Games suck. That's why.
Games suck. That's why.
To be fair, what percentage of those who played Donkey Kong achieved a kill screen?
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
There was a discussion about this article at another forum I visit.
As I said there, "the reason I don't finish a lot of games is because a lot of games are shit."
I don't buy for a second that games are getting shorter now. I'm frequently searching out games that won't be a big commitment, and I almost always find myself turning to games 16-bit and earlier to fill that need. As much as I love the era, games started to get bloated with the N64 and PlayStation. Platformers had you collecting a bajillion and half doodads that stretched the game out to 20-40 hours, and a large number of RPGs were hitting 40-80 hours. It only got worse with the PS2 and company. Then the 40-hour RPGs were "short". Same situation now. Honestly, it's the fault of the gamers. If you talk to teenage gamers, the majority will tell you that longer is always better. With the big blockbusters, they may be 10 hours because the developers know that the game is flashy enough that the teens won't care, but when you look at the average game that has to fight for sales, the developers will do whatever they can to pump up the gameplay hours. When a 16-year-old kid is looking at "generic 40-hour Japanese RPG" versus "generic 80-hour Japanese RPG", he's going to pick the latter.
Shake it again, and remind it of the 32X.Originally Posted by Sothy
I don't finish games either because a new one comes out and I get distracted, or I get stuck. Since I'm skint now and can't afford new games I'm working my way through my collection - completing games then will sell some.
I finish most of my games but what I usually find is that I'll play a game for days/weeks, get to a part where I get stuck or die and then not touch it for months. Later I'll pick it up and complete it.
There's no reason for this, and the parts where I stop playing aren't actually that difficult. Maybe it's wanting to make the game seem to last longer than it really will.
As for game length, generally I don't care as long it feels well paced and I've got my moneys worth. But that is all down to personal taste.
I reject your reality and substitute it for one of my own!
Some of the parts where I get stuck or die I've left for years and as with age comes experience so I can complete them due to more experience in game playing.
Back in the day, I would've just laughed at this article as I poured another cup of 80 hour rpg into my mug. But now that I'm in my 30's, with 90% of my game collection sold off to different parts of the world, I completely understand and agree with the article.
If I do game, I can pretty much only play arcade games and Dreamcast shooters. I simply don't have the attention span nor the time to follow
'Character X through Gameworld Y'. On top of that, other hobbies and life are constantly distracting me. I have no kids, and I'm not married (just have a gf), but I believe that after many years of gaming and nerding out over new releases, I broke though some sort of wall. Now I just look back and find myself amazed at how much time I spent chasing games.
Find me on here http://www.soundcloud.com/lee-w-1
Amen, brother..
Hey, that actually works!
It would have been nice if older me could have coached younger me, "Hey, might not wanna stock up on so many RPGs.."
This. Games are just becoming too long, quests to "100% complete" them have become the norm, and they end up stretching for so long toget the special ending after the regular ending that it's just not worth it. I'd rather play a game where I can just play it once through and beat it, especially where RPGs are concerned. I just played through Panzer Dragoon Saga and that game was almost perfect for that. A 12 hour game over 4 discs took me a week to beat, and wasn't too time-extensive, a couple of hours a day was good enough to beat it. These 20 and 40 hour grindfests are just ridiculous.
When the game starts becoming too long, that's when I say that's enough and lose interest in the game. I've got plenty of games, and would actually like to beat some of the other ones I have as well, don't want to waste all of my free time on one game
I can't say I agree with this. I generally find most new games to be too short and I typically finish all my games and wish there was more. The only new game I never finished was AVP on PS3 not so much because it's too long but because it's just too repetitive. They don't really vary the missions up very well. But that's only new game I have that I didn't complete (out of 30 or so PS3 titles). Maybe I'm an anomaly though.
Ready to print game covers and cart labels: http://www.mediafire.com/?5gm45wyxr3xvv
Whatever occupation you have, I want it. I would kill for that much free time.
I just have to say this, and I know nobody else will give a shit.
What the article implies is that only 1 out of 10 gamers finishes their games.
If you read between the lines though, they are only talking about Red Dead Redemption, and they got those numbers from Raptr. I looked up Raptr and it works with PC games and Xbox Live and that's it.
So really what the article should push is that only 1 out of 10 people who bought Red Dead Redemption AND played it on a PC or have Xbox Live AND subscribe to Raptr.
I realize that this is a technicality that most of you couldn't care less about, but from someone with a background in journalism, this irked me.
You raise an excellent point, Rob.
The threadbare assumption is the sample rate necessarily transfers +/- to the entire group... Using a specific case to back up a statement that general is very iffy.
They are also conflating higher concept with linear cinematic style, which I think is as low level as interactive media gets. Not low in terms of quality, low in that it's the base. Some 2600 games had higher concepts than many of the stuff that gets rolled out today. Why so many Zombies? It's a Freudian slip of a confession.
Last edited by Icarus Moonsight; 08-25-2011 at 04:37 PM.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
Too many gamers who don't bother reading more than a paragraph at a time are too lazy to finish video games.
Also this.
<Sothy> its the internet <Sothy> who cares
"Long gone are the days of starting a game on a high-level concept," says Konami's Airey. The reason: "It's costly," he says.
Fuller says the devil is in the details.
"I worked on a project that took 50 people and 18 months to produce 20 minutes of game play," he says. "With the expectations so high for visual and audio fidelity, lifelike animations, enemy behavior and movie-quality cinemas, it can take two years for a team of 100 people to create six hours of playable story. At an average burn rate of $10,000 per man month, that's $24 million just in developer cost. You're not likely to find a publisher that will foot the bill for extending that campaign to 20 hours."
Of course, why make a 20-plus hour game when most players aren't completing them, as is the case with "Red Dead Redemption"? The answer is, most publishers don't.
Lazy, cheap bastards.
Between the worldwide sales of the 360 and PS3 versions of Red Dead Redemption, they sold 8 million copies. Pretty good numbers there. Do developers really care if people complete their game, or are they trying to justify making crappy iphone apps?
The question is: would you pay $59.99 at retail for Angry Birds? Also, would you have bought Red Dead Redemption if it were 2 hours long?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
