The Shrine

http://geeksyndicate.co.uk


Then even discuss. what does you think about games bragging about how it takes 100 hours + to finish them. why the hell is that a sign of quality now......FUCK YOU DEAD SPACE WAS PERFECT IN LENGTH ASS HOLES!

jesus, dude, i thought it was just me you were pissed at. calm down. why are you so up in arms over how long games are? O_o

I don't think he's angry, he just likes to use strong offensive language, and he's possibly crazy =P

Anyway, length doesn't matter a great deal most of the time. A huge amount of the time longer games are padded (No More Heroes comes to mind, this is an awesome 2.5 hour game stuck in a boring 35 hour game's body). Starfox 64 was a very popular and fairly well received game that takes under an hour to finish. "Over 100 hours of gameplay" probably translates to "4-6 hours of stuff you'll like, and over 100 hours to do it" a lot of the time.

Super Mario Brothers 3 can be finished in under an hour, and to this day it is still one of the top games on a lot of peoples lists; including mine. On a side note, it takes me WAY more than an hour to finish, but I also die over 100 times in any given round of play =P

Everything takes too long to complete these days. Even fighting games offer 'hundreds of hour of replayability' and they don't mean that by playing against other people. But as long as people measure the value of something by (something)*(hours it took to finish the game) that's just the way things go. I remember all the computer games that say 'INFINITE REPLAYABILITY' even though it's not even clear why you'd want to finish the game even once.

The Seekrshank Redemption wrote:I don't think he's angry, he just likes to use strong offensive language, and he's possibly crazy =P

Anyway, length doesn't matter a great deal most of the time. A huge amount of the time longer games are padded (No More Heroes comes to mind, this is an awesome 2.5 hour game stuck in a boring 35 hour game's body). Starfox 64 was a very popular and fairly well received game that takes under an hour to finish. "Over 100 hours of gameplay" probably translates to "4-6 hours of stuff you'll like, and over 100 hours to do it" a lot of the time.

Super Mario Brothers 3 can be finished in under an hour, and to this day it is still one of the top games on a lot of peoples lists; including mine. On a side note, it takes me WAY more than an hour to finish, but I also die over 100 times in any given round of play =P

nay not angry. but the whole point f a schtick is to use it. and the artificial game time inflation is annoying. Longer playtime and multiple endings doesn't add anything to replayability. a game being fucking awesome does that. Final Fantasy VI has te same path through every time pretty much. sure you can mix it up a little but it's the same game every time. and yet I can still play it through because it's fun as hell to play. Dead Space.....short, linear but goddamned fun. I've played through twice already and intend to do it again. because it's just a damn well made game.

And yes, fetch quests do really piss me off when it's completely unnecessary but way too many games throw then in as requirements...

oh and buy scott pilgrim....it's what makes me more awesome than you lox, rent, sine, and seraph

Well I miss the Baldur's Gate (2), Planescape Torment, Fallout (2) era when 80+ hours of gameplay (well, for BG2 and PST) were extremely possible. Those games didn't busy you with all that much bullshit and if you like RPGs then it wasn't bullshit at all.

80 hours for Baldur's Gate 2 is easily in one play through, even when you've already beaten it. All that dialogue, those huge cities, etc. Hell, I still reinstall Planescape Torment once every few years just so I don't forget how great the game was, let alone the dialogue.

I miss this shit. By the time I was satisfied with knowing most of the story of KOTOR I had playing through the entire game (all the side quests (yes, I was skipping dialogue I had seen before)) down to a science where I could beat it in about eight hours. I'm not really ragging on KOTOR, I played the shit out of that game in order to be able to play through in 8 hours, so I definitely enjoyed it. Note my first playthrough took 21 hours if memory serves.

But seriously, 8 hours? 8 hours would barely get me through the first few chapters where you're basically in the starting city.

It hasn't taken me longer than 24 hours of gameplay to beat an RPG in what feels like a decade and probably actually is. Where are these long ass RPGs where you have to fetch for 97 hours? For consoles? Because if it's an RPG that's gotten any kind of acclaim for the past several years I've probably played it for the PC.

Chris wrote:

The Seekrshank Redemption wrote:I don't think he's angry, he just likes to use strong offensive language, and he's possibly crazy =P

Anyway, length doesn't matter a great deal most of the time. A huge amount of the time longer games are padded (No More Heroes comes to mind, this is an awesome 2.5 hour game stuck in a boring 35 hour game's body). Starfox 64 was a very popular and fairly well received game that takes under an hour to finish. "Over 100 hours of gameplay" probably translates to "4-6 hours of stuff you'll like, and over 100 hours to do it" a lot of the time.

Super Mario Brothers 3 can be finished in under an hour, and to this day it is still one of the top games on a lot of peoples lists; including mine. On a side note, it takes me WAY more than an hour to finish, but I also die over 100 times in any given round of play =P

nay not angry. but the whole point f a schtick is to use it. and the artificial game time inflation is annoying. Longer playtime and multiple endings doesn't add anything to replayability. a game being fucking awesome does that. Final Fantasy VI has te same path through every time pretty much. sure you can mix it up a little but it's the same game every time. and yet I can still play it through because it's fun as hell to play. Dead Space.....short, linear but goddamned fun. I've played through twice already and intend to do it again. because it's just a damn well made game.

And yes, fetch quests do really piss me off when it's completely unnecessary but way too many games throw then in as requirements...

oh and buy scott pilgrim....it's what makes me more awesome than you lox, rent, sine, and seraph

I want to add that multiple endings make me not buy a game. Granted, old school ones when i was younger, with infinite time on my hands, had a ball with games like CT, but nowadays... i want my time rewarded with one solid ending, regardless how i play the game. Too much freedom in a game isnt all that great.

I agree, Flip. The game has to be damned good nowadays for me to care about all the multiple endings.. Lately, other than Mass Effect there hasn't been much in the way of other games where I've cared to go through to the other endings.

That new Dragon's Age game.... if it's half as good as it looks it better come out during the summer or else I'm going to go mad having to put it down for college work. The PC Gamer article speaks very highly of the multiple BEGINNINGS and I haven't even read the whole article yet to see about the endings.