|
||||||||||||||||||||
Editorial: Is A Longer Game Really A Better Game?
By Pete Haas: 2008-08-26 00:48:28
You may have heard the rumors by now that the first batch of GTAIV DLC will have fifteen hours of additional content. Assuming this is true, the next question that should be asked is, "How good will those hours be?" Game studios have been puffing up the estimated lengths of their games ever since they realized how obsessed gamers are with time-consuming titles.
While it's possible the GTAIV DLC will add a new island and/or new mission chains, I fully expect most of those fifteen new hours to come in the form of repeatable tasks (like taxicab missions, courier runs, etc.) or hidden collectibles. After all, GTAIV was estimated to have a hundred hours of gameplay - and the campaign only took maybe thirty hours. It wouldn't be outlandish to expect five hours of new missions from the downloadable content and then "ten hours" of repetitive tasks. Not that GTAIV is the only game that uses simple tricks to pad their gameplay hours. Remember being told that Assassin's Creed would take you 40+ hours? Though the main campaign took maybe half that long, they weren't lying. The extra hours came from finding the dozens and dozens of flags hidden throughout the cities and countryside of the game. Why is this sort of repetition included in games? Sure, it makes the game sound more impressive if it has more hypothetical gameplay hours, but I think, for the most part, developers mean well. They're trying to give us additional time with a game we enjoyed. But how is, say, collecting hidden flags considered a proper continuation of the Assassin's Creed gameplay experience? It only passes a faint resemblance to the actual game. Spending hours collecting hidden flags/package/clams after you've finished a game is like sniffing your mitt after a baseball game. What exactly, is the challenge in finding hidden flags? "Oh man, the flag might be behind the wagon - or it may be behind that well! Or there might be flags in both places! I'll have to walk over there and check!" Just because it's happening in a video game and it takes time, it doesn't mean it's actually "gameplay." Developers wouldn't include these mindless grinds if someone didn't play them - a surprising number of gamers do, in fact. I remember watching a friend trying to collect every last star in Mario 64 just so he could get onto the roof of the castle and see Yoshi. At the time I thought, "This is the most ridiculous waste of time I've ever seen." However, other games offer even less incentive to finish their mindless side tasks. The best you can usually hope for is an extra 30 points or so on your Gamerscore. So why do we do these extra missions, long after the game stopped being fun? To fill time. No matter how completely dull these side tasks are or how little of an in-game reward they provide, they fill time. Gamers always pride themselves on their hobby being so much more active and engaging than watching television or reading books but it's amazing how tolerant we are of dull, passive, repetitious gameplay that we may as well not need buttons for.
RELATED: dlc, editorial, mario 64, Assassin's Creed, grand theft auto iv
Comment on “Editorial: Is A Longer Game Really A Better Game?”Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.Leave a ReplyMAIN SITE NAVIGATION
HOME l ABOUT US l l SEARCH l MOVIE NEWS l MOVIE REVIEWS l MOVIE PREVIEWS l DVD REVIEWS l DVD NEWS l SOUNDTRACKS l FEATURES DATABASE l TELEVISION l MUSIC l GAMES l CELEBRITY l TECHNOLOGY l RSS 2.0 FEEDS l MESSAGE BOARDS l LIVE CHAT l SYNDICATE US l LINKS | CB STORE | MUNCH MONSTER This site is operated by Cinema Blend LLC. For advertising inquiries, contact Gorilla Nation. CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously. Made in Webta Labs 
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
August 27th, 2008 at 19:39
I couldn't agree more. I buy games and I play them until I beat the main story line. After all my hard work and effort I receive a 300 out of 1000 on my Gamer score. Mark my words I could care less about that score, but I am left feeling like there had to be so much that I missed. I only played 30% of a game I spent $60 on. My logical reaction was to review all of the achievements that I missed. To my surprise they are mostly comprised of ridiculous tasks like finding flags as you stated in your article. I would rather the time that was spent designing these mundane side quests and needle in the hay stack missions be replaced with more content for the main story line. I play a game and enjoy being emerged in a deep story line with exciting locations, unique enemies, and interesting characters. Not once have I played a game and thought to myself, "I really wish there were more flags to find." I think the idea of re-playability has taken us in the wrong direction. I would much rather play a game only once if I really found it to be exciting on some level then play a game 3 times so I can unlock a new costume. Perhaps I'm in the minority but if a developer isn't able or willing to extend the storyline to give us longer game play, I don't think that is to their detriment but hey why not knock off $10 or $20. I can appreciate a shorter game that doesn't make me feel like I was screwed over.