Support NeoGAF

[SHA]

Idk, wrpgs takes time and sometimes takes hours before having a f clue of what's going on in the game, but that effort is rewarding, not wasted like other repetitive games.

 

[Soodanim]

A game will engage me for as long as it presents a reason to play and/or I give myself reason to keep playing it. It's kind of like this thread in that regard, where even though the OP questions aren't really something you can answer you give yourself a reason to reply anyway.

Sekiro is an amazing game, but when I finished the game twice and decided I didn't want to put time into the optional content, I was finished with it. But it engaged me for every second while I was there.
Elden Ring is also an amazing game, and even after finishing everything the game offered me I gave myself reasons to keep playing again and again. 1000+ hours, and will go up again with the DLC.

 

[Herbspiceguy]

As a 40yo with a life besides a fulltime job, I mainly stick to (smaller) indie titles (on PC) that don't require a huge time investment, like roguelites. Fortunately there are plenty of quality games that fit the bill.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

With the exception of MMORPGs, I actually think videogames were designed to be fun, unique, or popular, because that's what sold. Obviously the goal was to sell as many copies, but the point was to make the game as appealing to as many people, not to make people addicted to it.

Games used to come finished in a disc, and replay value was based on how well the game was designed, either being really fun or having enough challenges to merit subsequent playthroughs.

Now many of the games are designed to never end, to keep you playing out of addiction, less because you're having so much fun, and to always have more DLC. It started during the PS4 generation, and gets worse and worse.

I want what you say to be true for most people who play videogames, but I just don't see it

I mean this in the most respectful way possible but I think you're coming from a place of ignorance. We all have our blindspots.

What you hear on the mic when you play games like PUBG, Fortnite, The Finals etc is genuine excitment, laughter, conversation...tangible joy. You can literally measure it with technological devices.

When I see people play old style games through the window of their living room, I see dead eyes, a body that doesn't move, and lower frequency brainwaves.

People bring up this "designed to never end" concept like it's a bad thing. In reality it means there's depth and value there that doesn't age like milk. A sunset is designed to never end. Chess is designed to never end. The best things in life give you long lasting value.

Games weren't meant to be played alone.

 

[Laptop1991]

Depends on what you mean by engagement, when i'm immersed in games i like, it can be for countless hours and played for years, like Fallout and TES single player games, but if it's the industry's keep playing to pay, either subscription's or items, then not at all, i've never found that sort of engagement immersive so far, i'm not a mutliplayer gamer either.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Some games just kinda float along but big games like ocarina of time, or spiderman frankly are engaging.

 

[elhav]

I mean this in the most respectful way possible but I think you're coming from a place of ignorance. We all have our blindspots.

What you hear on the mic when you play games like PUBG, Fortnite, The Finals etc is genuine excitment, laughter, conversation...tangible joy. You can literally measure it with technological devices.

When I see people play old style games through the window of their living room, I see dead eyes, a body that doesn't move, and lower frequency brainwaves.

People bring up this "designed to never end" concept like it's a bad thing. In reality it means there's depth and value there that doesn't age like milk. A sunset is designed to never end. Chess is designed to never end. The best things in life give you long lasting value.

Games weren't meant to be played alone.

Saying people who like "old style" games have dead eyes and "lower frequency brainwaves" etc is such a biased and stupid thing to say, I'm sorry.

What are "old style" games anyway? Single player games? Games that end? Because my argument had nothing to do with single player or multiplayer. It was about design choices. Games are varied and not "meant to be played" in one way. What you say really has nothing to do with the argument or the topic.

Is Tetris an "old style" game? I mean, it's infinitely replayable because it's really well made. It's long lasting because of its quality, not because it "does not end". Same goes for chess and plenty of other games, single player or multiplayer. See how the two things are not mutually exclusive?

Fortnite and pubg are free to play, and are based on communities enjoying the game and paying for optional stuff, they're not good examples.

And finally, long lasting value is completely up to the player. I replayed Resident evil 4, Prince of persia sands of time, and Shadow of the Colossus many times. I still do every once in a while. Even if I play a game once and it stays with me (like Disco Elysium) I consider it having long lasting value. All of these games are done, and cherished by many people for many years. It kinda nullifies your argument

 

[Bond007]

Very few games engage me to completion.
Even fewer games engage me to come back and revisit the world in an open setting.
Almost non existent in adulthood do i ever beat a game twice.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

mortal kombat and killer instinct engaged me so hard id buy magazines/strategy guides if they had never-before-seen official art/pre-renders.