The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The size of games - pervert.
I read an interview with Adrian Smith from Core/Eidos where he mentioned that Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness: Not The Game Of The Movie: But Hopefully Quite Good: To Pay For Herdy Gerdy: Project Eden and subsequent Tomb Raider games would probably be shorter than before. Maybe around 20-25 hours he reckoned (read 10-15 I guess) because of the much higher production values this time round. I see, that’s the way it works is it? You can have quantity or quality, not both? Bummer.
Initial cynicism about pre-emptive excuses aside, it got me thinking - it’s one of those obvious things isn’t it? The bar keeps going up in terms of graphics, sound, plot depth, features and the rest of the prettiness we demand from games but where does it all, y’know, come from? Developer’s teams are big but they can’t just keep getting bigger forever. It’s a man-hour thing in the end, so it’s shorter games or extend the development period indefinitely (a la Duke Nukem).
It was that production values phrase though. I see what he means. Thinking just of graphics, for example; back in the olden days you could have basically the same bit of scenery, fairly simply drawn and reuse it over and over. That doesn’t fly anymore. Our jaded eyes want variety and depth. Previously it might have been possible to make the same repeated background look better with some minor graphical twist and for that to count as a good enough but now…no. So when recycling and improving textures isn’t good enough that means a fundamental change in the way the work is done – spending a few days making them look better is nowhere as hard as having to draw a whole lot of new ones y’know? And that’s just graphics. Apply it to everything else and it gets pretty big pretty quick.
The thing is, for me, it’s not such a big deal – I kinda like short games. It’s a weakness – I don’t deny it, but a short game means I can enjoy this one to the max, not get fed up with it, then move on and get another good one just that bit sooner. Don’t get me wrong, I really do enjoy the good games when I’m playing them but I don’t get that “I wish this could go on forever” feeling. I like the sensation of moving toward a point, a finish. It’s kind of like, you know, even a diet of only prawn cocktail crisps and marmite (personal faves) would pall after a while. The same with games.
Sad I know but there is a more positive way of looking at my shallowness – I really can’t handle games (or books or movies) that outstay their welcome either. The obvious example is in movies- I have this theory that every movie is 90 minutes long. That’s the magic number – it’s just that some of them run for up to two and a half hours. (Inside every fat movie is a thin movie waiting to get out (“Just the one dear?”).
It’s harder to say that with games. We all take a different length of time to finish them so there is no exact 90 min equivalent. Still though, we know what is a long game and what isn’t. Didn’t anyone other than me think that even the awesome Half Life dragged just a little toward the end? No? Ahem (coughs, shuffles, embarrassed).
Anyway, what I was saying was that we want the games to look and sound next gen, we want deep twisting intelligent plots, we want loads of hidden this and secret that, the whole quality thing – and so we should, we’re paying enough after all – all I’m saying is that there might be another price, a hidden one.
It could be that our demands actually shape not just the surface of gaming or individual games but that we might be redefining what actually constitutes a game. We, as gamers, might be voting with our wallets to shift games closer to movies and TV by insisting on certain production values, therefore cutting out anything that doesn’t reach that threshold – censorship in a way, but maybe not a bad way.
But as always, whenever we accuse developers and publishers of something the finger kinda twists right round to point back at us (like the hand gripping the gun – maaan). We buy what we like so they give us what we’ll buy. (Although the truth is that we buy what we like from what’s available. Key difference.) I know the whole originality does/doesn’t sell debate is for somewhere else, so I’m just focussing on one aspect of it. And most of this applies to certain types of games more than others of course. Having said, it was odd to hear one of the FIFA/EA guys saying that most of non-star players in their world cup games would have “generic heads” (eugh – sounds filthy). Again that was as a resource issue but in a very much “quick lick of paint and send it out” game.
All I’m saying is that we should go into all this with our eyes open. If we want Hollywood quality then we might just end up with Hollywood games. Remember though; for very Usual Suspects, Matrix and LA Confidential (I know all longer than 90 mins but don’t get picky) we’re going to get an awful lot of top shelf filler and straight to video dross that looks good and has a gimmick but not much else. Max Payne got away with it (just) but you just know that pale imitations razor thin games can not be a good idea.
What do you reckon?
I read an interview with Adrian Smith from Core/Eidos where he mentioned that Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness: Not The Game Of The Movie: But Hopefully Quite Good: To Pay For Herdy Gerdy: Project Eden and subsequent Tomb Raider games would probably be shorter than before. Maybe around 20-25 hours he reckoned (read 10-15 I guess) because of the much higher production values this time round. I see, that’s the way it works is it? You can have quantity or quality, not both? Bummer.
Initial cynicism about pre-emptive excuses aside, it got me thinking - it’s one of those obvious things isn’t it? The bar keeps going up in terms of graphics, sound, plot depth, features and the rest of the prettiness we demand from games but where does it all, y’know, come from? Developer’s teams are big but they can’t just keep getting bigger forever. It’s a man-hour thing in the end, so it’s shorter games or extend the development period indefinitely (a la Duke Nukem).
It was that production values phrase though. I see what he means. Thinking just of graphics, for example; back in the olden days you could have basically the same bit of scenery, fairly simply drawn and reuse it over and over. That doesn’t fly anymore. Our jaded eyes want variety and depth. Previously it might have been possible to make the same repeated background look better with some minor graphical twist and for that to count as a good enough but now…no. So when recycling and improving textures isn’t good enough that means a fundamental change in the way the work is done – spending a few days making them look better is nowhere as hard as having to draw a whole lot of new ones y’know? And that’s just graphics. Apply it to everything else and it gets pretty big pretty quick.
The thing is, for me, it’s not such a big deal – I kinda like short games. It’s a weakness – I don’t deny it, but a short game means I can enjoy this one to the max, not get fed up with it, then move on and get another good one just that bit sooner. Don’t get me wrong, I really do enjoy the good games when I’m playing them but I don’t get that “I wish this could go on forever” feeling. I like the sensation of moving toward a point, a finish. It’s kind of like, you know, even a diet of only prawn cocktail crisps and marmite (personal faves) would pall after a while. The same with games.
Sad I know but there is a more positive way of looking at my shallowness – I really can’t handle games (or books or movies) that outstay their welcome either. The obvious example is in movies- I have this theory that every movie is 90 minutes long. That’s the magic number – it’s just that some of them run for up to two and a half hours. (Inside every fat movie is a thin movie waiting to get out (“Just the one dear?”).
It’s harder to say that with games. We all take a different length of time to finish them so there is no exact 90 min equivalent. Still though, we know what is a long game and what isn’t. Didn’t anyone other than me think that even the awesome Half Life dragged just a little toward the end? No? Ahem (coughs, shuffles, embarrassed).
Anyway, what I was saying was that we want the games to look and sound next gen, we want deep twisting intelligent plots, we want loads of hidden this and secret that, the whole quality thing – and so we should, we’re paying enough after all – all I’m saying is that there might be another price, a hidden one.
It could be that our demands actually shape not just the surface of gaming or individual games but that we might be redefining what actually constitutes a game. We, as gamers, might be voting with our wallets to shift games closer to movies and TV by insisting on certain production values, therefore cutting out anything that doesn’t reach that threshold – censorship in a way, but maybe not a bad way.
But as always, whenever we accuse developers and publishers of something the finger kinda twists right round to point back at us (like the hand gripping the gun – maaan). We buy what we like so they give us what we’ll buy. (Although the truth is that we buy what we like from what’s available. Key difference.) I know the whole originality does/doesn’t sell debate is for somewhere else, so I’m just focussing on one aspect of it. And most of this applies to certain types of games more than others of course. Having said, it was odd to hear one of the FIFA/EA guys saying that most of non-star players in their world cup games would have “generic heads” (eugh – sounds filthy). Again that was as a resource issue but in a very much “quick lick of paint and send it out” game.
All I’m saying is that we should go into all this with our eyes open. If we want Hollywood quality then we might just end up with Hollywood games. Remember though; for very Usual Suspects, Matrix and LA Confidential (I know all longer than 90 mins but don’t get picky) we’re going to get an awful lot of top shelf filler and straight to video dross that looks good and has a gimmick but not much else. Max Payne got away with it (just) but you just know that pale imitations razor thin games can not be a good idea.
What do you reckon?
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
The size of games - pervert.
I read an interview with Adrian Smith from Core/Eidos where he mentioned that Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness: Not The Game Of The Movie: But Hopefully Quite Good: To Pay For Herdy Gerdy: Project Eden and subsequent Tomb Raider games would probably be shorter than before. Maybe around 20-25 hours he reckoned (read 10-15 I guess) because of the much higher production values this time round. I see, that’s the way it works is it? You can have quantity or quality, not both? Bummer.
Initial cynicism about pre-emptive excuses aside, it got me thinking - it’s one of those obvious things isn’t it? The bar keeps going up in terms of graphics, sound, plot depth, features and the rest of the prettiness we demand from games but where does it all, y’know, come from? Developer’s teams are big but they can’t just keep getting bigger forever. It’s a man-hour thing in the end, so it’s shorter games or extend the development period indefinitely (a la Duke Nukem).
It was that production values phrase though. I see what he means. Thinking just of graphics, for example; back in the olden days you could have basically the same bit of scenery, fairly simply drawn and reuse it over and over. That doesn’t fly anymore. Our jaded eyes want variety and depth. Previously it might have been possible to make the same repeated background look better with some minor graphical twist and for that to count as a good enough but now…no. So when recycling and improving textures isn’t good enough that means a fundamental change in the way the work is done – spending a few days making them look better is nowhere as hard as having to draw a whole lot of new ones y’know? And that’s just graphics. Apply it to everything else and it gets pretty big pretty quick.
The thing is, for me, it’s not such a big deal – I kinda like short games. It’s a weakness – I don’t deny it, but a short game means I can enjoy this one to the max, not get fed up with it, then move on and get another good one just that bit sooner. Don’t get me wrong, I really do enjoy the good games when I’m playing them but I don’t get that “I wish this could go on forever” feeling. I like the sensation of moving toward a point, a finish. It’s kind of like, you know, even a diet of only prawn cocktail crisps and marmite (personal faves) would pall after a while. The same with games.
Sad I know but there is a more positive way of looking at my shallowness – I really can’t handle games (or books or movies) that outstay their welcome either. The obvious example is in movies- I have this theory that every movie is 90 minutes long. That’s the magic number – it’s just that some of them run for up to two and a half hours. (Inside every fat movie is a thin movie waiting to get out (“Just the one dear?”).
It’s harder to say that with games. We all take a different length of time to finish them so there is no exact 90 min equivalent. Still though, we know what is a long game and what isn’t. Didn’t anyone other than me think that even the awesome Half Life dragged just a little toward the end? No? Ahem (coughs, shuffles, embarrassed).
Anyway, what I was saying was that we want the games to look and sound next gen, we want deep twisting intelligent plots, we want loads of hidden this and secret that, the whole quality thing – and so we should, we’re paying enough after all – all I’m saying is that there might be another price, a hidden one.
It could be that our demands actually shape not just the surface of gaming or individual games but that we might be redefining what actually constitutes a game. We, as gamers, might be voting with our wallets to shift games closer to movies and TV by insisting on certain production values, therefore cutting out anything that doesn’t reach that threshold – censorship in a way, but maybe not a bad way.
But as always, whenever we accuse developers and publishers of something the finger kinda twists right round to point back at us (like the hand gripping the gun – maaan). We buy what we like so they give us what we’ll buy. (Although the truth is that we buy what we like from what’s available. Key difference.) I know the whole originality does/doesn’t sell debate is for somewhere else, so I’m just focussing on one aspect of it. And most of this applies to certain types of games more than others of course. Having said, it was odd to hear one of the FIFA/EA guys saying that most of non-star players in their world cup games would have “generic heads” (eugh – sounds filthy). Again that was as a resource issue but in a very much “quick lick of paint and send it out” game.
All I’m saying is that we should go into all this with our eyes open. If we want Hollywood quality then we might just end up with Hollywood games. Remember though; for very Usual Suspects, Matrix and LA Confidential (I know all longer than 90 mins but don’t get picky) we’re going to get an awful lot of top shelf filler and straight to video dross that looks good and has a gimmick but not much else. Max Payne got away with it (just) but you just know that pale imitations razor thin games can not be a good idea.
What do you reckon?
I read an interview with Adrian Smith from Core/Eidos where he mentioned that Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness: Not The Game Of The Movie: But Hopefully Quite Good: To Pay For Herdy Gerdy: Project Eden and subsequent Tomb Raider games would probably be shorter than before. Maybe around 20-25 hours he reckoned (read 10-15 I guess) because of the much higher production values this time round. I see, that’s the way it works is it? You can have quantity or quality, not both? Bummer.
Initial cynicism about pre-emptive excuses aside, it got me thinking - it’s one of those obvious things isn’t it? The bar keeps going up in terms of graphics, sound, plot depth, features and the rest of the prettiness we demand from games but where does it all, y’know, come from? Developer’s teams are big but they can’t just keep getting bigger forever. It’s a man-hour thing in the end, so it’s shorter games or extend the development period indefinitely (a la Duke Nukem).
It was that production values phrase though. I see what he means. Thinking just of graphics, for example; back in the olden days you could have basically the same bit of scenery, fairly simply drawn and reuse it over and over. That doesn’t fly anymore. Our jaded eyes want variety and depth. Previously it might have been possible to make the same repeated background look better with some minor graphical twist and for that to count as a good enough but now…no. So when recycling and improving textures isn’t good enough that means a fundamental change in the way the work is done – spending a few days making them look better is nowhere as hard as having to draw a whole lot of new ones y’know? And that’s just graphics. Apply it to everything else and it gets pretty big pretty quick.
The thing is, for me, it’s not such a big deal – I kinda like short games. It’s a weakness – I don’t deny it, but a short game means I can enjoy this one to the max, not get fed up with it, then move on and get another good one just that bit sooner. Don’t get me wrong, I really do enjoy the good games when I’m playing them but I don’t get that “I wish this could go on forever” feeling. I like the sensation of moving toward a point, a finish. It’s kind of like, you know, even a diet of only prawn cocktail crisps and marmite (personal faves) would pall after a while. The same with games.
Sad I know but there is a more positive way of looking at my shallowness – I really can’t handle games (or books or movies) that outstay their welcome either. The obvious example is in movies- I have this theory that every movie is 90 minutes long. That’s the magic number – it’s just that some of them run for up to two and a half hours. (Inside every fat movie is a thin movie waiting to get out (“Just the one dear?”).
It’s harder to say that with games. We all take a different length of time to finish them so there is no exact 90 min equivalent. Still though, we know what is a long game and what isn’t. Didn’t anyone other than me think that even the awesome Half Life dragged just a little toward the end? No? Ahem (coughs, shuffles, embarrassed).
Anyway, what I was saying was that we want the games to look and sound next gen, we want deep twisting intelligent plots, we want loads of hidden this and secret that, the whole quality thing – and so we should, we’re paying enough after all – all I’m saying is that there might be another price, a hidden one.
It could be that our demands actually shape not just the surface of gaming or individual games but that we might be redefining what actually constitutes a game. We, as gamers, might be voting with our wallets to shift games closer to movies and TV by insisting on certain production values, therefore cutting out anything that doesn’t reach that threshold – censorship in a way, but maybe not a bad way.
But as always, whenever we accuse developers and publishers of something the finger kinda twists right round to point back at us (like the hand gripping the gun – maaan). We buy what we like so they give us what we’ll buy. (Although the truth is that we buy what we like from what’s available. Key difference.) I know the whole originality does/doesn’t sell debate is for somewhere else, so I’m just focussing on one aspect of it. And most of this applies to certain types of games more than others of course. Having said, it was odd to hear one of the FIFA/EA guys saying that most of non-star players in their world cup games would have “generic heads” (eugh – sounds filthy). Again that was as a resource issue but in a very much “quick lick of paint and send it out” game.
All I’m saying is that we should go into all this with our eyes open. If we want Hollywood quality then we might just end up with Hollywood games. Remember though; for very Usual Suspects, Matrix and LA Confidential (I know all longer than 90 mins but don’t get picky) we’re going to get an awful lot of top shelf filler and straight to video dross that looks good and has a gimmick but not much else. Max Payne got away with it (just) but you just know that pale imitations razor thin games can not be a good idea.
What do you reckon?