The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Thanks for reading
Russell
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.
Thanks for reading
Russell
Page:
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.
Thanks for reading
Russell
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.
Thanks for reading
Russell
Heh,
Nice to see you RM18,
And as for the post, an ok performance.
I'll be posting mine soon. Dont know when though.
hhmmmmm
:)
Nice to see you RM18,
And as for the post, an ok performance.
I'll be posting mine soon. Dont know when though.
hhmmmmm
:)
Ok, thanks
btw the title should be 'Games size - Is DEPTH preferable to width'
btw the title should be 'Games size - Is DEPTH preferable to width'
ok,
well it wasnt what i was expecting you to talk about really.
I was thinking more about the size of the disk space and how developers use it.
But it was good anyway.
:)
well it wasnt what i was expecting you to talk about really.
I was thinking more about the size of the disk space and how developers use it.
But it was good anyway.
:)
Good post as well. Glad i posted mine yesterday :).
I really like RPG's but i must admit that FF gets a bit annoying when your walking around on the world map fighting every 10 steps and you have to travel quite far. There are lots of games that have large areas to explore. I suppose the developers just want you (the gamer) to have enough to do.
Nice one Russell
I really like RPG's but i must admit that FF gets a bit annoying when your walking around on the world map fighting every 10 steps and you have to travel quite far. There are lots of games that have large areas to explore. I suppose the developers just want you (the gamer) to have enough to do.
Nice one Russell
Thanks
Not bad, Russ
Good post Russ.
This topic is something that people talk about everyday in this forum,
theres always someone complaining "MGS 2 is soo short" "FF X will offer more value for money etc etc"
However it is important to look at the game more in depth and think to yourself why was it that this game the size it was?
Different kinds of people like different kinds of games, I for one doubt I could sit there for 70 hours and finish FF, but trust me some people could and still they would be moaning about how long it was or wasn't.
Games like MGS 2 were made with intensive graphics, gameplay and film like features and I believe it was the 'right length'- if people still think it was short then it maybe because of the other wonderful things that were included in the game which took up time whilst developing it - but i'd rather have this brilliant gameplay features with a decent length rather than a long long (probably boring game) theres so much to do in that game and again I emphasise of the replay value of the game, different levels give you different things, the more advanced level you play the harder things become.
Take for example an old classic - Crash Bandicoot, there is so much to unlock in that game once a level is finished you need to play the level again to obtain other things like relics, which would then allow more depth into the game as you go on.
You'd be surprised by things you find in a game if you take your time a think about how to fininsh it rather than finish it with 16 hours and complain about its size.
Hope this was good feedback to your Q RM18.
theres always someone complaining "MGS 2 is soo short" "FF X will offer more value for money etc etc"
However it is important to look at the game more in depth and think to yourself why was it that this game the size it was?
Different kinds of people like different kinds of games, I for one doubt I could sit there for 70 hours and finish FF, but trust me some people could and still they would be moaning about how long it was or wasn't.
Games like MGS 2 were made with intensive graphics, gameplay and film like features and I believe it was the 'right length'- if people still think it was short then it maybe because of the other wonderful things that were included in the game which took up time whilst developing it - but i'd rather have this brilliant gameplay features with a decent length rather than a long long (probably boring game) theres so much to do in that game and again I emphasise of the replay value of the game, different levels give you different things, the more advanced level you play the harder things become.
Take for example an old classic - Crash Bandicoot, there is so much to unlock in that game once a level is finished you need to play the level again to obtain other things like relics, which would then allow more depth into the game as you go on.
You'd be surprised by things you find in a game if you take your time a think about how to fininsh it rather than finish it with 16 hours and complain about its size.
Hope this was good feedback to your Q RM18.
Nice post.
Its a tough one really to consider the depth of the game to width. MGS2 is pretty short at 10 hours first time you play to about 3 hours once you know what your doing. But this is the same as the Resident Evil games were on the PS1. Short games can be brilliant in depth and offer replay value. MGS2 while short, is fun to play and the player will probably complete it a few times.
Final Fantasy games while long still offer lots of depth, there so much to do and for me and many others it is fun. But after completing a Final Fantasy game your unlikely to go and play it through again.
I think both long and short games are good, its the atmosphere and fun that they generate that makes it a good game. For example Resident Evil was a short game, but very tense and for me a brilliant game(cant wait for the GC version). Final Fantasy 7 was a long game, but the gaming experience for me was brilliant, the music, the story e.t.c.
I think that a game should offer alot of replay value, or be long and good enough to feel your moneys been well spent. If you buy a Final Fantasy game you may only play it once, you'll probably really enjoy it and at maybe 60 hours worth of game play its value for money. Then take MGS2, a pretty short game. But if you complete it a few times your getting a lot of replay value from it, and its money well spent.
I dont think there are any boring long games, I think depth in long games has to be pretty deep, otherwise you would just stop playing the game. Nobody will sit through a Final Fantasy game if ther bored, if depth wasnt in a Final Fantasy game, then people wouldnt play it.
Its a tough one really to consider the depth of the game to width. MGS2 is pretty short at 10 hours first time you play to about 3 hours once you know what your doing. But this is the same as the Resident Evil games were on the PS1. Short games can be brilliant in depth and offer replay value. MGS2 while short, is fun to play and the player will probably complete it a few times.
Final Fantasy games while long still offer lots of depth, there so much to do and for me and many others it is fun. But after completing a Final Fantasy game your unlikely to go and play it through again.
I think both long and short games are good, its the atmosphere and fun that they generate that makes it a good game. For example Resident Evil was a short game, but very tense and for me a brilliant game(cant wait for the GC version). Final Fantasy 7 was a long game, but the gaming experience for me was brilliant, the music, the story e.t.c.
I think that a game should offer alot of replay value, or be long and good enough to feel your moneys been well spent. If you buy a Final Fantasy game you may only play it once, you'll probably really enjoy it and at maybe 60 hours worth of game play its value for money. Then take MGS2, a pretty short game. But if you complete it a few times your getting a lot of replay value from it, and its money well spent.
I dont think there are any boring long games, I think depth in long games has to be pretty deep, otherwise you would just stop playing the game. Nobody will sit through a Final Fantasy game if ther bored, if depth wasnt in a Final Fantasy game, then people wouldnt play it.
Page: