Author [EN] [PL] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [ID] Topic: Are short modern games a problem?  (Read 10034 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Aceearly1993

  • Nothing absolute
  • Legendary Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Gender: Male
  • Only at the Castle Gate...
    • 1993P Doubleguy at Youtube
    • Awards
  • Favorite Game: Castlevania Chronicles: Akumajo Dracula (X68k/PS1)
  • Likes:
Re: Are short modern games a problem?
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2015, 09:10:35 AM »
0
It depends on the actual quality of the game; If the game's quality is good enough, the length problem of a game can be limited in its minimum range

I can enjoy the game length of CV Chronicles and even Adventure Rebirth (Though I'll be always pissed by Rebirth Hard difficulty upon stage 3, thus lengthen the game length in wrong ways) and longer games have no problems, if I can accept the gameplay style
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 12:58:44 PM by Aceearly1993 »
Quote
"Did you know when one's most desperation time is? It's when he was beaten up by someone critically...
And he can't find who caused this."

Offline Crying Freeman

  • Legendary Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
  • Gender: Male
  • With his Whip and Courage
    • Awards
  • Favorite Game: Super Castlevania IV (SNES)
  • Likes:
Re: Are short modern games a problem?
« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2015, 11:44:26 AM »
0
I think games like The Old Blood are a good idea. I know it's an expansion pack for The New Order, but you can buy it physically and its $30. I wouldn't mind an approach like this that's been going on with games like this and Ground Zeroes. We get a great game that is, hopefully, heavily detailed and fine-tuned because of it's length AND at a cheapo price! Then games like Shovel Knight and Megaman Legacy getting released cheap physically.

Offline DoctaMario

  • Legendary Hunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
    • Awards
  • Likes:
Re: Are short modern games a problem?
« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2015, 06:48:41 PM »
0
I actually prefer shorter games.  I wish I had time to put 60 hours into a game, but that would take me months, and I'll have lost interest long before then.  There's just too many times when I have no time for gaming for a week or two straight, and if I'm in the middle of an ultra long game I'll just forget what was going on, plot-wise, and I'll even forget the controls, over the course of those dry spells.  I have no problem paying $60 for a 6 hour experience if it's a fun 6 hours.  Quality over quantity, I guess.

The longest game I've ever finished is Okami (took me about 50 hours).  I would love Love LOVE to go back and play it again, except it's just...so...long.  And yet I've put easily over 150 hours into Symphony of the Night, and probably more than that for Doom.  They're shorter games, but they're so amazing that they make up in replay value what they lack in the length of one playthrough.

This. I tend to prefer fighting games in part because i can play a few matches and then go do what I need to do without feeling like I need to be play for a long time to get anything out of it. I can understand someone who still lives at home and doesn't have a job or responsibilities, or whatever wanting a game that's longer, but I've got a lot of other things going on and gaming isn't as much of a priority as it used to be.

But I still play a lot of the Classicvanias for this same reason. I can play a few levels and then shut it off, they're actually really good pick up and play games, especially ones like Rondo that have save features.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2015, 06:50:14 PM by DoctaMario »

Tags:
 

anything