The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
All so often we’re being told that games are good value for money. Forty pounds buys you up to forty hours of gameplay- a running cost that’s half that of going to the cinema and more than ten times cheaper than buying a CD. However, this ignores the quality of the product. Do we really want games that build on existing concepts and have amazing longevity, or would we rather see smaller, highly original and technically brilliant games that ooze of innovation?
It seems to me that most developers make their games long simply to hide the fact that little creativity has gone into them. Make a game longer, with lots of interesting cut-scenes to drive the player, and you can make up for the lack of interest in the game design. As an example, GTA3 contains hours and hours of repetitive missions that are very predictable. Occasionally you get the chance to do something more interesting, like taking out a plane using a rocket launcher, but such missions are hidden in a mist of monotonous copycat missions and unintelligible cut-scenes. The whole game has been deliberately lengthened so that the player is driven towards the next part of the story.
Meanwhile there are a few developers who release truly original games that offer intense gameplay from start to end. Pikmin forces you to complete the game within a time limit while Jet Set Radio doesn’t contain a huge set of levels. However, both these games are hugely innovative and continually produce new concepts within the game to make sure that they’re never boring. Rather than string out these games, the developers have decided to keep them interesting at all times, creating a far more refreshing atmosphere. As a result these games have been praised by the media and will be remembered long past their contemporaries.
Too many developers are too scared to leave games short and sweet- for some unknown reason games always have to have hours of gameplay. However, how many long games actually have wall-to-wall interest? Very few indeed (Zelda being a perfect example). Smaller developers will never be able to create an epic like Zelda, so, rather than compete with Nintendo by making a huge game, why not compete by creating a game equally as original but smaller in size? Surely such advances would please the media, gamers and would catch the eye of industry insiders?
So, next time you here the statistic that games work out cheap than other forms of entertainment, ask yourself why this is so great. After all, I have no quibbles with buying an excellent audio CD for in excess of £10- even if it’s only an hour long- so why should we demand that games give us plenty of gameplay at the expense of quality?
Sonic
It seems to me that most developers make their games long simply to hide the fact that little creativity has gone into them. Make a game longer, with lots of interesting cut-scenes to drive the player, and you can make up for the lack of interest in the game design. As an example, GTA3 contains hours and hours of repetitive missions that are very predictable. Occasionally you get the chance to do something more interesting, like taking out a plane using a rocket launcher, but such missions are hidden in a mist of monotonous copycat missions and unintelligible cut-scenes. The whole game has been deliberately lengthened so that the player is driven towards the next part of the story.
Meanwhile there are a few developers who release truly original games that offer intense gameplay from start to end. Pikmin forces you to complete the game within a time limit while Jet Set Radio doesn’t contain a huge set of levels. However, both these games are hugely innovative and continually produce new concepts within the game to make sure that they’re never boring. Rather than string out these games, the developers have decided to keep them interesting at all times, creating a far more refreshing atmosphere. As a result these games have been praised by the media and will be remembered long past their contemporaries.
Too many developers are too scared to leave games short and sweet- for some unknown reason games always have to have hours of gameplay. However, how many long games actually have wall-to-wall interest? Very few indeed (Zelda being a perfect example). Smaller developers will never be able to create an epic like Zelda, so, rather than compete with Nintendo by making a huge game, why not compete by creating a game equally as original but smaller in size? Surely such advances would please the media, gamers and would catch the eye of industry insiders?
So, next time you here the statistic that games work out cheap than other forms of entertainment, ask yourself why this is so great. After all, I have no quibbles with buying an excellent audio CD for in excess of £10- even if it’s only an hour long- so why should we demand that games give us plenty of gameplay at the expense of quality?
Sonic
Although the Chao garden in SA2 was a welcome addition, have you seen the extras in SA1? As well as the game being a lot bigger and better anyway (far far more levels, and all of them are far quicker), there are the medals, there were some online challenges, plenty of minigames (sandboarding, wacking game etc), loads of bosses to go through again, AND the chao garden. An all together more enjoyable game- get it when it comes out on the GC!
Well, I'm off the point, but thanks for all the replies!
Well, I'm off the point, but thanks for all the replies!
i don't mind at all if a game is short, as long as it has a lot of mini games to go back to. the gb harry botter game isn't very good, but it has some alright unlockable mini games. i think that SA2B is a good example of what i'm talking about, because i came back to the chao gardens months after i got tired of the game.
I think the problem with creating long games that are also original is that developers simply can't come up with enough new innovations to fill a large game. I don't mind if a game is short if it has replay value, and I think a game being long is a definite plus point as long as the player is actually compelled to finish the game, and doesn't become bored half way through.
Buying games anyway... I've not actually paid for a game in ages... towards the end of the N64 there was nothing I really wanted save Conker and Paper Mario both of which I got as GADs, and now I've paid for a Cube and won a few games for it, which is nice... :D I'll probably pay for some stuff when I get some cash! I can't really get any PC games as my PC has lowish specs meaning I can't get any of the new 3D games that need high specs...
Buying games anyway... I've not actually paid for a game in ages... towards the end of the N64 there was nothing I really wanted save Conker and Paper Mario both of which I got as GADs, and now I've paid for a Cube and won a few games for it, which is nice... :D I'll probably pay for some stuff when I get some cash! I can't really get any PC games as my PC has lowish specs meaning I can't get any of the new 3D games that need high specs...
Yeah... this is something I've been sort of realising...
Although Pikmin was WAY too short, what was there was almost perfect (I didn't like how it forced players to rush it - sort of killed relaxed exploration and time to think and experiment, but I suppose it didn't put any REAL pressure on...). I enjoyed it much more than the 50 hours I got from DK64.
Big doesn't necessarily mean worthwhile. DK64 was huge but far from satisfying.
I think that we should stop judging the size and try "longevity" instead.
RPG's need to be big. They have little replayability.
I think that the best replayability comes in the form of multiplayer. As soon as I heard that it was in devellopment, I knew that Smash Brothers Melee would be the most worthwhile game I could possibly get (it's clocked up well over 100 hours...) down to this. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark's multiplayer well out lasted their single player.
Having said that, Perfect Dark's single player still took up a LOT of my time (It went into the 60 hour mark - longer than Zelda lasted me!). Other than toying with it (messing around and experimenting with the likes of cheats, enemy AI etc - I did a post about this a month back), it lasted down to it's difficulty.
Although it only had 20 missions (including secrets), doing these missions on the hardest difficulty setting would take ages and mean trying again, and again, and again...
Very few games do that nowdays.
They're either a walk in the park or have extremely close save points.
Still, now games are reaching their technical peaks, devellopers are going to start looking at the inventiveness of the game's design.
I think that's what's gone into Pikmin and Mario Sunshine...
Perhaps Nintendo are still one step ahead of the rest after all...
Although Pikmin was WAY too short, what was there was almost perfect (I didn't like how it forced players to rush it - sort of killed relaxed exploration and time to think and experiment, but I suppose it didn't put any REAL pressure on...). I enjoyed it much more than the 50 hours I got from DK64.
Big doesn't necessarily mean worthwhile. DK64 was huge but far from satisfying.
I think that we should stop judging the size and try "longevity" instead.
RPG's need to be big. They have little replayability.
I think that the best replayability comes in the form of multiplayer. As soon as I heard that it was in devellopment, I knew that Smash Brothers Melee would be the most worthwhile game I could possibly get (it's clocked up well over 100 hours...) down to this. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark's multiplayer well out lasted their single player.
Having said that, Perfect Dark's single player still took up a LOT of my time (It went into the 60 hour mark - longer than Zelda lasted me!). Other than toying with it (messing around and experimenting with the likes of cheats, enemy AI etc - I did a post about this a month back), it lasted down to it's difficulty.
Although it only had 20 missions (including secrets), doing these missions on the hardest difficulty setting would take ages and mean trying again, and again, and again...
Very few games do that nowdays.
They're either a walk in the park or have extremely close save points.
Still, now games are reaching their technical peaks, devellopers are going to start looking at the inventiveness of the game's design.
I think that's what's gone into Pikmin and Mario Sunshine...
Perhaps Nintendo are still one step ahead of the rest after all...
Oh, I certainly agree that games are outrageously over priced- most of the profit goes to the retailers who just sit behind a counter and take money off you!
As for Agent Under Fire, it did have excellent gameplay and diversity, but was (ironically for this topic) too short. It took me one day to play... if anything I'd like some more missions- even if they just have a bit of repetitiveness! More so, the whole success of Goldeneye was the multiplayer mode- I had AUF on the PS2 meaning that I'd have to shell out loads for a multitap... no thanks!
Thanks for the replies!
As for Agent Under Fire, it did have excellent gameplay and diversity, but was (ironically for this topic) too short. It took me one day to play... if anything I'd like some more missions- even if they just have a bit of repetitiveness! More so, the whole success of Goldeneye was the multiplayer mode- I had AUF on the PS2 meaning that I'd have to shell out loads for a multitap... no thanks!
Thanks for the replies!
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> All so often we’re being told that games are good value for money.
> Forty pounds buys you up to forty hours of gameplay- a running cost
> that’s half that of going to the cinema and more than ten times
> cheaper than buying a CD.
Nope, never told that, I hear this and agree - games are a total rip-off, unless they're Platinum/PC games. You'll never find a PC game over £35.99, yet Nintendo had the nerve to charge £59.99+ for a game. It just doesn't make sense. I never pay more for £29.99 for a game.
> All so often we’re being told that games are good value for money.
> Forty pounds buys you up to forty hours of gameplay- a running cost
> that’s half that of going to the cinema and more than ten times
> cheaper than buying a CD.
Nope, never told that, I hear this and agree - games are a total rip-off, unless they're Platinum/PC games. You'll never find a PC game over £35.99, yet Nintendo had the nerve to charge £59.99+ for a game. It just doesn't make sense. I never pay more for £29.99 for a game.
Thankyou Sonic. Tell that to my parents.
"£40 for a game. Surely you've got something better to spend that amount of money on!?"
"Yes, mam, but I'm not asking for 40 quid for the likes of Pac-Man am I, if you even know what Pac-Man is!"
That was just one of the many examples I could give you of arguments about games with my parents, but you're right Sonic, GTA3 gave hours upon hours of repetitive missions, but each mission didn't have much difference between them. The fact that it was a unique game that allowed for a lot of freedom in a way hid the fact that it was quite repetitive. I'm not saying GTA3 wasn't worth £40, but the missions didn't differ from one another. That was the only real bad point.
On the other hand there are the short, but sweet games. Short in length, sweet in gameplay. Take Agent Under Fire for example. Each mission gave you different objectives to undergo, and it even strayed away from the FPS style to a racing style shooter in certain missions. When I experienced this change in gameplay as I progressed through the game, my doubts whether this game was value for money were all quenched. It was until I played the multiplayer section and reached the short-lived end that I changed my mind. The game seemed to cut off where you jut felt you were getting stuck in, so I had no other option but to get a refund.
Games like Max Payne are a joy to spend 40 quid on, but once you've reached completion you can't help but question the amount of replay value it has, which is ... not a lot.
To this day, I still think that games are highly over-priced, but all I say is someone has to make a living!
Good post Sonic
:-)
"£40 for a game. Surely you've got something better to spend that amount of money on!?"
"Yes, mam, but I'm not asking for 40 quid for the likes of Pac-Man am I, if you even know what Pac-Man is!"
That was just one of the many examples I could give you of arguments about games with my parents, but you're right Sonic, GTA3 gave hours upon hours of repetitive missions, but each mission didn't have much difference between them. The fact that it was a unique game that allowed for a lot of freedom in a way hid the fact that it was quite repetitive. I'm not saying GTA3 wasn't worth £40, but the missions didn't differ from one another. That was the only real bad point.
On the other hand there are the short, but sweet games. Short in length, sweet in gameplay. Take Agent Under Fire for example. Each mission gave you different objectives to undergo, and it even strayed away from the FPS style to a racing style shooter in certain missions. When I experienced this change in gameplay as I progressed through the game, my doubts whether this game was value for money were all quenched. It was until I played the multiplayer section and reached the short-lived end that I changed my mind. The game seemed to cut off where you jut felt you were getting stuck in, so I had no other option but to get a refund.
Games like Max Payne are a joy to spend 40 quid on, but once you've reached completion you can't help but question the amount of replay value it has, which is ... not a lot.
To this day, I still think that games are highly over-priced, but all I say is someone has to make a living!
Good post Sonic
:-)
All so often we’re being told that games are good value for money. Forty pounds buys you up to forty hours of gameplay- a running cost that’s half that of going to the cinema and more than ten times cheaper than buying a CD. However, this ignores the quality of the product. Do we really want games that build on existing concepts and have amazing longevity, or would we rather see smaller, highly original and technically brilliant games that ooze of innovation?
It seems to me that most developers make their games long simply to hide the fact that little creativity has gone into them. Make a game longer, with lots of interesting cut-scenes to drive the player, and you can make up for the lack of interest in the game design. As an example, GTA3 contains hours and hours of repetitive missions that are very predictable. Occasionally you get the chance to do something more interesting, like taking out a plane using a rocket launcher, but such missions are hidden in a mist of monotonous copycat missions and unintelligible cut-scenes. The whole game has been deliberately lengthened so that the player is driven towards the next part of the story.
Meanwhile there are a few developers who release truly original games that offer intense gameplay from start to end. Pikmin forces you to complete the game within a time limit while Jet Set Radio doesn’t contain a huge set of levels. However, both these games are hugely innovative and continually produce new concepts within the game to make sure that they’re never boring. Rather than string out these games, the developers have decided to keep them interesting at all times, creating a far more refreshing atmosphere. As a result these games have been praised by the media and will be remembered long past their contemporaries.
Too many developers are too scared to leave games short and sweet- for some unknown reason games always have to have hours of gameplay. However, how many long games actually have wall-to-wall interest? Very few indeed (Zelda being a perfect example). Smaller developers will never be able to create an epic like Zelda, so, rather than compete with Nintendo by making a huge game, why not compete by creating a game equally as original but smaller in size? Surely such advances would please the media, gamers and would catch the eye of industry insiders?
So, next time you here the statistic that games work out cheap than other forms of entertainment, ask yourself why this is so great. After all, I have no quibbles with buying an excellent audio CD for in excess of £10- even if it’s only an hour long- so why should we demand that games give us plenty of gameplay at the expense of quality?
Sonic
It seems to me that most developers make their games long simply to hide the fact that little creativity has gone into them. Make a game longer, with lots of interesting cut-scenes to drive the player, and you can make up for the lack of interest in the game design. As an example, GTA3 contains hours and hours of repetitive missions that are very predictable. Occasionally you get the chance to do something more interesting, like taking out a plane using a rocket launcher, but such missions are hidden in a mist of monotonous copycat missions and unintelligible cut-scenes. The whole game has been deliberately lengthened so that the player is driven towards the next part of the story.
Meanwhile there are a few developers who release truly original games that offer intense gameplay from start to end. Pikmin forces you to complete the game within a time limit while Jet Set Radio doesn’t contain a huge set of levels. However, both these games are hugely innovative and continually produce new concepts within the game to make sure that they’re never boring. Rather than string out these games, the developers have decided to keep them interesting at all times, creating a far more refreshing atmosphere. As a result these games have been praised by the media and will be remembered long past their contemporaries.
Too many developers are too scared to leave games short and sweet- for some unknown reason games always have to have hours of gameplay. However, how many long games actually have wall-to-wall interest? Very few indeed (Zelda being a perfect example). Smaller developers will never be able to create an epic like Zelda, so, rather than compete with Nintendo by making a huge game, why not compete by creating a game equally as original but smaller in size? Surely such advances would please the media, gamers and would catch the eye of industry insiders?
So, next time you here the statistic that games work out cheap than other forms of entertainment, ask yourself why this is so great. After all, I have no quibbles with buying an excellent audio CD for in excess of £10- even if it’s only an hour long- so why should we demand that games give us plenty of gameplay at the expense of quality?
Sonic