Are AAA Games Too Long?

[Jason1]

If the game is good enough, it is never too long.

[Typhoid]

This is the saddest stat I have ever seen relating to a video game:

Red Dead Redemption
Complete the final Story Mission - 5.2%

Everyone should finish that game. The very end of that game is the rug that ties the room together.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

This is the saddest stat I have ever seen relating to a video game:



Everyone should finish that game. The very end of that game is the rug that ties the room together.

I think, and GTA kind of backs it up, that open-world games are really difficult to complete just because there's so much stuff that actually keeps you from focusing on your goal.

I think its something Rockstar discovered when the DLC for GTA IV just didn't sell that well.

[magus113]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I think its something Rockstar discovered when the DLC for GTA IV just didn't sell that well.

That's a shame too because I liked playing The Ballad of Gay Tony. Mind you I haven't finished it because I got it in the Steam Rockstar pack and the PC version runs like garbage, but I did like what I played storywise.

I was only able to complete GTA IV because I did nothing but the story missions non-stop. I wasn't about dicking around and killing cops and stuff like that because it was wasteful for me. You lose your weapons, you pay money, and all this other mess that seemed like a waste of time.

Maybe it's just cause I don't like that style of play, although I like sandbox games..I like games with a goal that can be reached. Even in open world games like Fallout New Vegas, the world might be open but unless you keep buying DLC you can eventually do EVERYTHING in the game.

MMOs are things that have to be really good for me to get into because of that.

[KillerGremlin]

I think GTA could be the ultimate win-win since it has a story mode for the dedicated gamers and a sandbox mode for the people who want to pick it up and just screw around.

Does anyone think that this is just a pitfall of the current gaming market? I really think the stream of games across numerous consoles coupled with the consumerist mindset of "want want want buy buy buy" has created a generation of consumers who own WAY more shit than they can actually consume. It creates huge profit revenues which in turn has lead to a market that continues to turn out games at a pace that is too rapid for any gamer, casual or hardcore, to keep up with. You can't even say it is a quality over quantity issue, because so much stuff gets turned out that good games slip through the cracks.

It's almost like a gaming bubble...

[Vampyr]

I played the hell out of Morrowind, and never even started the main story.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by BreakABone

I think, and GTA kind of backs it up, that open-world games are really difficult to complete just because there's so much stuff that actually keeps you from focusing on your goal.

See, that's what pisses me off about the vast majority of gamers these days though. They all just want to bitch and moan about somthing.

"This open-ended world is too large. There's too much to do, and I have too much freedom. I'll never find the time to complete everything!"

But if Rockstar switched up the GTA/RDR style to a singular mission-based style it would be

"This game is too linear. I wish I could roam freely in this game and do whatever the fuck I wanted to do."

Everyone who plays games these days seems to have the attention span of a fucking goldfish, and I find this infinitely frustrating because I enjoy the longer, drawn out games. One of the best experiences I had was playing and beating RDR, and Fallout New Vegas. I fear for my future gaming enjoyment if people constantly bitch about the things they previously bitched to receive. I think people forget that open-world games exist because people hated the tedium of point-to-point action games. Maybe people just want to pay 70 dollars for a 5 hour faux-open world game that presents fake decisions that both result in the same outcome regardless.

Kids these days. Finish your goddamn games. There are kids in Africa having no fun.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Everyone should finish that game. The very end of that game is the rug that ties the room together.

While I agree, the ending of RDR is awesome, I am not surprised so few people finished that game. While it's a good game, it's just way too drawn out. I mean, it starts off good since you're finding out about the dude's past as the missions unfold, but then how many times can I help some idiot who refuses to do their part of the deal until I help them 5 more times?

On top of that, it's very un-rewarding to progress through the game. Congratulations, you unlocked the steps to unlock the actual outfit! You finally got that awesome horse you always wanted, and then it got eaten by a bear! Honestly what bothered me most was the terrible achievement setup. You get one for watching a cutscene, and then 6 hours later after finishing the first entire section of the game you get the second. Cross the river and spend 6 more hours in the other country and you get one at the end. Then when the game ends, you get them in quick succession. You can love or hate achievements all you want, but rewarding the player as they progress through the game is something that everyone strives for, and achievements are just one way to do it. I honestly wondered if I was doing something wrong because I kept getting to fairly major sections of the story and got nothing.

Just saying, RDR could've been half the length and just as awesome.

[Typhoid]

Being a PS3 owner, I don't find not getting achievements/trophies puts a damper on my gaming experience. To be honest, the thought of trophy->= progress has never crossed my mind until now.


I can see how some people would be turned off by the length of RDR if they're achievement hunters, or the monotony of certain things (Which is a common problem in open-world games) - but for me, all of the tedium that game offered made the ending stick that much more. I felt like I was just playing some dude's life boring parts and all (because life isn't always gunfights and bearskinning) who's being used as a tool until the day he dies.



Today I was thinking about the amount of things in open world games, Fallout New Vegas specifically. I've heard people complain that "It's almost impossible to finish everything in one playthrough", to which I agree. But I'm pretty sure many open-world games these days are designed with enough options for multiple playthroughs, that way your second time will be a little less stagnant than if you were doing 100% of the same things. Obviously that doesn't really apply for the type of open-world game RDR is, because it's still relatively linear.

[BreakABone]

My beef with open-world games

-Usually a lack of variety in missions. Its to be expected when you have to stuff so much content into the game. But usually they all share similar missions, such as escort this person/object, a follow behind mission, a protect from the roof as a sniper mission, some runs, and the always fun random packages around town missions.

-The fact that missions can be tackled in any order. Some games have gotten wise about this, and will close off missions as you progress, but sometimes its hard to do a mission that directly contradicts something you've done before, just because it has to play out that way.

That said, I do kind of agree with Bube, we've always had a lot of quality games.
But this generation (especially originally on the Xbox 360), there was like a game of the month mentality. where each month will bring one or two major releases so you hurried up and played the old ones, to buy the new ones because all of your friends would be playing that.

Over the last two years, I feel like that has all but died down at this point though.

[Typhoid]

Usually a lack of variety in missions.

What games - in your eyes - have a widely varying mission-type? I'm generally curious, because I can't think of any RPG games that go outside of conventional mission types.

Because even going back to classic JRPG's, most of the missions/quests are a combination of follow/destroy/search/retrieve/escort. There isn't much else you can do in open world games other than get the player to kill someone, find someone, go somewhere, talk to someone, bring something back, or go to a specific location.

[magus113]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

What games - in your eyes - have a widely varying mission-type? I'm generally curious, because I can't think of any RPG games that go outside of conventional mission types.

Because even going back to classic JRPG's, most of the missions/quests are a combination of follow/destroy/search/retrieve/escort. There isn't much else you can do in open world games other than get the player to kill someone, find someone, go somewhere, talk to someone, bring something back, or go to a specific location.

It's honestly difficult I think for developers to be able to pull off diversity between every single mission in open world games like that. I think the biggest problem with games like GTA IV and RDR is how can they space out the missions so that the ones that you can complete don't feel monotonous.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

What games - in your eyes - have a widely varying mission-type? I'm generally curious, because I can't think of any RPG games that go outside of conventional mission types.

I interpreted his complaint as cross-game variety, not variety within a single game. You've played one open world game, you've played them all kind of thing.