|
|
 |
| [Aug 20, 2008, 9:43 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Prev [ 1 ] Next >
| 7. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 21, 2008, 20:21 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Yes, and they'll say the game is only 10 hours, but it's completely awesome! Exactly. That's the most common excuse I've seen from developers. "Oh, we could have made a 20 hour game but we'd rather make a really great 5 hour game!"
How about you just make a really great 20 hour game? I've yet to see any short games that have substantially better gameplay than longer games. The problem is this overemphasis on presentation. When you put all your resources into making your game pretty, you have less time to make content.
Say you have about 2 hours free time a day. A 60 hour game means a month of dedication. But actually there are also better alternatives to allow for, things which used to take up maybe a quarter of free time now take up half of it, so you're left with those 2 hours on 2 or 3 days a week. If there are always better alternatives for you than gaming, then gaming must not be much of a hobby to you. Apparently it's more like something you do when you have nothing else to do.
If a game isn't compelling enough for you to want to actually play it, then the game probably isn't worth 60 hours of your time.
This message was edited at Aug 21, 20:25. |
| 6. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 21, 2008, 18:39 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
To me that is emphasising that shorter games still have to be at least as good value: if games are to be shorter, they must be either cheaper or for those 10 hours to be better. Yes, and they'll say the game is only 10 hours, but it's completely awesome! And then you'll play it and it's just ok. But they have your money. So you say fuck 'em and don't buy their next game. Then they call you a liar and a pirate and the entire reason their game failed and they're gonna take their ball and go play on the PS4 or some shit.
|
| 5. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 21, 2008, 17:13 |
DG |
|
|
I thought the article got it almost dead right, personally. I'd be less keen to emphasise the time factor, but then I'm not quite at the average age and don't have kids.
Blaming "I don't have enough time to play long games" excuses doesn't quite get it. What happens is the less free time you have, the more competitive that time is.
Say you have about 2 hours free time a day. A 60 hour game means a month of dedication. But actually there are also better alternatives to allow for, things which used to take up maybe a quarter of free time now take up half of it, so you're left with those 2 hours on 2 or 3 days a week. You lose the thread of the game and it's not half as good as if you'd done it all in a week or two.
FWIW I didn't read the article as encouraging games to become basically same as they are but cutting half the content:
Another gamer, Casey Willis of Atlanta, Georgia, may have put it best: "Make a game worth my time and money, and I'll be happy," he says. "After all, 10 hours of awesome is better than 20 hours of boring." To me that is emphasising that shorter games still have to be at least as good value: if games are to be shorter, they must be either cheaper or for those 10 hours to be better.
This message was edited at Aug 21, 17:15. |
| 3. |
Re: No subject |
Aug 21, 2008, 02:18 |
Wowbagger_TIP |
|
|
I don't get it. Okay, so your free time is limited. Since when do you have to beat games as quickly as possible? You can play a game for an hour every few days and still beat it eventually. If you have multiple games, you just jump between them. Saying "I don't have enough time to play long games" is just a lame and unfounded excuse. No kidding. I like long games. It may take me a few months to beat them, but I enjoy it. I'm not in a hurry. I hate the fact that all these assholes keep saying that games need to be shorter. They don't. They just need to be better! I want depth and replayability, not just graphics that choke my box and physics-driven particle effects. I'm sick of that crap.
This message was edited at Aug 21, 02:18. |
| 2. |
No subject |
Aug 20, 2008, 23:57 |
DangerDog |
|
|
Short games need to be priced accordingly, I don’t object to the shortness of the game but the fact they want to still charge so much for it.
|
| 1. |
No subject |
Aug 20, 2008, 23:05 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Why is it that so many gamers, including critics, finish only a fraction of their games? The most obvious reason is time. No, the most obvious reason is that most games suck but idiots go out and buy them anyway without playing them first.
In 2006, Epic Games announced that Gears of War would require only 10 hours to complete on the default difficulty. The announcement caused a mini-uproar on Internet forums and gaming blogs, but when push came to shove, gamers forked over the $60, applauded the game, and rallied to make it a monster seller that year. I rest my case.
"It's smart for publishers and developers to watch consumer playing habits," says Hsu. "If people don't have time for 50-hour epics, then perhaps shorter, more episodic content is necessary." I don't get it. Okay, so your free time is limited. Since when do you have to beat games as quickly as possible? You can play a game for an hour every few days and still beat it eventually. If you have multiple games, you just jump between them. Saying "I don't have enough time to play long games" is just a lame and unfounded excuse.
This message was edited at Aug 20, 23:10. |
7 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Prev [ 1 ] Next >
|
News script copyright © 1999-2009 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News.
