Are AAA Games Too Long?

[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.