The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Before you put your sick little brains into work about the title or stop the confusion now by telling you im on about the length of games on the next generation consoles.
It seems to me, and a lot of my freinds, that games on the 128bit consoles are shorter than the 64 and 32bit consoles. I even read somewhere the nintendo are doing this because they have had reports from gamers that they find games too long and they get bored of them near the end.
well the reason ive posted this is to find out if they are right.
First of all i for one am with this idea. Even now i have unfinished N64 and PS1 games on my shelfs gathering dust because i now have a gamecube to play on, and i always look up at them and think "i wonder what the ending is like on that" or "was the boss at the end really that hard", now sooner or later i will return to them and find out but until then it will always be bothering me. Not only get me thinking of the end but it also gets me mad because i just spent good money on a game which i havent even completed.
Also with long games which use the same idea throughtout the game you can soon get bored of it being repetative and just giving up playing because it turns out to be no fun, even if you know you have nearly completed it.
Dont get me wrong though im not for very short games, like luigis mansion, which last you a few days, no matter how good the gameplay, graphics etc. are.
The sort of game im looking for, and im sure many other people are, are games which have good gameplay, graphics and all that but i also want something that will test me and take me a while to complete while still enjoyable to play.
so prehaps the gaming industry has gone from one problem, too long, to another, too short.
The simple giude lines for a game is that the player gets his money worth, enjoys the experience, dosent play for hours on end of the same repetavtive gameplay and also has something to go back to, mostly multiplayer.
Boz.
It seems to me, and a lot of my freinds, that games on the 128bit consoles are shorter than the 64 and 32bit consoles. I even read somewhere the nintendo are doing this because they have had reports from gamers that they find games too long and they get bored of them near the end.
well the reason ive posted this is to find out if they are right.
First of all i for one am with this idea. Even now i have unfinished N64 and PS1 games on my shelfs gathering dust because i now have a gamecube to play on, and i always look up at them and think "i wonder what the ending is like on that" or "was the boss at the end really that hard", now sooner or later i will return to them and find out but until then it will always be bothering me. Not only get me thinking of the end but it also gets me mad because i just spent good money on a game which i havent even completed.
Also with long games which use the same idea throughtout the game you can soon get bored of it being repetative and just giving up playing because it turns out to be no fun, even if you know you have nearly completed it.
Dont get me wrong though im not for very short games, like luigis mansion, which last you a few days, no matter how good the gameplay, graphics etc. are.
The sort of game im looking for, and im sure many other people are, are games which have good gameplay, graphics and all that but i also want something that will test me and take me a while to complete while still enjoyable to play.
so prehaps the gaming industry has gone from one problem, too long, to another, too short.
The simple giude lines for a game is that the player gets his money worth, enjoys the experience, dosent play for hours on end of the same repetavtive gameplay and also has something to go back to, mostly multiplayer.
Boz.
Page:
That's two sweeping statements in the space of five minutes:
"Donkey Kong 64 killed gaming in my opinion."
and
"Everyone is to blame."
It's not all that bad is it?
"Donkey Kong 64 killed gaming in my opinion."
and
"Everyone is to blame."
It's not all that bad is it?
Nomad_Soul wrote:
> er-no wrote:
> Donkey Kong 64 killed gaming in my opinion.
>
> *
>
> I just knew Nintendo & Rare where to blame! :D
They weren't to blame, everyone is. Just that Donkey Kong 64 was absolute crap.
> er-no wrote:
> Donkey Kong 64 killed gaming in my opinion.
>
> *
>
> I just knew Nintendo & Rare where to blame! :D
They weren't to blame, everyone is. Just that Donkey Kong 64 was absolute crap.
er-no wrote:
> Donkey Kong 64 killed gaming in my opinion.
*
I just knew Nintendo & Rare where to blame! :D
> Donkey Kong 64 killed gaming in my opinion.
*
I just knew Nintendo & Rare where to blame! :D
Donkey Kong 64 killed gaming in my opinion.
That was crap.
That was crap.
re-playability is a big issue for me.
T-rex, you seem to be talking about a slightly different issue there. 'Jumpy bits' will only be parts of games of certain types, such as the Resident Evil series or First Person Shooters like Doom to other more modern ones like Halflife. It's when something unexpected happens that makes you physically shudder or 'jump' that draws you into those types of games more than they would normally.
I get what you're saying. If Resident Evil was set in a nice, brightly-lit building (Sounds like the PSX version), it wouldn't have the same effect as a dark and dreary building whenever a zombie seems to appear from nowhere. These moments in games of this type will battle against your want to rest and put down that controller.
Exploration games in the style of platformers, such as Banjo Kazooie, do this in an entirely different way. Instead of making you jump out of your skin, making you want to continue, the game involves you more by enabling you to unlock more areas to explore. So in effect, your curiosity gets played upon which keeps you hooked to the console.
Games in the style of Super Smash Bros Melee also act upon your curiosity to make you want to play more. They involve lots of unlockable characters and levels which you're bound to want to test, and also have lots of other little features in them too like an unlockable music test and extra single player modes.
However, having those extras doesn't necessarily make you want to carry on playing all the time. How many people actually stopped to collect all the 'packages' in Grand Theft Auto 3? Ok, you picked up the ones you spotted, but did you actually find them all? Chances are you got bored and decided it would be more fun to incinerate the public of Liberty City with a flame thrower.
There are many ways in which developers can try and keep you hooked to their games, however they don't always work and their effects vary from person to person. I find it games where you must find so many pieces of something before you can continue very tedius and they soon bore me, whereas to others it gets them more interested in seeing what is going to happen next.
I get what you're saying. If Resident Evil was set in a nice, brightly-lit building (Sounds like the PSX version), it wouldn't have the same effect as a dark and dreary building whenever a zombie seems to appear from nowhere. These moments in games of this type will battle against your want to rest and put down that controller.
Exploration games in the style of platformers, such as Banjo Kazooie, do this in an entirely different way. Instead of making you jump out of your skin, making you want to continue, the game involves you more by enabling you to unlock more areas to explore. So in effect, your curiosity gets played upon which keeps you hooked to the console.
Games in the style of Super Smash Bros Melee also act upon your curiosity to make you want to play more. They involve lots of unlockable characters and levels which you're bound to want to test, and also have lots of other little features in them too like an unlockable music test and extra single player modes.
However, having those extras doesn't necessarily make you want to carry on playing all the time. How many people actually stopped to collect all the 'packages' in Grand Theft Auto 3? Ok, you picked up the ones you spotted, but did you actually find them all? Chances are you got bored and decided it would be more fun to incinerate the public of Liberty City with a flame thrower.
There are many ways in which developers can try and keep you hooked to their games, however they don't always work and their effects vary from person to person. I find it games where you must find so many pieces of something before you can continue very tedius and they soon bore me, whereas to others it gets them more interested in seeing what is going to happen next.
It has to be a balance between gameplay and gamespan and lifespan.
If a game has enough secrets and jumpy parts this will surely keep you interested in the game for a bit longer.
Take Alone In The Dark for example, I was about to save the game and turn it off then 'the lights go out in the room and there is something running around' this is what keeps me interested in games and should be in a lot of other games. This kept me interested in the game because jumpy bits make gamers carry on, And without jumpy bits games would not sell as good
If friend 'A' bought a game and said "it was good, but the jumpy bits is what kept me playing it, you must buy it".
And friend 'B' could say "there were not enough jumpy bits and so I just forgot about it and left it there, you must not buy it, it is a waste of money"
Which friend’s advice would you go with. Exactly friend 'A'
If a game has enough secrets and jumpy parts this will surely keep you interested in the game for a bit longer.
Take Alone In The Dark for example, I was about to save the game and turn it off then 'the lights go out in the room and there is something running around' this is what keeps me interested in games and should be in a lot of other games. This kept me interested in the game because jumpy bits make gamers carry on, And without jumpy bits games would not sell as good
If friend 'A' bought a game and said "it was good, but the jumpy bits is what kept me playing it, you must buy it".
And friend 'B' could say "there were not enough jumpy bits and so I just forgot about it and left it there, you must not buy it, it is a waste of money"
Which friend’s advice would you go with. Exactly friend 'A'
Err... Yeah, what Edgy said.
It has to be a balance between gameplay and gamespan and lifespan. How good the gameplay is (how involving, etc.), how long the game is (Secret of Mana was estimated at 72 hours worth of play, at the least) and how long a game can last before it gets boring (when you complete a game, is there anything else to do, or does it take a while to complete it fully (ie: collecting everything)).
It has to be a balance between gameplay and gamespan and lifespan. How good the gameplay is (how involving, etc.), how long the game is (Secret of Mana was estimated at 72 hours worth of play, at the least) and how long a game can last before it gets boring (when you complete a game, is there anything else to do, or does it take a while to complete it fully (ie: collecting everything)).
Page: