’s all relative.
Continuing that theme, we don’t necessarily think a five hour movie is any better than a two hour one. Why shouldn’t the same be applied to games? Lets say for instance that we were to separate the concept of game size into two dimensions – depth, and width. Width would refer to the sheer size, including the size of environments, and the length required to complete it. Depth, on the other hand, would be a description of the games quality, including the amount of brain space it stimulates (bear with me here), the complexity of the puzzles and the challenge it provides. So what of today’s games?
Logic dictates that width is going to be inversely proportional to depth. But what happens if very wide games have a third of the depth? Numerous dull hours spent traipsing around stupidly large maps (Turok 2), or endlessly scrolling though earth-shatteringly banal text conversations (Final Fantasy again – sorry FF fans, but it has to be said). Genuinely exciting moments in very wide games are few and far between. Compare that to MGS2 where exciting moments and set pieces await you at every turn. And if even a developer is supremely talented to grunge provide moments of genuine excitement, the fact that they are so spread out makes less reliably thrilling and more watered-down experience. Would you rather have a measure of Scotch diluted in two pints of water, or drink it neat? (don’t answer that if your underage!).
It is true that some wide games turn out to be very deep (Mario and Zelda instantly spring to mind), and these games are met with public and critical acclaim simply because they are exceptions to the rule. Look closely at some of your favourite games, and ask yourself are they including stages that deliberately hinder the game in completely uninteresting ways, just to stretch the width? Thought so, most games have them. Its things like precision jumping that add to the width of the game but not to the depth of the experience.
So why, you might think, are width-heavy games like Final Fantasy so popular? I think that these games are popular because they take so long. A certain proportion of gamers, who like to be known as ‘hardcore’ because they play for 20hours, like the fact that the mass market alienate these games in favour of a Tomb Raider fix. I suppose it gives you a feeling that you are part of something. Before you criticise me, I’m the same. I liked the fact that hardly anyone liked the N64, simply because I felt proud that I did.
What do I perceive to be the game that combines both width and depth perfectly? You’ll probably expect me to say a game with great graphics on a next gen console. Well, I’m prepared to be hammered here but I think Pokemon, even on the original Game Boy, is the perfect example. It takes a very long time to complete, but not because of pointless width, it’s because of the depth of the gameplay, and the different way it can be approached.
So what of the future of games? Well, the greater storage capabilities, especially in Xbox, may be seen as an invitation to some developers to go width-crazy. For the more conscious, skilled developers though, this new opportunity could be seen as a canvas on which the digital artists can create and experiment and provide us gamers with a more fulfilling experience, and try and equate a greater feeling of depth to our favourite games. After all, it’s not the sheer number of locations that counts – its what you do when you get there that matters.
Continuing that theme, we don’t necessarily think a five hour movie is any better than a two hour one. Why shouldn’t the same be applied to games? Lets say for instance that we were to separate the concept of game size into two dimensions – depth, and width. Width would refer to the sheer size, including the size of environments, and the length required to complete it. Depth, on the other hand, would be a description of the games quality, including the amount of brain space it stimulates (bear with me here), the complexity of the puzzles and the challenge it provides. So what of today’s games?
Logic dictates that width is going to be inversely proportional to depth. But what happens if very wide games have a third of the depth? Numerous dull hours spent traipsing around stupidly large maps (Turok 2), or endlessly scrolling though earth-shatteringly banal text conversations (Final Fantasy again – sorry FF fans, but it has to be said). Genuinely exciting moments in very wide games are few and far between. Compare that to MGS2 where exciting moments and set pieces await you at every turn. And if even a developer is supremely talented to grunge provide moments of genuine excitement, the fact that they are so spread out makes less reliably thrilling and more watered-down experience. Would you rather have a measure of Scotch diluted in two pints of water, or drink it neat? (don’t answer that if your underage!).
It is true that some wide games turn out to be very deep (Mario and Zelda instantly spring to mind), and these games are met with public and critical acclaim simply because they are exceptions to the rule. Look closely at some of your favourite games, and ask yourself are they including stages that deliberately hinder the game in completely uninteresting ways, just to stretch the width? Thought so, most games have them. Its things like precision jumping that add to the width of the game but not to the depth of the experience.
So why, you might think, are width-heavy games like Final Fantasy so popular? I think that these games are popular because they take so long. A certain proportion of gamers, who like to be known as ‘hardcore’ because they play for 20hours, like the fact that the mass market alienate these games in favour of a Tomb Raider fix. I suppose it gives you a feeling that you are part of something. Before you criticise me, I’m the same. I liked the fact that hardly anyone liked the N64, simply because I felt proud that I did.
What do I perceive to be the game that combines both width and depth perfectly? You’ll probably expect me to say a game with great graphics on a next gen console. Well, I’m prepared to be hammered here but I think Pokemon, even on the original Game Boy, is the perfect example. It takes a very long time to complete, but not because of pointless width, it’s because of the depth of the gameplay, and the different way it can be approached.
So what of the future of games? Well, the greater storage capabilities, especially in Xbox, may be seen as an invitation to some developers to go width-crazy. For the more conscious, skilled developers though, this new opportunity could be seen as a canvas on which the digital artists can create and experiment and provide us gamers with a more fulfilling experience, and try and equate a greater feeling of depth to our favourite games. After all, it’s not the sheer number of locations that counts – its what you do when you get there that matters.
Gamers should bear in mind its not what you've got its how you use it
Thnks for the good feedback all!
I think it is a sign of a competent and conscientious developer that a game can have equal 'width' and 'depth'.
I think that Nintendo have it down to a tee
I think it is a sign of a competent and conscientious developer that a game can have equal 'width' and 'depth'.
I think that Nintendo have it down to a tee
Imagine a game that took 40 hours to complete, but you just had to walk down a long, long road, jumping over stuff.
Now imagine a game that can be completed in 6 hours, but in these 6 hours you'll use stealth, differnet weapons, differnet tactics, and the next time you play it, you could do the whole thing in quite a different way.
Which game would you prefer?
The recent Zelda games on the GBC had relatively small maps (impressive for the GBC, though) but as you went through the game, you'd learn new things, and be able to get to things you couldn't previously reach. The game has depth, I guess without having a great deal of width.
Now imagine a game that can be completed in 6 hours, but in these 6 hours you'll use stealth, differnet weapons, differnet tactics, and the next time you play it, you could do the whole thing in quite a different way.
Which game would you prefer?
The recent Zelda games on the GBC had relatively small maps (impressive for the GBC, though) but as you went through the game, you'd learn new things, and be able to get to things you couldn't previously reach. The game has depth, I guess without having a great deal of width.
I'll buck the trend here and say width over depth. MGS2 may have had depth but its been a non event for me. I bought it but it hasn't got that "play me" factor. Final Fantasy 6, with all its "width" ? Best £9.99 I 've spent recently. Same goes for all the Final Fantasy games - the text conversation is no worse than MGS2 or other games. Final Fantasy creates a world different from our own, it offers true escapism as opposed to MGS2 and Max Payne which stick within the confines of limited locations.
When I play a game I want variety and depth doesn't always offer that, where as width does.
When I play a game I want variety and depth doesn't always offer that, where as width does.
If that is the quality of your 'vintage stuff', then I'd like to tell you that I like the taste of it. Well done - that was a very good post.
Good Post. I agree with some of your sentiments about the depth of gaming, firstly I don't think MGS 2 is short, it is justs right secondly if you compared it with a movie, some people would rather see a 2 hour movie than a 3 hour movie because it may drag on too much and get boring after a while. my point? see the games for what they are and not for how long they are.
I prefer "depth" to "width".
I would always go for "intense" and "twisty" short game (i.e. MGS2) rather than the "drawn-out" longer game.
Games wherein every moment IS important is where it's at for me.
I've always found the gameplay of long games to be contrived and watered-down.
Someone once described the best types of games as being "an intense ride" - that just about sums up how I like it.
I would always go for "intense" and "twisty" short game (i.e. MGS2) rather than the "drawn-out" longer game.
Games wherein every moment IS important is where it's at for me.
I've always found the gameplay of long games to be contrived and watered-down.
Someone once described the best types of games as being "an intense ride" - that just about sums up how I like it.
As someone will invariably say to you at one point in your life, size matters. In gaming terms, however, I believe that is not necessarily the case. Take the latest ‘best game ever’, Metal Gear Solid 2. People on these very forums have been moaning at its size - “Too easy” and “not long enough” are the typical comments. But these comments, and the argument that it’s too small are pointless taken in the wider cultural context. To say that titles like the Final Fantasy series, which require a 70 hour investment, offer true value for money is to ignore the fact that even a shorter game like MGS2 compares well to a cinema ticket. Think about it – you wouldn’t baulk at paying £5 for a 2 hour action film, so why not £40 for a 16 hour game? It’s all relative.
Continuing that theme, we don’t necessarily think a five hour movie is any better than a two hour one. Why shouldn’t the same be applied to games? Lets say for instance that we were to separate the concept of game size into two dimensions – depth, and width. Width would refer to the sheer size, including the size of environments, and the length required to complete it. Depth, on the other hand, would be a description of the games quality, including the amount of brain space it stimulates (bear with me here), the complexity of the puzzles and the challenge it provides. So what of today’s games?
Logic dictates that width is going to be inversely proportional to depth. But what happens if very wide games have a third of the depth? Numerous dull hours spent traipsing around stupidly large maps (Turok 2), or endlessly scrolling though earth-shatteringly banal text conversations (Final Fantasy again – sorry FF fans, but it has to be said). Genuinely exciting moments in very wide games are few and far between. Compare that to MGS2 where exciting moments and set pieces await you at every turn. And if even a developer is supremely talented to grunge provide moments of genuine excitement, the fact that they are so spread out makes less reliably thrilling and more watered-down experience. Would you rather have a measure of Scotch diluted in two pints of water, or drink it neat? (don’t answer that if your underage!).
It is true that some wide games turn out to be very deep (Mario and Zelda instantly spring to mind), and these games are met with public and critical acclaim simply because they are exceptions to the rule. Look closely at some of your favourite games, and ask yourself are they including stages that deliberately hinder the game in completely uninteresting ways, just to stretch the width? Thought so, most games have them. Its things like precision jumping that add to the width of the game but not to the depth of the experience.
So why, you might think, are width-heavy games like Final Fantasy so popular? I think that these games are popular because they take so long. A certain proportion of gamers, who like to be known as ‘hardcore’ because they play for 20hours, like the fact that the mass market alienate these games in favour of a Tomb Raider fix. I suppose it gives you a feeling that you are part of something. Before you criticise me, I’m the same. I liked the fact that hardly anyone liked the N64, simply because I felt proud that I did.
What do I perceive to be the game that combines both width and depth perfectly? You’ll probably expect me to say a game with great graphics on a next gen console. Well, I’m prepared to be hammered here but I think Pokemon, even on the original Game Boy, is the perfect example. It takes a very long time to complete, but not because of pointless width, it’s because of the depth of the gameplay, and the different way it can be approached.
So what of the future of games? Well, the greater storage capabilities, especially in Xbox, may be seen as an invitation to some developers to go width-crazy. For the more conscious, skilled developers though, this new opportunity could be seen as a canvas on which the digital artists can create and experiment and provide us gamers with a more fulfilling experience, and try and equate a greater feeling of depth to our favourite games. After all, it’s not the sheer number of locations that counts – its what you do when you get there that matters.
Continuing that theme, we don’t necessarily think a five hour movie is any better than a two hour one. Why shouldn’t the same be applied to games? Lets say for instance that we were to separate the concept of game size into two dimensions – depth, and width. Width would refer to the sheer size, including the size of environments, and the length required to complete it. Depth, on the other hand, would be a description of the games quality, including the amount of brain space it stimulates (bear with me here), the complexity of the puzzles and the challenge it provides. So what of today’s games?
Logic dictates that width is going to be inversely proportional to depth. But what happens if very wide games have a third of the depth? Numerous dull hours spent traipsing around stupidly large maps (Turok 2), or endlessly scrolling though earth-shatteringly banal text conversations (Final Fantasy again – sorry FF fans, but it has to be said). Genuinely exciting moments in very wide games are few and far between. Compare that to MGS2 where exciting moments and set pieces await you at every turn. And if even a developer is supremely talented to grunge provide moments of genuine excitement, the fact that they are so spread out makes less reliably thrilling and more watered-down experience. Would you rather have a measure of Scotch diluted in two pints of water, or drink it neat? (don’t answer that if your underage!).
It is true that some wide games turn out to be very deep (Mario and Zelda instantly spring to mind), and these games are met with public and critical acclaim simply because they are exceptions to the rule. Look closely at some of your favourite games, and ask yourself are they including stages that deliberately hinder the game in completely uninteresting ways, just to stretch the width? Thought so, most games have them. Its things like precision jumping that add to the width of the game but not to the depth of the experience.
So why, you might think, are width-heavy games like Final Fantasy so popular? I think that these games are popular because they take so long. A certain proportion of gamers, who like to be known as ‘hardcore’ because they play for 20hours, like the fact that the mass market alienate these games in favour of a Tomb Raider fix. I suppose it gives you a feeling that you are part of something. Before you criticise me, I’m the same. I liked the fact that hardly anyone liked the N64, simply because I felt proud that I did.
What do I perceive to be the game that combines both width and depth perfectly? You’ll probably expect me to say a game with great graphics on a next gen console. Well, I’m prepared to be hammered here but I think Pokemon, even on the original Game Boy, is the perfect example. It takes a very long time to complete, but not because of pointless width, it’s because of the depth of the gameplay, and the different way it can be approached.
So what of the future of games? Well, the greater storage capabilities, especially in Xbox, may be seen as an invitation to some developers to go width-crazy. For the more conscious, skilled developers though, this new opportunity could be seen as a canvas on which the digital artists can create and experiment and provide us gamers with a more fulfilling experience, and try and equate a greater feeling of depth to our favourite games. After all, it’s not the sheer number of locations that counts – its what you do when you get there that matters.