We may all live in a great big global community, but in my Blog, it's my world.

Standard disclaimer about this post being made to proper areas within Stardock's suite of message areas -- if you are seeing this article/post in a PC gaming area, please understand that Stardock publishes the articles in their forums in multiple sites.  This is by design.  The article below was originally posted into the Gaming/ Console Gaming/ Xbox area within the JoeUser.com site, but it may be (intentionally by Stardock) replicated through other Stardock sites that are not directly related to console gaming.  Please keep this in mind before complaining about finding console gaming related discussion showing up on PC gaming related forums.  Thanks.


I can't believe this really says much about my gaming skills, which I know are far from "leet" (make that 1337 if necessary).

There's no way I'm a top gamer.  Far from it.  I selected "casual" (or whatever the equivalent was) for my gaming level on Xbox Live, and readily admit to being no more than a casual gamer when I play.  Me beating a game, or finishing a game, is something that just doesn't happen that often.

Granted, I did get through the original Diablo game, and later Diablo II, and the Diablo II expansion game.  I played through most of Star Wars Galaxies, and through all of the available levels of World of Warcraft as well.  But when it comes to console games, unless you are talking about a sports title, I almost never see "the end" of the games.

That is, until recently.

Example number one: I recently played through all of the game Marvel Ultimate Alliance.  (See review/comments about same in prior articles).  Played through as in finished.  End game.  Finito.  Fin.  Done.  Saw the end movies, saw the cinematics, and got credit for the achievements for finishing the game.

Then, not long after, comes number two: the fairly awesome Call of Duty 3 game.  Played through the campaign mode and found myself staring at the credits as they scrolled by after one of my most recent times of playing the game.  Again, not something that I normally ever see.

Normally it's more like my experience in playing a game like say Ubisoft's Blazing Angels.  I played through a fair amount of that game but great incredibly frustrated with it and wound up disposing of it (traded away via Switchdiscs) so I wouldn't have the temptation of playing it any more.

I admit, I still start most games on the "easy," "normal," or "rookie" type levels, but finding myself finishing these games leaves me wondering if the games really are getting easier, or if I am somehow getting a little better at playing them (not bloody likely).

In anycase, having finished off COD3, I'm glad that I have Gears of War (though I admit to being frustrated playing it!) to play.  Hopefully I can keep myself busy playing through more of it.  Once I do that, perhaps I'll get to give Rainbow Six: Las Vegas a good run, or maybe I can get back to Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (something I've never finished up).  Or maybe I could actually even seriously start playing Oblivion, another game I have and haven't even made a dent in. 


Comments
on Nov 23, 2006

More content please.  Lots and lots of content please.

(And for the record, I still love Call of Duty 3, since the multiplayer game component is ooooh so much fun!)

on Nov 23, 2006
My husband (and my oldest son) beat pretty much every game they buy/rent. I can rent or buy a game for my oldest and he'll have it completely monkey stomped in 1-2 days.

But they are also kind of obsessive about playing back through to unlock everything and playing any kind of extras or bonus levels.

I have no idea if games are being developed to be easier or not, but Adrian has often complained about how short a lot of games are...when you spend $50-$60 on a game, you really expect to be entertained for at least a week or two.

Hey, are you planning on getting a PS3 or a Wii? We're waiting on the PS3 (like there's a choice, lol), but we got the kids a Wii (from Santa). Just curious about your thoughts on those two systems.
on Nov 23, 2006
That's because gaming companies started being run by corporations and not nerds, and the corporations realized, "Hey, 90% of our users never see the final level, why are we putting so much effort into it?" So now the games are shorter.

I tend to get all the way to the final boss and then quit, figuring I've seen everything the gameplay has to offer and not wanting to struggle through that grueling fight just for the end movie.
on Nov 23, 2006

Texas Wahine said:

Hey, are you planning on getting a PS3 or a Wii? We're waiting on the PS3 (like there's a choice, lol), but we got the kids a Wii (from Santa). Just curious about your thoughts on those two systems.

Passing on both of those systems for now.  Couple of reasons for same: #1 lack of money.  #2 see number 1

Seriously, I'd probably enjoy the Playstation 3 but the thing is so expensive and in short supply so it keeps me from freaking out over saving pennies for it until sometime down the road.   The games are similar enough to the Xbox 360 games that I like to play so I don't feel rushed to get a PS3 just so I can play a game that will be exclusive to that system.

For the Wii, well I've never personally been that big a fanboy/worshiper of Nintendo.  Don't get me wrong, I think they've made some nice consoles, with good games, but I just don't see Mario as the game that I have to play before I die.  Mario and such are good games, and I know they're exclusive to Nintendo, but my favorite games run more towards sports titles and FPS (first person shooter) games that typically aren't rushed out on Nintendo hardware since Nintendo tries to stay family friendly.

I like the idea of the virtual console and the Nintendo sports games and such, and the idea of the Wiimote controller, the Nunchuk and other things are neat but not enough for me to rush out spending money on the system, then buying games for it, and playing them while ignoring the Xbox 360 that I already have here.

on Nov 23, 2006
Action games are short, almost as a rule, because action tends to get kind of boring after the 12th hour or so. A-list action games tend to push the envelope of graphical splendor as well, which means the content takes longer to produce.

RPGs tend to be much longer, but they operate more by dangling a carrot on a stick rather than on the experience of the moment, also the experience tends to change constantly as you gain new levels and abilities.

But, I think what you're really talking about isn't how 'short' games are, but how 'easy' they are. I think this represents a shift in philosophy of game design, where the developers intend for every average player to be able to get to The End. Games used to take real dedication to beat.. I don't know if I beat even a single Super Mario game, for instance. I've also never completed what was known as Final Fantasy 2 on the SNES. It's more that I lost interest before I reached the end than anything else.

Also we almost never need luck to beat a game on a single playthrough anymore, it tends to be that so long as we keep hammering away at it (or saving and reloading) we'll always see the end no matter how much we f*ck up early on. A lot of older games didn't have this concept, just try beating X-Com: Enemy Unknown or its ilk if you don't do all the right research the first three months for instance. Those damn hoverdiscs are immune to basic rifle shots I swear...

There's plenty of games out there that you'll probably never beat, but I think the more fun a game is the more likely it'll keep you engaged to the very end no matter how long it takes.
on Nov 23, 2006
I always play on the hardest lvl that i can win at. Want to prove to myself that I'm the best :gongrats:

Played Legend from SNES on my PC just a few minutes ago and MAN is that game hard! I remember completing it several times with a friend and i don't recall it being that hard even on Hard (pun intended ) But on my first try I lost all 3 lives on the middleboss on the first lvl....damn brother tuck... Tried a little more and eventually beated him when I found out how you can really move (controls wasn't as stiff as I thought they would be). But I died in the mud a few mins after and using a continue just restarted the bloody lvl!
I made it the end on my last try and hit the boss one time before I died....

Now I sit here and wonder just WTH just happened?!?! I've beated that game with a friend before 10 years ago and probably on my own too and i can do so again! I need to save more often and train harder....can't believe that an old hack'n'slash SNES game got me cornered! Unbelievable!

It's still more fun than GalCiv 2 though ^^
on Nov 23, 2006
disclaimer, if you don't like randomness, skip to the "in short" part, but I warn you, this thread itself seemed random in creation, so bleh....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as some of you have said, it's like the gaming industry really doesn't care on most games for replay value Or ending sequences (et al)...

Sure, some RPG's are "carrot-controlled" (a la Sim Life....the memories ), but that still leaves the actual dynamics...

until recently, I subscribed to gamepro, and I may be wrong, but didn't they have a gameplay/replay value score?

heh.

if they still do, I'd be hard-pressed to find a game that fit that.

Sure, Oblivion is pretty on the comp, Kingdom Hearts for the PS2 has graphics (go fig), but the Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past for the SNES had Puzzles....what the fjord?

Oblivion may have mini-games such as lock-picking or seeing who can last longer in the arena, but Gal Civ 2 has, as a computer game, dynamic content (i.e., they're seemingly always changing stuff around - to try and see if it will fit better).

I remember my favorite NES game was Mega Man 3.

Anyway, my point is, that yes, as the poster had said, the replay value on most games today are very low, because when you come back to it, you're like...uh....why?....and I admit, sometimes, how?

As someone had said before, sure there are "easy" games that the developers wanted for the average "joe" to play, like Lego Star Wars and stuff, but a lot of information is disseminated along the lines of major corporations pushing their stuff and saying this is great, when, to a few of us...it's like..."where's the beef?"

There are so many ways the poster can put on here what he's trying to say, and this thread itself is rather random, so I feel at home here ...ya know, being a tad "disorganized" myself

So, anyway, I'm a gamer. If you want to dissect that any further, you risk stereotypes and stereo-typing anyone who says that.

If you were to call someone a "weekend warrior" who plays 100 hours a week, less-say, then you'll be like, no...he's a "hardcore" gamer - on the flip side, if you called someone a "hardcore" gamer, and they play like ("officially" - that can be counted) 5 hours per 2 days (time is irrelevant if you haven't guessed), you'd probably wouldn't call them that.

In short:

labeling = bad

games (nowadays) = usually too easy or too boring to continue (just look at the list of games I have on my X-fire profile that have less than 10 hours total associated with them )

systems = who gives a flying piece of fruit? you like what you like - this should just go with labeling, as with most things

randomness = pwns all! ( lol !)
Meta
Views
» 5345
Comments
» 7
Category
» XBOX
Sponsored Links