packy34
Member
DOOM is proof that a moderate amount of GOOD content outweighs a ton of BAD content like say Fallout 4.
True. At least mods and DLC can fix Fallout 4 though. Far Harbor was a huge step in the right direction.
DOOM is proof that a moderate amount of GOOD content outweighs a ton of BAD content like say Fallout 4.
DOOM is proof that a moderate amount of GOOD content outweighs a ton of BAD content like say Fallout 4.
But nobody is saying that. More content doesn't mean a game is better does not mean that less content makes a game better.
DOOM is proof that a moderate amount of GOOD content outweighs a ton of BAD content like say Fallout 4.
I agree but I think the weirdest ones are the 'what happens in 150 years when the servers go down!? No buy' reasons.
That one is my all-time favorite concern.
"If it had offline bots, I would have been able to play this game in 2028"
The amount of content =/= how long the game will last you.
Between beta and retail, I think I've put about 25 hours into Overwatch. Every match still seems fresh and new, and I can easily imagine investing hundreds of hours into the game over the next five years. I know plenty of people that invested literally thousands and thousands of hours into DOTA. I know it has dozens and dozens of characters and items, but the total amount of content, relatively speaking, is not much.
Compare that to the average single player game, which you can usually finish in 10-20 hours and then you'll probably never replay.
If it's well-made and you enjoy it, online-only multiplayer games offer some of the best value for the money. By far.
It's not an exaggeration, people really write that "what about when servers go down in 10 years" and "I can still play Breakout on my Commodore 64"This is a bit of an exaggeration. More realistically:
- Someone brought up being able to play if their internet goes down. This can be done, for example, with TF2 bots. TF2 custom maps can also be used to practice certain techniques such as rocket jumping or aiming on the run.
- EA, for example, has taken down online game servers in as little as 1.5 years. This is a lot less than 12 years. Blizzard has a better record, but consumers have a right to be wary in my opinion.
This attitude came around with Titan fall, battlefront, evolve, battle born, halo 5, street fighter 5, and now Overwatch.
The attitude that content is king and if a game falls short in that way, any other successes or any of its own goals that it met are secondary and the game fails as a whole.
I think the people who take this attitude are wrong and are doing harm to good developers attempting to put good products out in most cases.
None of the games listed above were cheap to make or cheaper than what those teams made 7 years ago.
None of them were able to reuse content in any meaningfully budget cutting way.
And none of those games lied ahead of launch about what content was in their game. On launch day potential buyers could be informed about what the game was.
Taking this attitude that Overwatch isnt worth money because it doesn't have single player or Titan fall isn't worth it because it doesn't have campaign or halo 5 isn't worth it because it's missing some mode that was in halo 3 8 years ago is doing a lot of harm to titles that are really well made and worthwhile purchases.
Now there's the case of evolve, which had numerous other issues around dlc and game balance, and I fault no one for skipping that one. (I never bought it) and of course people can skip a game for whatever reason they want. It's this wave of outrage and snark that certain games get because a certain group thinks they are low on "content" and the people buying them are somehow eroding the value of games and they're just dumb sheep paying $60 for a multiplayer or online game.
I think it's much worse to expect every game to spend another 7 or 10 million to develop a halfway decent campaign or Co op or cobble together something from multiplayer assets.
I just think that this "content concern" attitude needs to be dialed back and let's focus on quality of game play and how much fun is the game. It's a very old way of looking at games to me or a childish way. I remember being a 13 year old looking for Playstation rpgs that were 50 hours and being so impressed by that. But thats no what every game can or should do anymore.
Sure. But if someone paid a full $10-15 for a movie that turned out to only be 20 minutes long, they'd probably be more than a little upset.
It's about balance. Yes, the people who demand that every game provide 100+ hours of entertainment are ridiculous, but no more so than the people saying that it's perfectly acceptable for a game to lack the absolute bare minimum of game modes and still charge full price.
I don't understand this point.None of them were able to reuse content in any meaningfully budget cutting way.
Like most things its about expectations.its more like i'd rather watch an episode of classic simpsons 100 times than ever watch mortal kombat annihilation once
A good game will satisfy with the level of content it provides, if it can't then it's simply not designed properly. Common sense.
Online multiplayer game mode should always be a bonus or separate thing , not the main focus of a game IMHO.
You better charge less than $60 if you want me to play your barebones game.
The price vs content tho.
My general rule of thumb is that a game should either be filled to the brim with content, or else highly replayable. A game that does both is legendary. A game that does neither better be damn cheap.Games with campaigns that have 4 hours of story content or less should be ashamed.
This is just dumb. Developers can develop whatever the fuck they want.
This attitude came around with Titan fall, battlefront, evolve, battle born, halo 5, street fighter 5, and now Overwatch.
The attitude that content is king and if a game falls short in that way, any other successes or any of its own goals that it met are secondary and the game fails as a whole.
I think the people who take this attitude are wrong and are doing harm to good developers attempting to put good products out in most cases.
None of the games listed above were cheap to make or cheaper than what those teams made 7 years ago.
None of them were able to reuse content in any meaningfully budget cutting way.
And none of those games lied ahead of launch about what content was in their game. On launch day potential buyers could be informed about what the game was.
Taking this attitude that Overwatch isnt worth money because it doesn't have single player or Titan fall isn't worth it because it doesn't have campaign or halo 5 isn't worth it because it's missing some mode that was in halo 3 8 years ago is doing a lot of harm to titles that are really well made and worthwhile purchases.
What's with the attitude that some people think they know better than me what I should spent my money on ?
I judge the game on the amount of content and quality of content. If quality is there but there's no enough quantity I leave the game till it's price is reduced to the point I find acceptable.
And speaking about multiplayer only games - I can get World of tanks/ AW/LOL/DOTA2/Hearthstone/MWO etc. for free and not spend a single dollar in them for hundreds of hours of entertainment. Why would I pay 40-60$ for bare bones multiplayer with 10 or so maps compared to those titles?
All I'm getting from all these Overwatch threads is that the issue isn't as much lack of content as it is "how dare these games have content that doesn't interest me".
Why are we ignoring the role of the publisher in all this, who is mandating the developer remove content to hit shipping deadlines?
As a consumer I want a robust offline single player aspect of any game. If you as a dev/pub cannot provide that, fine. But don't expect me to give you my money. Your concerns are not my concerns, my concerns are not yours.
Give me the product I want or I will go to the person who does instead. It's that simple.
I honestly think that whole mentality is just a hangover from a period where Call of Duty dominated the market. We'll get out of it, and it doesn't seem like it's anything more than a vocal minority of people complaining. Battlefront's sales certainly didn't suffer much from the warnings given before it released.
Sure. But if someone paid a full $10-15 for a movie that turned out to only be 20 minutes long, they'd probably be more than a little upset.
It's about balance. Yes, the people who demand that every game provide 100+ hours of entertainment are ridiculous, but no more so than the people saying that it's perfectly acceptable for a game to lack the absolute bare minimum of game modes and still charge full price.
For me it is not about more content it is about content i want to play. For example Overwatch has really interesting characters and lore that i would like to see in real story driven experience instead of walls of text and hidden lore. Same goes for Star Wars Battlefornt. I am waiting for a good SW game with battlefront visuals and sound for a long time and i will still wait because EA will push Battlefront 2 before their first SP game.
Some of us enjoy in story driven games and single player campaigns and when we see potential for good and interesting story we express our opinion how we would love to see it.