A Games Manifesto

[Zeus]

Nothing overly earth shattering here, just a good rant

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/gam ... festo.html

[Kupek]

I read (skimmed) through it before. There were two points I disagreed with.

When we're on our deathbeds, we're going to wish we could reclaim the time we spent wandering around for save points long after we were done playing every night.

While the idea of <i>save points</i> was introduced due to technology limitations rather than gameplay concerns, that kind of gameplay has become integrated into console games. His example of Metroid Prime is a good one - that got really annoying killing all of those metroids every time I tried to beat the game - but it's still possible to use them fairly and effectively.

How in the name of Islamic Fonzie did we ever let games get away with "Loading..." screens? The Gamecube doesn't have those, not on the games made by Nintendo. Hell, the 8-bit NES didn't have load screens 20 years ago. Our favorite TV shows don't load. DVD movies don't load between scenes. The animals at the zoo don't load.

Actually, I agree with this, but his examples demonstrate that he is ignorant of the underlying technology, or he's being purposefuly dismissive. The NES didn't have loads screens because it takes a trivial amount of time to access the data in a cartridge; I've never seen numbers, but it's probably only an order of magnitude or two beyond accessing RAM. (Accessing a disk or CD is about six orders of mangitude beyond RAM, and then you have to deal with bandwidth issues if it's a lot of data). DVDs don't load because they're streaming applications; the software in a DVD player knows what data is going to come next and can buffer it.

Ammo starvation. I'm looking at you, Resident Evil for the Gamecube. I have a gun. LET ME USE IT. Don't pretend your game is "challenging" because you only give me four bullets to kill eight zombie dogs with.

It's called <i>resource management</i>, and it's part of the gameplay of some games. I'm currently playing through RE4. If I had infinite ammo, I would pick off everyone I could with my rifle, which wouln't be too hard because I wouldn't have to make each shot count; I could try for 100 yard head shots until I got them. Then during the unavoidable skirmishes, I'd just never stop shooting the shotgun, because why wait until they get close enough to kill them in one shot when I don't need to conserve ammo? In games like RE and MGS, having a limited supply of ammo and items is part of the gameplay.

I realize that this guy's entire thing is being over-the-top, so maybe thinking criticaly about what he has to say is a waste of time.

[Don]

Seems to me it's just one of those guys who clings on to the belief that something new and awesome will happen but have no idea what it might be.

[SineSwiper]

Seems to me it's just one of those guys who clings on to the belief that something new and awesome will happen but have no idea what it might be.

In other words, bitching about nothing new coming out, but not really doing anything about it, much less suggesting something new to do?

[Julius Seeker]

Load Times are fairly unique to games on Sony systems, Sega, Nintendo, and Microsoft games are all relatively load time free.

[Don]

Well he does suggest them, but his suggestion reads like what you'd expect from the back of the box of any game. "Even better than normal AI" "Amazing gameplay with infinite replay possibilities", and so on.

I don't think anything cool can come out from the gaming industry if they continue to make games 20+ hours endeavors because it's pretty obvious that most companies simply cannot sustain an interesting game for 20 hours much less 50+. It's possible to accidentally come up with something cool for a short while, but you can't accidentally come up with something cool for 20 hours.

[Julius Seeker]

That's why I like Ubi-soft, they have very high quality games which aren't overly long (about 5-10 hours).

[Zeus]

Well he does suggest them, but his suggestion reads like what you'd expect from the back of the box of any game. "Even better than normal AI" "Amazing gameplay with infinite replay possibilities", and so on.

I don't think anything cool can come out from the gaming industry if they continue to make games 20+ hours endeavors because it's pretty obvious that most companies simply cannot sustain an interesting game for 20 hours much less 50+. It's possible to accidentally come up with something cool for a short while, but you can't accidentally come up with something cool for 20 hours.

I used to own a games store, let me tell you the things most people look at when they're deciding on whether or not to purchase a game:

1) 3D: if yes, good; if not, garbage
2) How pretty are the 3D graphics?
3) Am I getting my money's worth (ie. will I get at least 20 hours?)
4) Is it "cool"? (yes, this is arbitrary and changes with each customer and how much they've been influenced by marketing)

Really, that's about it for 90%+ of the customers out there. Face it, those of us who like "gameplay" and "quality" (ie. the real gamers) make up a very, very small portion of the population. So, the companies have to cater to the masses. Every once in a while you'll get a game that can appease us and the idiots (ie. MGS), but more often than not, it doesn't (see every licenced property game out there). Length, unfortunately, is one of the essential criteria. And since most development teams are swamped and on generally ridiculous deadlines (not to mention the ever-increasing budgets), you're going to get most games with artificially increased game length to appease the masses. When you do get those games that are excellent and don't fit these criteria (most Nintendo games, Beyond Good and Evil) people don't buy them.

[Don]

I'm well aware that length is one of the marketing things because people think if you buy the best game ever and it lasts 5 hours you'd be better off buying a lousy game and play it for 50 hours. This one may be unavoidable but everything else is.

To compromise I think they should have a game where you can skip a large portion of the game if you don't want to mess with it. FF8 and FF10 are probably the best examples. Length, to me, automatically kills replay value because no matter how cool it is the first time, chances are you can do without a 50 hour ordeal the second time around.

[SineSwiper]

Depends on the game, but yeah, I didn't really want to replay Xenogears because it took me so long to get there. (I'll probably replay it again sometime because it's been about 8 years, and I've already forgotten most of the storyline.)

I think Castlevania:SotN had the best replay value because of all of the items to find and how they might have popped up. You could play a new game and find different weapons to use during that run. The second castle and different codes (Richter and the luck code) also contributed. That might have been what C:HoD lacked, but I still enjoyed it. (The playable magic vampire with the swords was a unique & cool idea.)

[Zeus]

I'm well aware that length is one of the marketing things because people think if you buy the best game ever and it lasts 5 hours you'd be better off buying a lousy game and play it for 50 hours. This one may be unavoidable but everything else is.

To compromise I think they should have a game where you can skip a large portion of the game if you don't want to mess with it. FF8 and FF10 are probably the best examples. Length, to me, automatically kills replay value because no matter how cool it is the first time, chances are you can do without a 50 hour ordeal the second time around.

Well, that depends. FF6 was about a 25-30 hour game and I beat it no less than 4 times. Xenogears, which IMO has the best story ever, was 53 for me and I won't play it again 'cause the gameplay just got old after about 25 and I was just trying to get through it by running away from everything (same with FF7, but that one didn't have a kick-ass story to keep me interested). It's all about how much fun it is to play 'cause, at the end of the day, gameplay is king

[Julius Seeker]

Well, that depends. FF6 was about a 25-30 hour game and I beat it no less than 4 times.

25-30 hours? Nah, the game is only about 15-18 hours long.

[SineSwiper]

I actually liked the story on Xenogears, including the 2nd Disc. It was a shame that they pretty much had to cut it short with the gameplay (like the producers were telling them to hurry up and finish), but it was still a good game.

[Zeus]

I actually liked the story on Xenogears, including the 2nd Disc. It was a shame that they pretty much had to cut it short with the gameplay (like the producers were telling them to hurry up and finish), but it was still a good game.

Shame? It saved the game.....

[Don]

I don't think Xeno's 2nd CD had anything to do with time constraints since the game has been in development forever and I don't really see how much longer it'd have taken to kick out another 3 dungeons to go through. They just wanted to try something different.

[Kupek]

I don't think Xeno's 2nd CD had anything to do with time constraints since the game has been in development forever and I don't really see how much longer it'd have taken to kick out another 3 dungeons to go through. They just wanted to try something different.

It could have been game length, not development time. Going through those dungeons would have been an extra five to ten hours.

[Don]

With the longer = better paradigm it'd actually make more sense to put the dungeons at the end so they can put 'over 7501231293123 hours of gameplay' on the back of the box.

[Zeus]

I don't think Xeno's 2nd CD had anything to do with time constraints since the game has been in development forever and I don't really see how much longer it'd have taken to kick out another 3 dungeons to go through. They just wanted to try something different.

It could have been game length, not development time. Going through those dungeons would have been an extra five to ten hours.

And with the lack of depth put into the fighting system and the dungeons, that would have been even more hellish.