Support NeoGAF

[fresquito]

When did we go wrong?

I remember playing games for the sole reason of having fun while playing. It wasn't about completing a dungeon, it wasn't about rescuing a princess, it wasn't about beating an evil boss. It was about fighting, about jumping, about shooting. Why most games these days focus on what you have to do instead of focusing on what you're doing?

 

[Wollan]

NeoGAF finishing games?

 

[Haunted]

cue achievements as the natural evolution (or de-evolution?). It's about the end, not the means.

 

[Truelize]

When did we go wrong?

I remember playing games for the sole reason of having fun while playing. It wasn't about completing a dungeon, it wasn't about rescuing a princess, it wasn't about beating an evil boss. It was about fighting, about jumping, about shooting. Why most games these days focus on what you have to do instead of focusing on what you're doing?

Yeah I remember those days. They sucked. I spent the first half of my gaming life not even knowing that games actually ended. Finishing games is much more rewarding than just playing them. Especially seeing as most games contain character development and actual stories. Playing games to just play them now would be like reading the first half of a novel.

Not happening.

 

[Kilrogg]

Attention to Anihawk and Amir0x : Lapsed incoming .

He'd probably say that's because games before where more like arcade games, meaning a high difficulty level, frequent deaths, and simple addictive gameplay.

@Haunted_One : I'm not sure what you imply by that. Could you clarify, please ?

 

[DarienA]

When did we go wrong?

I remember playing games for the sole reason of having fun while playing. It wasn't about completing a dungeon, it wasn't about rescuing a princess, it wasn't about beating an evil boss. It was about fighting, about jumping, about shooting. Why most games these days focus on what you have to do instead of focusing on what you're doing?

Thank god all games aren't as basic as you'd still have them be.

I like games with endings(i.e. clearly defined goals/stories). Those are pretty much the only type I play now.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

A lot of the old games did the same thing the new ones you are talking about did...

Remember this awesome ending?




THE END


Edit: Playing through them was the same to, just in a different perspective.

 

[Ponn]

Because jumping in a game is fun for only so long. You move onto other things and bigger things that are more fun. I suggest a monitored challenge. Play only a NES for a whole year and not touch or look at another game or system.

 

[Haunted]

Yeah I remember those days. They sucked. I spent the first half of my gaming life not even knowing that games actually ended. Finishing games is much more rewarding than just playing them. Especially seeing as most games contain character development and actual stories. Playing games to just play them now would be like reading the first half of a novel.

Not happening.

No. why does every game have to be like a novels or a movie with a story, cutscenes and all that jazz? Many games benefit from this, but many others simply aren't. The NFS series has become shit since they started to try to cram a story into there. It's a ****ing racer, it doesn't need a story! I really hope the cinema cycle of games is coming to an end soon. (Given that games like Singstar, Buzz, Nintendogs, Brain Training, Wii Sports are topping the charts, I just think we might be on our way.)

 

[Unison]

I prefer games that don't have distinct endings myself, for the most part. There are only so many lousy cut scenes you can sit through before wanting to get back to what gaming is really about.

Of course, I still play games like Final Fantasy XII and enjoy them, but really games without dominant stories will always be more attractive to me.

 

[Chris Remo]

Well, considering I now finish games incredibly less frequently than I used to, I guess I don't really remember that.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I rememeber those days. I liked them, although I like games with endings, too.

In a way, game pricing came about because of those games. You were buying a "home version" of an arcade game with theoretically infinite replayability, or an original home game designed to be similarly infinite. Had games had endings fron the very start, I think the pricing structure of games (and the way the business evolved) would be completely different.

Ironically, games withoug endings are now a lot cheaper (shareware, PSN/XBLA) than games with endings. But games with endings have grown increasingly high-production to justify their price and compete for consumers' attention.

 

[Haunted]

@Haunted_One : I'm not sure what you imply by that. Could you clarify, please ?

People are buying the Burger King games to get their achievement points, no matter how shitty the game is, they're playing it, not to have fun, but to get their points. This is a progression from the trend the OP noticed.

There are people starting to buy games based on how easy its achievements are, buying several region-versions of the game to finish their achievements. I just felt the example was tying into the topic.

 

[Haunted]

Ironically, games withoug endings are now a lot cheaper (shareware, PSN/XBLA) than games with endings. But games with endings have grown increasingly high-production to justify their price and compete for consumers' attention.

Exactly. We have almost arrived at a point where we're saying. 'This game is worth less because it is not a cinematic experience.'

 

[Gio_CoD]

There are still games out there like that. Currently, I'm trying like hell to beat the fifth level of Super Star Soldier for the VC. If there's a story to this game, I don't have any idea what the hell it is. I'm just having fun trying to shoot and dodge. It's exhilerating to navigate your way through a maze of bullets and enemies, knowing that one shot is going to kill you and make you start over, and finally get past it. I must have played the boss of level 4 twenty times or more, and when I finally beat his ass, I felt a sense of accomplishment I haven't felt in a LONG time in video games.

But then on the flip side of that coin, Twilight Princess is probably the best game I've ever played in my life, and you certainly can't play that without finishing it.

 

[BirdFlu]

It's always about finishing the game. The quality of the experience just determines whether or not you'll get there and how much you'll accomplish on the way to that goal

 

[Haunted]

There are still games out there like that. Currently, I'm trying like hell to beat the fifth level of Super Star Soldier for the VC.

Of course there are, although Super Star Soldier is from 1990, so it's maybe not the best example.

 

[fresquito]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

Maybe it's not in the games, maybe it's in us. But nowadays you need a racer to have 200 unlockable cars. A sport title to have a helluva of cups. A platformer to have a thousand hidden items. Otherwise you wouldn't play them for long.

You need an adventure or action game to last 15 hours, otherwise you'll get past it and never look back. Maybe game designers have adapted to the way people play, maybe people have adapted to the way games are designed. But I fondly remember playing games over and over again, just because it was fun. Never caring if I saw the ending or not.

So to say, in gaming these days it's more like the goal is finishing the game, while for me playing should be the goal itself.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Regarding the "people will buy games for achievement points", er so what? If that's what they want out of gaming, that's their prerogative.
And please don't be silly by asking for "the end" of cinematic experiences in games. There's room for both.

Playing is required to achieve the goal, though. If people want to replay games to get better or just experience as many different gaming experiences as possible, what's the problem?

 

[Gio_CoD]

Of course there are, although Super Star Soldier is from 1990, so it's maybe not the best example.

Lol, good point. Though, it is a fantastic reason to buy a Wii. I never owned a Turbografx, so all these games are brand new releases to me.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

Lol, good point. Though, it is a fantastic reason to buy a Wii. I never owned a Turbografx, so all these games are brand new releases to me.

I'm honestly surprised, given your avatar! :O

 

[Lumine]

:lol Yeah they're called MMORPG's and I've always craved for an ending after a while.

 

[Haunted]

Regarding the "people will buy games for achievement points", er so what? If that's what they want out of gaming, that's their prerogative.
And please don't be silly by asking for "the end" of cinematic experiences in games. There's room for both.

Playing is required to achieve the goal, though. If people want to replay games to get better or just experience as many different gaming experiences as possible, what's the problem?

Yeah, it's all imo of course - ('Coming to an end = not being the dominant type anymore' I guess.) there's room for both (and more types of gaming/playing), but maybe I'd just like to have a bit more room for my preferred style of playing. Completely egoistical, I know.

 

[Gio_CoD]

I'm honestly surprised, given your avatar! :O

Oh, I've played Rondo. I'm just not allowed to talk about how I played it here. ;-)

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

Oh, I've played Rondo. I'm just not allowed to talk about how I played it here. ;-)

I see!

Though I do own a TG16....that also is the only way I have experienced said game. ;-)

 

[Jiggy]

The VC is reminding me of it. But this part of your argument, however...

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.

Maybe it's not in the games, maybe it's in us. But nowadays you need a racer to have 200 unlockable cars. A sport title to have a helluva of cups. A platformer to have a thousand hidden items. Otherwise you wouldn't play them for long.

I don't quite understand. That sounds like pure gameplay to me in the way that you seem to be lamenting the loss of--"playing games over and over again." If that's not what unlockables do, I'm not exactly sure what does... But perhaps that's only because of my own interpretation, which is that people aren't playing repeatedly for the specific sake of completionism but rather than completionism and rewards are a bonus that weren't factored into older games.

 

[TekunoRobby]

I blame Achievement Points.

 

[Campster]

When did we go wrong?

I remember playing games for the sole reason of having fun while playing. It wasn't about completing a dungeon, it wasn't about rescuing a princess, it wasn't about beating an evil boss. It was about fighting, about jumping, about shooting. Why most games these days focus on what you have to do instead of focusing on what you're doing?

Because games these days aren't about the game, they're about the content. We want you to experience all 15 levels, see every piece of expensive scripted animation or voice-acted conversation. Content is the carrot at the end of the stick. Games are expensive, and we can't let the fact that you want to play let our millions of dollars of content go to waste. These days people play through a game once in the most brute force way possible, see all the stupid, expensive crap, and return it to the store. It's a goddamned shame.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Well, unless the game lacks an ending, I think we all play games to finish them. As for the folks that are about rushing through a game to get to the next one that they will rush through so they can get to the next one...well, those folks have been around ever since games had an ending. Heck, I remember in the schoolyard people kept a running count of how many NES games they had beaten, it was like a badge of honour. And of course there are people today who savour the heck out of an individual game instead of chewing through them rapidly. Mostly kids and husbands who have to make the few games they're allowed last, but there they are.

Perhaps the change you are noticing is within you?

 

[Orodreth]

I´m playing Viva Piñata just for fun. I enjoy wandering around looking at them and just making little changes.

I still have 8 achievements left and lots of pinatas to get. Eventually i´ll get them but i really play just for fun. After the first month it has lost the incredible level of adiction it had in the first levels but now the pace is slower and i find it much more relaxing.

 

[BobJustBob]

Remember when games were about being played and not about being finished?

Do I remember today? Yes I do.

 

[Borys]

How can one play adventure games or RPGs not for finishing them? They have a story, an end boss, and ending. I can understand jumping around in Mario or doing some laps in Need for Speed but Final Fantasy? Monkey Island?

 

[Roi]

"Remember the old days?"

 

[Dr_Cogent]

I play my games to finish them. If they aren't fun, I stop playing.

Simple as that.

 

[NintendosBooger]

I remember back in the day when I always looked forward to the next level/quest. These days, with large scale developments focused on cut-scenes and scripts, I just want to see to see the end of the finishing line.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Haunted_One: I think we already *are* at the point of saying a game is worth less if it's not cinematic. No almost about it.

To the original point-- I think the GTA games handle this very well, and are yet another reason for the mass appeal. You can play through the games as stories, and they're pretty satisfying, or you can just take a car out for some driving mayhem.

 

[TheJesusFactor]

Games these days are padded with bad gameplay. I think the main reason for this is the pressure to make them long. Lost planet?

 

[Link316]

this is what makes GTA so great

 

[Chairman Yang]

Because games these days aren't about the game, they're about the content. We want you to experience all 15 levels, see every piece of expensive scripted animation or voice-acted conversation. Content is the carrot at the end of the stick. Games are expensive, and we can't let the fact that you want to play let our millions of dollars of content go to waste. These days people play through a game once in the most brute force way possible, see all the stupid, expensive crap, and return it to the store. It's a goddamned shame.

Sadly, a lot of games AREN'T even about the content, but about the grind to get to that content. The majority of MMORPGs fall into this category.

 

[RevenantKioku]

Yeah, it's all imo of course - ('Coming to an end = not being the dominant type anymore' I guess.) there's room for both (and more types of gaming/playing), but maybe I'd just like to have a bit more room for my preferred style of playing. Completely egoistical, I know.

Well, I'm a big fan of asking for what I want from games, but I'm still not seeing your point.
Games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, for example, follow that typical "play to beat, cinematics and story ahoy" and yet I am able to get many playthroughs out of each one.
You can see tons of speed runs, restricted plays and other such tactics used by players, so it's not just the game, but how the player plays the game.

Sadly, a lot of games AREN'T even about the content, but about the grind to get to that content. The majority of MMORPGs fall into this category.

Actually, I blame the players in this case.
I'll be playing WoW, and one of my friends asks what I doing. I respond with the name of a quest that I thought was fun, and I get something like "that's not going to optimize your character, you should be doing X, Y then Z to get the best out of your character."

 

[Martial Loh]

To the original point-- I think the GTA games handle this very well, and are yet another reason for the mass appeal. You can play through the games as stories, and they're pretty satisfying, or you can just take a car out for some driving mayhem.

Dead Rising does this pretty well to a certain extent.. I've played for a fair amount of time, dying and restarting, just for fun - ignoring the actual story completely.

 

[Campster]

Sadly, a lot of games AREN'T even about the content, but about the grind to get to that content. The majority of MMORPGs fall into this category.

This is unfortunately also true.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

I've always said that what usually ruins most MMOs isn't the game, it's the players. Competition really messes people up.

 

[fresquito]

Because games these days aren't about the game, they're about the content. We want you to experience all 15 levels, see every piece of expensive scripted animation or voice-acted conversation. Content is the carrot at the end of the stick. Games are expensive, and we can't let the fact that you want to play let our millions of dollars of content go to waste. These days people play through a game once in the most brute force way possible, see all the stupid, expensive crap, and return it to the store. It's a goddamned shame.

I think you sumed it up pretty nicely there.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

I think you sumed it up pretty nicely there.

I wish a lot of old games had content at the end, because of how hellishly difficult they were.

I think a lot are blowing things out of proportion. I could probably name a ton of games that had boatloads of content and gameplay. It seems like nostalgia and lack of interest are clouding peoples eyes *shrugs*.

 

[gutter_trash]

finish games was a faster task during the 8-bit, 16-bit era when they were more action packed and shorter

now games of today dumb you down with blablablbalal talking, text, fmv, lame puzzles and tacked on aspects ontop of the genre that has nothing to do with it (like tacking on stealth sequence in a hack-n-slasher game, stuff like that)

so finish games now is not the same as finishing games like back in the day

 

[fresquito]

I wish a lot of old games had content at the end, because of how hellishly difficult they were.

I think a lot are blowing things out of proportion. I could probably name a ton of games that had boatloads of content and gameplay. It seems like nostalgia and lack of interest are clouding peoples eyes *shrugs*.

Nostalgia has no room when you have a Wii and the VC is running high.

finish games was a faster task during the 8-bit, 16-bit era when they were more action packed and shorter

now games of today dumb you down with blablablbalal talking, text, fmv, lame puzzles and tacked on aspects ontop of the genre that has nothing to do with it (like tacking on stealth sequence in a hack-n-slasher game, stuff like that)

so finish games now is not the same as finishing games like back in the day

I agree. The question would be whether devs should concentrate more on what makes a game be good instead on trying to tackle lot of things without much thought. If more games today had less stupid things tackled would last half the time, and they'd be so much better in consequence. You wouldn't think twice to play the thing again just after seeing the ending credits.

I think this is why good multiplayer games have so much acceptance and lasting appeal. Because after you play a match, you don't need a silly excuse to play again. You play again because it was fun to play.

 

[Oldschoolgamer]

Nostalgia has no room when you have a Wii and the VC is running high.

Sadly, it still can.

I'm running late for work at the moment, so I'll post why I feel the way I do about the issue later.

 

[chriskzoo]

They're out there - they are called Xbox Live Arcade and PSN downloads.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

They're out there - they are called Xbox Live Arcade and PSN downloads.

And thank God for them.