Poll

Do you think that it's fair to dismiss a game for being "short"?

Yes
2 (11.1%)
No
8 (44.4%)
It Depends
8 (44.4%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Print

Author Topic: "It's Too Short"  (Read 13594 times)

« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2010, 01:44:57 PM »
TF2 has cutscenes?

More like Metal Gear Solid 2.
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2010, 01:52:38 PM »
People just like to project their own dream game onto their memories of [Portal]
You don't have to project anything onto memories of it. Again, Portal being a short game works to its advantage - you can just sit down for a couple of hours and play it again, and see it for what it is.

Glorb, did you by chance play Portal: Prelude? It was an attempt by fans to make what you're describing: a game that is effectively Portal without the training wheels. The idea looked good on paper, and for about the first half of the game it was fun. But they tried too hard; rather than simply showing off the unexplored possibilities that the portal mechanic offers, it ended up being unfairly difficult later on, with some sections requiring you to do things like fire six portals in two seconds to get through an instant-kill barrier. Of course, part of this can be explained away by the fact that it was a fan game - loads of Super Mario World ROM hacks are the same way. But considering the designs of some of the advanced testchambers in the real game, who's to say Valve would've done much better in the same engine?

I'm looking forward to Portal 2, because even though I sadly probably won't get to play the co-op mode, I'm looking forward to what they do with the portal mechanic in a further-revamped Source engine.

« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2010, 02:25:59 PM »
More like Metal Gear Solid 2.
MGS2 is your Favorite Game of All Time?

* Lizard Dude turns to the side, clutching his stomach as if in torturous pain, and vomits ferociously.

HURBLAAAUAUUGGH

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #33 on: June 07, 2010, 02:34:23 PM »
Warp, you're being too kind. Portal Prelude sucked really bad. It's as if a bunch of dudes got together and created a machine that directly converts hard work into pure, polished [dukar].

And...why wouldn't you get to play the co-op mode?
every

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #34 on: June 07, 2010, 02:41:36 PM »
I'll be playing it on PC. The PC version probably won't have splitscreen play, and my Internet connection is not conducive to online play.

And no, Portal: Prelude was fun for a short while. It abruptly turned to crap partway through.

« Reply #35 on: June 07, 2010, 02:46:01 PM »
MGS2 is your Favorite Game of All Time?

* Lizard Dude turns to the side, clutching his stomach as if in torturous pain, and vomits ferociously.

HURBLAAAUAUUGGH

Um, sorry?
Luigison: Question everything!
Me: Why?

« Reply #36 on: June 07, 2010, 02:53:05 PM »
Hey, I'm not saying anything. That was just an involuntary reaction.

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #37 on: July 04, 2010, 01:58:43 PM »

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #38 on: July 04, 2010, 05:25:19 PM »
I disagree; length and value are, at least in my view, almost inseperable, but for different reasons that I can't really explain fully. I play video games for fun; I'm not an art-gamer. So, to be honest, I'm not too keen on paying fifty bucks for a game that'll last me 30 minutes, maybe a bit more. Granted, I'm not a shmup gamer, but this is a universal statement. Even if a game grants a lot of satisfaction, think about it: There's no real reward for that aside from a smile on your face and a pleasurable case of the adrenaline shakes.

We need to stop using tired movie/book/music comparisons, with the old "oh, books aren't judged by page count" chustnut. If I, personally, bought a game that would take me half an hour to beat, and played the exact same every time through, I would return it if I could. Half an hour of fun is not worth half a week's paycheck in my eyes, no matter how fun that half hour is. It's just a half-hour. And if I replay it a second time to find it's exactly the same, the fun has dropped off about 50%.

Subjective concepts like "value" are just that. Subjective. So, peeps, stop defending every overpriced, super-short game that comes out, because not everyone should be expected to pay a lot for something they don't derive value from. Price, value, and length are all properties that are linked together, whether you like it or not.
every

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2010, 06:30:18 PM »
If you play a shmup and clear it on your first try, you're either incredibly good at them or playing it wrong.

People nowadays misunderstand this sort of game. They're so used to many aspects of modern gaming that the idea of spending $50 on a short game and playing it again and again until they can clear it in a single try doesn't even cross their minds - after all, who wants to spend time getting better at a game if it means playing the same thing again every time, right? And they would think you were insane if you mentioned the idea of playing for score.

And as pointed out in the article, it used to be that you'd pay $50 for games like Sonic the Hedgehog - how is a short game with immense replayability nowadays any less valid for that price than one was back then? The idea that a game has to be a certain length to be worth a certain price just leads to padding of the sort the writer described.

To put it another way: if price should be tied to length, every game should be free because of freeware games that last hundreds of hours.

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #40 on: July 04, 2010, 09:25:50 PM »
But that's just the problem, Warp - not everyone appreciates shmups. I, personally, dislike them. I am incapable of ever getting good at the majority of them due to the intense of amount of trial-and-error patience they demand. Despite this, I have reached the end of a few of them in my day, and can verify that after doing so, that's it. I never felt any urge to go back and obsess over attack patterns or whatever.

I realize long =/= good and short =/= bad; the HL2 episodes are eternal monuments to this. However, those are entire, full, juicy games packed with detailed environments, constantly shifting gameplay, excellent scriptwriting, and content that begs to be replayed. Would I pay less for it? Of course I would, I'm not a dumb***. I jump at the chance to pay less for already-great things.

But snark aside, gaming evolves. People payed top dollar for Sonic back in the day because that was pretty much the equivalent of what CoD is today - a full, fleshed-out experience with constantly shifting, varied challenges that took full advantage of the platform is was designed for. Would I pay 50 bucks for it today? Hell no, because times have changed.

We need to stop romanticizing things. Not everyone plays games for the craftmanship and art and all that crap. I play games to have what I consider fun, end of story.
every

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #41 on: July 04, 2010, 10:54:12 PM »
It's not a matter of being a fan of a particular genre, or even a matter of a particular genre. And it's certainly not a matter of craftmanship or art. The issue here is the issue posed earlier in the thread: somehow people think the length of a single playthrough determines the quality of a game, which is a completely retarded way to look at things.

Again, this state of affairs has led to developers padding games out with things like repetitive missions, levels that feel tacked-on, and extra-long grinds to be able to defeat the end boss, all to hit some magical hour marker that should be the least of a player's concern, but has somehow gotten itself lodged into the collective consciousness of the mainstream gamer. Except in very rare and special cases (Portal), anything less than a certain length is decried as "too short" and doomed to failure.

Speaking of, Portal has been brought up several times, but only one person has stated the key point that makes bringing it up a poor argument: it was not initially a standalone game. When Portal came out, it was part of a full-price package with four other full games. Had Valve released Portal by itself for fifty dollars, it most likely would have been a flop both critically and commercially, not because it's a bad game, but because people refuse to pay that much money for short games. This is the case with DeathSmiles.

DeathSmiles, unfortunately, has one disadvantage of not being advertised particularly well; I've heard many cases of people buying it not knowing what kind of game it was. However, in this case, the issue is that people spent $50 on a game while having no idea what it was, so they're not exactly justified in complaining that they bought a short game when they could've done ten seconds of research and discovered it's a shmup.

And, as also pointed out in the article, you're paying fifty dollars for not only a game, but also an excellent arrange soundtrack and a special faceplate (different from the one released with the limited edition of the game in Japan, so there's actually a bit of a sale market for them). As noted, the IGN review that was linked in the article never mentioned this fact, and made several claims completely disregarding this fact. Good work, games media! You've successfully managed to connect length and price in a way that bypasses common sense!

Also:
People payed top dollar for Sonic back in the day because that was pretty much the equivalent of what CoD is today - a full, fleshed-out experience with constantly shifting, varied challenges that took full advantage of the platform is was designed for.
Horrible comparison, because it completely skirts around what I said. Let's see it again:
[H]ow is a short game with immense replayability nowadays any less valid for that price than one was back then?
Now, how do you get "a full, fleshed-out experience with constantly shifting, varied challenges that took full advantage of the platform is was designed for" out of this? And how does that matter at all? It's still spending $50 on a short game, yet you're claiming it's because the game pushed the limits of its system (despite not doing so at all).
Would I pay 50 bucks for it today? Hell no, because times have changed.
Also irrelevant. It's not a matter of paying $50 today for a game from 1991. It's a matter of paying $50 for a brand-new game that happens to have a similar length to older games.

« Reply #42 on: July 05, 2010, 03:51:51 AM »
Subjective concepts like "value" are just that. Subjective. So, peeps, stop defending every overpriced, super-short game that comes out, because not everyone should be expected to pay a lot for something they don't derive value from. Price, value, and length are all properties that are linked together, whether you like it or not.

Coming from the guy who has no problem selling off his games to GameStop after 1 playthrough.
As a game that requires six friends, an HDTV, and skill, I can see why the majority of TMK is going to hate on it hard.

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2010, 08:20:46 AM »
repetitive missions
You mean like playing the exact same game over and over again to be able to even beat the main story mode (much less go for a better score or whatever)?

levels that feel tacked-on
Define "tacked-on."  Unless it's a gimmick or gimmick level (such as the motorcycle racing in Crash Bandicoot Warped or Yoshi in Super Mario Sunshine), it shouldn't feel tacked-on.  Maybe it will feel like padding, but that's absolutely fine, because most padding (the most obvious exception being grinding, which is completely optional in most RPGs, and even discouraged in some of them) is just fine.  Super Mario Galaxy 2 was basically extra levels for Super Mario Galaxy with a less-tacked-on Yoshi, but it's widely regarded just as highly as its predecessor, if not more so.

extra-long grinds to be able to defeat the end boss
You mean like playing the exact same game over and over again to be able to even reach the final boss?

You're contradicting your own argument here by saying that too-short games are just peachy... because you can play through them multiple times.  But isn't playing through the same game more repetitive than grinding, and more padded than games that at least have variety in their "repetitive missions"?
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #44 on: July 05, 2010, 10:55:54 AM »
Coming from the guy who has no problem selling off his games to GameStop after 1 playthrough.

Is that meant as some kind of sicknasty iceburn? Because yes, I buy and resell used games. I'm not about to spend fifty or sixty bucks on a brand-new game that I can't return if I don't like, and I'm [darn] sure not about to refuse to recoup my money spend after it's outlived its fun.

Jesus, when did video games become so [darn] serious?
every

Print