PS3s are stupid; throw rocks at them

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by DrSpike

Yeah, I'd call shenanigans on that too. When have you ever seen people complaining games are too long these days?

I've seen plenty complaining about the opposite.

hmmm yeah i was thinking the same. Modern console gaming(and by extension modern pc gaming as one follows the other) isn't renowned for producing games with longevity. In fact games seem positively designed to give the opposite.

from the console perspective KOTOR1+2 are about the last games i can think of that were generous in that department. Civ4 obviously for the PC. Oblivion did have some serious hours in it, but only if you could bare what they had done to the series(which i can't). Other than those most other games last about 12-15 hours on average i'd say.

Originally posted by DrSpike
It's to annoy Asher.

No, that's just the(unintended) side effect maybe? I think i have a certain amount of Wii love just because it's doing something different? Maybe not something aimed at my playing tastes, but having a 'next-gen' platform doing something different to 360+PS3 will probably save the gaming industry(even if it doesn't know it needs a saviour!).......or at the very least keep me interested in it

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Yeah, I'd call shenanigans on that too. When have you ever seen people complaining games are too long these days?

I've seen plenty complaining about the opposite.

I presume "these days" excludes my recent experiences with Baldurs Gate, EU2, or even Victoria?

[DrSpike]

Yes.

[Nostromo]

A lot of people lost a lot of their precious time playing WOW.

[Verto]

Originally posted by El_Cid
from the console perspective KOTOR1+2 are about the last games i can think of that were generous in that department. Civ4 obviously for the PC. Oblivion did have some serious hours in it, but only if you could bare what they had done to the series(which i can't). Other than those most other games last about 12-15 hours on average i'd say.

[By LOTM]

I presume "these days" excludes my recent experiences with Baldurs Gate, EU2, or even Victoria?

Civilization (and Victoria, etc) is different, since there is no plot to advance, no story to tell. You simply repeat the same actions over and over again. Such a game could last forever. There is no point in comparing it to a game that tries to have a plot.

I've never played Baldur's Gate, so I have no personal knowedge of it, but I'm sure it takes a while to beat.

[Nostromo]

I never finished BG2, but I hear it takes about 200 hours to finish.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Verto

[By LOTM]

I presume "these days" excludes my recent experiences with Baldurs Gate, EU2, or even Victoria?

Civilization (and Victoria, etc) is different, since there is no plot to advance, no story to tell. You simply repeat the same actions over and over again. Such a game could last forever. There is no point in comparing it to a game that tries to have a plot.

I've never played Baldur's Gate, so I have no personal knowedge of it, but I'm sure it takes a while to beat.

assuredly if in, say, EU2, you use the same approaches in 1750 that worked so well in 1500 (heavy on cavalry, slider to full aristo, not using artillery) youre not going to do very well. There is a story, but its an emerging story. (go to the Paradox boards here and look at my AAR "Whither Spain") Its been a long time since I played civ, but id say the same thing is pretty true there also. And for MOO2. I think your para above is unfair to strategy games.

Ditto for a game like Simcity, where your strategy changes over time, the story is emerging, and the game takes a long time.

So it seems the comment is basically for more overtly plotted games - IE RPGs, adventures, and FPS. Im only really familiar with recent examples of RPGs from among those. Ive played BG, BG2, and Planescape Torment. They all took quite a long time to play. However IIUC BG2 was the most recent, and I think was released in 2001 or 2002.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=El_Cid[/q]from the console perspective KOTOR1+2 are about the last games i can think of that were generous in that department.[/q]

Err... Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas?

And I believe the GTA clone Saint's Row (which was actually supposed to be a VERY well done clone) probably has a long single player experience.

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by Verto

Civilization (and Victoria, etc) is different, since there is no plot to advance, no story to tell. You simply repeat the same actions over and over again. Such a game could last forever. .......

never played victoria myself but i would argue Civilization does have a plot and story to tell - that of the development of modern man. I find it one of the most interesting stories i have played in a video game, and still do.

What it doesn't have is a finite text based/narrated story driven by cut scenes of the film/movie tradition. Thats what gives it its near endless replayability.

And thanks Imran, GTA+Saints Row can be added to KOTOR1+2 - i've never played them(a political/taste decision on my part) so thats why i didnt mention them.

[DrSpike]

Whilst I don't disagree with the point made by Lotm and El Cid I find it a bit disingenous.

The correct point to make it that potential for replayability in Civ or Paradox style games is much higher but it is just that - potential. It takes a well balanced and well constructed game to realise that potential. If the potential is realised then of course Verto is correct that play time will always be higher than a game that relies significantly on it's plot as the draw.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Whilst I don't disagree with the point made by Lotm and El Cid I find it a bit disingenous.

The correct point to make it that potential for replayability in Civ or Paradox style games is much higher but it is just that - potential. It takes a well balanced and well constructed game to realise that potential. If the potential is realised then of course Verto is correct that play time will always be higher than a game that relies significantly on it's plot as the draw.

well constructed yes. Of course.


Well balanced? EU2. Spain. Ethiopia. Point made. It isnt balanced the way a game like Civ is. And it doesnt have to be. Leaving aside the history nerds and the hard core "i want the ultimate challenge types" who will play as ethiopia anyway, playing as Spain is enough. Forget replayability. Playing through ONCE takes a long time, which is what the original question is about. You can take it like you would an RPG - instead of the story of the nameless one, its the story of Spain. Sure I could get replayability by playing as en elven mage instead of a human fighter, just as I can play England or France or Benin instead of spain. But thats not the point. The Q raised was that it doesnt take as long to play the PC and tell his/her story in todays RPGS/adventures/FPS games as in yesterdays. Well in strat games its still takes as long as ever (i think) to play through the 'characters' story.

Sure the RPGs etc have cinematic cutscences. So do the often long campaigns in RTS (I know, I know, hardcore types dont bother with the SP campaigns in RTS) and some TBS (didnt SMAC have more or less cutscenes - all the planet moments?)

But fine, if you just want to say that RPGS/FPS have gotten shorter (i keep tossing in adventure, but other than "action adventure" they sell pretty poorly, eh?) fine.

Is that really true of the best CRPG's though?

[FrostyBoy]

I still don't get whats so great about consoles over PC's.

If we never had PC's, and only consoles to play games, and someone came up with the idea of a PC that can play games and give reasons why that would be a good thing, then I would instantly agree and swap over to the PC.

The console is a joke, an invention to make extra money, and all you console users blindly support that. Consoles restrict freedom, you are cornering yourselves (AND ME IN THE PROCESS!). The PC gives power to the people, that's where it SHOULD be. Sell your console, throw it away, burn it, fart on it. Hug your PC.

[Asher]

If you don't get it, you're not bright enough to see why.

1) Consoles are cheaper and easier to develop for.
2) Consoles are more economical
3) Consoles provide a different play experience than PCs, fundamentally so

[FrostyBoy]

I know of those 3 points, and there are more points. But when you compare them to PC's benefits, I can't help but laugh at the stupidity of it all.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I still don't get whats so great about consoles over PC's.

If we never had PC's, and only consoles to play games, and someone came up with the idea of a PC that can play games and give reasons why that would be a good thing, then I would instantly agree and swap over to the PC.

The console is a joke, an invention to make extra money, and all you console users blindly support that. Consoles restrict freedom, you are cornering yourselves (AND ME IN THE PROCESS!). The PC gives power to the people, that's where it SHOULD be. Sell your console, throw it away, burn it, fart on it. Hug your PC.