Jump to content

your opinion on the new more money for less gaming content policy game developers use.


MochidaYuka

Recommended Posts

hi everybody i just wanna hear what your thoughts are on this matter.recently game developers have become more and more lazy in creating new games which results in 2-4 hour long quick cash-in games .take akiba's trip 2 for example.it's supposed to be 10-12 hours but if you follow the story you beat it in just 2 hours.this raises the question "why?". why are they doing this to us?why must we pay 40$ for it?

Edited by MochidaYuka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to that. It certainly applies to some cases, but I think that's more in the minority. I haven't really come across this issue myself. All I can say is that if you don't like it, don't buy it. If they don't make profit out of it, they won't do it, right?  Not the most original answer, but certainly one of the most practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit, there are a lot of games that if you play just the story mode with no sidequests, it can be beaten in a day. Honestly, I never really cared for that, if I don't get at least 25-30 hours out of a game I feel kinda cheated (especially if I spent $60 on it) <_<

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to that. It certainly applies to some cases, but I think that's more in the minority. I haven't really come across this issue myself. All I can say is that if you don't like it, don't buy it. If they don't make profit out of it, they won't do it, right?  Not the most original answer, but certainly one of the most practical.

that's true but if you bought one without knowing it you'll feel like you've been scammed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's true but if you bought one without knowing it you'll feel like you've been scammed

 

Which is why I usually wait until gameplay videos or reviews are put up for a game I'm on the fence about. Or, if $40 really does seem like a lot, wait for a price drop. For the most part, I have a pretty good intuition to tell me whether or not I'll enjoy a game. For the games I bought that I didn't like, I knew exactly what I was getting into before buying them. The only game I ever regretted buying was Borderlands, but it only cost me $20, so I didn't really feel like I was scammed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is simple, they know people will buy the games, so the put them out. Some developers also believe in quality over quantity. They try to put out more refined experiences into just a few hours of game, instead of bloating it just to increase game time. That's not to say they always succeed, but it leads to shorter games.

 

In your specific example though, if you skipped most of the content and bum rushed the story in 2 hours, that's hardly their fault. It sounds like there's still plenty of the game to experience. So, if you're that butthurt about not getting your money's worth, then go back and keep playing the game until you've actually played everything, not just the main story.

 

There are lots of games that have the majority of the content outside of the story mode, and that doesn't mean that they were lazy or just looking for a cash-in. A good example that comes to mind is most of the Dynasty Warriors games. You can generally beat the story in a few hours, but then spend hundreds unlocking everything and playing through all of the different modes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's a pretty good logic you got there godzillaboy

 

Meh, logical enough, I suppose. Either way, with today's massive network of information and access to it from practically anywhere, it's really hard not to be informed about something before you buy it. It happens, though, and there's not much we can do about it. Best thing you can do is try not to make that mistake again by keeping yourself up-to-date with any news regarding whatever game you plan on buying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is simple, they know people will buy the games, so the put them out. Some developers also believe in quality over quantity. They try to put out more refined experiences into just a few hours of game, instead of bloating it just to increase game time. That's not to say they always succeed, but it leads to shorter games.

 

In your specific example though, if you skipped most of the content and bum rushed the story in 2 hours, that's hardly their fault. It sounds like there's still plenty of the game to experience. So, if you're that butthurt about not getting your money's worth, then go back and keep playing the game until you've actually played everything, not just the main story.

 

There are lots of games that have the majority of the content outside of the story mode, and that doesn't mean that they were lazy or just looking for a cash-in. A good example that comes to mind is most of the Dynasty Warriors games. You can generally beat the story in a few hours, but then spend hundreds unlocking everything and playing through all of the different modes.

fyi i didn't play it but one of my friends told me the game is only 2 hours long because he did only the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's all depending on how you define "gaming content" and your own gaming preference.

 

Some people like exploring, some people like time rush, some people like loot & level farming, some people like the story and read every collectible documents, some people only play multiplayer and never touch the story mode, some people like pay to win.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh, logical enough, I suppose. Either way, with today's massive network of information and access to it from practically anywhere, it's really hard not to be informed about something before you buy it. It happens, though, and there's not much we can do about it. Best thing you can do is try not to make that mistake again by keeping yourself up-to-date with any news regarding whatever game you plan on buying.

i hear people complain about demo's spoiling the game it's story but it's only like 5 minutes .

I think it's all depending on how you define "gaming content" and your own gaming preference.

 

Some people like exploring, some people like time rush, some people like loot & level farming, some people like the story and read every collectible documents, some people only play multiplayer and never touch the story mode, some people like pay to win.....

ok,ok i get it but isn't it a bit lazy of the developer to put a 2 hour game on the market when they are known to make the game 5x as long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fyi i didn't play it but one of my friends told me the game is only 2 hours long because he did only the story.

So, you're all riled up because someone you know told you it took them 2 hours to beat a game that you've never played? That's a bit strange. Especially since they could have easily been exaggerating.

 

Also, I looked the game up. There are multiple endings to that game, and to get the true endings for each character, you have to do the side missions. So, your friend just bumrushed the game and got a bad ending. Had they actually played through the entire game and gotten the true endings, it wouldn't have taken them 2 hours. I don't think complaining about the length is very valid given the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to expand upon what ExHaseo said. A lot of games derive their longevity from a certain style of play. Silent Hill 2 for example is actually really short if you just rush through it. However, the purpose is to engulf yourself in the atmosphere and search around for all the little things that add more to the game. Doing so easily racks up more hours, a lot more than if you were to just go from Point A to Point B.

 

The same applies to almost every RPG, as well. The bulk of their length is from all the side quests and optional stuff you can do. You're expected to go after these, and as such, the main story is given some more leeway to be shorter. The only other alternative would be to make the main quest line long and drawn out, but all that'll really do is harm whatever story is being told because it's not being told at the optimal pace. Granted, this should not be an excuse for a miniscule main game, but it does help the game overall. In short, you can't blame the game for being short if you don't plan on taking advantage of everything it has to offer.

 

And if I can go off topic for a second, I am completely jealous of your Pupuru PSN avatar, Mochida.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to expand upon what ExHaseo said. A lot of games derive their longevity from a certain style of play. Silent Hill 2 for example is actually really short if you just rush through it. However, the purpose is to engulf yourself in the atmosphere and search around for all the little things that add more to the game. Doing so easily racks up more hours, a lot more than if you were to just go from Point A to Point B.

 

The same applies to almost every RPG, as well. The bulk of their length is from all the side quests and optional stuff you can do. You're expected to go after these, and as such, the main story is given some more leeway to be shorter. The only other alternative would be to make the main quest line long and drawn out, but all that'll really do is harm whatever story is being told because it's not being told at the optimal pace. Granted, this should not be an excuse for a miniscule main game, but it does help the game overall. In short, you can't blame the game for being short if you don't plan on taking advantage of everything it has to offer.

 

And if I can go off topic for a second, I am completely jealous of your Pupuru PSN avatar, Mochida.

so basically the game varies to how you play it?but why are you jealous of my pupuru avatar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so basically the game varies to how you play it?but why are you jealous of my pupuru avatar?

 

Moreso that certain games are meant to played with a certain mindset. If you don't like optional objectives, RPGs probably aren't your best choice, to put it simply.

 

And I'm jealous because the damn NA PSN Store doesn't have any Sorcery Saga avatars. Shame too, since Sorcery Saga was the game that convinced me to buy a Vita.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi everybody i just wanna hear what your thoughts are on this matter.recently game developers have become more and more lazy in creating new games which results in 2-4 hour long quick cash-in games .take akiba's trip 2 for example.it's supposed to be 10-12 hours but if you follow the story you beat it in just 2 hours.this raises the question "why?". why are they doing this to us?why must we pay 40$ for it?

Akiba a 2 hour long game... 

 

fyi i didn't play it but one of my friends told me the game is only 2 hours long because he did only the story.

Oh you didn't play it so you don't know for sure, the logic you use is astounding...

 

Akiba is only a 2 hour long game if you have gear at 300+, are playing on the easiest setting and only doing the mandatory stuff as well as picking any route except for two especially a certain route in particular so hardly a way to gauge playtime considering you'd need more than 2 hours to get your gear at that level, there are multiple ending routes and multiple difficulty levels one of which must be unlocked.

 

So your point on Akiba in particular is pretty pathetic and take it from someone who has the platinum.

 

Next you'll tell me fighting games aren't worth the money and are short by just playing the arcade and story when in fighting games you have other modes like score/time attack, challenges/trials and the versus gameplay which is where a fighting games length comes from similar case to FPS games where they may have a short story but the bulk of their experience is in competitive online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with AStrip was mentioned by ExHaseo. Your friend probably sped through ONE ending and finished.

Imo AStrip is made shorter exactly because you have many endings (unless you can get them by reloading save, I don't know that and even if that's the case, it surely requires doing many events so every girl have their ending requirements fulfilled and it will take much more than 2 hours imo)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with AStrip was mentioned by ExHaseo. Your friend probably sped through ONE ending and finished.

Imo AStrip is made shorter exactly because you have many endings (unless you can get them by reloading save, I don't know that and even if that's the case, it surely requires doing many events so every girl have their ending requirements fulfilled and it will take much more than 2 hours imo)

i didn't play the game tbh one of my friends did.but i guess he just rushed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like Fox touched on this pretty well, but here's my thoughts:

I'd always take quality over quantity. A high quality game can only be around 10 hours long and still be just as (possibly more) effective. Indie games have done a very good job at proving this point these days, as most of them are between 10-20 long, from a completionists standpoint. I'm currently playing Need For Speed Most Wanted, a great piece of evidence that adding tons of collectibles to extend playtime does not equal improving the game. Or just look at Darksiders 2. That game was spread way too thin as a result of the developers trying to lengthen game time, keeping it at the same length as the first one would have been ideal from a design perspective.

But there is always another side to the coin. As i said, many indie titles are great because of their short length, but those games usually don't cost as much as a triple A title, usually around 30-50%. Now "Getting your money's worth" is a difficult term to use, as everyone defines it for themselves individually. There is no law that gives us the right to be entitled to a certain game length based on the price we pay for a game. Personally, i usually see it like this: I should always get more time out of playing a game than i spent working to get the money to pay for said game. Now this is a very personal philosophy, as everyone plays games differently. In fact, one of the reasons i enjoy completing games is that i feel like i get my money's worth that way.

Now it's time to play the inevitable Ground Zeroes card. I feel this game has been argued about to death, but it's just the best example for the issue (is is an issue?) at hand. I spent roughly 15-20 hours playing Ground Zeroes, getting all the trophies. And since i only paid 15€ for it, you could say that i easily got my money's worth out of it. From this standpoint it would have even been worth the 40€ it was sold for at first.

But what about the difference between original and reused content. If you play through Hotline Miami without dying, you'd beat it in 2 hours max, most likely less. Fact is, that's not going to happen. The game is desgned around the fact that you keep replaying the same bits over and over until you make it. So how do we rate this game's length? Are 3 hours of a bad game better than 1 hours of a good one? I honestly don't know, games are different and there may very well never be an universal way to judge this standpoint.

Talking about discussion way overdone, let's talk about Destiny. Gamers are actually pissed about that game because it wants them to spend too much time playing it, grinding the same strikes over and over to get better gear. The criticism is almost the opposite of Ground Zeroes, but it is still just as valid.

Now what does this all conclude to? To put it simple, i don't think that games getting shorter is a problem, as game length is a design decision that has to be adjusted to every title individually. Spreading the butter too thin does not make your game any better. But if you have the butter you shouldspread it enough so that you can still taste the bread when you're done. (10/10 would metaphor again - IGN)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like Fox touched on this pretty well, but here's my thoughts:

I'd always take quality over quantity. A high quality game can only be around 10 hours long and still be just as (possibly more) effective. Indie games have done a very good job at proving this point these days, as most of them are between 10-20 long, from a completionists standpoint. I'm currently playing Need For Speed Most Wanted, a great piece of evidence that adding tons of collectibles to extend playtime does not equal improving the game. Or just look at Darksiders 2. That game was spread way too thin as a result of the developers trying to lengthen game time, keeping it at the same length as the first one would have been ideal from a design perspective.

But there is always another side to the coin. As i said, many indie titles are great because of their short length, but those games usually don't cost as much as a triple A title, usually around 30-50%. Now "Getting your money's worth" is a difficult term to use, as everyone defines it for themselves individually. There is no law that gives us the right to be entitled to a certain game length based on the price we pay for a game. Personally, i usually see it like this: I should always get more time out of playing a game than i spent working to get the money to pay for said game. Now this is a very personal philosophy, as everyone plays games differently. In fact, one of the reasons i enjoy completing games is that i feel like i get my money's worth that way.

Now it's time to play the inevitable Ground Zeroes card. I feel this game has been argued about to death, but it's just the best example for the issue (is is an issue?) at hand. I spent roughly 15-20 hours playing Ground Zeroes, getting all the trophies. And since i only paid 15€ for it, you could say that i easily got my money's worth out of it. From this standpoint it would have even been worth the 40€ it was sold for at first.

But what about the difference between original and reused content. If you play through Hotline Miami without dying, you'd beat it in 2 hours max, most likely less. Fact is, that's not going to happen. The game is desgned around the fact that you keep replaying the same bits over and over until you make it. So how do we rate this game's length? Are 3 hours of a bad game better than 1 hours of a good one? I honestly don't know, games are different and there may very well never be an universal way to judge this standpoint.

Talking about discussion way overdone, let's talk about Destiny. Gamers are actually pissed about that game because it wants them to spend too much time playing it, grinding the same strikes over and over to get better gear. The criticism is almost the opposite of Ground Zeroes, but it is still just as valid.

Now what does this all conclude to? To put it simple, i don't think that games getting shorter is a problem, as game length is a design decision that has to be adjusted to every title individually. Spreading the butter too thin does not make your game any better. But if you have the butter you shouldspread it enough so that you can still taste the bread when you're done. (10/10 would metaphor again - IGN)

good point but lengthy games are good too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with short games as long as they have a level of quality that I find acceptable. In fact I would rather play a short game than a long one because developers can pay more attention to detail. A typical long game will usually have plenty of useless missions and irrelevant characters which makes it a waste of time.

Better have a short, breathtaking story than a long boring one is essentially my preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with short games as long as they have a level of quality that I find acceptable. In fact I would rather play a short game than a long one because developers can pay more attention to detail. A typical long game will usually have plenty of useless missions and irrelevant characters which makes it a waste of time.

Better have a short, breathtaking story than a long boring one is essentially my preference.

good point but then you have 2 hour garbage like battle los angels which costs 29,99 but isn't even worth it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...