THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CLIKC => Topic started by: Johnny C on 24 Dec 2007, 23:58
-
I was reading through some user reviews of Half-Life 2: Episode 2 when I started coming across a bunch that started griping about the length of the experience. Apparently three to four hours is too short. It got me thinking about a lot of things. Why does a game have to be a certain length in order to convey its themes, in order for the player to develop an emotional attachment to the characters and plot, in order for a mechanic or technique to be explored? Why is length prioritized over depth?
It's very likely that I'm preaching to the choir here. Games are a medium that seem to prize quantity over quality. I guess instead we can use this thread to talk about that quality, regardless of quantity! Who knows?
To make my position on the matter crystal clear, I'll use an example. I'm a fan of the work of interactive fiction author Adam Cadre. He's created some fantastic work, though he doesn't seem to anymore. It's unfortunate - he took the medium and stretched it, bent it and twisted it in surprising, clever and visionary ways. He's also responsible for probably the most thought-provoking, emotionally volatile game I've ever played. It's called Shrapnel (http://adamcadre.ac/content/shrapexe.zip), and that link should let you download it. It's an .exe file, but there's a Z-Code version on his website. Within the first couple of moves, you'll understand what I mean. Yet the whole experience takes maybe a half-hour at the absolute maximum.
I dunno. I just want to talk about this because I feel it's something that people who take gaming seriously ought to be considering, and it's something the industry needs to look long and hard at in order for games to keep evolving and developing.
-
I think part of it is that gamers expect a certain amount of entertainment for their dollar. Video games cost more than books, movies or even a season of a TV show and if a gamer can finish it in a day without trouble, they tend to feel shafted.
I kind of agree with this sentiment, but I mean...if adding more to the game will reduce the quality, it just shouldn't be done. Period.
-
Well, it's simple. A lot of gamers, especially those who are interested in the "game" part, feel a little disgruntled when a game takes millions of dollars to make and all the money is spent on graphics instead of gameplay.
Games like Primal, Deus Ex, KOTOR, Mass Effect, Max Payne, Grand Theft Auto 3+, etc. have proved that a game can be both lengthy and high-quality, so sometimes it's a little annoying for a commercial game to only last 5 hours. It's understandable.
-
I think it's also that no matter how good something is, when you're done with it, you're left wanting more of it. This goes for the longer video games, movies, books, songs, etc. At least, it seems that way to me. I thought Episode 2's length was just fine. As long as it finishes what it started (not literally), then it doesn't really matter how long it is to me.
-
Well, I'm a JRPG fan, so I feel like my view is a bit... skewed when it comes to game length. Although I don't care much the 40+ hour game, I mean, I loved Arc 2, but it was a chore to play to the end. Some of my favorites only take about 25 hours or so to play, which I guess nowadays is a rip-off? Wow, I am so out of touch with modern gaming.
-
It depends, I suppose. Though I did hear some complaints about Portal's short length, they were half-hearted, because it was a good game that gave itself a modest goal. Compare that with something like Halo 2, which was long as all shit and had a "buy a new game in '07!" ending. Or Neverwinter Nights 2, which had long periods of what seemed like dead weight in which you'd crawl through a dungeon fighting things, not feeling as though you were going anywhere in the story. Good pacing can justify long length.
-
There is such a thing as a game that's too long, for sure. I'm not big on games like Morrowind which give you a metric ton of quests but ultimately you don't particularly give a crap about any of them, or about travelling a huge gameworld if said gameworld doesn't even have a single memorable character.
That's why Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 worked so well; they were massive and sprawling, but you could easily ignore the vast majority of quests AND they were filled to the brim with interesting and engaging characters and situations.
As far as JRPGs, I love the 20-40 hour length in most cases. It's just enough to feel really epic without dragging on, when it's done right.
All that said, short games can be great, too. Silent Hill 2 is all I have to say about that.
-
It ultimately depends on the game and what the developer is trying to accomplish. However, the basic fact exist that games cost money, and people want a good value for the game they're coughing up for. For instance, Heavenly Sword is a 60 dollar game that has a length of roughly 6 hours. Even for an action game, that's kind of a ripoff any way you look at it. Bioshock, on the other hand, is between 15-20 hours, much longer than the standard single player FPS campaign, but still manages to be a great accomplishment. But of course we've all come in contact with things in games that were obviously just designed to pad it for length and have nothing to do with the story or the goal of the game. Still, if I'm paying 60 dollars for a game I expect a certain length. It's doubly true for me because unlike a lot of people I don't put a lot of stock in good multiplayer because I don't like depending on other people (because they are frequently jerks) for my entertainment.
-
Why does a game have to be a certain length in order to convey its themes, in order for the player to develop an emotional attachment to the characters and plot, in order for a mechanic or technique to be explored? Why is length prioritized over depth?
Because people buy video games to fill time more often than they buy them to appreciate creative expression. Games that last 6 hours don't fill a lot of time. So people are dissatisfied.
Next up, Johnny C asks: "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?"
-
I think part of it is that gamers expect a certain amount of entertainment for their dollar.
/thread
For shooting games with short SP sessions the focus is more shifted towards the MP component to increase its longevity. It's easier to make a great RPG more lasting, while difficult to have a MP component that makes sense and fits in.
As to be expected though, games with better textures are usually shorter, myself I'm not too kind on that kind of development. Assassin's Creed for example is in my eyes a failure for maintaining a good balance.
-
Next up, Johnny C asks: "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?"
Hey, no need to Rick Reuben this thread.
Besides, people do buy games that have creative expression. This year, Bioshock managed to sell a good number of copies. And time-filling games aren't necessarily the best. There are some long, shitty games on every platform.
It seems like an unusual attitude, especially at this stage in the medium's development, to be stuck on the idea of games as a time-killer first and foremost. They totally can function as such but they also have the potential to acheive so much depth. For God's sake, the medium is all about immersion! I guess that's what is bothering me the most - immersion is viewed more as time spent in the game than the fullness of the experience. Hell, that fullness is viewed itself in terms of length.
Am I making any sense here?
-
You're making sense, but using Half-Life Episode 2 is a bad example. Is it good, sure. Is it stunning and creative enough to justify being less than 5 hours long? No way. At best it's a decent refinement of the FPS genre, but the FPS genre is showing its age in a major way.
Like I said, a game like Silent Hill 2 (or for that matter Fatal Frame 2) can be pretty short and people don't mind. I've never heard anyone complain that either of those games was too short.
And I don't think pilsner literally meant that he buys games just to kill time. I think he meant that one shells out a lot of money for a game that took a lot of time and money to create, and that justifies a certain expectation of amount of content. Given that we live in a world full of games like Super Mario Galaxy and Mass Effect, which are both very long, incredibly inventive, and visually mindblowing, of course people are going to get miffed when a game like HL2:2 is so short.
It's a valid complaint and I think you're making too much out of it. I doubt there are people saying "this game is shit SOLELY BECAUSE it's too short". It's just one aspect of the game, and an aspect that can be justifiably criticised, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the game (Heavenly Sword really has no excuse for being so short, whereas Portal does, e.g.)
-
Valid points. Episode 2 is priced by itself very reasonably and not at the sixty-dollar mark, which is probably what makes it a bad example - it's not supposed to be more than five hours long because it's just supposed to be a part rather than the whole. Episodic content was a poor starting point for my case.
I gathered that Pil didn't mean himself when he wrote that. It doesn't read like the sort of thing one would write about oneself. However, even with games like Mario Galaxy and Mass Effect, there's still a lot of space for smaller games that still deliver emotionally or culturally resonant ideas in a compelling way. I also don't think there aren't games that could stand to be longer but I do feel that in many cases a game's length seems to be held against it unfairly.
Suggesting that I'm making to much of it has me obsessively re-reading my posts. Hopefully this isn't coming across as me thinking that it's a huge issue that affects all games everywhere and all gamers worldwide. I think it's one aspect of gaming and gaming criticism and I think it deserves some addressing, and there are some clever responses and interesting views expressed here in this thread that I think justify the discussion.
-
Besides which, both Portal and Episode 2 exist outside the normal paradigms of game design. Episode 2 is part of the episodic model, which by definition is based on delivering shorter games for a cheaper price. It's much shorter than the average game, yes, but it also costs less, so you're not necessarily being cheated out of value. Portal, in contrast, is essentially a tech demo with exceptionally funny writing. The reason it is so satisfying is that it's included in a package with other games at a fantastic value. If Valve had tried to sell Portal separately at 50 or 60 dollars, then that would be horrendously bad value.
Also, I think that the solution to the problem of length in games is digital distribution. If you cut out the retail model, you're able to sell your games for cheaper, which allows you to deliver smaller games to consumers in a way that still gives them good value for their money. The eventual problem with that, of course, is storage. I don't think that the common perception that games will transition entirely to digital distribution is a valid one at least in the short term. Retail disc-based games take up around 10 gigs of space at least, and no console has a large enough hard drive to manage a large library of games of that size. It'll happen during the next generation of consoles at the absolute earliest.
-
Digital Distribution on console systems will likely not take off for quite some time. It's alive and well and WELCOME in the PC world, however, especially through something like Steam where it stores what games you have in an account, so even if you take it off your computer to free up space, you can download it again at a later date.
I also think the price thing needs to be addressed. Games come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. I would think prices should reflect that. If more games that were shorter in length were $20, more people would buy into it, I think. I agree that things like Heavenly Sword are simply not worth the $60 price tag when you can pick up something like Mass Effect for the same price. (I realize they are on different systems so that's not a perfect example, but I can't think of anything worthwhile on the PS3 that's system exclusive, and that's entirely beside the point anyway.)
I also think games are getting too long anymore, especially considering how the really long ones fail to engage people for ridiculous amounts of time. Prime example: anything by Squaresoft in the past 7 years. I own FF12, but only because I dislike trading in games especially when I'm not going to get very much back. It's simply too long and it does what most JRPGs do, which is to say not give you any of your FUN abilities for an extremely long time. The intro is so incredibly boring as all you can do is whack things with a sword and use items.
The last game I played that was over 20 hours in length I actually finished was Tales of the Abyss, which is kind of funny because my final save had some 80+ hours on it and I beat the game AGAIN with the new game+ feature (so I have about 120 hours total with it). Why did I spend so long on one game, a guy like me who's attention span isn't exactly the greatest? Simply put, awesome gameplay. The combat for me is so in-depth and engaging, I could have cared less about the sub-par translation effort (although the voice acting was superb!). Give me a game that long with a menu system with something as boring as "Fight/Magic/Item" and I'll burn out in about 5 hours if the story doesn't grab me.
I have to say I'm with Johnny on this one. Give me something I can complete and get enthralled with, even if it's short, and I'll love you forever. If you're able to make it long, all the better, but quality will always beat quantity.
-
But again, the vast majority of the market is in consoles at this point. Digital distribution won't take off on a large scale until it becomes viable for consoles, and that's pretty much all there is to it.
-
I honestly dislike the entire console model. I don't want to have to choose between an XBox360 or a PS3. You can whine about monopolies all day but when you get right down to it, it was a good thing when it became true somewhere around 1990 that 99% of all PC gamers everywhere were running the same operating system on (more or less) the same hardware. Having console-exclusive games is a "fuck you" to gamers no matter how you look at it. It forces people who want the best gaming experience to shell out increasingly large amounts of money to own multiple systems.
It wasn't that bad before this generation - one could own a PS2, an XBox, and a GameCube for not a whole lot of cash. Remember when they dropped the GC price to $100? I really don't see PS3 or XBox360 dropping below $300 anytime in the next five years.
(The Wii and the DS are out of this argument, because both provide entirely different ways to play games, with motion-sensing and touchpad respectively, besides the fact that a DS is quite cheap and a Wii won't break your wallet either.)
-
Actually, you can already get one model of the 360 for under $300 (The core unit is $280).
Unless the Wii has an immense drop off in terms of demand, I figure the 360 and PS3's price points will both drop further by next holiday season in order to remain competitive.
-
Well, a $280 XBox is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately I hated the original XBox and hate the 360 as well. Buggy doesn't even begin to describe my experiences with Microsoft consoles (surprise surprise). And they still don't know how to design a fucking controller.
The XBox is like a dumb jock that you can't completely dismiss because he's a good quarterback.
PlayStations are like anonymous government agents who do their job extremely well and are very polite to you, but that you always suspect are up to something shady, and may in fact be in league with the Illuminati.
The Wii is like your cute little sister that is always drawing you adorable little pictures.
The DS is just the best gaming system in existance right now (when you factor in its ability to play GBA games, which makes up for its slightly low number of must-have games.)
-
What are you talking about, the 360 controller is the best gamepad on the market, in design and functionality. It takes after the old Sega controllers. Whereas the Sixaxis controller is like the family member who always barges in on you and your friends and embarasses you trying to be hip with the kids. You can tell the designers took a look at the Wiimote and said "hey, we can do that too!" hence the shittiness of the sixaxis technology.
-
Eh, different strokes. The PS2/3 controller is in my book the ultimate in ease of use. The 360 is certainly better than the atrocious original XBox controller but I still don't like it.
Actually I take it back, the GameCube controller is the best console controller that has ever been made. Enday fooking story.
-
The problem with the Duo-Shock controllers is that the design? It was stolen. The reason they changed to the Sixaxis crapola is because Sony was sued for quite a substantial amount of money if I remember correctly, and lost the rights to continue the design. I like the 360 controllers because while they are larger, they still feel essentially like a PS2 controller, but with a D-pad that doesn't tear your fingers to pieces. The fact it's USB is also a plus because hey, it's a gaming controller that feels right at home on a PC as well, should you have one of the 5 games in existence that was made for PC and feels better with one over a keyboard/mouse!
-
My problem with the Dual-Shock design was that it was fuckin retarded to make you're main directional input be in an awkward spot, while you're D-Pad, which is only better to use in a very small number of games, right in the one spot that most people's thumbs rest comfortably.
The only exception to this I can think of are Katamari and Steambot Chronicles.
-
Well, the original PSX controller sort of didn't HAVE analog, so when the technology came around, they sort of stuck them on the bottom which was the only place it'd really fit without completely overhauling the design.
Your complaint is why the main analog stick on X-Box and 360 controllers is where it is.
-
Again, different strokes. I much, much prefer having the analog sticks on the bottom. The exception is the GC controller, but really only because hardly any games used the D-Pad in any major way.
-
The Wii is like your cute little sister that Tommydski is always hovering around.
I don't really mind any of the current generation's controller designs. The last-gen Xbox was really dire though. It felt clumsy no matter what.
-
Having console-exclusive games is a "fuck you" to gamers no matter how you look at it. It forces people who want the best gaming experience to shell out increasingly large amounts of money to own multiple systems.
It wasn't that bad before this generation - one could own a PS2, an XBox, and a GameCube for not a whole lot of cash. Remember when they dropped the GC price to $100? I really don't see PS3 or XBox360 dropping below $300 anytime in the next five years.
First of all, even if you were to buy the most expensive models of all three consoles, it would STILL cost less than a gaming PC. Secondly, I will bet any sum of money you'd like that both the Premium model of the 360 and the 40 GB PS3 will be 299 or less within 2 years from now. I was going to say 18 months but that was probably a little ambitious. Exclusive console games are a necessary evil in the current commercial model, because each company has to sell their system and if every game was on every system then there'd be no way to do that. The fact of the matter is, the pressure to obtain exclusive games pushes the standards of game development higher, and that's ultimately better for the consumer. Look at some of the best games of this year: Mass Effect, Bioshock, Super Mario Galaxy. My personal top 3 of the year, and all exclusives to their respective consoles.
-
Uncharted is also supposed to be ridiculously good.
-
Supposedly it's the best first-party game on the system, but they weren't setting the standards particularly high there for a while.
-
Uncharted seemed really silly to me, but I didn't watch/play too much to be honest. It looked like they really shoehorned in the waggle, though. Appropriate, since Sony really shoehorned in the waggle into the entire system.
Also, the 360 controller is my favorite controller of all time at this point, beating out the Dual Shock 2. It simply melts into your hands. It's the perfect evolution of the traditional controller- a beautiful combination of traditional Sony, Nintendo, and Sega styles.
-
Secondly, I will bet any sum of money you'd like that both the Premium model of the 360 and the 40 GB PS3 will be 299 or less within 2 years from now.
Why the Hell would I want a 40GB PS3 though? It doesn't have PS2 compatibility.
I was going to say 18 months but that was probably a little ambitious. Exclusive console games are a necessary evil in the current commercial model, because each company has to sell their system and if every game was on every system then there'd be no way to do that.
Heaven forbid the console makers do something to differentiate their consoles other than having them look different and have a couple exclusive games.
Mass Effect, Bioshock, Super Mario Galaxy. My personal top 3 of the year, and all exclusives to their respective consoles.
Super Mario Galaxy doesn't count, because the Wii provides an unique console experience. It has an entirely different control scheme that would be difficult if not impossible to emulate on another console.
That's my point, that the Wii justifies being a separate console because it does things the PS3 and XBox don't.
-
I didn't say you would want it. I said one of the models for each system will make it to that price point before long.
-
Since when was Bioshock an exclusive game?
-
Exclusive to one console, if you're going to be pedantic.
-
Super Mario Galaxy doesn't count, because the Wii provides an unique console experience. It has an entirely different control scheme that would be difficult if not impossible to emulate on another console.
Maybe I haven't played the right games, but so far I have yet to play a game that "harnesses the true potential" of the Wii's control scheme yet. Every game I've played on up to SMG uses the motion control as a sort of accessory, with the nunchuck stick and AB buttons serving as the primary controls, and shaking the remote as a third button. It seemed as though you could get through most all of SMG without using star bits, if you really wanted to. Even the most well reviewed game control-wise that I've seen, which is probably Metroid Prime 3 (haven't played, despise Metroid) has been hailed mostly as the best synthesis of conventional control schemes and lightgun mechanics.
I will give Nintendo credit for equating playing the Wii with physical exercise, though. It's a wonderful con. Ditto for Brain Age.
-
Oh jeez, let's see.
Zack & Wiki, Resident Evil 4 and The Godfather all have phenomenal control schemes. My dad bought Blazing Angels and it's pretty neat - there's a lot of wrist movement but you use it to fly a plane so it's sensible.
-
That sounds interesting. I played RE4 and it was, for the first hour at least, akin to the "normal control with lightgun" dynamic. I was one of those people for whom it was way too difficult to aim correctly. Shaky hands.
Forgot about the balancing ball in SMG, though. That kind of sort of invalidates my point, but I suppose you could more or less replicate the experience with a sixaxis controller.
-
You could make Metroid Prime 3 on another system, but it would be a hell of a lot less fun without the motion-sensing control scheme, which really immerses you in the feel of it.
Like it or not, the Wii is actually bringing something truly new to the table. You can't really say that about the PS3 or 360. And unlike the Virtual Boy, it works and people really enjoy it.
I know I'm coming across as a Nintendo fanboy, but considering how much sheer joy that company has brought me over the past 24 years, I can't help it. Nintendo represents everything that's right about video games, from a big-picture standpoint. They truly understand that games should, first and foremost, be fun.
It doesn't hurt that their star developer comes up with his best games while under the influence of psychedelic mushrooms.
-
Interestingly enough, it didn't take me that long to actually beat Super Mario Galaxy, but it was stellar (ha, ha) across the board.
-
That sounds interesting. I played RE4 and it was, for the first hour at least, akin to the "normal control with lightgun" dynamic. I was one of those people for whom it was way too difficult to aim correctly. Shaky hands
I had the exact opposite experience with RE4; I dismissed it upon its original release and then when I got my hands on the Wii version I was all like "Hey! This game doesn't reek of shit anymore."
-
I'm kind of in the middle on this one. Since I'm paying upwards of $70 for a single game (I payed $80 for a second hand copy of Oblivion during the post christmas sales) I want something that will occupy my attention for a good long while. That doesn't necessarily mean I want a game with a 40hr campaign. Assassin's Creed is probably only 10 hours at the very most (for the main story) and that's only if you take your time with it. Whereas Morrowind or Oblivion are games that I will never technically finish but rather games I will play until I get tired of them, for Morrowind that took over 50 hours. By the same token though, I don't want a game that goes forever but has no substance. Assassin's Creed is a pretty short game as I said but the world is so incredible to me that I loved every minute of it and am still playing it from the beginning for the second time.
Also, the only thing I didn't like about the 360 controllers was the lack of the black and white buttons but they put in the bumper buttons and all was forgiven. It is the most comfortable controller I've ever used.
-
You really think the 360 controller is more comfortable than the GameCube's?
Huh.
-
The Gamecube comes a very close second but in the end yeah, I'm going with the 360. It is the perfect size for my tiny, out-of-proportion-to-my-body hands. The Gamecube controller was a good size too but it lacked the weightiness and solid feel that the 360 controller has.
-
The 360 controller is very good, in my opinion. I think I prefer it to the Dual Shock 2 at this point, although in comparison to the Wavebird it's more or less a tossup. Although I realize it's not really in the same realm as other systems, I really do like the form factor of the Wii Remote. It's nice having something in each hand so that your fingers aren't all cramped close together.
-
The DS (...) its slightly low number of must-have games.
(http://onzeklas.ulyssis.be/img/objection.jpg)
Still a shitload of titles I need to finish on the DS - not enough time.
Myself I like the Xbox controllers (more than dual shock), but not as much as the Gamecube controller.
-
You really think the 360 controller is more comfortable than the GameCube's?
Huh.
God yes.
I'd say the dual shock is my least favorite of the group; they're just too tiny, even for me, and I have small, girlish hands.
-
I'd say the 360 beats out the GC controller (my 2nd favorite controller) just for the fact it doesn't have the goddamn Z button that's on the GC controller.
As far as length of games go, I'd be quite happy to pay full price for a good game that doesn't try to artificially extend it's playtime. That's the kind of shit that ruins a lot of games for me.
-
You really think the 360 controller is more comfortable than the GameCube's?
Huh.
As my introduction to Nintendo, the GC controller layout was absolutely terrible. But at least I learned how to play Soul Caliber 2 pretty well.
My having been so late to the Nintendo party is probably a big part why it's difficult for me to enjoy their stuff, I guess. It's surreal to see so many people who liked the GC controllers. Why?
-
I love the GC controller because it fits my hand perfectly, the analog stick was better than the PS2's wrt sensitivity, the pressure sensitive shoulder buttons were absolutely genius and made a mockery of the PS2's shoulder buttons (especially with the "press, press and hold, or press and click" options as opposed to "click or click harder"), the Yellow Stick was versatile because it wasn't just another analog stick; its design allowed it to be used in a wider variety of ways, the button layout was absolutely great because the buttons were actually differentiated instead of simply having different symbols printed on them...
Granted, yes, the Z button was a bizarre mis-step, but so few games used it in any significant way that it didn't really matter.
-
I'm pretty weirded out by the Wavebird love too, and I love Nintendo something fierce.
The whole thing was just oddly designed. The D-pad was too small, the handles were too small, the Z-button was ridiculous, the C-stick was pretty much worthless. The only parts I really liked were the analog stick and the face button layout.
The Dual Shock 2 was the controller of the last generation, weird analog stick placement and all.
-
Of last generation, yes. But I prefer the 360 controller to the Dual Shock 2, which I assume means I would prefer it to the PS3 controller as well.
-
The Sixaxis is terrible next to the 360 controller. Too light and the trigger-style shoulder-buttons just feel awkward, nevermind the waggle.
Maybe the Dual Shock 3 is better, but I doubt it.
-
Tycho of Penny Arcade on game length, game quality and Portal.
Game length is always a contentious issue. I remember when Elite Force came out, and people determined that ten hours was too short. As the new round of consoles emerged, eight hours became the norm. For "next generation" titles, starting with Halo 3, we're clocking around six hours for this level of fidelity. I have no beef with short games that are also good. Bad games which are also short lose points, insult in close proximity to injury, but in the case of Heavenly Sword its brevity is also a sweet mercy, like summer rain.
So, people like to talk about game length, but game length is no indicator of quality. Portal knows how long it is, and it doesn't try to make itself some other game in order to succeed at retail. As we know well, not every game has six or eight hours of unique ideas - they must be worked over, extrapolated, drawn out to the length a game must be to slot itself into the retail continuum. They are like museum tyrannosaurs, where two or three bones represent prime T-Rex and the rest is wax and plaster of the appropriate shape. Somewhere between what we demand for our money and what they are willing to sell us, gamers, publishers, and retailers have struck some Faustian bargain to the detriment of the medium.
-
It takes about 6 hours to beat Pac-Man.
It takes a minimum of 5 minutes to beat Super Mario Bros.
It takes a minimum of 11 minutes to beat Super Mario World.
Odds are you will never meet anyone in your entire life who has ever achieved any of those. The point isn't that they're short, it's all in how you play the game. No one ever beats Pac-Man. It usually takes a couple of hours to beat SMB. It can take weeks to beat SMW your first time.
This sort of gameplay is much less common in modern gaming, though, because of the story driven pacing. The games are paced like a movie. The director doesn't want you to fast forward through the movie, because you're supposed to feel the ART, embrace the story, listen to the music, stand around and teabag your friends.
But the length is artificial. Most of it isn't gameplay, it's etc. Many, many developers have stopped focusing on the game in favor of the etc. I'm not going to condemn them. Mass Effect is a good example of etc. making it worthwhile. It's NOT a bad thing.
But neither is the lack of it. Portal has a great sense of humor and atmosphere. It's also nearly entirely gameplay. Your speed through the game is determined by skill and ingenuity, not etc. In that regard, it's probably too easy. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that maybe the advanced maps should've been the standard maps, because bonus maps and achievements are also a fake idea.
I don't know what point I'm trying to make, honestly, but I'm throwing all of that out there to chew on.
-
the most important thing for me in games is making sure i find everything there is in that game. easter eggs, hidden content, all that stuff. so in my opinion the storyline of a game could take me an hour to finish, i dont care as long as there's still more suprises to find after that hour. i mean lets look at pokemon. if you knuckled down and played straight, you could probably finish the story of most games in an hour or two (please note, guesstimate only, no varifiable evidence), of course, if you are playing pokemon simply so you can get to the end of the game, you are TOTALLY playing the wrong game.
what im saying is that a game can be short in terms of ACTUAL stuff you have to do, but with sidequests, unlockable content, more creatures to catch ect, games can be a lot more playable
-
I think the shortest time you can beat Pokemon is closer to 4 hours. My brother beat the Blue version in 4h 9m without using any cheats. Or attempting to catch any of the legendary pokemon. He basically cut out everything you don't need to do.
-
I've beaten pokemon in 2 hours and 48 minutes. And that's not the record, there's guys out there that can routinely beat that by about a half hour or so, last I knew.
-
While I'm not in favor of this whole Episodic content thing, it works for these Half Life 2 episodes. Because really, the events going on in these "episodes" are not enough to justify being put together in one game and called "Half Life 3." They're the events that occur between what happened in 2 and what will happen in 3. Their length is sufficient for me, and, in fact, I found Episode 2 to be getting a little long. It was much longer than Episode 1, at any rate, and it made an impact. The ending of Episode 2 is rather powerful emotionally speaking and part of it is because you're being forced through this escape for all of Episode 1 and 2, and when you finally think you have a second to breathe and relax from the endless tension, the events at the end of Episode 2 occur, making for maximum impact.
-
I don't know what point I'm trying to make, honestly, but I'm throwing all of that out there to chew on.
I think the point you're trying to make is that length can be an incredible asset when it isn't forced and brevity can be an asset when it maximizes the game experience. I think. It's a good point.
-
Length can be important, but some of my favorite games are insanely short. (Dude, I like, totally finished Pac Man in 15 minutes.)
Dark Cloud was great, AND it was something like 6 months of gameplay. But the sequal to Katamari Damacy was uber short. So if a game's short, you may as well rent it, which can be convenient and cheap.
...But if you're dropping 50 bucks you want something that can kill a LOT of time.
-
Do you mean Dark Cloud or Dark Cloud 2? I finished the first one pretty quick and didn't think it was that great; the second one was about a million times more complex and awesome.
-
Ugh, I HATED the first Dark Cloud. Never played the second.
All the games I've really enjoyed lately have been rather short- Portal, CoD4, Beautiful Katamari, Assassin's Creed, and especially Mass Effect (which I think you can get through in under 8 hours if you skip the side quests).
Long games can be fun, but I prefer quality over length.
-
But the sequal to Katamari Damacy was uber short.
Are you talking about We <3 Katamari? The game had 27 levels if you don't want to count the multiple challenges in levels. It was literally 3 - 5 times longer than the first game.
Now if you're talking about Beautiful Katamari, Namco can go fuck a goat for that travesty. I bought it, me and the woman beat it in short order and was left there wondering where the rest of the game went. It's fun, but it was $10 more for a sequel that had maybe 15% - 20% of the content of the prior game.
-
Ugh, I HATED the first Dark Cloud. Never played the second.
The sequel is unbelievably better. I never owned my own copy, but I played a friend's and I've been meaning to track down a used copy of it somewhere or something.
-
I was talking about the sequel, yeah. Great graphics, a hell of a lot of freedom, but dungeons with sixty whatever levels that are all exactly the same got to me after a bit.
The first was fun, though. The dungeons didn't get boring as fast, it had cool ambiance and music, and had a pretty nice weapon system. Also, it's a lot of nostalgia for me. :-P
I wanted to try Rogue Galaxy (pretty much Dark Cloud 3), but my ps2 borked itself.
-
Rogue Galaxy was okay. Nothing special, but no huge glaring flaws either.
-
I really want them to do a Dark Cloud 3, I'm fairly sure they're planning on it.
-
Some games give you a new toy, some games give you a toybox, some games give you an entire fucking Toys-R-Us. Dark Cloud 2 was a game that, almost from the very beginning, gave you every Toys-R-Us on the planet.
-
My girlfriend got carded when she tried to buy GTA: San Andreas for me at a Gamestop - unfortunately, not the one we usually shopped at.
She was 23.
They thought her ID was fake and wouldn't sell it to her. Based on the fact that she had blue hair in pigtails and had about $50 worth of Hello Kitty paraphenalia on her person and was 5'1 and around 95 pounds.
Fuck Gamestop. I think they were just being jerks because she was probably the only girl in line.
-
Swap 5'1" for 5'3" and the Hello Kitty gear for Nightmare before Christmas paraphenalia, and you basically have my sister, and I totally see how someone would card her. But the fake id accusation? That's just silly.
-
On Dungeons and huge amounts of hours V. incredibly short games.
Let's go to extremes here. FF7 vs Portal.
FF7 took what? 50+hours? and was hugely popular and a great game. However, a HUGE part of that was filler- kind of boring turn based battle system.
Portal is HUGELY fun, hilarious, and emotionally grabbing, and is done in 4 hours Tops. 100%ing it can't take more than ten.
Personally, I prefer portal. I don't mind paying $5/hour (about the same as a movie) for an experience that I come away from feeling like a better person. With that, I say that Episode 2 is one of the best games I've played in the last two years.
However, $60 for Heavenly Sword? What? For that matter, three years to make a game world, and then telling a very short story within it? Why didn't they just tell it from a different perspective as well? that would have been an easy and non-quality degrading way to add content.
-
necro post?
I think the only videogames Ive purchased that were worth the money were Super Smash Bros. Melee and the Halos.
Why? Cause the only time I play console video games now-a-days is with friends to do multiplayer
-
One game that pissed me off was portal. Loads of people saying how awesome it is, yes it is an amazing game but I wanted more.
The can of mountain dew I drank lasted longer than the game because I only drank it when in the lift or waiting for something. I loved the feeling of not knowing if that was the preferred solution to the specific situation, but I decided to play it and time myself, yes it was a speed run but on my second attempt of the game ever, 43 minutes of mindfuck INCLUFING loading times and lift times, from release from confinement to the start of the credits.
43 minutes, it pissed me off. Yeah I had fun, but I paid a bit of cash for this, I could have gone to LAN and played this game for this amount of time for less than a quid. I have spent longer on a single level of CoD4, a game which cost me only a little more cash. It was the wait for portal, from that first aperture science vid with the chasm and crushing cieling spikes months before hand, for 43 minutes of awesome and then nothing?
Counterstrike mix demo's have taken up more space on my HDD than the entire portal game demo did and not just fromt he framerate being slightly less :(
I only say portal because it is the only game out of the hundreds of games I have, that I have actually been pissed off at for being so short and I have a fucking Wii :/
-
I find the analog stick on the GC and Wii to be a bit unwieldy. I think it might be due to the fact that I've gotten very used to using a dual-shock layout, as it is what I have for controlling games on my PC and such.
Also, why the hell are there so few racing games for the Wii? I mean, honestly!
-
One game that pissed me off was portal. Loads of people saying how awesome it is, yes it is an amazing game but I wanted more.
The can of mountain dew I drank lasted longer than the game because I only drank it when in the lift or waiting for something. I loved the feeling of not knowing if that was the preferred solution to the specific situation, but I decided to play it and time myself, yes it was a speed run but on my second attempt of the game ever, 43 minutes of mindfuck INCLUFING loading times and lift times, from release from confinement to the start of the credits.
43 minutes, it pissed me off. Yeah I had fun, but I paid a bit of cash for this, I could have gone to LAN and played this game for this amount of time for less than a quid. I have spent longer on a single level of CoD4, a game which cost me only a little more cash. It was the wait for portal, from that first aperture science vid with the chasm and crushing cieling spikes months before hand, for 43 minutes of awesome and then nothing?
Counterstrike mix demo's have taken up more space on my HDD than the entire portal game demo did and not just fromt he framerate being slightly less :(
I only say portal because it is the only game out of the hundreds of games I have, that I have actually been pissed off at for being so short and I have a fucking Wii :/
Wait, how much did you pay for Portal?
Because it should've come with 4 other fucking games if you paid an amount comparable to CoD4, the total value of which is greater than CoD4.
-
I am still surprised more people have not caught the Namco Tales bug me and my meatlife friends have.
They are all generally pretty long RPG games, but the thing they do right is an INCREDIBLY FUN BATTLE SYSTEM! It doesn't feel like you're grinding out levels when you go hunting monsters because you genuinely have fun doing so. There's plenty of extra stuff to do, always. The stories are usually pretty decent, as well, although they have a strong JRPG flair.
-
Guys, I think you're forgetting just how awesome the N64 controller was!
But seriously, games are damned expensive. How to avoid? Get a DM, and start a DnD campaign (then again, the initial books are expensive as hell...>_>). You want hours of entertainment? Be in a small room full of crazed DnD players past midnight all hyped up on caffeine pills and Redbull.
But as far as games go, I've become pretty enraptured in the Elderscrolls series as of late, Oblivion currently is holding my attention. When I first started playing it, I truly felt drawn into the world around me, great imersive experience that is
-
To be fair, you can get the 3 starting campaign books for $60. It's pretty cheap for the number of hours of gaming you can get out of it.
People who think D&D is expensive have the idea that you have to have all of the extra books, which is ridiculously expensive. People who actually do this are fucking idiots.
-
That is a pretty accurate and valid point. Regardless, it is one most excellent time, especially if you have a good group of people.
-
Which brings up a question...does anyone know the release date of v4? And how much the manual's gonna cost?
-
Early early June for the Player's Handbook with the DM and Monster's Manual around the same time. The updated Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting will be released in August.
I'm pretty excited about some of the changes they're making, and I'm amazed at how much bitching people are doing about Wizards daring to release a new edition after they spent thousands* of dollars on 3.5 books.
*being fucking idiots
The manuals are gonna cost around $30, same as usual. Amazon has them on pre-order for $24 however, which is the route I'm going.
-
I heard they are removing gnomes in favor of some short dragon-headed like creature.
Confirm?
-
Tieflings are in the Player's Handbook now while gnomes are in the monster manual. No clue about the dragon headed creature, unless it's referring to the Tiefling in the 2nd video following the link.
http://www.dnd4.com/
EDIT - Also, double checked and June 6th is the official release.
-
Gnomes are being kicked and for all intents and purposes, Tieflings are taking their place as a core race, which a lot of people have pointed to as indicative of Wizards' pandering to the whims of their munchkin player base. At least they didn't make the drow a core race. To my knowledge.
The dragonborn are an addition to the Forgotten Realms. They're from some other, now defunct campaign setting I've never played in. The FR's oft-neglected areas (Mulhorand, Unther, Halruaa, the Shaar) are being thrown out in favor of wild magic-ravaged badlands. The popular areas (Sword Coast, primarily) are more or less exactly the same as they were before. Looks like the Red Wizards are being replaced by the Shade People as the magic using ubervillains of the setting.
So overall, not much has changed at all.
-
I bet Bethseda is hard at work ruining some table-top games too, guys.
Sorry, I'm mostly misdirecting my sarcasm and anger because of this post.
One game that pissed me off was portal. Loads of people saying how awesome it is, yes it is an amazing game but I wanted more.
The can of mountain dew I drank lasted longer than the game because I only drank it when in the lift or waiting for something. I loved the feeling of not knowing if that was the preferred solution to the specific situation, but I decided to play it and time myself, yes it was a speed run but on my second attempt of the game ever, 43 minutes of mindfuck INCLUFING loading times and lift times, from release from confinement to the start of the credits.
I think watching you attempt to read a book or watch a movie would be almost too entertaining. Do you do speedruns to find out how fast you can finish Solaris on DVD by hitting the fast-forward button and trying to stop at bits of relevant dialogue?
The entire idea behind this thread, and the prasie of Portal, is that games can aspire to be more than just two hours of button-pounding. In the case of Portal, it's the idea that a game can be played through in one sitting and still have enough excellent characterization and thematic elements and fucking incredible writing that in the end it doesn't matter how fast you can go through it on a clock, and in fact if you play it as a speedrun before you play it as a character you're pretty much missing the point. I mean, bully to you that it only took you forty-three minutes, that's impressive, but sheesh. You're aware there's also a commentary mode that's practically worth the price of admission by itself, right?
I'm afraid to ask what your opinions were on CoD4's actual plot, in case I get "Eh, I wasn't really paying attention," but now in order for you to make it up to this thread I have to.
-
I bet Bethseda is hard at work ruining some table-top games too, guys.
Sorry, I'm mostly misdirecting my sarcasm and anger because of this post.
I do apologize for getting off topic in the thread (I've made a new thread to get that discussion out), but that's all you had to say.
One game that pissed me off was portal. Loads of people saying how awesome it is, yes it is an amazing game but I wanted more.
The can of mountain dew I drank lasted longer than the game because I only drank it when in the lift or waiting for something. I loved the feeling of not knowing if that was the preferred solution to the specific situation, but I decided to play it and time myself, yes it was a speed run but on my second attempt of the game ever, 43 minutes of mindfuck INCLUFING loading times and lift times, from release from confinement to the start of the credits.
There's a reason I didn't respond to this. It just hurt my brain.
-
Man, I misspelled "including" :-(
-
I cannot believe that is the only thing you think is wrong with that post.
I bet Bethseda is hard at work ruining some table-top games too, guys.
Sorry, I'm mostly misdirecting my sarcasm and anger because of this post.
I do apologize for getting off topic in the thread (I've made a new thread to get that discussion out), but that's all you had to say.
To be fair, Bethseda probably are hard at work ruining some table-top games too.
-
For me, the point of Portal was to find the less direct route to beating the game. I've beaten Super Mario bros in 5 minutes. It's BORING. I don't like speed runs.
Taking your time with Portal and listening to everything GLADOS has to say absolutely makes the game for me.
-
To be fair, Bethseda probably are hard at work ruining some table-top games too.
I needs more vacuum tubes plz.
-
Some games give you a new toy, some games give you a toybox, some games give you an entire fucking Toys-R-Us.
Some games give me so much value (which i define as enjoyable playing time) they spoil me for everything else. Like GTA:Vice City and the megaGTA, San Andreas. Besides 3 major cities and a whole state between, 100 storyline missions (some of which took a lot of play to win) there's a massive slate of side missions, car, plane, boat and motorcycle schools, unique jumps, races, vehicles to collect, property to buy, three main gangs to defeat, 100 hidden objects in each city, 6 girlfriends, a food/working out thing affecting your weight, lots of clothing, tatt and hair (and vehicle) customizations, and a dozen radio stations, all wrapped in a big story. Just driving around collecting weapons and messin with peds, gangs and cops is more hours of fun.
And then there's Civilization3 and 4. Choosing a civ (each w special units, bonuses & leaders) then building an empire, founding cities, building roads to resources, choosing buildings, religions, government types, building domestic and military units, developing technologies, interacting with the random AI civs, trading, researching/buying/selling tech, starting wars, deciding which of several ways to win, and then making sure the others don't get there first.
Sorry to go on like that - I assume many of you don't play these TBS games, but damn they're addictive. And fully customizable: 7 difficulty levels, 5 sizes of random maps, climate, numbers and attitudes of AI, plus variable barbarians, mean massive replay combinations, but you can also design your own units, maps, civs, and change all unit stats, and there's a thriving mod community, and multiplayer.
I'd say I spent a year of my life with each of these. And yes, for some of them I had to upgrade my pc, but totally worth it.
-
You should seriously try Sins of a Solar Empire.
So goddamn good.
-
The GTA games are TOO large, if you ask me. Oblivion was around the right length for me because I felt like I was genuinely exploring. The GTA games were so goddamn large, but there's no variety in it. Drive, shoot things, drive, shoot things for a different reason, steal a new car, shoot things because you feel like it, rob a bank, shoot things, steal a car. I really tried to like them, but I just couldn't find a reason to keep playing after 15 minutes.
-
For me it's the writing. Once again, GTA as a series (especially since GTAIII) has some class-A characterization and largely excellent voice acting to back it up. Though a little cliche at times, the stories of the games - and by this I mean plots, characters, settings, themes and most importantly dialogue - are all consistently great.
-
^ Agreed.
Vice City is my favorite GTA, even though it's the smallest, because of Tommy Vercetti. One of my favorite main characters in all of video games, because he's such a hilarious smart-ass.
-
I could never enjoy any of the GTA's stories too much because doing the missions always grew too tiresome for me. The GTA games were fun to mess around in for me, and that was basically it. I would have to say the only one I ever felt was worth my time playing missions was Vice City. I have to agree with the Vice City lot, because Tommy Vercetti kicked my ass.
-
That's the way I feel about it too. The core gameplay mechanics behind the GTA games unfortunately are my least favorite part of the series, and I'm not fond of the missions. My typical experience with a GTA game is enjoying myself immensely for about 40 minutes as I tool around town in a colorfully realized alternate reality listening to crazy radio stations and then getting bored of the missions within the next half hour and never touching the game again.
-
For me it's the writing. Once again, GTA as a series (especially since GTAIII) has some class-A characterization and largely excellent voice acting to back it up. Though a little cliche at times, the stories of the games - and by this I mean plots, characters, settings, themes and most importantly dialogue - are all consistently great.
I can't say I agree. I've tried playing the games and I suppose never got far enough in to them to give a damn about any of the characters. They were all incredibly static because when you're dealing with such a large world and a large cast, it's hard to write characters that are anything other than what they are first presented to be.
Rockstar is capable of great character writing, however. I'm a fan of the Max Payne games for their characterization in those.
-
Um, Rockstar didn't make Max Payne. Remedy did.
-
Fuck publishers that shrink the names of their developers so small, you don't know who actually made the game.
Fuck 'em.
-
The GTA games are TOO large, if you ask me. Oblivion was around the right length for me because I felt like I was genuinely exploring. The GTA games were so goddamn large, but there's no variety in it. Drive, shoot things, drive, shoot things for a different reason, steal a new car, shoot things because you feel like it, rob a bank, shoot things, steal a car. I really tried to like them, but I just couldn't find a reason to keep playing after 15 minutes.
15 minutes?
[Your list sounds like GTA1? I only started with Vice City.]
.......I wonder if you got far enough in San Andreas to:
collect and use the GOOD weapons (hint: they're nowhere near CJ's house)
jump off a 90-story building with a parachute
race a bicycle down an insanely steep mountain path
gather homies and spark gang wars (& later defend your turf when they counterattack)
fly a P-51 Mustang or an aerobatic plane (every single vehicle in the game handles differently)
do the ambulance missions against the clock (handles surprisingly well when you get the hang of it)
(not to mention the firetruck, vigilante, taxi, delivery and pimping side-missions)
play several "real" games in casinos & bars, that win/lose your in-game money (even billiards! done pretty well, too)
try the 3 hot motorcycles (I found them MUCH better than cars for speed, outmaneuvering cops, jumping things and FUN)
drive several different boats in and out of boating school
fly big & small helicopters (under bridges, between skyscrapers, scaring beachgoers, etc)
pump iron, outfit your CJ in rad threads, tatts & afro and date the 6 girlfriends (each wants different things and gives unique rewards)
drive in a crazy demo derby in a special stadium
drop satchel charges on wave after wave of SFPD
capture and drive the M1 Abrams tank through San Francisco or Las Vegas, it's hella fun blowing up everything in sight
or fly around with the jet-pack! It's a damn good prize for a late mission.
Did you get to fire the (amusingly misnamed) Minigun? My personal favorite. And yes, I liked the flavor of Vice City better, but SA improved a lot AND added a whole lot - it was like they tried to include everything we wanted, and polished everything to work better.
There's much more, but these give some idea of the variety. And NONE of the above examples are from the 100 storyline missions. There's lots more variety there: assassinate with sniperscope; bounce low-riders and dance in a club (both like DDR); plan and pull a heist in a major casino; steal Police motorcycles and drive them onto a car-carrier truck barreling down the highway; fly radio-contolled biplanes; parachute onto a bizjet, take it over and fly it home; swim underwater out to a heavily guarded boat with only a knife and free some hostages; shoot down evasive hostile helicopters with heat-seeking missiles; drive a motorcycle around an insane 3D course inside a big drydock; operate radio-controlled helicopters inside a geek's dream war simulator; sneak aboard an aircraft carrier and steal a Harrier, then defend yourself vs enemy Harriers using HUD radar targeted guided missiles; team-jump out of a C-5 and paraglide onto a helipad to take over a drug lord's mansion; rescue a girl from a burning, smoke-filled building; they really went for variety in San Andreas.
And I had hours of fun just genuinely exploring, too. There's a secret military base (with an underground black project that you can steal!) and an abandoned airfield out in the desert... and much more.
-
Honestly, the story kept me playing way more than all of that crap.
-
San Andreas was the only one I ever personally owned, although I ended up returning it after about a week. I know I'm an exaggeratory person by nature mostly because I have poor concept of time, but in all honesty I must have put in at least 14 hours seeing as I tend to play new games for about 2 hours a day for the first week of owning it.
And I have to say, with the GTA system, absolutely none of that sounds that appealing. Driving a tank and blowing up everything in sight = Mercenaries, which implemented doing so much better, if you ask me. I already could run around with a fucking baseball bat and kill whatever I wanted while not risk bodily harm because it's too easy to get away from punishment.
Didn't bother with the Ambulance, vigilante, etc. missions because they were just so unnecessary and simple and because it's a huge, sprawling game world, I could barely read the map to figure out where the world I was supposed to go, anyway. Pumping iron was, again, completely stupid because you more or less NEEDED to do it in order to make yourself better, and it was just random button mashing. Felt like grinding out levels to me.
I suppose that's just it. The real problem for me is that I felt like there wasn't enough of a punishment for jacking around. Absolutely nothing kept me on track because if I went off the track, who cares? It doesn't hurt anything except maybe my wallet, and that doesn't mean jack because all I have to do is boost some cars to make it back up.
-
His point is that the GTA games do in fact carry quite a bit of variety with them, and he's right. The story is, however, a better reason to keep playing.
I'm excited to play an iteration where targeting isn't a total pain in the ass, though.
-
What really pisses me off is when people try and argue that the appeal of GTA comes from its realism, and that post is a perfect example of why. Have you ever heard of a criminal jacking a tank and driving it through San Francisco, per chance? I'm not saying anybody here has said that, but I've encountered that argument before, and it's completely ridiculous.
-
Storm, who has argued the game's realism with you? I get that so often I feel like crying. Why is it so hard to understand that whores do not make you healthy?
-
Mostly people in person rather than on the internet. When I try to ask them why they like the game just out of curiosity when they don't answer "because running people over is fun," then they usually pull out that gem.
-
I'm excited to play an iteration where targeting isn't a total pain in the ass, though.
GTA4 is going to use a RE4/Gears of War aiming and cover system. I'm excited, even though I usually play it on PC for that very reason.
-
Ozy, it isn't that I want proof, but link anyway? That has made me substantially more interested in GTA4. The rest of the GTA's have had such awful treatment of weapons.
-
Wait, wait, is that news that makes me interested in actually playing GTA?
I think it may be!
-
Goddammit Johnny.
-
What really pisses me off is when people try and argue that the appeal of GTA comes from its realism, and that post is a perfect example of why. Have you ever heard of a criminal jacking a tank and driving it through San Francisco, per chance? I'm not saying anybody here has said that, but I've encountered that argument before, and it's completely ridiculous.
Actually, a dude jacked a tank and drove it through San Diego a few years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson
-
Not to mention the Killdozer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killdozer_%28bulldozer%29).
-
What really pisses me off is when people try and argue that the appeal of GTA comes from its realism, and that post is a perfect example of why. Have you ever heard of a criminal jacking a tank and driving it through San Francisco, per chance? I'm not saying anybody here has said that, but I've encountered that argument before, and it's completely ridiculous.
Actually, a dude jacked a tank and drove it through San Diego a few years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson
I thought that was common news else I would have mentioned that.
But I just now realized not everyone lives in the US Southwest area and might not have heard of that whole deal. I remember watching it as it happened on TV. Pretty crazy stuff.
-
What really pisses me off is when people try and argue that the appeal of GTA comes from its realism, and that post is a perfect example of why. Have you ever heard of a criminal jacking a tank and driving it through San Francisco, per chance? I'm not saying anybody here has said that, but I've encountered that argument before, and it's completely ridiculous.
Actually, a dude jacked a tank and drove it through San Diego a few years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson
I thought that was common news else I would have mentioned that.
But I just now realized not everyone lives in the US Southwest area and might not have heard of that whole deal. I remember watching it as it happened on TV. Pretty crazy stuff.
i've witnessed plenty of crazy psycho killers killing half of a city selling drugs and beating hookers up with baseball bats and illiminating half of the police force and national guard
it happens, just the guvment keeps it away mannnnn!
-
i want to find an RPG that takes like 200 hours straight through to complete and thats 200 hours of story line and battle no side quest hooey
totally hit me up with one
-
I found that game. Go to your local EB and pick up a copy of Spend A Week Outside Of Your House With Other People.
Not a lot of battle, but incredibly complex dialogue trees.
-
Some of the dialogue trees were a bit too complex for my taste. The intricacies of the "Multiple Job Level" really confounded me to no end