I see what you're saying. Almost as if they were trying to compensate for something.Arbre said:
I think it'd be even better if they added a heavy metal umlaut.
Are next gen games getting shorter?
- Thread starter Zera
- Start date
I think it'd be even better if they added a heavy metal umlaut.
Unless, your the creators of ninja gaiden.ix said:
Man, i dont think there IS a third level to ninja gaiden. noone i know has got past the second.
Hah reminds me of a picture that has the easy,normal, and hard modes and underneath it says something like "these are the difficulty settings I forgot to put in." It's funny as hell man.
Ninja Gaiden is difficult on the normal setting (Probably the hard mode of a good deal of the games coming out now.) but the trick is knowing your enemies weaknesses and becoming one with the block button. NG is a game where you have to know how to play in order to really win, all that said I have not beat the game yet and I die all the time.
Ninja Gaiden is difficult on the normal setting (Probably the hard mode of a good deal of the games coming out now.) but the trick is knowing your enemies weaknesses and becoming one with the block button. NG is a game where you have to know how to play in order to really win, all that said I have not beat the game yet and I die all the time.
Rather, it could be, that as you get older, you just get to be bitchier. I'm 33, and would be greatly embarrassed to be known as the guy who moans about everything game related. Rather reminds me of my Luddite mother.
I'd like to say that the reason I registered to the escapist forum is to give my cheers for Catgrr's "Post #10" back on page one. Hopefully my comments do not distract from the actual topic at hand. My first thought was "I love this person" and I no negative comment on how she (gender later learned) reacted to the frankly offensive use of English immediately prior.
People who neither use the language correctly nor most importantly make a discernible effort to do so are horrendously offensive and counterproductive to the discussion process. It is doubly unfortunate that most people are simply oblivious to how disruptive and rude this behavior is and will therefore make the blathering knave into a victim and the grammar-correct into some sort of picky, menacing monster. It is actually the other way around!
While Catgrr (and others, this board has a high degree of intelligence for the most part) have used admirable logical methods for making debate, I find it saddening that she and others have fallen victim to personal attack-defenses, off-topic discussion, and logical fallacies. Also I feel sad that Catgrr feels pressured to address her gender at all during the course of the discussion. I have made all the mistakes that members that posted before me in this topic have made, so I do not judge such human dramatic tendencies too harshly. I actually enjoy debate-for-debate's-sake, but will return to the topic at the end of this sentence because it is what Yahtzee would want.
===============
Why Games Are Too Short:
Do I know why they are? I do not know for sure but I have some ideas. The mainstream influence has turned a lot of the games I have played from the old challenge-based model to the new interactive movie-based model. In the past, not being good enough or not being able to figure out a puzzle was a valid occurrence during the course of a game. Currently such halts in the gameflow are seen as bad and are actively weeded out during development. I'm sure old games would play in a short number of hours if the player did everything absolutely perfectly but take substantially longer because it was hard or required mental effort.
Half Life 2's minimum length is dictated not so much by the difficulty but your character's physical ability to run through the level. A short game doesn't mean it has to be over quickly. A short game can take a long time if the player doesn't blow through it at a full sprint.
The concept that you can "triple the game's length" by making the player play through it 3 times to get a slightly different colored hat is really annoying. Playing the entire game through again to get a different ending does not count double in terms of gameplay time in my opinion.
Again the mainstream audience influence has mandated that games are now meant to be BEATEN AND 100%'D BY MOST PLAYERS. Casual gamers, the XBox variety, buy and play games not with the intention of maybe finishing them, but of adding their XBox achievements quickly to their gamer rep and going on to the next game. Games are meant to be consumed like DVD movies at some sort of perverse book club and retired to shelves as trophies.
My current Games folder has the following installed:
ArmedAssault -- Lasts forever assuming new mods and missions come out, which they don't since the developers have made no attempt to make such things doable.
Bioshock -- I beat in several short sessions, as much as I wanted to spend on it hours-wise.
Silent Hunter 4 -- The game with no end honestly. Mod community is struggling best they can with good results.
Steam -- Half Life 2 Orange Box. Completed Portal, Ep1, Ep2 in a total of 12 hours tops. Enjoyed it but painfully short and rollercoaster ride easy. TF2 is fun until I get bored of it, which may happen soon with 10 or so maps only. Portal was done in a rather lazy 53 minutes start to finish.
People who neither use the language correctly nor most importantly make a discernible effort to do so are horrendously offensive and counterproductive to the discussion process. It is doubly unfortunate that most people are simply oblivious to how disruptive and rude this behavior is and will therefore make the blathering knave into a victim and the grammar-correct into some sort of picky, menacing monster. It is actually the other way around!
While Catgrr (and others, this board has a high degree of intelligence for the most part) have used admirable logical methods for making debate, I find it saddening that she and others have fallen victim to personal attack-defenses, off-topic discussion, and logical fallacies. Also I feel sad that Catgrr feels pressured to address her gender at all during the course of the discussion. I have made all the mistakes that members that posted before me in this topic have made, so I do not judge such human dramatic tendencies too harshly. I actually enjoy debate-for-debate's-sake, but will return to the topic at the end of this sentence because it is what Yahtzee would want.
===============
Why Games Are Too Short:
Do I know why they are? I do not know for sure but I have some ideas. The mainstream influence has turned a lot of the games I have played from the old challenge-based model to the new interactive movie-based model. In the past, not being good enough or not being able to figure out a puzzle was a valid occurrence during the course of a game. Currently such halts in the gameflow are seen as bad and are actively weeded out during development. I'm sure old games would play in a short number of hours if the player did everything absolutely perfectly but take substantially longer because it was hard or required mental effort.
Half Life 2's minimum length is dictated not so much by the difficulty but your character's physical ability to run through the level. A short game doesn't mean it has to be over quickly. A short game can take a long time if the player doesn't blow through it at a full sprint.
The concept that you can "triple the game's length" by making the player play through it 3 times to get a slightly different colored hat is really annoying. Playing the entire game through again to get a different ending does not count double in terms of gameplay time in my opinion.
Again the mainstream audience influence has mandated that games are now meant to be BEATEN AND 100%'D BY MOST PLAYERS. Casual gamers, the XBox variety, buy and play games not with the intention of maybe finishing them, but of adding their XBox achievements quickly to their gamer rep and going on to the next game. Games are meant to be consumed like DVD movies at some sort of perverse book club and retired to shelves as trophies.
My current Games folder has the following installed:
ArmedAssault -- Lasts forever assuming new mods and missions come out, which they don't since the developers have made no attempt to make such things doable.
Bioshock -- I beat in several short sessions, as much as I wanted to spend on it hours-wise.
Silent Hunter 4 -- The game with no end honestly. Mod community is struggling best they can with good results.
Steam -- Half Life 2 Orange Box. Completed Portal, Ep1, Ep2 in a total of 12 hours tops. Enjoyed it but painfully short and rollercoaster ride easy. TF2 is fun until I get bored of it, which may happen soon with 10 or so maps only. Portal was done in a rather lazy 53 minutes start to finish.
Shadow Skill, if you're going to complain about the removal of a targeting reticle for GeOW, why don't you get a dry erase marker and put a little dot on your television screen? It's not like it would help much in terms of accuracy anyway; but problem solved, yes?
It's kind of funny though. We're complaining about games getting shorter, but they're still longer than the original length of most NES and SNES games (excluding RPGS) Let's start doing up games like that again, where you have to play through to the end in one sitting.
Note: This is not a serious statement. Calm down.
Note: This is not a serious statement. Calm down.
Interesting point: How long a game takes to play through is significantly dependent on the person playing it.
Take my brother. He always takes longer to play through games than I do, usually between 30 minutes to 5 hours longer, depending on the game. This has nothing to do with his skill level, and everything to do with his style of play.
I personally like to blaze through games. I see what I need to do, I get straight to it. My brother, on the other hand, is an explorer. He will examine every square inch of an area before moving on. He will sit back and relish in the sights, the sounds, the atmosphere.
Does his increased play-time mean that he enjoyed the game more than I did? Well, yes, in most cases he does derive more enjoyment out of a game than I do, because he pushes himself to find more to enjoy in each game.
My point is, most games don't have a fixed, definitive amount of time in which you can derive enjoyment from them. Granted, not many gamers would really enjoy the level of exploration that my brother does (I know I would get bored of it rather quickly), but at the same time most people could find something to do with a game that would allow them to enjoy it for longer.
For example, many people will get more play-time out of an RPG by running through it again with some self-imposed constraint. Perhaps they'll only use the starting characters, or they'll refuse to purchase better equipment. I have a friend who, whenever playing an RPG, will always keep his characters under-leveled, thusly forcing him to act more strategically with items and skills, and inevitably increasing the amount of time he spends on each battle.
Then there are the people who do speed-runs, trying to finish the game in the least amount of time. These people will naturally be re-playing their chosen game many times, perfecting their movements for greatest efficiency and constantly seeking new ways to shave off precious seconds.
So really, the 'length' of a game as a factor in determining how much value it has is only as important as a given player allows it to be. If a player can discover a new way to play the game, another way to increase how much time they can spend enjoying it, then its value to that player increases.
So the next time you find yourself bothered that a game wasn't long enough, or that you didn't get enough quality-time for you money, just try giving it a bit of thought to see if you can find some way to get more out of it. And if you can't figure anything out, perhaps you should be consider being a bit more selective in how you spend your money.
Take my brother. He always takes longer to play through games than I do, usually between 30 minutes to 5 hours longer, depending on the game. This has nothing to do with his skill level, and everything to do with his style of play.
I personally like to blaze through games. I see what I need to do, I get straight to it. My brother, on the other hand, is an explorer. He will examine every square inch of an area before moving on. He will sit back and relish in the sights, the sounds, the atmosphere.
Does his increased play-time mean that he enjoyed the game more than I did? Well, yes, in most cases he does derive more enjoyment out of a game than I do, because he pushes himself to find more to enjoy in each game.
My point is, most games don't have a fixed, definitive amount of time in which you can derive enjoyment from them. Granted, not many gamers would really enjoy the level of exploration that my brother does (I know I would get bored of it rather quickly), but at the same time most people could find something to do with a game that would allow them to enjoy it for longer.
For example, many people will get more play-time out of an RPG by running through it again with some self-imposed constraint. Perhaps they'll only use the starting characters, or they'll refuse to purchase better equipment. I have a friend who, whenever playing an RPG, will always keep his characters under-leveled, thusly forcing him to act more strategically with items and skills, and inevitably increasing the amount of time he spends on each battle.
Then there are the people who do speed-runs, trying to finish the game in the least amount of time. These people will naturally be re-playing their chosen game many times, perfecting their movements for greatest efficiency and constantly seeking new ways to shave off precious seconds.
So really, the 'length' of a game as a factor in determining how much value it has is only as important as a given player allows it to be. If a player can discover a new way to play the game, another way to increase how much time they can spend enjoying it, then its value to that player increases.
So the next time you find yourself bothered that a game wasn't long enough, or that you didn't get enough quality-time for you money, just try giving it a bit of thought to see if you can find some way to get more out of it. And if you can't figure anything out, perhaps you should be consider being a bit more selective in how you spend your money.
I prefere long games like ff and turn-based combat but games like COD and MOH are fun and as u can put it in play from the last checkpoint. is that not the point? for the longer games u can't really play for just 1hr u have to play for many (well.... i have to any way)
i really think that games are getting shorter becuase the new games are much harder to develop for so would u prefere a long boring take your time, bad graphics game or a perfectly made kick ass game hard choice?
as i have read form other posts that and i agree games like portal were made to do what people want, so why complain?
heavanly sword is a awsome game brilliant graphics, good games play bit of a button basher and a bit of a take off from GOD of WAR. but was it too short i think not it hasn't over stayed it's welcome and i expect more games like it in the future.
so what about racing games are they too short? i enjoyed NFS most wanted it time length was just right but carbon was a bit of a failure really short and a bit to easy. now as for JUICED 2 what a failure i really wasbn't happy really really arcadey i mean sorry do 100mph around a corner and not crash? but aleast NFS pro street doesn't have much competition i'm really lookin forward to it
football games- brought FIFA 2008 and Pro Evo and hate them both good games just not my type.
and finally HALO 3- really short but it's already more popular than GOD so waht can i say.
i really think that games are getting shorter becuase the new games are much harder to develop for so would u prefere a long boring take your time, bad graphics game or a perfectly made kick ass game hard choice?
as i have read form other posts that and i agree games like portal were made to do what people want, so why complain?
heavanly sword is a awsome game brilliant graphics, good games play bit of a button basher and a bit of a take off from GOD of WAR. but was it too short i think not it hasn't over stayed it's welcome and i expect more games like it in the future.
so what about racing games are they too short? i enjoyed NFS most wanted it time length was just right but carbon was a bit of a failure really short and a bit to easy. now as for JUICED 2 what a failure i really wasbn't happy really really arcadey i mean sorry do 100mph around a corner and not crash? but aleast NFS pro street doesn't have much competition i'm really lookin forward to it
football games- brought FIFA 2008 and Pro Evo and hate them both good games just not my type.
and finally HALO 3- really short but it's already more popular than GOD so waht can i say.
Shadow Skill, you nitpick. Most of your complaints I find absolutely poor. Plus, I can't really agree with your arguments on Gears using a third person perspective, as I actually think shooters should start using that perspective more. It actually gives you more options as to what is available with the character.
I don't care if I can't actually physically look at my gun. It's a game. As long as it does everything I want it to in a smooth engine, then I'm fine. For the style of play, I feel the Gears engine was completely fine with what they did. And if you ever truly find yourself in the open without cover, then...well, firstly, I don't know where in the game you are, and second, you're not playing the game right. No cover is supposed to mean you're dead, just as it would in a real firefight.
Stop confusing "I wasn't partial to it" with "it was a bad system".
Flionk - Welcome to the forums buddy. Be prepared for a lot of slander against us console gamers.
I don't care if I can't actually physically look at my gun. It's a game. As long as it does everything I want it to in a smooth engine, then I'm fine. For the style of play, I feel the Gears engine was completely fine with what they did. And if you ever truly find yourself in the open without cover, then...well, firstly, I don't know where in the game you are, and second, you're not playing the game right. No cover is supposed to mean you're dead, just as it would in a real firefight.
Stop confusing "I wasn't partial to it" with "it was a bad system".
Flionk - Welcome to the forums buddy. Be prepared for a lot of slander against us console gamers.
I don't think that FPSes are as immersive as all that. All you are is pretty much a disembodied hand with a gun. FEAR revolutionized the genre by adding legs, but it's still just a hand on a two leg bipod.
Having spent a fair amount of time with pistols assault rifles, etc., I really think that they shoud redo most of the gunplay animation for the FPS genre. You should be able to see more of your upper arm and shoulder; when you look down, the weapon sight should come closer to your face and you should be able to see at least some of your torso. These are just a couple of possible improvements.
I guess I'm pretty nitpicky myself, but I think gaming has reached a stage where I can be. The technological capability is there, and if I'm spending 50-60 bucks for a game where graphics are the selling point, I want all the bells and whistles.
Getting back to the point of the thread, I think game length makes me choosier about which games I buy on opening day. I don't neccessarily have a problem with dropping sixty bucks on a six-hour game, but it better be a damn good six hours. Now, I've begun just waiting it out for a game like that to hit a more reasonable price point. I think it's stupid to have a flat release price for almost all titles. Sometimes a game just isn't worth more than 30 or 40 dollars. That was understood with the last-gen consoles, and it's a concept worth remembering.
Having spent a fair amount of time with pistols assault rifles, etc., I really think that they shoud redo most of the gunplay animation for the FPS genre. You should be able to see more of your upper arm and shoulder; when you look down, the weapon sight should come closer to your face and you should be able to see at least some of your torso. These are just a couple of possible improvements.
I guess I'm pretty nitpicky myself, but I think gaming has reached a stage where I can be. The technological capability is there, and if I'm spending 50-60 bucks for a game where graphics are the selling point, I want all the bells and whistles.
Getting back to the point of the thread, I think game length makes me choosier about which games I buy on opening day. I don't neccessarily have a problem with dropping sixty bucks on a six-hour game, but it better be a damn good six hours. Now, I've begun just waiting it out for a game like that to hit a more reasonable price point. I think it's stupid to have a flat release price for almost all titles. Sometimes a game just isn't worth more than 30 or 40 dollars. That was understood with the last-gen consoles, and it's a concept worth remembering.
So in a real firefight you never have to change locations? Yea that makes sense... You just can't stand the fact that the game mechanics are indeed broken. You want to know how they could have fixed the whole thing with the reticle? Put an option in the game to turn it on and turn it off..Problem solved. You can't say the problems I pointed out do not exist so you have to accuse me of nitpicking to make yourself feel better. Here is another example of broken gameplay:
In Graw 2 your squad commands are mapped to the Dpad; now here is what that means for you as the player assuming you use the default controls: You may be able to reach the up button to give an order but chances are it will not be very comfortable at all. What will probably happen is that a player will take his or her thumb off the left stick in order to give orders. In short the player will have to stand still for a period of time while giving an order which is just asking to get shot in the face.
Now if you use the Southpaw layout you are able to move and give at the same time which totally changes the way one plays the game. A person using this layout can order the squad to fire on a given target while changing positions without having to twist his or her hand around the controller to pull off such a feat. The mapping has actually completely altered the gameplay and the user has very little control over the experience because full mapping is not allowed. There is no good reason for the key mapping to have this kind of effect on the game experience. If the game mechanic breaks just because of the key mapping something is indeed wrong with the game period.
Here is one more example in the Orange Box you are allowed to use a Southpaw stick layout, it even allows for full key mapping. On it's face this is perfect, however there is one major problem, if you map anything to the Dpad (With Half Life 2 specifically I have not tried all the other games yet.) you lose the ability to switch to the weapon class that is apparently hard coded to the dpad! In short the game breaks completely! let me repeat this, the game breaks! How exactly is the gameplay not broken if the most obvious configuration options (regardless of whether or not you use the normal or Southpaw stick layout) for button mapping actually make it impossible to change weapons or severely hampers that capability?
I really like how certain console fps' are starting to catch up to Quake4 and having the ammo indicators on the weapons themselves reducing the need for a HUD. I can definetly see this becoming something done in real life in short order, we are already making suits that allow for a HUD, we already have "Holographic" weapon sights that place a digital crosshair on an object.(This is in COD4.) We already have a rudimentary system allowing soldiers to shoot from behind walls while actively aiming the weapon. (My favorite gun in Graw 2 for mid range engagements.) there are a great many possibilities indeed.
In Graw 2 your squad commands are mapped to the Dpad; now here is what that means for you as the player assuming you use the default controls: You may be able to reach the up button to give an order but chances are it will not be very comfortable at all. What will probably happen is that a player will take his or her thumb off the left stick in order to give orders. In short the player will have to stand still for a period of time while giving an order which is just asking to get shot in the face.
Now if you use the Southpaw layout you are able to move and give at the same time which totally changes the way one plays the game. A person using this layout can order the squad to fire on a given target while changing positions without having to twist his or her hand around the controller to pull off such a feat. The mapping has actually completely altered the gameplay and the user has very little control over the experience because full mapping is not allowed. There is no good reason for the key mapping to have this kind of effect on the game experience. If the game mechanic breaks just because of the key mapping something is indeed wrong with the game period.
Here is one more example in the Orange Box you are allowed to use a Southpaw stick layout, it even allows for full key mapping. On it's face this is perfect, however there is one major problem, if you map anything to the Dpad (With Half Life 2 specifically I have not tried all the other games yet.) you lose the ability to switch to the weapon class that is apparently hard coded to the dpad! In short the game breaks completely! let me repeat this, the game breaks! How exactly is the gameplay not broken if the most obvious configuration options (regardless of whether or not you use the normal or Southpaw stick layout) for button mapping actually make it impossible to change weapons or severely hampers that capability?
Heh I would like to see assault rifles combined with shotguns, it has been done in real life and if memory serves me a modular system is seeing some limited use amongst American troops in Afghanistan.
I really like how certain console fps' are starting to catch up to Quake4 and having the ammo indicators on the weapons themselves reducing the need for a HUD. I can definetly see this becoming something done in real life in short order, we are already making suits that allow for a HUD, we already have "Holographic" weapon sights that place a digital crosshair on an object.(This is in COD4.) We already have a rudimentary system allowing soldiers to shoot from behind walls while actively aiming the weapon. (My favorite gun in Graw 2 for mid range engagements.) there are a great many possibilities indeed.
admitting the possibility that you're wrong is the first step towards better discussion, and the realization that this is not Call of Duty 4, this is not Ghost Recon, this is not an FPS tactical warfare sim, it's a third person action game with a heavy focus on shooting. Also, CoD4's "holo" sights are an improved iron sights, you still can't actively use it without looking down the barrel, and until all soldiers either start wearing an improved land warrior outfit (clunkiest piece of shit known to man) crosshairs while running will remain in the realm of fantasy, and simper laser sights (relying on their tiny dot to tell you you're on target, you're definitely going to need 20/15 vision for that one, and the sharpest reflexes of any soldier alive)
Did I mention Gears of War after that quote block? What I was talking was the possibilities that exist as far as the game mechanics of shooters go especially given what we are already working on/actively testing. I only mentioned those games to point out that there are a few big name games that have these sorts of things available to the player. The first step is to actually read a post.
Please. A few months ago, there were less lot people here, and discussions were much more solid and behaved.ccesarano said:
Seems that the Yahtzee videos dragged a whole lot of whiners.
There's no reason to suggest and entertain an idea of Us vs. Them.
It does not help.