This topic is locked from further discussion.
Hell NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
What would be the point in buying a e'fing game in the first place for 20-30$ or more?
Might as well rent two movies for less then 7$, get my entertainment and visual treat out of them, and i'm done.
This thread has to be a joke. 
Hell NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
What would be the point in buying a e'fing game in the first place for 20-30$ or more?
Might as well rent two movies for less then 7$, get my entertainment and visual treat out of them, and i'm done.
This thread has to be a joke.
Lucianu
It's called re-playability.
How often do you really go back and watch the same movie in say a year...
If a game is done right, even if it's say "only" a 3-6 hour campaign, the amount of re-playability you will get from it more than covers the whole value for money thing you are basically touching on here.
I'm not talking about the linear story driven experiences you get from many games these days that last like 60 hours and some people say they have played them through a couple of times, like 2-3 or something (which they equate to re-playability and value for money but that's not "real" re-playability imo), but actual re-playability; where you might want to play through a few of the best levels in a game like 30-40 times alone because they are that much fun, accessible (you don't have to play through 20 hours of single player just to get to them again for example), and just totally compelling.
Basically, you come across as the type of gamer who seems to think a game that gives you say 60 hours in the single-player campaign in one play through, but that you pretty much never touch again, is value for money, i.e. 60 hours = £50 or whatever.
I'm the type of gamer that thinks a game which gives you say 6 hours of campaign, but that you will definitely want to play countless times again (and is designed with that in mind), is actual real value for money, i.e. 6 hours x say 40 plays = £50.
Basically, I think modern game designers, who maybe think similarly to you, are part of the problem in the industry right now imo because I believe they just don't quite grasp and understand the main differences and benefits to interactive video games over other entertainment media like films for example. They're also slowly going along a development and business model that becoming more and more risky each generation whert it costs more and more to develop these absolutely huge games with 60 hours of campaign, just to satisfy the minority wants of gamers like you (who don't quite seem to get that an interactive and dynamic game experience is not quite the same as a passive and linear movie experience), but that most people might only play through once (if they even bother to complete it at all) and then totally move onto the next thing, and if they don't play it once even, meaning they weren't interested in the first place, then the financial investment in such games is a huge risk because if it's not a massive success, tens of millions sold, it probably won't even make it's huge initial development costs back.
I've played through individual levels of a game like Super Mario World maybe 40 times alone (and I've done that for multiple levels in the game), and I've played through individual levels of Yoshi's Island, Doom, GoldenEye, and Halo and so on similarly, and I did so because I wanted to and had a lot of fun doing so.
Do you know how many times I've bothered to play through games like Uncharted, Red Dead Redemption, GTA IV, Gears of War, Fallout, Mass Effect etc...An average of less than one, and that goes for individual "levels" in those games too (pretty hard to even re-play the "levels" I might have liked because of the annoying way these games are structured where it's bacically just a linear playthrough like an interactive movie, and where the game design makes it really hard to just go back and re-play the bits I might have actually enjoyed).
I get the sense that what gamers like you might consider value for money I personally consider pretty boring and forced to be honest (hey but the graphics are cutting edge and the stories are like movie quality and stuff).
I know what I'd rather get for my £50.
Isn't life just the most unfair thing.amaneuvering
Btw., i was writing that wile you were posting that message were you responded to my first post on the page before.. I didn't see it. 
That's one big behemoth you've written there, above my other post that u quoted.... Damn.. I don't know if i can gather enough patience to tackle that now...
I really wanna play some Morrowind now....
I know the type of gamer I was defining, and indeed the type of game design I was defining, and in that respect I'm right on the money.
If you're not one of those gamers, and you haven't made one of those games, then get over it.
If you are or you have then you are exactly the type of thing I'm on about so I guess I see why you might be so defensive about it.
amaneuvering
Re-read everything again past that, the "First" and "Secondly" things right there. Because i sure as hell didn't mean to make you mad. Not in the mood. Tell me honestly, don't i make sense?
And i'm not defensive. It's because i hate bull generalizations, what ever that may be.
[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]
I know the type of gamer I was defining, and indeed the type of game design I was defining, and in that respect I'm right on the money.
If you're not one of those gamers, and you haven't made one of those games, then get over it.
If you are or you have then you are exactly the type of thing I'm on about so I guess I see why you might be so defensive about it.
Lucianu
Re-read everything again past that, the "First" and "Secondly" things right there. Because i sure as hell didn't mean to make you mad. Not in the mood. Tell me honestly, don't i make sense?
And i'm not defensive. It's because i hate bull generalizations, what ever that may be.
What gave you the impression I'm mad.
I'm simply being blunt.
In my opinion more hours of a single player campaign mode for example does not necessarily equate to meaningful value for the money you are paying, and I firmly believe that most people in here who are likely to argue with the original poster regarding his games are too long point, and myself, are the type of gamers who play those games that define the exact issue Im on about and don't quite understand what some people say when they claim games are too long.
What gave you the impression I'm mad.
I'm simply being blunt.
amaneuvering
Well, you ignored the majority of my post, and just concentrated at that tiny lil' part. I wasn't hostile in those parts.
But my bad anyway, we can't exactly sense emotions on the internet..
[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]
What gave you the impression I'm mad.
I'm simply being blunt.
Lucianu
Well, you ignored the majority of my post, and just concentrated at that tiny lil' part. I wasn't hostile in those parts.
But my bad anyway, we can't exactly sense emotions on the internet..
I'm simply saying that in my opinion more hours of a single player campaign mode for example does not necessarily equate to meaningful value for the money you are paying, and I firmly believe that most people in here who are likely to argue with the original poster regarding his "games are too long" point are the type of gamers who play those games that define the exact issue Im on about and don't quite understand what some people say when they claim games are too long (certainly a huge amount of the more "popular", if we just observe the inside the bubble, modern home consoles games for sure).
GTAIV for example, is a pretty good game, but one that's about 40 hours too long in campaign mode imo (given that it took me like 50-60 hours to get through the damn thing if memory serves me corectly).
I rarely have or deal in any real "emotions" on the Interenet, certainly not when I post my opinion in a game's forum for example, because I neither know nor care about the people I am conversing with in any meaninful way.
I simply have my own opinions, that may or may not align with someone elses, and I express them quite bluntly because that's exactly how they are in my head (which is I guess pretty appropriate considering how detached talking with other people on a computer in a virtual forum is in actual reality)
I'm simply saying that in my opinion more hours of a single player campaign mode for example does not necessarily equate to meaningful value for the money you are paying, and I firmly believe that most people in here who are likely to argue with the original poster regarding his games are too long point, and myself, are the type of gamers who play those games that define the exact issue Im on about and don't quite understand what some people say when they claim games are too long (certainly a huge amount of the more "popular", if we just observe the inside the bubble, modern home consoles games for sure).
amaneuvering
From my point of view 10 hours is cool, maybe even 7 hours for a game focused on more action. The reason why i freakin' got annoyed is that the thread started, from he's point of view, would need games to be 3 hours at max. Now how can i not disprespect he's opinion on this one..
I understand what your talking about, obviously not all games with long campaigns will have my money's worth, like GTA SA, it's main storyline got ridiculously long at one point, and i was having more fun doing the miscellaneous stuff from it's huge content. I guess you have a point with games that do not need a large campaign, focusing on replayability is a more worthwile experience.
Thinking about this more, we already have a good deal of short, fun games, one needs to just stop looking at the mainstream, that's all. Variety is cool, it's nice to be able to have a choice betwen long games, and short games. Isn't it?
That's why i believe that not all games should be short. Let long games and short games co-exist for people that love long games, and people that love short games.
[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]
I'm simply saying that in my opinion more hours of a single player campaign mode for example does not necessarily equate to meaningful value for the money you are paying, and I firmly believe that most people in here who are likely to argue with the original poster regarding his games are too long point, and myself, are the type of gamers who play those games that define the exact issue Im on about and don't quite understand what some people say when they claim games are too long (certainly a huge amount of the more "popular", if we just observe the inside the bubble, modern home consoles games for sure).
Lucianu
From my point of view 10 hours is cool, maybe even 7 hours for a game focused on more action. The reason why i freakin' got annoyed is that the thread started, from he's point of view, would need games to be 3 hours at max. Now how can i not disprespect he's opinion on this one..
I understand what your talking about, obviously not all games with long campaigns will have my money's worth, like GTA SA, it's main storyline got ridiculously long at one point, and i was having more fun doing the miscellaneous stuff from it's huge content. I guess you have a point with games that do not need a large campaign, focusing on replayability is a more worthwile experience.
Thinking about this more, we already have a good deal of short, fun games, one needs to just stop looking at the mainstream, that's all. Variety is cool, it's nice to be able to have a choice betwen long games, and short games. Isn't it?
That's why i believe that not all games should be short. Let long games and short games co-exist for people that love long games, and people that love short games.
Well I wouldn't have an issue with that other than it seems to me that most developers happen to use the big budgets on the massively long games but not on the shorter ones so there is a slight type of discrimination going on which means there really isn't a nice peaceful co-existing happening at all, but more of a segmentation of two extremes and nothing much in-between (black and white but no shades of grey).
So, all the people that want their 1 billion hours campaigns are happy because they also seem to get cutting edge graphics and high development budgets and everything else too it seems.All the casuals get whatever and don't really know any better (I kid). But what about everyone else... Why can't there be more high budget AAA titles that are just more compact in general but that happen to have a crap load of re-playability and accessibility too (and by accessibility I just mean I can play a bit a liked again easily as opposed to having to play for 30 hours just to get to it again).
Point is, I don't really like the entire thinking behind these huge games, that pervades across the industry imo, that by their nature (coming from the people developing them) means anyone who doesn't want to spend 1 trillion hours playing a huge open world game etc usually has to put up with sub-par crap in many areas of the games where they actually do want quality.
Not all people that want shorter more accessible games want casual low budget crap but because most developers are stuck thinking like most people in here that's exactly what is happening (yes, it's a generalisation, whatever) .
Basically I want games like I played on the SNES but with the budgets and technology of current-gen consoles. What I mostly get, and yes it's a total exaggeration, is basically either an interactive 50 hour long movie with an enormous budget and development resources (you know, the games like GTAIV, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect) or something for casual noobs (like Wii Fit or Angry Birds).
It would be nice if more games were a bit more "compact" and "streamlined" (in other words less pointless filler and repetition etc just or the sake of having a large game-time number on the box), at least to the point that most people might actually bother completing then you know, with easily re-playable levels, and graphics and budgets that were still AAA quality.
If you think back to the days of the SNES that's what the vast majority of games were actually like, all things being relative to their time (pushing the tech and stuff to it's limits but still digestible), and nowadays the majority of games are in one of the extremes, huge bloated high budget epics that the vast majority of people don't even bother playing all the way through or small scale and low budget casual-fests that don't really excite most of the "gamers" out there too much (although they can be fun in their own right).
There's room for something a bit more in the middle imo...and imo I think it might even turn out that those types of games would be the best of both worlds and maybe satisfy more people in general to be honest. Just like there are short cheap film shorts that are shot on shoe-string budgets and last 40 minutes, and there are huge epic feature films masterpieces that last 4 hours long and cost hundreds of millions to make, but ultimately the vast majority of films are somewhere in-between and it just so happens most people actually like it that way.
Gaming imo is still too focussed on catering to the extremes in the vast majority of cases rather than the real mainstream which I think would ultimately be better for everyone in the long run.
That's just a ramble...
Is this a joke thread?
Log in to comment