Video games have been around for a long ass time now and many of us here on GAF have probably been around through much of their existence but these days there is one aspect of game design that is really starting to creep into the forefront of importance and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
What I speak of is nothing less then over all game length. I'm not talking about replay value either, that's a different facet. This is something that used to get constantly scrutinized , especially during the early PS2 era. (2000/2001 for those just old enough to use the internet)
Personally, I'm finding that games these days are largely over designed and topped up with mandatory filler - that is widget hunts throughout vast in game territory that are required to progress through a games story. In other cases this content is largely optional but it feels like there is far more of it there than their needs to be.
For those among us that are a little older - what was a more memorable experience in hindsight - finishing something like Parasite Eve, Metal Gear Solid or even a play through of Chrono Trigger OR spending 60-80 hours trudging through an Elder scrolls game or finding 400 trinkets in the newest Assassins creed ?
It seems the days of a well produced 8-10 hour experience or even a 20 hour RPG are pretty well dead now and I really don't know how I feel about that. Well, other than old.
I bring this up in light of many recent titles out there that fall victim to the what I'll dub "open world creep" , that is - in order to make a player think they're getting 60$ worth of game they make damn sure that even menial tasks take way longer than need be for minimal gain and they make sure there are hundreds of said tasks to accomplish. In the end you have a 60 hour + experience that feels hollow. It's not so much that this is always the case mind you but it seems to be the norm on an ever increasing level annually.
I mostly made this thread after seeing Dark_castle's Xeno blade thread , he just got burnt out after playing the game for too long and I feel that's a valid issue. Even a fun game gets boring eventually if there isn't enough variety and at a certain point you want to see a narrative end. If there exists a second reason for this threads existence - it's Metal Gear Solid 5's fault. I LOVED the first MGS on playstation and the more I think about it the more I feel like it's not only one of the best games of all time but it's head and tails the best entry in it's series too. It represented the finest action stealth game possible within the limits of what the PSone was capable of. Every sequel has in some way felt more and more over designed - too much nonsense story, too many characters , levels are too big , the simple act of wandering through a jungle becomes too complicated , etc etc. The fifth one actually really does nail the core game play better than any entry outside of the first BUT there is absolutely zero reason for Afghanistan to be so damn big or that it lacks a more intuitive fast travel system or that some missions involve getting past 4 or 5 checkpoints just to get to the actual town or barracks the mission itself is set in. The MGS portion of the game is at odds with the attempt at making it an open world experience. Will I get my "money's worth" , I suppose but I'm in my 30's. I'd rather get more value out of the time invested.
There's a nice equal medium with hours of play versus number of unique experiences found within and I think we've passed a threshold with too many games into the bad side of this. Or maybe I'm just a jaded old man ? I don't know , what does NEOGAF think ?
What I speak of is nothing less then over all game length. I'm not talking about replay value either, that's a different facet. This is something that used to get constantly scrutinized , especially during the early PS2 era. (2000/2001 for those just old enough to use the internet)
Personally, I'm finding that games these days are largely over designed and topped up with mandatory filler - that is widget hunts throughout vast in game territory that are required to progress through a games story. In other cases this content is largely optional but it feels like there is far more of it there than their needs to be.
For those among us that are a little older - what was a more memorable experience in hindsight - finishing something like Parasite Eve, Metal Gear Solid or even a play through of Chrono Trigger OR spending 60-80 hours trudging through an Elder scrolls game or finding 400 trinkets in the newest Assassins creed ?
It seems the days of a well produced 8-10 hour experience or even a 20 hour RPG are pretty well dead now and I really don't know how I feel about that. Well, other than old.
I bring this up in light of many recent titles out there that fall victim to the what I'll dub "open world creep" , that is - in order to make a player think they're getting 60$ worth of game they make damn sure that even menial tasks take way longer than need be for minimal gain and they make sure there are hundreds of said tasks to accomplish. In the end you have a 60 hour + experience that feels hollow. It's not so much that this is always the case mind you but it seems to be the norm on an ever increasing level annually.
I mostly made this thread after seeing Dark_castle's Xeno blade thread , he just got burnt out after playing the game for too long and I feel that's a valid issue. Even a fun game gets boring eventually if there isn't enough variety and at a certain point you want to see a narrative end. If there exists a second reason for this threads existence - it's Metal Gear Solid 5's fault. I LOVED the first MGS on playstation and the more I think about it the more I feel like it's not only one of the best games of all time but it's head and tails the best entry in it's series too. It represented the finest action stealth game possible within the limits of what the PSone was capable of. Every sequel has in some way felt more and more over designed - too much nonsense story, too many characters , levels are too big , the simple act of wandering through a jungle becomes too complicated , etc etc. The fifth one actually really does nail the core game play better than any entry outside of the first BUT there is absolutely zero reason for Afghanistan to be so damn big or that it lacks a more intuitive fast travel system or that some missions involve getting past 4 or 5 checkpoints just to get to the actual town or barracks the mission itself is set in. The MGS portion of the game is at odds with the attempt at making it an open world experience. Will I get my "money's worth" , I suppose but I'm in my 30's. I'd rather get more value out of the time invested.
There's a nice equal medium with hours of play versus number of unique experiences found within and I think we've passed a threshold with too many games into the bad side of this. Or maybe I'm just a jaded old man ? I don't know , what does NEOGAF think ?
