|
Posted by Shambler on 2004/04/21 09:39:01 |
Inspired by Daz.
Okay, I see a lot of complaints that games are far too short and can be completed in very little time these days. For example, Daz recently said Painkiller took 5 1/2 hours to play, and Max Payne 2 was a 6 hour game. I also see plenty of such times quoted in reviews.
I personally don't see how that works at all. I've noticed some games are shorter than others, and some games I wished were longer. But they all take a substantial amount to play. For example, U2 was quoted as a "short game" and over very quickly etc. I think it took me about 15 hours - which is quite a chunk of time. I haven't played MP2 yet but the demo took me well over an hour so I don't think it will be that abrupt.
I think I play through games fairly steadily. I don't struggle that much, I die occasionally but don't often reload lots, I explore a fair bit and admire scenery but don't spend ages wandering around in circles. In short it feels that I play through games pretty normally.
So, how does it work with people playing games in 6 hours?? Are you just phenomenally talented and monsters melt like unwashed butter in front of you?? Do you just zip through as fast as possible and don't noticed scenery and secrets?? Or are you talking out of your arses?? |
|
|
Secrets...
#22 posted by Shambler on 2004/04/22 18:07:13
...r4wk =)
Secrets...
#23 posted by Scragbait on 2004/04/22 20:44:05
are a secret obsession of mine. I hate getting less then 100%
Back To PK
I got most of the cards first time through..I'm not hurrying, but I'm not really taking my time to explore thoroughly. I really enjoyed the game, and I've already started a second run through the singleplayer on nightmare to try and unlock trauma. I really want to get to that Prison level.
It took me 7 hours mostly because I was doing 2 things: Beating the levels and trying to unlock the cards. If I got to a card challenge that I was having a LOT of trouble on, I gave up and moved on. Next time around I'm gonna have to hunker down and find everything though, because of the requirements for unlocking the last difficulty.
7 hours sounds about right though; about 20 minutes a level, with 23 levels to explore. take out some time for the boss fights, because I got lucky on a few and was able to figure out the trick on my first try (even though I still have no clue how I beat the endboss).
Boring Is As Boring Does
#25 posted by spentron on 2004/04/23 12:05:07
I also take longer than the complainers... must really be rushing through. I often slam through Quake maps and still sometime a speedmap pack will take 2 hours, so how short can MP2 be?
Anyway, give me tourist games, and I'd better be able to move through like a tourist. But give me variation and challenge, and I'll happily play a hour or two at a time for however many days or weeks it takes.
"there would need to be a lot of variety in level design" -- have to consider that, in most games, theme, ideas of consistency, story, other aesthetic values greatly constrict variety.
"I don't have as much time as i did as a kid." -- I find my time is more chopped up. I can always manage to play but I tend to look less for things completely new, gamewise and otherwise.
.
#26 posted by necros on 2004/04/23 13:47:52
"there would need to be a lot of variety in level design" -- have to consider that, in most games, theme, ideas of consistency, story, other aesthetic values greatly constrict variety.
well, what i meant was that there needs to be variety in the theme...
lets look at System Shock 2, for example. it has a strong theme: Spaceship overrun by meat/flesh. and that theme is consistent throughout, however, each deck (or map) has distinctive style, deck 1 is engineering for instance, has lots of pipes, smoke sparks and things like that. deck 5 is the rec deck, has crew quarters, galley, etc... and have they're own individual texture sets, even thought they all fit.
then you look at something like Doom/Doom2, Quake or Painkiller, and the variety is more pronounced: as long as it's evil/cool looking it's fine. but these games are not as story driven as a game like SS2 so that's not important. but even there, there is an underlying theme to them all (quake had four individual episodes with fairly consistent tex set each, plus the base maps, pk for the most part sticks to it's themes as well, except for the last chapter where it's sort of everywhere) yet still manage to pull of the variety.
Wellllll...
#27 posted by Shambler on 2004/06/27 15:40:10
Painkiller took me considerably longer than 5 1/2 hours to complete. As a rough estimate, 1/2 hour per map average (some were a little shorter, but spending an hour in Docks mostly trying to reach the damn secrets balanced it out). So what's that, 10-12 hours?? That's just the recorded time, I spent a bit of time reloading and shit. So a good 12 hours I reckon.
Probably short as games go, but it certainly didn't feel that way. I rushed through the first maps too, not bothering to unlock Tarots or find secrets. It felt like a reasonably substantial game....well, a substantial collection of unrelated maps =).
#28 posted by . on 2004/06/27 16:18:33
Max Payne 2 took 2 days
Currently IGI 2 is taking about 2 weeks.
Stalker
#29 posted by DaZ on 2004/06/27 18:14:52
is shaping up to become a game I could play forever, GSC are saying it takes 40hrs to complete and thats without doing all the side quests and exploring. The latter are things I will be doing a lot of in this game :)
Cant wait for it.
As for PainKiller, sure I went through it quite fast, but Im still playing it now, unlocking cards, getting secrets etc. Some people seem to read "takes 6 hrs to complete" and think that after that they are not allowed the play the game any more :)
I must have clocked up well over 40hrs on painkiller since I completed it.
Holy Shit
#30 posted by necros on 2004/06/27 18:17:59
baldur's gate 2 is taking forever!
(yes, i finally got this game -- in the bargain bin, no less!)
The Game That Took Me The Most Time
#31 posted by HeadThump on 2004/06/27 18:54:59
Ultima 5 -- over a span of two and a half months; ouch. DaggerFall has to be a close second.
Baldur's Gate 1 and the Expansion pack took almost two weeks. Never completed or got deeply into Baldur's Gate2. My patience insn't what it used to be. It is difficult to sustain interest in RPG's. Hack something -- gain experience, hack something -- gain experience. Just Rogue with a nice story and scripted elements.
I'm Still Playing Morrowind
#32 posted by pjw on 2004/06/27 20:50:23
Bought it when it came out, and probably put 4-5 hundred hours into my first guy, who was an uber-god by the time I retired him (and long after I had beaten the main quest). I have three different characters that I screw around with at this point, and am still regularly finding new stuff to do and places I've never seen before. There are still factions that I've never joined and whole series of quests that I've never done.
Gigantic and awesome game.
Morrowind...
#33 posted by Shambler on 2004/06/28 05:19:35
4-5 hundred hours
Holy ballsac Batman!
That's, like, a fuck of a lot of time. I probably haven't spent that amount of time on all the games I've played aside from Quake put together.
Hmmmm actually, I've probably spent that amount of time on Quake. Yikes!
Sometimes...
#34 posted by than on 2004/06/28 08:59:09
I just want a game to fucking end already. Zelda: Wind Waker is such an example. Although I loved playing through the game (and am now playing Ocarina of Time), it did feel like it was dragging on a bit toward the end. Also, a lot of the game felt very repetetive and boring after a while, particularly the seafairing sections. I think if the game had taken me 5 hours less time to complete I wouldn't have thought I'd wasted my money - I may have enjoyed it more even.
Some games are, by their very nature, way more time consuming than others. This in itself doesn't make them any better than other games. If it did, the most shoot'em ups would be shit, and most Japanese RPGs would be mind blowingly fantastic. Not the fucking case, I assure you.
Basically, if a game is fun, I don't mind how long it is. Assuming I'm playing it for more than 5 hours (including replaying, multiplayer, map creation, whatever) then I don't feel cheated. It also depends on how much I pay for it I suppose.
Wind Waker
#35 posted by pushplay on 2004/06/28 13:19:13
I just finished it last night actually after taking a long break away from it because of school. The seafaring had it's moments, but mostly I consider it an experiment that didn't pay off. Channel surfing during some of the sailing dulls the boredom, and the rumble pack will tell you when you're needed.
The levels were great though and the final battle looked amazing. I liked the game on the whole. Now I can either finish my q3 map or play the Ocarina of Time Master Quest.
Nice...
#36 posted by metlslime on 2004/06/28 14:59:22
I just finished wind waker last night also. It seemed like i spent like 60 hours or something crazy on it, but that's probably not true. Still, it was too long and the length was entirely due to sailing time -- the amount of actual content was just fine (though i could have used one more dungeon.)
Re:Morrowind
#37 posted by starbuck on 2004/06/28 16:53:22
I'm actually scared to play this in case i become addicted and end up putting in the same kind of time as you pjw did :). Although those are hours of pure gaming joy i imagine!
Wind Waker
#38 posted by cyBeAr on 2004/06/28 17:13:29
The sailing and stuff was a bit tedious and I left the game for a long time because I had problems finding a couple of the last triforce shards or whatever...I did get around to finishing it eventually though and the end battle was indeed fantastic looking even if it was pretty dull from a gameplay pov.
Some Games
#39 posted by Jago on 2004/06/28 17:56:23
The longest it took me to beat a game was 2.5 to 3 weeks I think, it was the original Unreal. Another quite long (and frustratingly painful in the end) experience was Half-Life that took about 2 weeks from start to finnish. I finished Max Payne 2 in 10 or so hours.
Starbuck
#40 posted by pjw on 2004/06/28 19:09:04
You should give it a try, if you're interested at all--it's a great game and cheap now. Keep in mind that you can complete the main quest and "finish" the game in much, much less time than I've spent on it. Also keep in mind that part of the explanation for all those hours is the active Morrowind mod community that keeps churning out new content, and the two expansion packs that Bethesda has released. If you decide to give it a shot, let me know and I'll throw you some "getting started" hints that will decrease any initial frustration.
There are a few things that I didn't really "get" when I first started playing the game, and I would have done things differently had I known. :)
Morrowind
#41 posted by necros on 2004/06/28 21:22:40
kept me entertained for a solid two months, then continued playing off and on for another couple of months. there's just so much to do. the hundreds of hours claimed is completly true!
Ta Pjw
#42 posted by starbuck on 2004/06/29 06:09:27
i'll drop you a note, if and when I pick the game up. I should have mentioned I even managed to get addicted to Arena, the prequel to the prequel to Morrowind :o ... it looked worse than doom but i spent an alarming amount of time wandering around, dropping into taverns, upgrading my armour..and so on, and on :)
Oh, And
#43 posted by starbuck on 2004/06/29 06:32:59
is it worth getting the game of the year edition? It throws in the 2 expansion packs but costs �22.50 on amazon uk, whereas the original version sells for around �7.50.
YES
#44 posted by pjw on 2004/06/29 13:23:52
If you're going to get addicted, you might as well do it right.
Serioiusly though, the journal improvements added by the first expansion alone are worth it. You can search/organize by specific quest, rather than having to search through several hundred pages of journal entries trying to figure out the location of that guy in Bumfuck, Egypt who wants the magical whotsit you managed to finally find.
Plus
#45 posted by necros on 2004/06/29 21:46:20
both packs together add quite a bit of new stuff, although the second expack is better i think, because it actually uses new terrain as well...
SOF 2
#46 posted by . on 2004/06/30 00:57:09
I read SOF 2 has 70 levels. Are these mostly short bullshit levels or is the game big on playing time?
|
|
You must be logged in to post in this thread.
|
Website copyright © 2002-2024 John Fitzgibbons. All posts are copyright their respective authors.
|
|