|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:39 pm
I was reading the lastest issue of gamerinformer when I came across an article about how Joe Juba (Associate Editor for Gameinformer) perfers shorter games to lengthy games. Which caused me to think about it. So now I ask, which do you perfer and why? If it varies depending on genre, note that as well!
For me I prefer shorter games, mainly because I have a habit of choosing hard courses in school which subsequently take up my ps2 time. By playing a short game I'm able to beat it sooner, and am more inclined to play again. Whereas I may grow tired of a lengthy rpg and not finish. I finish almost all of my action/fighting/shooter games but more often than not I don't finish an rpg.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:43 pm
Mostly, I like shorter games, unless we're talking about a Bioware, which I want to take up half of my life (like KOTOR, KOTOR2, and Jade Empire did), or Nintendo games, which are fun enough to maintain playing for lengthy amounts of time (like Pikmin 2, which took me about 40 hours to beat.) Otherwise, I prefer short games, because if they're not short, I pass them up for a Nintendo or Bioware game. And, I really like good games that aren't from Nintendo or Bioware to be compact and sweet, so I don't mind replaying them (which I did with the entire Prince of Persia trilogy recently.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:05 pm
I would probably have to say shorter games. For some reason, whenever I play a lengthy game now, I lose interest. I'm not sure why but then again it depends on how much interest I had initially. But if I could, I'd choose a medium length game. Not too short to make me want more, and not too long to make me get bored and lose interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:37 pm
I choose... longer games.
Games can have 20+ hours of game play, and not drag one bit. Chances are if it drags, it's not the length's fault... timing, plot unraveling, etc just wasn't planned out well.
There's nothing worse than buying a game for $50 and beating it within an afternoon or two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:43 pm
LordOfTheJig I choose... longer games.
Games can have 20+ hours of game play, and not drag one bit. Chances are if it drags, it's not the length's fault... timing, plot unraveling, etc just wasn't planned out well.
There's nothing worse than buying a game for $50 and beating it within an afternoon or two. Unless we're talking about Beyond Good & Evil or Trauma Center: Second Opinion. Those games may be short, but they sure are sick!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:44 pm
I love teh long games. It's easy to make a short game people want to go through again, but the truely good games will be long and having you playing a second time all the same. Ex. KHII, Super Mario Sunshine, Sonic and the Secret Rings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 8:50 pm
tangocat777 I love teh long games. It's easy to make a short game people want to go through again, but the truely good games will be long and having you playing a second time all the same. Ex. KHII, Super Mario Sunshine, Sonic and the Secret Rings. Sonic and the Secret Rings is not a long game. Personally, I've never liked the way they've dealt with 3D Sonics, at least as far as the "mission structure". They only do it to make the game take longer to beat. My answer, screw missions, and just make levels that are really fun and have tons of little secrets, that way, the player won't be playing the game just to beat it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:10 pm
I like long games sometimes but..long games usually don't have like sidequests. I.E. Ocarina and some FF games. I mean like MMOs are great long games but after you did the majority of the quests well there is much not much left. I.E. Diablo II.
Short games well they have some extras but sometimes they don't have enough. Like fighting games..once you unlock everything well there is nothing left. Some games are just too short and once your done your done. I.E. Madden games...
I like the medium length games that take either 20 or 30 hours...10 is too short and 80 is simply too long...So I'd take the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 6:29 am
Raunzel I would probably have to say shorter games. For some reason, whenever I play a lengthy game now, I lose interest. I'm not sure why but then again it depends on how much interest I had initially. But if I could, I'd choose a medium length game. Not too short to make me want more, and not too long to make me get bored and lose interest. It's funny but, even though I prefer longer games, I feel the same way you do. It's hard for me to keep my attention on one game now, and I think I have figured out why: 1) I have less time to play video games when I have a full time job. 2) I have a bit more money than I did when I was younger, so alot more games are available to me. Keeping those two things in mind, it's not surprising that I seem to want to jump from game to game fairly often. It's been a while since I've finished any RPG besides Final Fantasy XII. Heck, I got right up to the last boss of Valkyrie Profile 2 and lost patience. *sigh* I'm working on Radiata Stories now (again). I really hope I can finish it this time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:43 am
Sheik026 LordOfTheJig I choose... longer games.
Games can have 20+ hours of game play, and not drag one bit. Chances are if it drags, it's not the length's fault... timing, plot unraveling, etc just wasn't planned out well.
There's nothing worse than buying a game for $50 and beating it within an afternoon or two. Unless we're talking about Beyond Good & Evil or Trauma Center: Second Opinion. Those games may be short, but they sure are sick! Yeah, just because a game is shorter don't mean it's a waste of $50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:54 am
HistoryWak Sheik026 LordOfTheJig I choose... longer games.
Games can have 20+ hours of game play, and not drag one bit. Chances are if it drags, it's not the length's fault... timing, plot unraveling, etc just wasn't planned out well.
There's nothing worse than buying a game for $50 and beating it within an afternoon or two. Unless we're talking about Beyond Good & Evil or Trauma Center: Second Opinion. Those games may be short, but they sure are sick! Yeah, just because a game is shorter don't mean it's a waste of $50.
It is if the replay value isn't high.
I don't want to spend $50 on a game, beat it in a week and have it sit on my shelf collecting dust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:58 am
LordOfTheJig HistoryWak Sheik026 LordOfTheJig I choose... longer games.
Games can have 20+ hours of game play, and not drag one bit. Chances are if it drags, it's not the length's fault... timing, plot unraveling, etc just wasn't planned out well.
There's nothing worse than buying a game for $50 and beating it within an afternoon or two. Unless we're talking about Beyond Good & Evil or Trauma Center: Second Opinion. Those games may be short, but they sure are sick! Yeah, just because a game is shorter don't mean it's a waste of $50.
It is if the replay value isn't high.
I don't want to spend $50 on a game, beat it in a week and have it sit on my shelf collecting dust.If a game is too long the replay value may not be as high either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:02 am
HistoryWak If a game is too long the replay value may not be as high either.
I wasn't stating all/most long/short games have high/low replay value.
If I spend $50 on a game, I want to get a lot of time out of it. If it's short, and the replay value is low, it's a waste of money to me.
If a lengthy game has a low replay value, it doesn't really matter. I already got 40+ hours out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:08 am
LordOfTheJig HistoryWak If a game is too long the replay value may not be as high either.
I wasn't stating all/most long/short games have high/low replay value.
If I spend $50 on a game, I want to get a lot of time out of it. If it's short, and the replay value is low, it's a waste of money to me.
If a lengthy game has a low replay value, it doesn't really matter. I already got 40+ hours out of it.I think replay value is one of the very important factors in what makes a great game. Whether the game is short or long if there is no or little replay value than the game isn't that good. A game should have elements that draw you back to play it again. If a game don't have that then what's that say for the game? Lengthy games in a sense cover that up because of the length of the time playing it. That can be good or bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:13 am
HistoryWak LordOfTheJig HistoryWak If a game is too long the replay value may not be as high either.
I wasn't stating all/most long/short games have high/low replay value.
If I spend $50 on a game, I want to get a lot of time out of it. If it's short, and the replay value is low, it's a waste of money to me.
If a lengthy game has a low replay value, it doesn't really matter. I already got 40+ hours out of it.I think replay value is one of the very important factors in what makes a great game. Whether the game is short or long if there is no or little replay value than the game isn't that good. A game should have elements that draw you back to play it again. If a game don't have that then what's that say for the game? Lengthy games in a sense cover that up because of the length of the time playing it. That can be good or bad.
There's plenty of really good games I'm never going to play again.
Lengthy games don't "cover up" s**t. Replay value is replay value. It doesn't have anything to do with how long it takes to play through it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
