Nowadays, 8 xbox disks is about 1 PS3 disk =PxSpartanLazerx said:A game that is too long probably spans about 8 Xbox 360 disks and/or 3 PS3 game disks.
OT: For me, a game that's too long is any game that I get bored of half way through it.
Can a game be too long?
- Thread starter zega frega omega
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: For me, a game that's too long is any game that I get bored of half way through it.
I went through to the end, never been so glad to beat a game. It had some really pretty cut scenes though, only good thing about the damn game.MystryMeet said:
Anything with bad gameplay or a very uninteresting story and I will not continue to play it. I recently rented Splatterhouse and I couldn't get through it.
I liked the funny comments that the mask had every once in a while, but they were too far apart to be that noticeable and the gameplay was repetitive. The snarky mask and an ok storyline were not enough to hold my attention when I can just get my friends together and play guitar hero.
I liked the funny comments that the mask had every once in a while, but they were too far apart to be that noticeable and the gameplay was repetitive. The snarky mask and an ok storyline were not enough to hold my attention when I can just get my friends together and play guitar hero.
OMG the final fantasy fan base is finally becoming self-aware. Maybe now you can let square forget about final fantasy and let them work on Deus Ex instead of the crappy MMOinFAMOUSCowZ said:
IMO If a game is "too long" that probably just means it's repetitive. And if a game is "too long" but isn't repetitive that probably just means then you are trying too hard to finish it.
All in all you can't really complain about a game having too much content, that just sound plain silly to me.
All in all you can't really complain about a game having too much content, that just sound plain silly to me.
An immersive game can't be too long. A game that doesn't immerse is the too long about five seconds in.
And I'd like to make a slippery comment about how penis' can definitely be too long (I suppose so), but with my experience limited to one partner, I can only comment on what size is exactly right
And I'd like to make a slippery comment about how penis' can definitely be too long (I suppose so), but with my experience limited to one partner, I can only comment on what size is exactly right
A game can only be too long when it starts to get dull and repetitive...
However, if it starts throwing newer and more insane stuff at me 20 hours in, it can be as long as it wants... Just as long as it keeps it up...
However, if it starts throwing newer and more insane stuff at me 20 hours in, it can be as long as it wants... Just as long as it keeps it up...
Yes they can be too long. Rarely in a game-play sense, but often in a story sense.
Many movies suffer the same problem. It gets to a point where it felt like it should have ended, then the plot no longer becomes engaging.
It's more to do with pacing than game length, but as the length of the story grows, so it becomes much harder to keep the pacing from going out of control.
The reverse can be true of games which are too short, the story sets the player up for a longer tale, but then the game ends abruptly.
Many movies suffer the same problem. It gets to a point where it felt like it should have ended, then the plot no longer becomes engaging.
It's more to do with pacing than game length, but as the length of the story grows, so it becomes much harder to keep the pacing from going out of control.
The reverse can be true of games which are too short, the story sets the player up for a longer tale, but then the game ends abruptly.
Agreed. However, none of the DLC directly affects the main storyline. Because of this, I play the DLC before I launch the suicide mission, that way they feel like they have context. Playing them after just doesn't feel right.feauxx said:
No,I can't say I know any Irish,though knowing me,I probably have known and forgotten of as is my bad habit in memory.Why,know a friend that moved to the states?HankMan said:
Wolfenstein 3d. The combat is too simple and repetitive. Before you all jump down my throats, hear me out: this would ordinarily be an unfair assessment for a game from 1992, revolving around a very new genre. What made it too long was including six episodes, rather than the standard six you would expect from a typical shareware model. If there had only been three, the novelty of its groundbreaking gameplay may have lasted up to the battle with Hitler. Unfortunately, things got old during episodes 4-6.
Again, I know this seems unfair, but damn, I can only take so much of the same thing over and over.
Again, I know this seems unfair, but damn, I can only take so much of the same thing over and over.
It can be if it has run out of gameplay options and continues to throw the same situations at you, time and again ... where a player isn't expected to come up with new ideas or aren't thrusted out their comfort zone with specific time honoured techniques of dealing with obstacles.
For example ... shooters;
If theres a specific weapon + 'power' that works on all enemies and every situation can be 'defused' with said combo.
If a game doesn't force you from constantly using these combinations for the entire length of the game it's boring.
Mass Effect 2 for example shook things up.
Having an rpg component allowed, say, the infiltrators an assassin cloak. Which made cover based shooting a long-term thing ... but rather fosters a player who, up till that point due to low HP, was foprced largely into cover half of the time.
But with the assassin cloak? The Infiltrator could assault into enemy's close quarters to pistol whip[ oppositioon and attack the enemy from multiple sides and make a quick succession of movements across the battle ground to maximise their effective fire with generally reduced amounts of ammunition.
Shaking things up. As the enemies got tougher and harder, the most effective means was changing from defensive to offensive play everytime a player could.
RPGs?
I think solid rpgs are the most able to 'play well' from start to finish. Honourable mentions to Vampire: Bloodlines, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate series, PS: Torment, Morrowind ...
High customisability, high divergence each and every time you played, strong ethic of delivering divergent skillsets to new situations and forcing one to change their game playing policy from game to game, session to session, battle to battle.
Even if you didn't want to do the whole 'spell thing' in D&D games, being a fighter possessed no less reason to adapt new gameplay techniques in the face of conundrums.
For example ... shooters;
If theres a specific weapon + 'power' that works on all enemies and every situation can be 'defused' with said combo.
If a game doesn't force you from constantly using these combinations for the entire length of the game it's boring.
Mass Effect 2 for example shook things up.
Having an rpg component allowed, say, the infiltrators an assassin cloak. Which made cover based shooting a long-term thing ... but rather fosters a player who, up till that point due to low HP, was foprced largely into cover half of the time.
But with the assassin cloak? The Infiltrator could assault into enemy's close quarters to pistol whip[ oppositioon and attack the enemy from multiple sides and make a quick succession of movements across the battle ground to maximise their effective fire with generally reduced amounts of ammunition.
Shaking things up. As the enemies got tougher and harder, the most effective means was changing from defensive to offensive play everytime a player could.
RPGs?
I think solid rpgs are the most able to 'play well' from start to finish. Honourable mentions to Vampire: Bloodlines, Neverwinter Nights, Baldur's Gate series, PS: Torment, Morrowind ...
High customisability, high divergence each and every time you played, strong ethic of delivering divergent skillsets to new situations and forcing one to change their game playing policy from game to game, session to session, battle to battle.
Even if you didn't want to do the whole 'spell thing' in D&D games, being a fighter possessed no less reason to adapt new gameplay techniques in the face of conundrums.
A game that is too long will most likely be a game with pleanty of side quests of some sort. Not that that is a bad idea, but when the main story is actually held up from continuing because of a particular item that you need to get from a side quest, than those side quests become less side quests and more main quests. Whats worse though is when it takes a series of side quests in order to move the plot along. One example I can think of is in Oblivion, where you need to gain the allegence of the counts around the kingdom, but for each one you have to defeat a oblivion gate. That shit was annoying.
Also, some games, like FPS and Racing games (im thinking NFS titles, not GT, PGR, or Forza), shouldnt be that long. Eventually, the repeditivness gets to the player, and they just dont care about the story or anything, they just want top finish it and move on.
Also, some games, like FPS and Racing games (im thinking NFS titles, not GT, PGR, or Forza), shouldnt be that long. Eventually, the repeditivness gets to the player, and they just dont care about the story or anything, they just want top finish it and move on.
Oh man, there are plenty, but the ones that I deem to be too "long" are often ones that just have too much to do. If I'm not set on a specific mission, I WILL wander off and do other shit. This gives me ZERO sense of urgency for the main quest at hand and makes me believe that my actions are meaningless.
Thank you for that Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Read Dead Redemption. I finished none of those games.
Thank you for that Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Read Dead Redemption. I finished none of those games.
As someone who likes to play a variety of games, I generally won't finish anything that is more than 10 hours unless its REALLY FRIGGING GOOD. It also has to feel like the length is justified. Grinding is a big no no.