The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I have a confession: I'll never finish all my games. I have a pile of dusty titles with completion rates hovering around forty or fifty per cent. I'll never finish the games I own, but still I buy more titles: fitter, happier, more productive ones, creating an ever greater backlog of unfinished business.
So why do so many of my games remain unfinished?
Is it because I suck at games? Well, no. I consider myself something of a veteran. I scoff at your new-fangled 'graphics', and your namby-pamby health bars and gradual learning curves. In my day we played arcade machines in six-feet of snow, wearing one clog etc etc. No, I'll be honest: I rule at Robotron, Tetris and Civilization 2. But I also suck at Unreal Tournament (stupid third dimension) and Civilization 3 (stupid nuke hating AI). On average I'm good at games; not brilliant, but good enough to finish most titles.
But, still, I don't finish them. Why not?
Is it because I am a sucker, easily distracted by the next big thing of gaming? Am I too hasty to discard an old favourite to try the industry's latest slab of entertainment? Well, duh! Aren't we all? We have all made horribly embarrassing purchases, games that for a week or two we tried to persuade ourselves we loved, only to admit the truth months or years down the line. I remember saving up £60 as a kid and going to town to buy a SNES game, a particular SNES game, a GOOD SNES game: and as I stood in the shop a red mist descended upon me. By the time it lifted I was outside the store, clutching a copy of the Ninja Turtles beat'em up. How I pity my young self. Not that I'm immune to such moments now of course (hello, or rather goodbye, State of Emergency!). Nor do I expect to be in the future: even now I am salivating at the prospect of wasting forty quid on The Getaway.
But, thanks to the wonder that is ebay, these sorts of games are not in my uncompleted pile.
So, is it because I'm not enough of a fanatic? Well, perhaps. There have been moments in my waking life not spent playing games. I have conducted numerous conversations about topics other than games. I have met, and attempted to mate with, upwards of half a dozen women - almost none of whom were computer generated. And when these attempts have been successful I have not ruined the moment by asking 'wot iz better, x-box or gamecube?' I am, in short, a passably well-adjusted young man who enjoys videogames. Conceivably I could play games more - but only by not sleeping, eating, reading, exercising or socialising.
In fact looking at some of the uncompleted AAA titles I own, I can come to only one conclusion: these games are stupidly, impossibly large. These games are big, but they ain't clever. Take, for example, Gran Turizzzmo. I loved this game at first. In fact I loved it for a few months. But still I was only about 60% of the way through. And by that time I had no desire to carry on. Why not? Because I couldn't take losing on the harder races? On the contrary: because I just COULDN'T lose at the harder races. Even when I slid off into the gravel at every other corner I could still catch up. The challenge had gone. The game really should have ended before that happened. It should have said 'You're a great driver, we won't take up any more of your time, go play something else'. But it didn't: there were still another 5,000,000 easy races to win and several hundred special edition cars to collect. After that, playing became a chore.
And gaming should never be a chore. Gaming shouldn't be about hours of hard slog: it should be about excitement, adrenaline, tension, victory, defeat. Gaming should be about compressing as much fun into a unit of time as possible. It should always challenge you, and, when it no longer can, it should have the good grace to say so.
This is what I like about games such as Tetris, or Rez, or Pro Evolution Soccer. They're all short games and once you've had one go you've basically seen all they have to offer. But these are intense, draining and unforgettable gaming experiences: incomparably better than the millionth soulless GT race of Final Fantasy battle. I certainly don't think that we should revert to the five-minute blasting of old (though more of it would be nice). In fact some of favourite games (Deus Ex, Ico) have been 'journey' type games. But I do think that games should always be challenging, and that once you move off the gradient and onto the plateau of difficulty, the end should be drawing near.
So that's all I ask: games that end gracefully, rather than hanging on like ageing rock-stars. If nothing else it would ease my gaming conscience.
So why do so many of my games remain unfinished?
Is it because I suck at games? Well, no. I consider myself something of a veteran. I scoff at your new-fangled 'graphics', and your namby-pamby health bars and gradual learning curves. In my day we played arcade machines in six-feet of snow, wearing one clog etc etc. No, I'll be honest: I rule at Robotron, Tetris and Civilization 2. But I also suck at Unreal Tournament (stupid third dimension) and Civilization 3 (stupid nuke hating AI). On average I'm good at games; not brilliant, but good enough to finish most titles.
But, still, I don't finish them. Why not?
Is it because I am a sucker, easily distracted by the next big thing of gaming? Am I too hasty to discard an old favourite to try the industry's latest slab of entertainment? Well, duh! Aren't we all? We have all made horribly embarrassing purchases, games that for a week or two we tried to persuade ourselves we loved, only to admit the truth months or years down the line. I remember saving up £60 as a kid and going to town to buy a SNES game, a particular SNES game, a GOOD SNES game: and as I stood in the shop a red mist descended upon me. By the time it lifted I was outside the store, clutching a copy of the Ninja Turtles beat'em up. How I pity my young self. Not that I'm immune to such moments now of course (hello, or rather goodbye, State of Emergency!). Nor do I expect to be in the future: even now I am salivating at the prospect of wasting forty quid on The Getaway.
But, thanks to the wonder that is ebay, these sorts of games are not in my uncompleted pile.
So, is it because I'm not enough of a fanatic? Well, perhaps. There have been moments in my waking life not spent playing games. I have conducted numerous conversations about topics other than games. I have met, and attempted to mate with, upwards of half a dozen women - almost none of whom were computer generated. And when these attempts have been successful I have not ruined the moment by asking 'wot iz better, x-box or gamecube?' I am, in short, a passably well-adjusted young man who enjoys videogames. Conceivably I could play games more - but only by not sleeping, eating, reading, exercising or socialising.
In fact looking at some of the uncompleted AAA titles I own, I can come to only one conclusion: these games are stupidly, impossibly large. These games are big, but they ain't clever. Take, for example, Gran Turizzzmo. I loved this game at first. In fact I loved it for a few months. But still I was only about 60% of the way through. And by that time I had no desire to carry on. Why not? Because I couldn't take losing on the harder races? On the contrary: because I just COULDN'T lose at the harder races. Even when I slid off into the gravel at every other corner I could still catch up. The challenge had gone. The game really should have ended before that happened. It should have said 'You're a great driver, we won't take up any more of your time, go play something else'. But it didn't: there were still another 5,000,000 easy races to win and several hundred special edition cars to collect. After that, playing became a chore.
And gaming should never be a chore. Gaming shouldn't be about hours of hard slog: it should be about excitement, adrenaline, tension, victory, defeat. Gaming should be about compressing as much fun into a unit of time as possible. It should always challenge you, and, when it no longer can, it should have the good grace to say so.
This is what I like about games such as Tetris, or Rez, or Pro Evolution Soccer. They're all short games and once you've had one go you've basically seen all they have to offer. But these are intense, draining and unforgettable gaming experiences: incomparably better than the millionth soulless GT race of Final Fantasy battle. I certainly don't think that we should revert to the five-minute blasting of old (though more of it would be nice). In fact some of favourite games (Deus Ex, Ico) have been 'journey' type games. But I do think that games should always be challenging, and that once you move off the gradient and onto the plateau of difficulty, the end should be drawing near.
So that's all I ask: games that end gracefully, rather than hanging on like ageing rock-stars. If nothing else it would ease my gaming conscience.
I tell you what was a REAL chore:
Playing through that 4 and a half hour mission (no exaduration!!!) Endurance on Rogue Leader.
It's basically shooting down wave after wave of Tie Fighters, which is easy until after you've played for 2 hours straight and feel fed up with it. That's when you slip and start losing lives.
In the end, I had to play, pause, take my mind of it, come back, play for a bit, pause etc...
It took a whole day.
Still it was probably worth it to get Darths ship and Ace mode (only even with Ace mode on, Endor was the only level that posed any challenge - and that was almost TOO hard...)
Whether I finish a game depends on how much of a chore it is and what the rewards are.
Playing through that 4 and a half hour mission (no exaduration!!!) Endurance on Rogue Leader.
It's basically shooting down wave after wave of Tie Fighters, which is easy until after you've played for 2 hours straight and feel fed up with it. That's when you slip and start losing lives.
In the end, I had to play, pause, take my mind of it, come back, play for a bit, pause etc...
It took a whole day.
Still it was probably worth it to get Darths ship and Ace mode (only even with Ace mode on, Endor was the only level that posed any challenge - and that was almost TOO hard...)
Whether I finish a game depends on how much of a chore it is and what the rewards are.
I have a confession: I'll never finish all my games. I have a pile of dusty titles with completion rates hovering around forty or fifty per cent. I'll never finish the games I own, but still I buy more titles: fitter, happier, more productive ones, creating an ever greater backlog of unfinished business.
So why do so many of my games remain unfinished?
Is it because I suck at games? Well, no. I consider myself something of a veteran. I scoff at your new-fangled 'graphics', and your namby-pamby health bars and gradual learning curves. In my day we played arcade machines in six-feet of snow, wearing one clog etc etc. No, I'll be honest: I rule at Robotron, Tetris and Civilization 2. But I also suck at Unreal Tournament (stupid third dimension) and Civilization 3 (stupid nuke hating AI). On average I'm good at games; not brilliant, but good enough to finish most titles.
But, still, I don't finish them. Why not?
Is it because I am a sucker, easily distracted by the next big thing of gaming? Am I too hasty to discard an old favourite to try the industry's latest slab of entertainment? Well, duh! Aren't we all? We have all made horribly embarrassing purchases, games that for a week or two we tried to persuade ourselves we loved, only to admit the truth months or years down the line. I remember saving up £60 as a kid and going to town to buy a SNES game, a particular SNES game, a GOOD SNES game: and as I stood in the shop a red mist descended upon me. By the time it lifted I was outside the store, clutching a copy of the Ninja Turtles beat'em up. How I pity my young self. Not that I'm immune to such moments now of course (hello, or rather goodbye, State of Emergency!). Nor do I expect to be in the future: even now I am salivating at the prospect of wasting forty quid on The Getaway.
But, thanks to the wonder that is ebay, these sorts of games are not in my uncompleted pile.
So, is it because I'm not enough of a fanatic? Well, perhaps. There have been moments in my waking life not spent playing games. I have conducted numerous conversations about topics other than games. I have met, and attempted to mate with, upwards of half a dozen women - almost none of whom were computer generated. And when these attempts have been successful I have not ruined the moment by asking 'wot iz better, x-box or gamecube?' I am, in short, a passably well-adjusted young man who enjoys videogames. Conceivably I could play games more - but only by not sleeping, eating, reading, exercising or socialising.
In fact looking at some of the uncompleted AAA titles I own, I can come to only one conclusion: these games are stupidly, impossibly large. These games are big, but they ain't clever. Take, for example, Gran Turizzzmo. I loved this game at first. In fact I loved it for a few months. But still I was only about 60% of the way through. And by that time I had no desire to carry on. Why not? Because I couldn't take losing on the harder races? On the contrary: because I just COULDN'T lose at the harder races. Even when I slid off into the gravel at every other corner I could still catch up. The challenge had gone. The game really should have ended before that happened. It should have said 'You're a great driver, we won't take up any more of your time, go play something else'. But it didn't: there were still another 5,000,000 easy races to win and several hundred special edition cars to collect. After that, playing became a chore.
And gaming should never be a chore. Gaming shouldn't be about hours of hard slog: it should be about excitement, adrenaline, tension, victory, defeat. Gaming should be about compressing as much fun into a unit of time as possible. It should always challenge you, and, when it no longer can, it should have the good grace to say so.
This is what I like about games such as Tetris, or Rez, or Pro Evolution Soccer. They're all short games and once you've had one go you've basically seen all they have to offer. But these are intense, draining and unforgettable gaming experiences: incomparably better than the millionth soulless GT race of Final Fantasy battle. I certainly don't think that we should revert to the five-minute blasting of old (though more of it would be nice). In fact some of favourite games (Deus Ex, Ico) have been 'journey' type games. But I do think that games should always be challenging, and that once you move off the gradient and onto the plateau of difficulty, the end should be drawing near.
So that's all I ask: games that end gracefully, rather than hanging on like ageing rock-stars. If nothing else it would ease my gaming conscience.
So why do so many of my games remain unfinished?
Is it because I suck at games? Well, no. I consider myself something of a veteran. I scoff at your new-fangled 'graphics', and your namby-pamby health bars and gradual learning curves. In my day we played arcade machines in six-feet of snow, wearing one clog etc etc. No, I'll be honest: I rule at Robotron, Tetris and Civilization 2. But I also suck at Unreal Tournament (stupid third dimension) and Civilization 3 (stupid nuke hating AI). On average I'm good at games; not brilliant, but good enough to finish most titles.
But, still, I don't finish them. Why not?
Is it because I am a sucker, easily distracted by the next big thing of gaming? Am I too hasty to discard an old favourite to try the industry's latest slab of entertainment? Well, duh! Aren't we all? We have all made horribly embarrassing purchases, games that for a week or two we tried to persuade ourselves we loved, only to admit the truth months or years down the line. I remember saving up £60 as a kid and going to town to buy a SNES game, a particular SNES game, a GOOD SNES game: and as I stood in the shop a red mist descended upon me. By the time it lifted I was outside the store, clutching a copy of the Ninja Turtles beat'em up. How I pity my young self. Not that I'm immune to such moments now of course (hello, or rather goodbye, State of Emergency!). Nor do I expect to be in the future: even now I am salivating at the prospect of wasting forty quid on The Getaway.
But, thanks to the wonder that is ebay, these sorts of games are not in my uncompleted pile.
So, is it because I'm not enough of a fanatic? Well, perhaps. There have been moments in my waking life not spent playing games. I have conducted numerous conversations about topics other than games. I have met, and attempted to mate with, upwards of half a dozen women - almost none of whom were computer generated. And when these attempts have been successful I have not ruined the moment by asking 'wot iz better, x-box or gamecube?' I am, in short, a passably well-adjusted young man who enjoys videogames. Conceivably I could play games more - but only by not sleeping, eating, reading, exercising or socialising.
In fact looking at some of the uncompleted AAA titles I own, I can come to only one conclusion: these games are stupidly, impossibly large. These games are big, but they ain't clever. Take, for example, Gran Turizzzmo. I loved this game at first. In fact I loved it for a few months. But still I was only about 60% of the way through. And by that time I had no desire to carry on. Why not? Because I couldn't take losing on the harder races? On the contrary: because I just COULDN'T lose at the harder races. Even when I slid off into the gravel at every other corner I could still catch up. The challenge had gone. The game really should have ended before that happened. It should have said 'You're a great driver, we won't take up any more of your time, go play something else'. But it didn't: there were still another 5,000,000 easy races to win and several hundred special edition cars to collect. After that, playing became a chore.
And gaming should never be a chore. Gaming shouldn't be about hours of hard slog: it should be about excitement, adrenaline, tension, victory, defeat. Gaming should be about compressing as much fun into a unit of time as possible. It should always challenge you, and, when it no longer can, it should have the good grace to say so.
This is what I like about games such as Tetris, or Rez, or Pro Evolution Soccer. They're all short games and once you've had one go you've basically seen all they have to offer. But these are intense, draining and unforgettable gaming experiences: incomparably better than the millionth soulless GT race of Final Fantasy battle. I certainly don't think that we should revert to the five-minute blasting of old (though more of it would be nice). In fact some of favourite games (Deus Ex, Ico) have been 'journey' type games. But I do think that games should always be challenging, and that once you move off the gradient and onto the plateau of difficulty, the end should be drawing near.
So that's all I ask: games that end gracefully, rather than hanging on like ageing rock-stars. If nothing else it would ease my gaming conscience.