[QUOTE="Sammi_Costello"]

I found myself wondering about the state of videogames and the stories that they tell. Usually, a videogame is around £40 (I believe $60), and generally gives you 10 to 20 hours of gameplay. Portal, on the other hand, gives around 4 to 6 hours, but only cost £20 when it was released.

Should more games do this? Release a shorter game that costs less? It would allow game designers to explore other story areas and use more gimmicks that might become boring and stale after 15 hours, but that remain fresh for 6 hours.

I understand they already try to do this with DLC and some Indie games, but I'd like to see bigger developers get in on the action too, just to see what they can come up with.

What's your opinion?

Hexagon_777

You provide an interesting notion and I would definitely like to see it explored further. I doubt this will work with existing IPs, however.

I'm particuarly interested in the stories that could arise from this. Some stories just can't be stretched to 10 hours (like Portal). Interestingly, I'm not sure that Portal's gameplay mechanics would have been fun for 10 or more hours.

No I don't think so. Not that there's anything wrong with games like Portal but I just prefer big-budget games myself.Archangel3371

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy big budget games too, when they're done right. It's just that the format a lot of big budget games have to take in order to cover costs is a 10+ hour long game, and that locks them out of some really complelling stories, or it means that the story they're telling could get tedious or be too long drawn out in certain cases.

In any case, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. You can have developers putting out games in both subsections. Take ODST for example. I think ODST was fine for a Halo game, which I normally dislike. I liked the atmoshpere of the streets you walked around in, and I liked the way they told the (admitidly, fairly weak) story. But it just wasn't worth £40, even with the full multiplayer included. Had it have been priced at £20 for JUST ODST, I would've thought it was a good game. And that would've been Bungie, putting out big budget titles, like Halo 3 and Halo:Reach, while producing shorter games that cost less.

Someone else brought up the XBLA/PSN argument, and I've already mentioned those, and while some of them really impressed me (Shadow Complex REALLY impressed me), I'd like to see more of that, by bigger developers. I'd also like to see more of it in general.

I found myself wondering about the state of videogames and the stories that they tell. Usually, a videogame is around £40 (I believe $60), and generally gives you 10 to 20 hours of gameplay. Portal, on the other hand, gives around 4 to 6 hours, but only cost £20 when it was released.

Should more games do this? Release a shorter game that costs less? It would allow game designers to explore other story areas and use more gimmicks that might become boring and stale after 15 hours, but that remain fresh for 6 hours.

I understand they already try to do this with DLC and some Indie games, but I'd like to see bigger developers get in on the action too, just to see what they can come up with.

What's your opinion?

They'll list some games, and you'll just say they aren't classics by your standards and they are wrong, so what's the point of even trying? I enjoy gaming now more than ever before. The older games I can get on PSN, (PSone classics) and The Virtual Console are good for quick nostalgia trips, but gaming has improved from there. As great as games like Super Mario World were, Super Mario Galaxy is much better. That will be one of my classics, just so you know.SteveTabernacle

Killer Instinct, Tomba, Twisted Metal and Donkey Kong platformers.

Those are about it.

BuryMe

[QUOTE="Sammi_Costello"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] At what point did I personally attack you? *Shakes head* I suppose if you are the writer of MW2's script (don't recall if the script used the term 'ad hominem' a lot) my criticism of it could be construed as a personal attack, but otherwise...CarnageHeart

You just established your definition of reality is anything that isn't Disneyesque. Thanks for the support.

Anyone who claims that games suffer from a surfeit of realism either lives in an alternate universe (perhaps in their universe 'The Matrix' won best documentary) or believes any game where obese men don't ride baby dinosaurs through a colorful land populated by walking mushrooms is realistic.

You dont enjoy MW2 because the game sucks. It has some pretty big flaws in both single player and online modes. If you are gonna compare MW2 to the best console shooter of the 90s then you're obviously gonna end up depressed.S0lidSnake

I dont get why you are sitting here *****ing and moaning about not having decent games to play when you yourself sold your 360 and haven't bothered to buy a PS3. You kept your Wii which is effectively a last gen console, with some games that look like PS1 games.

How can you expect a game like Heavy Rain or Alan Wake to appear on the Wii? No wonder you are depressed, you are still stuck with a console from the 90s.

You just established your definition of reality is anything that isn't Disneyesque. Thanks for the support.