It's not petty. In order to do parts of the game you were forced to use the gym. Which meant spending hours hitting X while watching a computer character run on a treadmill. That's not a game, that's a chore.

I don't remember any missions requiring you to having had used the gym. Also, if you used a gym near a save point you could easily go from fat to fit in 30 minutes, not "hours". Clothing and girlfriends were "chores," but not gameplay elements required for you to complete the game -- if you didn't like them then you didn't have to do them...I didn't.

The only semi-related mission that comes to mind is the mission where you must have a high enough swimming skill (the mission where you swim to the tanker in the bay ...the asian guy won't assign you the mission until your swimming is high enough).

I personally found SA enjoyable and worth the money I put down for it...I easily got as many hours out of it as I did Oblivion. Probably my biggest gripe with SA was the ease with which one could exploit the horse gambling and obtain obscene amounts of money in minutes -- I found myself too tempted to do this in the early game, and it ultimately ruined the experience. However, I would absolutely purchase a GTA4...sure, all of the GTA games are the same basic game, but they're still entertaining.


This comment was edited on Jul 10, 00:30.

Man Riley...you do get around

Ain't that the truth.

This comment was edited on Jul 10, 01:41.

Because it wasn't broken in SA?

It was horribly broken in SA. Take cover behind a crate and rotate the camera to the side. Find a guy. Hit auto-aim. Rather than aim at the guy you moved the camera (and CJs head) to he'll try to aim where his body is facing. At the crate you're covering behind. While you get shot.

That's a rather petty complaint in itself. What was provided for the player to do was pretty damn grandiose given the sheer size of the game.

It's not petty. In order to do parts of the game you were forced to use the gym. Which meant spending hours hitting X while watching a computer character run on a treadmill. That's not a game, that's a chore. Much like the food and clothing menus and loading where a chore. And anything involving the girlfriends was a chore.
Throwing these things in didn't make the game better. They just gave RS more bullet points to put on the back of the box.

No, it sucked in YOUR OPINION.

Duh, hence the "I've said it once..."
If we all need to put "IN MY OPINION" after every opinion we make on this board threads will get much, much longer.
If someone can't tell something is my opinion, well, he's probably fredster.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/

Man Riley...you do get around

If I may recall, the 5-6 hour rumor started on Blues.

Some poster said something along the lines of:

They claim Prey is x levels
The demo had x/6 levels and took an hour
The game is going to be 6 hours





"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurmama

All this shit-talk from Riley & co. about games being released at $20 just won't work. It'll just result in piles of mass-production shit released with gaping holes of Battlefield 2 proportions

So it won't work because it would result in more of the typical $50 games we see now but for less than half the price.

This comment was edited on Jul 8, 18:52.

The only game so far that has cost THAT much money to produce has been GTA : San Andreas.
Did it really cost that much alone, or is that including the two before it?

I read in an article about games at schools etc, that a Rockstar / Take 2 representative had gone to schools talking about their game (probably after the whole Hot Coffee thing), and had asked kids what they thought it had cost to make. (It being San Andreas).
The highest guess was 5 million dollars, and the rep said they needed to add a zero to it, that the cost for San Andreas alone had been almost fifty million. I think voice acting and sound tracks alone probably took up 20-30% of that, easy.

I've said it once and I'll say it again - GTA:SA sucked

No, it sucked in YOUR OPINION. In my opinion, San Andreas is one of the greatest games ever made. also, what autoaim bug are you talking about? I thought SA had a fairly good aiming system.

Creston

Considering the latter have played the thing, and the former haven't, i'm enlightened to agree with the latter.

Actually, a pirated version of the game was released 3 days ago. If you know what forums to go to, you can easilly get plenty of user reviews, and completed times. The range seems to be 5 to 7 hours.

----------------------------------------------------
Currently playing GW Factions, Day of Defeat Source and HL2:Episode 1.

If Prey is REALLY only 5 or 6 hours long, then I'll be rather vocal about it, no worries on that part.

Rumours state that Prey is 5-6 hours long, PCZone state it's 10. Considering the latter have played the thing, and the former haven't, i'm enlightened to agree with the latter.

If IGN or one of the other 'online' sites stated that it was 10+ hours, i'd take it with a pinch of salt, but we're talking about one of the most respected PC Gaming print rags in the world.
People just hve it in for Prey because it was announced 10 years ago (before being cancelled and restarted from scratch by an entirely new team) and has 3D Realms on the box, therefore it must automatically suck.

As for this tired arguement about game prices, i'm of the 'if I enjoy it & I got a got a good deal of play time out of it, then it was worth my £30' persuasion, which was why I felt Sin & HL2 episodes were fine - being in the UK, I got a bargain for them over Steam (I paid £12 for both on pre-order, compared to the £20 each at retail), didn't rush through them from start-to-finish and enjoyed them thoroughly.
All this shit-talk from Riley & co. about games being released at $20 just won't work. It'll just result in piles of mass-production shit released with gaping holes of Battlefield 2 proportions.

How the hell could anyone spend that much money and not fix the autoaim bug?

Because it wasn't broken in SA?

I've said it once and I'll say it again - GTA:SA sucked. Just proof that more isn't better.

That's a rather petty complaint in itself. What was provided for the player to do was pretty damn grandiose given the sheer size of the game. Besides, it didn't do a bad job at representing the West Coast at all. Especially if you're one of those whose tired of these kinds of games taking place in New York or a place like it, it was a good setting.

At $8 Sin is a must-buy.

At $20... no.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/

If Prey is REALLY only 5 or 6 hours long, then I'll be rather vocal about it, no worries on that part. Ofcourse, the best protest is always done with the wallet. Six hour games simply do NOT get bought by me anymore. Especially not if they've been nine years in the making.

I have no problem with a six hour game if it is priced accordingly. The issues of Steam aside, HL2 EP1 and Sin Episodes are a rip off at $20. I have paid less than half of that for longer games and better gameplay. At less than $10 though, those two episodic games become much more acceptable (aside from the restrictions and problems of Steam). Circuit City had the Sin Episodes for $8 for a couple of weeks, and at that price it delivers some decent entertainment for the money.

This comment was edited on Jul 7, 11:24.

As always this is true because Riley says so! You seriously need a reality check.

You seriously need to learn how to read and think.

People spend dozens of hours with a game because they ENJOY it, not because it cost them $40, $50, or even $60. If I buy a game for $60 and am not having fun, I dont feel compelled to play it over and over because I spent $60. I simply dont play it, and I may sell or give it away to a friend that does want it. Likewise Im not going to only play a $10 for 2 hours just because I got it for cheap.

You totally missed my point. My point was not that people won't necessarily spend many hours on games they didn't pay much for or that they don't enjoy playing long games. My point was that the notion that people won't buy more games than they currently do because they don't have enough free time to spend dozens of hours on each one is ridiculous. Most people who buy games would buy more of them if they could get multiple titles for the same money they currently spend on one. The time factor is a trivial concern because they are already willing to spend that much money on games.

If I buy a game for $60 and am not having fun, I dont feel compelled to play it over and over because I spent $60.

You are the exception then not the rule. I remember once at E3 I attended a forum where some of the presenters were discussing the PC game market, and Robert Garriot said that one difference between the Korean game consumer and the American was that Americans would usually stick with a game longer even if they had some problems with it if they had invested a significant amount of money in it upfront. That is a major reason why it was important for NCSoft to sell its MMO games at retail in the U.S. whereas in Korea, its retail sales are relatively miniscule because Korean consumers find paying the equivalent of $50 upfront for a subscription game absurd and would rather download the client and pay as they play.

This comment was edited on Jul 7, 12:02.

The only game so far that has cost THAT much money to produce has been GTA : San Andreas.

Did it really cost that much alone, or is that including the two before it?


How the hell could anyone spend that much money and not fix the autoaim bug?

I've said it once and I'll say it again - GTA:SA sucked. Just proof that more isn't better. If you're going to add things to your game at least fix what's already in there and make sure the new things are actually fun.

-------------
Doomriders: the first new band worth a signature - http://www.deathwishinc.com/

You asshats that want to badmouth Valve and Ritual for 4 to 5 hours of single player (not mention the extras that come with their games), maybe you should start in on Human Head next.

If Prey is REALLY only 5 or 6 hours long, then I'll be rather vocal about it, no worries on that part. Ofcourse, the best protest is always done with the wallet. Six hour games simply do NOT get bought by me anymore. Especially not if they've been nine years in the making.

Creston

Most people who buy games buy fewer because of the price. Spare time really isn't an issue because people wouldn't feel so compelled to spend dozens of hours with one game if they didn't pay so much for it to begin with and if they had other new games on the shelf waiting to be played.

As always this is true because Riley says so! You seriously need a reality check.

People spend dozens of hours with a game because they ENJOY it, not because it cost them $40, $50, or even $60. If I buy a game for $60 and am not having fun, I dont feel compelled to play it over and over because I spent $60. I simply dont play it, and I may sell or give it away to a friend that does want it. Likewise Im not going to only play a $10 for 2 hours just because I got it for cheap.

Back on topic...I was considering buying Prey, but the word on the streets is that it is only 5 or 6 hours long for single player. Sorry Human Head, I'm simply not dropping $50 CDN for that, even though the DM is somewhat fun.

You asshats that want to badmouth Valve and Ritual for 4 to 5 hours of single player (not mention the extras that come with their games), maybe you should start in on Human Head next.

----------------------------------------------------
Currently playing GW Factions, Day of Defeat Source and HL2:Episode 1.

Wow cheers! I suppose a bit of Googling could have found that. Of course, $15 for a 12 year old game...

That is exactly my biggest gripe (among many) with these single-source digital distributors: the high prices. Stardock's is the only one I know of that offers a significant number of titles for significantly less that $10, and even then it forces you to spend $70 upfront to get that price.

This comment was edited on Jul 6, 23:07.

It's mostly about the user having the spare time to play games. While the price point will certainly factor into a buyers decision, ultimately they are going to buy a new game when they want to play that new game and are not going to go buy 10 games a month instead of 2 just because the price is $20 per title instead of $50.

I totally disagree. Most people who buy games buy fewer because of the price. Spare time really isn't an issue because people wouldn't feel so compelled to spend dozens of hours with one game if they didn't pay so much for it to begin with and if they had other new games on the shelf waiting to be played. Whenever I am lucky enough to find some decent titles for $10 or so, I'll buy three or four different ones instead of spending that money on one game even though I may not have time to play each one through to completion. I may only spend a few hours with each one instead of spending that time on a single title, but doing so spreads my money around instead of giving it to one developer and it gives me more variety in my gameplay. I know a lot of people who buy movies at retail that way too. They'll buy a half dozen or so when they are on sale even if they never completely watch them all. The PC game industry needs more titles in that price range.

This comment was edited on Jul 6, 22:57.

you're the first one ever to demand AAA titles to be sold at $20.

Well someone has to be first so he can take the arrows in the back. Seriously I am not the first to mention this. Several of the guys from Epic have stated similar.

I simply don't see that hordes of sleepers waiting to be awakened by HL2 for $20.

Well more people would certainly try them at a lower price point and different marketing methods. Anecdotally speaking I have known quite a few people who didn't previously play computer games try one because it came bundled with their PC or other piece of hardware or because they saw an advertisement for a game on television or at the movies which looked interesting. However, I think the biggest market of "sleepers" are simply current players who don't buy many games because of the cost and because they don't think they would play the game enough to get their money's worth from it due to the other demands on their time. When you drop the price, these people would buy more because they wouldn't worry so much about getting ten or more hours of play from the game. Just a few hours would make it worth the expense. I, myself, am like that. I will buy a game for $10 or so, and even if I only play it a few hours and don't complete it, I know I got my money's worth. I just wish I could find more games at that price point at retail or from digital distributors instead of having to hunt around on ebay for such bargains.

but if you want prices to drop by 60% and still give the developers more profit, you would need 300-400% more people to buy these games and this simply won't happen.

Or you simply need the people who buy games now to buy more titles. The problem now is that a few titles get all of the money and the rest rot on the vine. That is what is killing the small and "no name" game developers. If the money spent on games were spread around more instead of all going to the big names, the video game industry would be healthier as a whole and the selection of games would be better. Of course, the big names don't want to leave money on the table, so they will always start out charging a premium price. The problem is that every game thinks it is worth $50 in the market so that's the price that is slapped on it, and almost no one buys it. Some publishers later re-release some of these titles at discounted prices, but many never get a second chance and many times neither do their developers which have to fold.

Fantastic, that's a status quo we already have for ages now! If you want less quality for less money, you can just go to Triton's site and buy their topseller "Terrorist Takedown" for $9.99. According to reviews it's a short, ugly, bug-ridden mess... but hey! It's $9.99!

Look given the choice between making games better and pricing them lower, I would go with the latter because people won't pay extra for supposedly better quality. Battlefield II sells for $50 and from scores of users comments on this and other forums, it is bug-ridden. Would paying $60 or $70 for it solve those issues? I seriously doubt it. Therefore, selling it for $20 with the bugs would be a better solution for the consumer.

Riley, there's tons of games which start at $20 or less at the stores, these are called budget titles (at least here in Europe).

There simply isn't enough of a selection of lower cost titles in stock at most U.S. retailers. Unlike the movie industry, the video game industry as a whole does a very poor job with the sales and marketing of budget titles including selling its older products at discounted prices (with the notable exception of EA which is fairly good at it).

What we need is not consumers to be more forgiving of the quality if their games were $20, we need consumers to appreciate the enormous work being put into high profile titles.

You show your true colors again and define the problem with your position. You're an artist and view video games as an artform, and I, like most consumers, view them mainly as a product. Until the video game industry starts selling more of its games as a product instead of as art, most games will continue to be undersold and unappreciated.

This comment was edited on Jul 6, 23:12.

There are tons and tons of free games available on the internet (legally), people do not play them? Why?

Ehhh, enahs, on its release and for months afterwards, over a MILLION people were playing the free version of Bejeweled on MSN's gaming zone, simultaneously.

Ever logged into Yahoo Pool? It's a pretty pisspoor pool game, but there's tens of thousands of people playing it at any one time. I'm not sure your argument holds much water.

One thing I was thinking of as I read the arguments of Games vs Movies, is that I think Games are often seen as solitary entertainment, at least on the PC? If a buddy, or your girlfriend, comes over, and you want to go do something, how often do you say "Well, you can watch me play Prey?"
A movie is an easy escape that multiple people can enjoy.

I have no idea how big of a factor it is, but I think it probably influences it to some degree.

Creston