What is your most memorable game that held those special cracks and crevices in which you could explore? I know it may be a little over played butZelda, Final Fantasy, Castlevania, and so many others let you exploreand submerge.Now it seems like if you want to do some side questing it takes money. Agreed?What happened? Will gaming ever venture beyond (or in some regards stop short of) the likes of having to pay money to thoroughly enjoy?
Remember when games didn't have DLC?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I know what you mean but you just have to look past those games; Im currently playing Just Cause 2 and :o there is a stupid amount to do! I doubt I will get anywhere near exploring everywhere in it. Also some DLC is truly great for some games, the shivering isle and KOTN expansion packs for example added a hell of a lot of content to a game which already had more than its fair share.
My personal opinion on DLC is a negative one. I find it's almost nothing except a way for the industry to soak more money from the consumer. That said, I don't buy any DLC, as I feel that if they truly wanted me to experience it, they would have included it in the game. I play through the game as it's packaged, because I feel that's what the respective company wanted me to see and experience. I won't say ALL DLC is bad, as some has been well handled, especially from Bioware, but I do miss the old days when what you've purchased is the game in its entirety, good and bad. Sorry for my wall of text, just my 2 cents worth.Shidira
I am in the middle with DLC, and I donot think your negative but more in the middle with it. I think there is DLC that is just awesome, I think there is DLC that is trash. I think good DLC is stuff like the Undead Nightmare for Red Dead or the stuff from Bioware. Bad is stuff like horse armor or the cheat codes that are on the disc for EA games.
I have no problem with DLC, except sometimes it is pretty overpriced, and I overall don't buy it much. But some DLC is cool, and I never played a game that felt incomplete without it's DLC.
Although I do find it annoying that Capcom charges extra for any alternate costumes in Street Fighter IV...
DLG stands for downloadable game right? sorry I've not seen that one before but if that is right I disagree strongly Im afraid. Some of the best games I have played recently have been download only, games like Death Spank or Shadow complex (which is actually better than MoM imo) Braid or Trine. There seems to be more room for originality in these games with less on the line, I can't wait to pick up Magicka as soon as it is discounted on steam (Im not being tight :P Im buying multiple copies though).the world would be better off with out dlc and dlg espesialy
superdum2
additional DLC for games would be better if it wasnt so expensive (most of the time). another part that makes me mad is when they release it the DAY a game comes out or even before. that means they just didnt WANT to include the content on the disc. Why cant they just 'pretend' the content was created WAY after the game was released so we are actually excited for more content related to the game. and dont even think of trying to sell me a code to unlock content i already have!
i honestly pretend that DLC doesnt exist (unless it is free) but i'm kinda cheap and dont have that much HDD space anyways.
Just Cause 2 is insane. I have been playing it for about a month and while I have beat the story mode there is so much to do. I will just get on there and drive around to go sight seeing. It has some the best graphics and great Easter eggs. I am a big LOST fan so having the Island there was great.I know what you mean but you just have to look past those games; Im currently playing Just Cause 2 and :o there is a stupid amount to do! I doubt I will get anywhere near exploring everywhere in it. Also some DLC is truly great for some games, the shivering isle and KOTN expansion packs for example added a hell of a lot of content to a game which already had more than its fair share.
SapSacPrime
Back on topic the only time I get angry about DLC is when it is announced before the game comes out. That is pure money grabbing no ifs ands or buts.
It sounds like you are playing the wrong games, because most of the games I own have hundreds of things to do above and beyond the main quest. I'm talking right out of the box. If a game is light on content I just don't buy it, I may give it a rental if I have an interest but there is no way I would buy an 8 to 10 hour game if it lacks replay value.
I don't know your reasoning for that statement since you don't provide any explanation. However I have to say that I find your comment to be over the top and wrong. DLC is a great way to extend an enjoyable experience, if you aren't interested you can take a pass.the world would be better off with out dlc and dlg espesialy
superdum2
DLGames offer a lot of variety and unconventional experiences that are all too scarce in big budget titles. They are also a great opportunity for talented creators to get their games out there without going through the red tape and ladder climbing that would be necessary working for one of the big boys.
Actually PC games had DLC since a long time just that it was free once or called expansion pack. You can thank MS for inventing payable DLC :P
DLC is a great idea when implemented well and with customer satisfaction in mind, but it's less and less about those things as time goes by. How many times now do we hear about DLC for a game that hasn't even been released, or DLC that comes out a week after a game hits shops? It's getting ridiculous. It's apparent that many games have had content deliberately cut with the sole intention of selling that content at a later date. It's really disheartening to see this sort of thing happening to gaming. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of companies making fantastic DLC - Rockstar for example, who make huge, high quality add-ons - but so many companies don't.
Then you get things like Microsoft charging for Left 4 Dead DLC when PC users get it for free. It's disgusting and it's taking gaming into a place I really don't want it to be in.
exactly, I can remember Blizzard releasing free maps for Starcraft every month or so, for free, nowadays they would make you pay for it. but DLC is a good idea when implemented properly, its just that many developers will make you pay extra to unlock things that already on the disc.Actually PC games had DLC since a long time just that it was free once or called expansion pack. You can thank MS for inventing payable DLC :P
nameless12345
Definately, Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy XII! Those had some of the most plentful and rewarding sidequests in the series. I wish I could say everything you did about FFXIII but that game sucks so bad at being a Final Fantasy that, no DLC was even released for it!Double_Wide
So according to your failed logic, because you think the game is bad it did not get DLC? But than again, your the same guy who thinks FFXIII is a worse game than Big Rigs Over The Road Racing and SuperMan 64, so yeah that explains your logic really well....
Personally while I agree with most that some things that developers do to gain extra money through DLC instead of putting the DLC in the game in the first place is wrong, I aslo believe that some developers didn't have the time to put some DLC that comes out into the game. Some developers are just very greedy. You need to think for yourself who's the thieves are and who isn't.What is your most memorable game that held those special cracks and crevices in which you could explore? I know it may be a little over played butZelda, Final Fantasy, Castlevania, and so many others let you exploreand submerge.Now it seems like if you want to do some side questing it takes money. Agreed?What happened? Will gaming ever venture beyond (or in some regards stop short of) the likes of having to pay money to thoroughly enjoy?
0diN_7
I enjoy added content through DLC on my games that I finished because it gives me even more of a reason to go back and replay those games. I only buy DLC though if its worth it and if its for a reasonable price.
I'm not the type of guy who reads reviews to help me decide if I should purchase games or not but I will admit when it comes to Arcade tittles or DLC/Add-on content on XBLA or PSN and the Wii I read reviews and do my homework before I buy anything. I have made bad choices in the past not knowing anything and regretting it. It's not worth losing hard earned money over.
For instance I just purchased Super Meat Boy a couple weeks back. What an amazing game and for only $10 which I felt I was robbing the developers Team Meat instead of it being the other way around. Amazing game, Amazing Platformer, Amazing Music and Level Design. This game is amazing. The thing is I know certain developers have time limits and most of the time its when they are under other Publishing companies like Activision or EA and they do get rushed and that crap isn't right.
I don't buy games from Activision anymore because I don't like there shady business. They don't care about the consumer they care about the money and they freely admit it. EA used to be like this a long time ago. I usually stick to the developers and publishes that let the developers making the game keep the rights to their IP and alsogive them enough time to make a game.
Definately, Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy XII! Those had some of the most plentful and rewarding sidequests in the series. I wish I could say everything you did about FFXIII but that game sucks so bad at being a Final Fantasy that, no DLC was even released for it!Double_WideSuch a brilliant opinion that I'm suprised you didn't scribble it in crayon.
I am watching AVGN in order from first to last. I am currently watching the first one where James talks
about castlevania 2. He mentions this on part of the game where you have to kneel against a wall
use a red crystal and wait for a tornado to come and get you. The point he makes it how the heck
would you know how to do this with out a walkthrough?
My point here is that video game companies are sneaky, they made games back then that were so
impossible you would have to buy a walkthrough book or call the nintendo hotline. Today video
game companies intentionally leave out things in games you have to pay for DLC.
[QUOTE="Double_Wide"]Definately, Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy XII! Those had some of the most plentful and rewarding sidequests in the series. I wish I could say everything you did about FFXIII but that game sucks so bad at being a Final Fantasy that, no DLC was even released for it!FoulcrySuch a brilliant opinion that I'm suprised you didn't scribble it in crayon.
Well said, Double Wide apparently thinks Final Fantasy XIII is some how worse than Superman 64.
Such a brilliant opinion that I'm suprised you didn't scribble it in crayon.[QUOTE="Foulcry"][QUOTE="Double_Wide"]Definately, Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy XII! Those had some of the most plentful and rewarding sidequests in the series. I wish I could say everything you did about FFXIII but that game sucks so bad at being a Final Fantasy that, no DLC was even released for it!TheTrueMagusX1
Well said, Double Wide apparently thinks Final Fantasy XIII is some how worse than Superman 64.
LOL! Oh god no. :P
Such a brilliant opinion that I'm suprised you didn't scribble it in crayon.[QUOTE="Foulcry"][QUOTE="Double_Wide"]Definately, Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy XII! Those had some of the most plentful and rewarding sidequests in the series. I wish I could say everything you did about FFXIII but that game sucks so bad at being a Final Fantasy that, no DLC was even released for it!TheTrueMagusX1
Well said, Double Wide apparently thinks Final Fantasy XIII is some how worse than Superman 64.
I figured thats something he would say after basically saying that Final Fantasy XIII sucks because it received no DLC. That's what I'm gathering anyway I didn't read anything else he wrote. Also I'm wondering if it occured to him that the game didn't recieve any DLC because the game was actually acomplete experience from the get go and didn't need DLC.I'll agree that Final Fantasy XIII might not be the best FF game there is but I think it's a great game regardless of how linear or short it is compared to the others. I love the story and Characters. My favorite is still FFVIII. If I had to put it in order though I would put FFVIII, FFVI, FFVII and FFXIII I didn't even finish FFXII because I didn't like it at all.
I only got about half way through. It was pretty painful for me. Characters were uninteresting and so was the story for me anyway. I just bought IX digitally to give it another chance. When I was younger and this first came out I couldn't really get into it but my tastes have changed so hopefully I'll like it. I didn't care for FFX that much either maybe one day I'll get my hands on it and give that another chance too. I remember liking it till about half way through. I liked Auron a lot but who doesn't. I didn't really care for Titus. I never played Final Fantasy I, II, III, IV and V.
I have FFI, II, III, and IV though. I'll get to them eventually. FFXIII had it's flaws but It was a great addition regardless of how people feel about it. Also I have no Idea what he is talking about but I don't really rememer FFVIII having that many side quests. Also the majority of them were to obtain cards for your deck.
Some of those cards were really powerful and useful if you converted them with the card-mod ability early on and I believe you could get some GF's from them too but the only side quest that was long and worth it in my opinion was when you wanted to get Squalls Ultimate weapon the lionheart. That was't even really a side quest though. That was just finding parts from rare monsters while grinding from what I remember. So this kid has no idea what he's talking about.
[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]
[QUOTE="Foulcry"] Such a brilliant opinion that I'm suprised you didn't scribble it in crayon.Foulcry
Well said, Double Wide apparently thinks Final Fantasy XIII is some how worse than Superman 64.
I figured thats something he would say after basically saying that Final Fantasy XIII sucks because it received no DLC. That's what I'm gathering anyway I didn't read anything else he wrote. Also I'm wondering if it occured to him that the game didn't recieve any DLC because the game was actually acomplete experience from the get go and didn't need DLC.I'll agree that Final Fantasy XIII might not be the best FF game there is but I think it's a great game regardless of how linear or short it is compared to the others. I love the story and Characters. My favorite is still FFVIII. If I had to put it in order though I would put FFVIII, FFVI, FFVII and FFXIII I didn't even finish FFXII because I didn't like it at all.
I only got about half way through. It was pretty painful for me. Characters were uninteresting and so was the story for me anyway. I just bought IX digitally to give it another chance. When I was younger and this first came out I couldn't really get into it but my tastes have changed so hopefully I'll like it. I didn't care for FFX that much either maybe one day I'll get my hands on it and give that another chance too. I remember liking it till about half way through. I liked Auron a lot but who doesn't. I didn't really care for Titus. I never played Final Fantasy I, II, III, IV and V.
I have FFI, II, III, and IV though. I'll get to them eventually. FFXIII had it's flaws but It was a great addition regardless of how people feel about it. Also I have no Idea what he is talking about but I don't really rememer FFVIII having that many side quests. Also the majority of them were to obtain cards for your deck.
Some of those cards were really powerful and useful if you converted them with the card-mod ability early on and I believe you could get some GF's from them too but the only side quest that was long and worth it in my opinion was when you wanted to get Squalls Ultimate weapon the lionheart. That was't even really a side quest though. That was just finding parts from rare monsters while grinding from what I remember. So this kid has no idea what he's talking about.
Exactly I agree with you 100%. The reason I say Double WIde says FFXIII is worse than Superman 64 is because in a thread that was about the top 100 worse games of all time, he put FFXIII at number 3 higher than Superman 64 and Big Rigs over the truck racing, and than he went on and tried to justify why it was worse than those games which made little to no sense. FFXII is ok, I could not get into it, and to be honest I found I also like you enjoyed FFXIII more than that, but of course the game is "linear" so its a disgrace to the series, but wait, so all final fantasies are linear. Its just that others have the illusion of not being there since you have things like World maps and what not, but still its very linear. Let us not forget that FFXIII is structured almost exactly the way FFX is as well...but no one seems to remember FFX.
good times...
[QUOTE="Foulcry"]
[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]
Well said, Double Wide apparently thinks Final Fantasy XIII is some how worse than Superman 64.
I figured thats something he would say after basically saying that Final Fantasy XIII sucks because it received no DLC. That's what I'm gathering anyway I didn't read anything else he wrote. Also I'm wondering if it occured to him that the game didn't recieve any DLC because the game was actually acomplete experience from the get go and didn't need DLC.I'll agree that Final Fantasy XIII might not be the best FF game there is but I think it's a great game regardless of how linear or short it is compared to the others. I love the story and Characters. My favorite is still FFVIII. If I had to put it in order though I would put FFVIII, FFVI, FFVII and FFXIII I didn't even finish FFXII because I didn't like it at all.
I only got about half way through. It was pretty painful for me. Characters were uninteresting and so was the story for me anyway. I just bought IX digitally to give it another chance. When I was younger and this first came out I couldn't really get into it but my tastes have changed so hopefully I'll like it. I didn't care for FFX that much either maybe one day I'll get my hands on it and give that another chance too. I remember liking it till about half way through. I liked Auron a lot but who doesn't. I didn't really care for Titus. I never played Final Fantasy I, II, III, IV and V.
I have FFI, II, III, and IV though. I'll get to them eventually. FFXIII had it's flaws but It was a great addition regardless of how people feel about it. Also I have no Idea what he is talking about but I don't really rememer FFVIII having that many side quests. Also the majority of them were to obtain cards for your deck.
Some of those cards were really powerful and useful if you converted them with the card-mod ability early on and I believe you could get some GF's from them too but the only side quest that was long and worth it in my opinion was when you wanted to get Squalls Ultimate weapon the lionheart. That was't even really a side quest though. That was just finding parts from rare monsters while grinding from what I remember. So this kid has no idea what he's talking about.
Exactly I agree with you 100%. The reason I say Double WIde says FFXIII is worse than Superman 64 is because in a thread that was about the top 100 worse games of all time, he put FFXIII at number 3 higher than Superman 64 and Big Rigs over the truck racing, and than he went on and tried to justify why it was worse than those games which made little to no sense. FFXII is ok, I could not get into it, and to be honest I found I also like you enjoyed FFXIII more than that, but of course the game is "linear" so its a disgrace to the series, but wait, so all final fantasies are linear. Its just that others have the illusion of not being there since you have things like World maps and what not, but still its very linear. Let us not forget that FFXIII is structured almost exactly the way FFX is as well...but no one seems to remember FFX.
Your completely correct. I agree all FF games are linear, yea you can go grind in the world and find some rare items and do some side missions but you have no control on where you have to go next to progress the story, They are more open then FFX or FFXIII yes but so what they are all linear games. FFXIII and FFX just happen to be more on rails then FFVII, FFVIII and FFIX. I understand what your saying completely. I have always said that about FFXIII that it does get its linearity from FFX but your right people dismiss FFX and say how much more amazing it was and how its the best in the franchise. When it comes down to FFXIII everyone seems to recognize only that it's really linear and can't recognize it for anything else. Which you and I both know is BS and unfair.ya i know man ,
the only few exceptions is gta and saints row which give you side task as well as some of nintendos games
the majority seams like they want more money then the 60 dollar charge see tdu2 which just came out and already has 5 cars up for download and a casino mode
then you got useless dlc such as horse armor and 5 maps for 15 bucks
Interesting enough, do you remember when game were released and almost all the bugs were worked out prior to shipping the title. Now it seems like most games you purchase out of the box require patch after patch to fix various problems and bugs.
thats only because consoles couldnt download patches, I can remember back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000 when PC games had lots of patches released for themInteresting enough, do you remember when game were released and almost all the bugs were worked out prior to shipping the title. Now it seems like most games you purchase out of the box require patch after patch to fix various problems and bugs.
TheRaiderNation
[QUOTE="TheRaiderNation"]thats only because consoles couldnt download patches, I can remember back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000 when PC games had lots of patches released for themInteresting enough, do you remember when game were released and almost all the bugs were worked out prior to shipping the title. Now it seems like most games you purchase out of the box require patch after patch to fix various problems and bugs.
Darkman2007
Also consider too my friend that consoles in those days as well did not have operating systems like they do these days. You turned on the NES or something with out a game and you got a blank or flashing screen. Now you have dashboards and XMBs that require extra care and stuff like Netflix on your console...so yeah.
thats only because consoles couldnt download patches, I can remember back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000 when PC games had lots of patches released for them[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="TheRaiderNation"]
Interesting enough, do you remember when game were released and almost all the bugs were worked out prior to shipping the title. Now it seems like most games you purchase out of the box require patch after patch to fix various problems and bugs.
TheTrueMagusX1
Also consider too my friend that consoles in those days as well did not have operating systems like they do these days. You turned on the NES or something with out a game and you got a blank or flashing screen. Now you have dashboards and XMBs that require extra care and stuff like Netflix on your console...so yeah.
some of the later systems did have BIOS screens though , mostly for playing music CDs and managing your memory card , etc, but that was about it.[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] thats only because consoles couldnt download patches, I can remember back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000 when PC games had lots of patches released for themDarkman2007
Also consider too my friend that consoles in those days as well did not have operating systems like they do these days. You turned on the NES or something with out a game and you got a blank or flashing screen. Now you have dashboards and XMBs that require extra care and stuff like Netflix on your console...so yeah.
some of the later systems did have BIOS screens though , mostly for playing music CDs and managing your memory card , etc, but that was about it.Yep I am mostly talking NES and SNES, 2600 and stuff like that. Though you are right, the Saturn, PSX, 3DO, CDI had bios, but its pretty different these days cause I spend alot of time on the Dashboard and XMB, but not a whole lot in the bios for those are other consoles.
[QUOTE="TheRaiderNation"]thats only because consoles couldnt download patches, I can remember back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000 when PC games had lots of patches released for themInteresting enough, do you remember when game were released and almost all the bugs were worked out prior to shipping the title. Now it seems like most games you purchase out of the box require patch after patch to fix various problems and bugs.
Darkman2007
exactly.. companies now a days release unfinished games... then we have to pay for DLC for the rest of the game and wait for patches to make the game playable.
thats only because consoles couldnt download patches, I can remember back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000 when PC games had lots of patches released for them[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="TheRaiderNation"]
Interesting enough, do you remember when game were released and almost all the bugs were worked out prior to shipping the title. Now it seems like most games you purchase out of the box require patch after patch to fix various problems and bugs.
KBFloYd
exactly.. companies now a days release unfinished games... then we have to pay for DLC for the rest of the game and wait for patches to make the game playable.
wait....youre telling me every game released back then was 100% finished with no bugs and glithces ??? thats just hilarious, there were graphical glithces in many games, especially in the early 3D stuff , and its not like every game ran well either. heck , maybe if we could download patches back then , some of the games which ran badly and had glithces in them ,would have turned out better in the end ; as for games being "unfinished" , it depends what you mean by finished?[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="TheRaiderNation"]
Interesting enough, do you remember when game were released and almost all the bugs were worked out prior to shipping the title. Now it seems like most games you purchase out of the box require patch after patch to fix various problems and bugs.
thats only because consoles couldnt download patches, I can remember back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000 when PC games had lots of patches released for themexactly.. companies now a days release unfinished games... then we have to pay for DLC for the rest of the game and wait for patches to make the game playable.
Singing the same tune most complainers sing. It's always the same thing......These games are unfinished "sniff" "sniff" or I have to pay for DLC "sniff" sniff" It should have been in the game "sniff" "sniff" stop just stop. Stop comparing old games to new ones also. Older games had plenty of glitches in them and they didn't have patches to fix them like today but we all delt with it. Now they do have patches to fix after released bugs and they also give us add - on content to give us further enjoyment in our games and you still complain. Yes not all companies are doing it to please and some just care about the money and give us BS but you just need to stop talking dude. Your one of those people that always looks at the negative of things and never the positive.[QUOTE="KBFloYd"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] thats only because consoles couldnt download patches, I can remember back in the mid-late 90s and early 2000 when PC games had lots of patches released for themFoulcry
exactly.. companies now a days release unfinished games... then we have to pay for DLC for the rest of the game and wait for patches to make the game playable.
Singing the same tune most complainers sing. It's always the same thing......These games are unfinished "sniff" "sniff" or I have to pay for DLC "sniff" sniff" It should have been in the game "sniff" "sniff" stop just stop. Stop comparing old games to new ones also. Older games had plenty of glitches in them and they didn't have patches to fix them like today but we all delt with it. Now they do have patches to fix after released bugs and they also give us add - on content to give us further enjoyment in our games and you still complain. Yes not all companies are doing it to please and some just care about the money and give us BS but you just need to stop talking dude. Your one of those people that always looks at the negative of things and never the positive.Yep the complainers donot really have a knowledge nor thy think clearly. Games were actually shorter as well back in the old days, but people like KBfloyd are blinded by their nostalgia.
Singing the same tune most complainers sing. It's always the same thing......These games are unfinished "sniff" "sniff" or I have to pay for DLC "sniff" sniff" It should have been in the game "sniff" "sniff" stop just stop. Stop comparing old games to new ones also. Older games had plenty of glitches in them and they didn't have patches to fix them like today but we all delt with it. Now they do have patches to fix after released bugs and they also give us add - on content to give us further enjoyment in our games and you still complain. Yes not all companies are doing it to please and some just care about the money and give us BS but you just need to stop talking dude. Your one of those people that always looks at the negative of things and never the positive.[QUOTE="Foulcry"][QUOTE="KBFloYd"]
exactly.. companies now a days release unfinished games... then we have to pay for DLC for the rest of the game and wait for patches to make the game playable.
TheTrueMagusX1
Yep the complainers donot really have a knowledge nor thy think clearly. Games were actually shorter as well back in the old days, but people like KBfloyd are blinded by their nostalgia.
games back in the 80s and early 90s were indeed shorter, though I will say that games in the mid to late 90s, started getting alot longer, in fact, as far as single player goes, they were longer then most of today's games. but its funny how everybody thinks games are "incomplete" or "broken and need patching", when games always had those issues, its just that before you couldnt download patches .[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"][QUOTE="Foulcry"] Singing the same tune most complainers sing. It's always the same thing......These games are unfinished "sniff" "sniff" or I have to pay for DLC "sniff" sniff" It should have been in the game "sniff" "sniff" stop just stop. Stop comparing old games to new ones also. Older games had plenty of glitches in them and they didn't have patches to fix them like today but we all delt with it. Now they do have patches to fix after released bugs and they also give us add - on content to give us further enjoyment in our games and you still complain. Yes not all companies are doing it to please and some just care about the money and give us BS but you just need to stop talking dude. Your one of those people that always looks at the negative of things and never the positive.Darkman2007
Yep the complainers donot really have a knowledge nor thy think clearly. Games were actually shorter as well back in the old days, but people like KBfloyd are blinded by their nostalgia.
games back in the 80s and early 90s were indeed shorter, though I will say that games in the mid to late 90s, started getting alot longer, in fact, as far as single player goes, they were longer then most of today's games. but its funny how everybody thinks games are "incomplete" or "broken and need patching", when games always had those issues, its just that before you couldnt download patches .Agreed 100%. There were tons of bugs and glitches that passed through testing and Q&A during the earlier console eras and there was nothing anybody could do about them. Patches were/are a God send.
Now, that being said, there a few devs and publishers out there that take for granted the advantage of post-release patching and release some truly broken and buggy games that can "just be patched later." Bethesda is especially notorious for this generation with games like Fallout: New Vegas being absolutely riddled with bugs.
[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"][QUOTE="Foulcry"] Singing the same tune most complainers sing. It's always the same thing......These games are unfinished "sniff" "sniff" or I have to pay for DLC "sniff" sniff" It should have been in the game "sniff" "sniff" stop just stop. Stop comparing old games to new ones also. Older games had plenty of glitches in them and they didn't have patches to fix them like today but we all delt with it. Now they do have patches to fix after released bugs and they also give us add - on content to give us further enjoyment in our games and you still complain. Yes not all companies are doing it to please and some just care about the money and give us BS but you just need to stop talking dude. Your one of those people that always looks at the negative of things and never the positive.Darkman2007
Yep the complainers donot really have a knowledge nor thy think clearly. Games were actually shorter as well back in the old days, but people like KBfloyd are blinded by their nostalgia.
games back in the 80s and early 90s were indeed shorter, though I will say that games in the mid to late 90s, started getting alot longer, in fact, as far as single player goes, they were longer then most of today's games. but its funny how everybody thinks games are "incomplete" or "broken and need patching", when games always had those issues, its just that before you couldnt download patches .Actually games around the Playstation era started to get to the length we are familiar with today. Now if you refer to RPGs yes those have always been long, but I am referring to none rpgs, and most of those games were shorter. It was around the time games like Metal Gear Solid and others that we started to see the common 10-15 hour games we get today.
games back in the 80s and early 90s were indeed shorter, though I will say that games in the mid to late 90s, started getting alot longer, in fact, as far as single player goes, they were longer then most of today's games. but its funny how everybody thinks games are "incomplete" or "broken and need patching", when games always had those issues, its just that before you couldnt download patches .[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]
Yep the complainers donot really have a knowledge nor thy think clearly. Games were actually shorter as well back in the old days, but people like KBfloyd are blinded by their nostalgia.
TheTrueMagusX1
Actually games around the Playstation era started to get to the length we are familiar with today. Now if you refer to RPGs yes those have always been long, but I am referring to none rpgs, and most of those games were shorter. It was around the time games like Metal Gear Solid and others that we started to see the common 10-15 hour games we get today.
MGS1 was actually quite short, I can get through it on hard difficulty in about 5 hours with watching the cutscenes.[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] games back in the 80s and early 90s were indeed shorter, though I will say that games in the mid to late 90s, started getting alot longer, in fact, as far as single player goes, they were longer then most of today's games. but its funny how everybody thinks games are "incomplete" or "broken and need patching", when games always had those issues, its just that before you couldnt download patches .Darkman2007
Actually games around the Playstation era started to get to the length we are familiar with today. Now if you refer to RPGs yes those have always been long, but I am referring to none rpgs, and most of those games were shorter. It was around the time games like Metal Gear Solid and others that we started to see the common 10-15 hour games we get today.
MGS1 was actually quite short, I can get through it on hard difficulty in about 5 hours with watching the cutscenes.Yesh but thats repeated plays,. The game was noted during your first play through around 6-10. That was around the time the games were starting to get to that length.
MGS1 was actually quite short, I can get through it on hard difficulty in about 5 hours with watching the cutscenes.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]
Actually games around the Playstation era started to get to the length we are familiar with today. Now if you refer to RPGs yes those have always been long, but I am referring to none rpgs, and most of those games were shorter. It was around the time games like Metal Gear Solid and others that we started to see the common 10-15 hour games we get today.
TheTrueMagusX1
Yesh but thats repeated plays,. The game was noted during your first play through around 6-10. That was around the time the games were starting to get to that length.
indeed my first playthrough was longer then that.[QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] MGS1 was actually quite short, I can get through it on hard difficulty in about 5 hours with watching the cutscenes.Darkman2007
Yesh but thats repeated plays,. The game was noted during your first play through around 6-10. That was around the time the games were starting to get to that length.
indeed my first playthrough was longer then that. That game took me about 10+ hours my first playthrough. Yea of course now when I go back and play it....it only takes me about 5 to 6 hours because I know where everything is and I know what to do by heart because I have played it so many times. Almost every game is intented to take less and less time the more you play it becauseyou know what to do and you know how to play it. Unless it's an RPG or Castlevania: Lords of Shadow lol I don't think anyone can beat that game in under 15 to 20 hours holy crap that game is long.indeed my first playthrough was longer then that. That game took me about 10+ hours my first playthrough. Yea of course now when I go back and play it....it only takes me about 5 to 6 hours because I know where everything is and I know what to do by heart because I have played it so many times. Almost every game is intented to take less and less time the more you play it becauseyou know what to do and you know how to play it. Unless it's an RPG or Castlevania: Lords of Shadow lol I don't think anyone can beat that game in under 15 to 20 hours holy crap that game is long. well I did beat Panzer Dragoon Saga, which is an RPG , in about 17 hours , though admittedly ,its a pretty short game for an RPG.[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="TheTrueMagusX1"]
Yesh but thats repeated plays,. The game was noted during your first play through around 6-10. That was around the time the games were starting to get to that length.
Foulcry
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment