• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Will the AAA industry ever go back shoter and more replayable games?

AmuroChan

Member
Single player-only games? No chance. The reality is that the most vocal of gamers out there will only measure value with game length. If a dev makes a AAA single-player game that is 6 hours long, those gamers are going to make sure every person on social media knows that the game is not worth buying, regardless of its quality or replayability.
 
Last edited:

Zeroing

Banned
Single player-only games? No chance. The reality is that the most vocal of gamers out there will only measure value with game length. If a dev makes a AAA single-player game that is 6 hours long, those gamers are going to make sure every person on social media knows that the game is not worth buying, regardless of its quality or replayability.
True and definitely a console wars thing - single player games are becoming something viewed as “bad” or “not worth it” the same way any game make by indies were viewed as “trash” or “filler”


and some will make sure to even add “will wait when it’s free on [advertise my fav service]

This is how we gamers measure games worth, metacritic needs to be 90, below is trash and not worth any money, if the game is 90 and sells well some will say is overhyped and so on…
 

sainraja

Member
Given todays announcemnt of the Max Payne remakes made me nostalgic about what big games used to be. As many of you I grew up playing games that could be finished easily on a rainy weekend. Games like RE, Silent Hill, Max Payne, Legacy of Kain, Metal Gear Solid.... You know, games that when I finished them actually left me longing for more and then replayed the shit out of them. I really can't remember when was the last time I played a modern game that made me wish for more. Most of todays game are so bloody long and bloated that most of the time I just wish for them to end long before they actually do, let along wish for more after I see the credits.

In addition, all this really makes it hard for me to care about game stories. I used to have a couple of series where I was constantly looking forward to the next sequels because I wanted to know what happens next. No modern game series evokes my curiousity when it comes to story.

Anyone with me on this? I know there are still shorter games out there and all, but none of those count to the big ones. I dig the occasional sand box game like every other bloke out there but man... there's too many of those by now.

Aren't those kinda games also more interesting to devs? Can be done faster and are genereally more creative.

What do you think? Will I have to stick to Remasters and Remakes for years to come or will people get sick of the bloat one day?
Naughtydog seems to be the only one who has really focused on games like that and tried taking them further but what they might do in the future is TBD.
Everyone seems to want everything to be open world. Ugh.
 

gcwy

Banned
Shorter AND replayable games? That makes no sense. For me, the larger the game is, the more replayability it's going to have. If you play MGR once you already know everything in that game. You're telling me you're going to sit through those long ass cutscenes rather explore something new in a bigger, open world game? I'm glad we don't live in 2012 where every game was MW2 clone with 8 hour campaigns no more.
 

NahaNago

Member
unfortunately, folks are now conditioned that for the price tag of 60 and above the game should be 30 hours and above. I'm guessing this is the reason why a lot of big blockbuster movies all try to hit around that 2 hour mark since folks won't feel like they got their moneys worth if it is less than that.

I do agree that in the past (ps1 era) I wanted games to be longer because I loved the games I played so much I just wanted to keep playing them but now I just groan when I see games getting longer and longer to beat.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
unfortunately, folks are now conditioned that for the price tag of 60 and above the game should be 30 hours and above. I'm guessing this is the reason why a lot of big blockbuster movies all try to hit around that 2 hour mark since folks won't feel like they got their moneys worth if it is less than that.

I do agree that in the past (ps1 era) I wanted games to be longer because I loved the games I played so much I just wanted to keep playing them but now I just groan when I see games getting longer and longer to beat.
Yup.

AAA games set the standard for $60 or $70. And if that means big scope, big production values or tons of MP modes, then all the B tier games have to man up. Or sell for $40 or less.

But gaming is something where a $30 difference in games isn't enough to make people avoid $70 games. Gamers will still skew to the CODs, GTA, AC, FIFA of the world even though they can probably get a shittier shooter or sports game for $30. People will pay the $40 difference.

It's not like millions of people buying cheap Corolla and Civics over BMWs because there's a $50,000 price difference.
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Member
most of the games that are on my "favorites of all time" list are beaten in under 20 hours. Castlevania SOTN, Megaman X4, Cave Story, Resident Evil 4, Sonic 3 and knuckles, list goes on. Very few of them cross the 15 hour mark
Shorter more replayable experiences are infintely more interesting and engaging to me than long as hell experiences that drag on and on and on and on and on. I like big ambitious open worlds, they can be fun and engaging RPGs. but EVERY game being a big ambitious open world doesn't make it big and ambitious anymore. it makes them tedious. this is exactly why i DREAD 2022. every major release out this year will almost certainly be open world. not to mention the fact that 99% of open worlds nowadays take too much from skyrim and not enough from infamous & GTA
 
Last edited:

64bitmodels

Member
The longer games offer more variety in play. I can experience different things on a 2nd playthrough of witcher 3 or something like Divinity Original sin 2.
Shorter games are more fun though. it's not just that shorter games are more replayable, they're more replayable for a reason. They're better designed. most longer games not only are insanely long but they have the most overwhelmingly chore like gameplay to go with it. Shorter games on the other hand hit you like a truck with their gameplay and design since they focus more on the experience rather than the length. No 80 hour game has gameplay like Max Payne, or Prince of Persia, or Mario 64, or whatever other legendary game you can insert here.
 

tommib

Member
Single player-only games? No chance. The reality is that the most vocal of gamers out there will only measure value with game length. If a dev makes a AAA single-player game that is 6 hours long, those gamers are going to make sure every person on social media knows that the game is not worth buying, regardless of its quality or replayability.
No one was complaining when RE: Village came out last year. Or Ratchet. Or Dread.
 

EDMIX

Member
greedy fucks cut out content so early on to save it as DLC
This type of comment doesn't really make a whole lot of sense because there's a lot of things you need to understand about how that process works and about ownership in the first place

What you're saying is not owed to you because it becomes a moot point the more DLC becomes a normal thing, let me explain it to you

if you have downloadable content become a big thing let's say during the PlayStation 3 / 360 generation, then you might argue that such a concept has taken developers by surprise and they decided to cut content to sell it as downloadable content based on some new trend

Why would they do that the next following Generations? There is nothing to benefit them in fact it makes more sense to simply just to make a separate team that's making downloadable content to be released afterwards as in there already developing content to sell post-launch that was never going to be in the game anyway...

So how can you cut something that was never supposed to be in the final game because it was always planned to be sold after the fact?

This means what you're arguing as "cut" would never make sense because it was never intentional to be sold within the main product anyway that would be like trying to argue if you writing a book and you decide to make a specific story arc in the sequel that you cut out something from the book that was supposed to go to the consumer but you are the one that decides where that content goes... how can I tell you what it is or isn't supposed to be in a book you wrote? Do you not see how fucking stupid that sort of sounds?

Sooooo this entire cut content thing sounds a little bit ridiculous and like supreme entitlement. So you telling me you can prove AC Valhalla was really "supposed" to be 400 hours long or some shit for $60?

A great example to disprove this shit instantly....BFV and 2042 have all free maps....you can not BUY a fucking map, its FUCKING FREE soooo how on Earth is it taking them so long and to whose benefit sir? Cut it out, ohhhh but its not ready? doesn't that mean it wasn't cut at all? How does it help them to have it come out months later? You can't even fucking argue a "Greed" thing cause its FREE and its still taking time for it to release, so I don't know what to tell you man, this just sounds like teams are hired to make DLC that had no plans of ever being in the final game and only as post launch content, not "cut out". Using this fucking logic, 2042 should have been the most jam packed BF to release, I mean no fucking paid DLC right? Shouldn't that mean zero cut? They make no money from the fucking maps lol
, now games NEED DLC to continue to make money, greedy devs aren't happy with a single big payout anymore.


In regards to the comment about games and beating DLC in my opinion has nothing to do with greed and more to do with the price of game stay in the same for almost 15 years what the fuck did you really expect to happen with such a model? So you're telling me they should want to spend more money and more time to put in more content with more complex technology to make less fucking money?

Would you?

Think about what you do and think about where you work now imagine if you were getting paid the exact same price for 15 years and your employer started to ask you every 5 years or so to do more difficult ass shit with more complex features. This is something that's not sustainable and if anybody wanted to avoid that entire situation in my personal opinion last generation we should have had the price of the base of games to increase because the trade-off needs to come somewhere it needs to fucking make sense mathematically you cannot just keep asking for cheap fucking games and then get surprised that companies actually want to make a return.

This is not a fucking charity man...

Shorter AND replayable games? That makes no sense. For me, the larger the game is, the more replayability it's going to have. If you play MGR once you already know everything in that game. You're telling me you're going to sit through those long ass cutscenes rather explore something new in a bigger, open world game? I'm glad we don't live in 2012 where every game was MW2 clone with 8 hour campaigns no more.

^ Agreed. For the most part, thats how it is with me. Lots of titles have great replayability like the Resident Evil games or the DMC games, but that just isn't the norm and I find the majority of games that have this concept dones well tend to be longer games like RPGs.

So in terms of shorter with replayable features, it depends on the game, but not everyone makes their games like Capcom or Sony with a bunch of extras and shit after a mode is complete or something lol
 
Last edited:

Zeroing

Banned
Well this is not nostalgia when it is still the present for me, and many others. We can easily make the comparisons and see what has been lost along the years.
So you do not want things to become more like it was in the past? Because that is what I was talking about
I think most of you view of nostalgia as being something negative. Hmm could it be I am using the wrong word? English is not my first language so might be…
 

ZywyPL

Gold Member
Looking at recent UE5 event, I'm afraid it'll only get worse and AAA games will be 200-300h long due to even bigger worlds. 30-40$ AA/indie games are where you'll get high quality 6-12h experience.
 
So you do not want things to become more like it was in the past? Because that is what I was talking about
I think most of you view of nostalgia as being something negative. Hmm could it be I am using the wrong word? English is not my first language so might be…
I personally like progress, it gets rough for some but it is what it is. The good old days weren't that great for the most part. Nostalgia is a personal thing where the good memories override the rest. Time waits for no man, especially when they're wearing rose tinted glasses.
 

cireza

Member
So you do not want things to become more like it was in the past?
As far as I am concerned, it was better in the past, so the answer is yes (as I previously stated).

But this has nothing to do with nostalgia. Nostalgia is related to memories of things that tend to make you see them as better than they really were. These are not memories though, as I actively play on Xbox OG, Game Gear, Mega-CD, Saturn etc... today. As well as modern consoles. I still have a CRT sitting next to my HD TV.

Nostalgia does make some games better than they were, and you quickly realize this when you actually boot these games again. But for a lot of them, they are still perfect to this day.

People are binary. They tend to think that the road to progress is the only one, and that nothing is ever lost along this road. This is entirely wrong. As always, some things improve, but others are left on the side of the road. The accumulation of things lost eventually makes for a big difference, and this is how modern day games were shaped and why you don't see AAA games like Outrun 2 or Panzer Dragoon Orta today, two absolute masterpieces. And I am only naming two Xbox OG games here.
 
Last edited:
As far as I am concerned, it was better in the past, so the answer is yes (as I previously stated).

But this has nothing to do with nostalgia. Nostalgia is related to memories of things that tend to make you see them as better than they really were. These are not memories though, as I actively play on Xbox OG, Game Gear, Mega-CD, Saturn etc... today. As well as modern consoles. I still have a CRT sitting next to my HD TV.

Nostalgia does make some games better than they were, and you quickly realize this when you actually boot these games again. But for a lot of them, they are still perfect to this day. People are binary. They tend to think that the road to progress is the only one, and that nothing is ever lost along this road. This is entirely wrong. As always, some things improve, but others are left on the side of the road. The accumulation of things lost eventually makes for a big difference, and this is how modern day games were shaped and why you don't see AAA games like Outrun 2 or Panzer Dragoon Orta today, two absolute masterpieces. And I am only naming two Xbox OG games here.
What was better about the past? I'm genuinely curious.
 
As far as I am concerned, it was better in the past, so the answer is yes (as I previously stated).

But this has nothing to do with nostalgia. Nostalgia is related to memories of things that tend to make you see them as better than they really were. These are not memories though, as I actively play on Xbox OG, Game Gear, Mega-CD, Saturn etc... today. As well as modern consoles. I still have a CRT sitting next to my HD TV.

Nostalgia does make some games better than they were, and you quickly realize this when you actually boot these games again. But for a lot of them, they are still perfect to this day.

People are binary. They tend to think that the road to progress is the only one, and that nothing is ever lost along this road. This is entirely wrong. As always, some things improve, but others are left on the side of the road. The accumulation of things lost eventually makes for a big difference, and this is how modern day games were shaped and why you don't see AAA games like Outrun 2 or Panzer Dragoon Orta today, two absolute masterpieces. And I am only naming two Xbox OG games here.
Well said. I daresay that even today the only thing that holds back the older games and make you think of nostaliga when playing them are graphics and, especially, controls. Not game design. This was one big thing I noticed when I bought and played many older games 1-2 years back. Game design was usually superb and fun but the controls made if very difficult for me to play some one them because of how much games improved in this regard ever since.
 

cireza

Member
What was better about the past?
The answer is for you to find, not for someone to give it you. Experience some older games by yourself, on a good CRT TV. Play some Outrun 2 or Panzer Dragoon Orta for example. If you can't get this experience, accept that you don't know rather than dismissing everything.
 

Me twicw

Neo Member
Love the point of this post.
Many times I, ve thought about the idea of companies to create short AAA games
for like 30 euros. Short, fun, and stunning experiences that you can end in like a weekend or less.
 

EDMIX

Member
How long was The Last Guardian? I need to play it still. Ico and SOTC could be completed super quick.

Around 11 hours or so, I beat it in something like 15 hours, but I know many that beat it around 10, 11, 12 etc. I recall many saying how short it was, but for what it is..I think its more then enough.
 
The answer is for you to find, not for someone to give it you. Experience some older games by yourself, on a good CRT TV. Play some Outrun 2 or Panzer Dragoon Orta for example. If you can't get this experience, accept that you don't know rather than dismissing everything.
Miss me with the condescending bullshit. If you ain't played Zillion don't act like big dick willy in this bitch. None of what you said tells me what was better just two old games you like. I like Alien Syndrome, but I'm not trying to go back to the master system Era to relive my childhood. You probably think he-man was better than current kids cartoons.
 

EDMIX

Member
Experience some older games by yourself, on a good CRT TV. Play some Outrun 2 or Panzer Dragoon Orta for example. If you can't get this experience, accept that you don't know rather than dismissing everything.
I'm definitely going to have to agree with swipey on this one.

Your post doesn't even really help your argument I would argue it more so hurts it by simply just telling us games you personally like all of this is completely nostalgic, it is very difficult for anybody to take seriously.

All that's just telling me is that you like some old game.

Let me tell you something sir there's a fuckton of old games that I like as to why I still keep all my older systems and why I usually have some older games in rotation as I'm actually currently playing through Xenosaga 3.

However I cannot make any argument definitively about something being better in the past without being able to properly quantify what I'm talking about I simply can't just tell you how much I liked something and profess my love for it as if that's somehow truly proving some interesting point about the industry that's just telling you I like a game.

If we were to make a real discussion about this I don't see many arguing points that actually support the design of games being better in the past because a lot of the same people that made games before are still alive making games right now and I just have a hard time believing that with the technology to update patch and correct issues that the past those issues and a limited options is to be seen as "better".

So telling someone to get a c r t TV to play your favorite old games doesn't mean they're going to see what you're talkin about as better...

Sir you're literally talking to a person that lived in that generation and owns multiple generations of older systems...I don't agree.

And please stop with the condescending nature of your post stop trying to fucking argue that someone needed to play with that CTR TV and play Panzer Dragoon to believe you or agree with you I played the very same game and I don't agree with you..

Xeaker Xeaker for me, it depends on the game. I'd say most of my top 10 favorite games of all time are short, but its not to say I don't have a few that are longer RPG titles. So if I like the game and its designed well and has a lot of different things to do, I don't mind 100 hours, I think 100 hours only sucks if the game is bad in the first place lol
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Miss me with the condescending bullshit. If you ain't played Zillion don't act like big dick willy in this bitch. None of what you said tells me what was better just two old games you like. I like Alien Syndrome, but I'm not trying to go back to the master system Era to relive my childhood. You probably think he-man was better than current kids cartoons.
And EDMIX EDMIX as well.

So what should I do ? A complete list of all the games and consoles I have and why I find them still perfectly fine nowadays ? I don't have the time right now to go into so much detail.

Why wouldn't you go back to playing Master System ? It is an awesome console, picture is fantastic through SCART RGB on my CRT, I replay often Power Strike II on this console. Timeless game. There are many others like this that I still enjoy to this. I always preferred Sonic 1 and 2 on MS to the MD games, I find that they are much more fun, well designed and perfectly playable even today. Asterix, Castle of Illusion, Dragon's Trap etc...

I could go on like this will all my old consoles and how a ton of games perfectly stand the test of time. How is this going to help convince you of anything ?

I largely prefer how these old games were designed compared to today. They were simpler, not bloated with stuff, provided great fun. This is something that was lost in time, especially on the bigger games. More variety as well.

If you don't play on CRT anymore, you most probably don't remember all the advantages of this type of display over modern technology. Softer picture, perfect motion resolution. It was perfect for 2D games, and great for 30fps games as well. Modern TVs are especially bad for 2D scrolling, leading to a ton of blur.

And I don't think that current cartoons suck or whatever. I simply live in both worlds, I watch older movies and series as well as the most recent ones. Isn't it possible to enjoy both ?

So telling someone to get a c r t TV to play your favorite old games doesn't mean they're going to see what you're talkin about as better...
There is no other way to understand (or remember). Just as you cannot understand what VR brings to the table as long as you haven't experienced it yourself.
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Member
And EDMIX EDMIX as well.

So what should I do ? A complete list of all the games and consoles I have and why I find them still perfectly fine nowadays ? I don't have the time right now to go into so much detail.

Why wouldn't you go back to playing Master System ? It is an awesome console, picture is fantastic through SCART RGB on my CRT, I replay often Power Strike II on this console. Timeless game. There are many others like this that I still enjoy to this. I always preferred Sonic 1 and 2 on MS to the MD games, I find that they are much more fun, well designed and perfectly playable even today. Asterix, Castle of Illusion, Dragon's Trap etc...

I could go on like this will all my old consoles and how a ton of games perfectly stand the test of time. How is this going to help convince you of anything ?

I largely prefer how these old games were designed compared to today. They were simpler, not bloated with stuff, provided great fun. This is something that was lost in time, especially on the bigger games. More variety as well.

If you don't play on CRT anymore, you most probably don't remember all the advantages of this type of display over modern technology. Softer picture, perfect motion resolution. It was perfect for 2D games, and great for 30fps games as well. Modern TVs are especially bad for 2D scrolling, leading to a ton of blur.

And I don't think that current cartoons suck or whatever. I simply live in both worlds, I watch older movies and series as well as the most recent ones. Isn't it possible to enjoy both ?


There is no other way to understand (or remember). Just as you cannot understand what VR brings to the table as long as you haven't experienced it yourself.

nothing to do with nostalgia


yea....sooooo basically nostalgia =)

Nothing you stated even with the objective stuff is true btw.

Bloated games existed for eons, where the fuck did you think that collect'a'ton shit came from?


Not bloated you say? lol the fuck?

We factually have more variety right now, more genres exist and types of games exist right now then any other time in gaming.

Your fucking feelings on CRT or jerking off over "Master" system isn't going to change that, thus...your view is just too emotional and based on nostalgia.

You are simply unable to separate yourself from that feeling to objectively really give a solid answer, to the point of fucking making up shit that easily can be debunked in mere seconds...smh
 

sainraja

Member
The nostalgia argument is a tired one.

I am actively discovering new retro games, in 2022. I find some awesome ones, and I find some stinkers. Just like modern games.

But to find out that a retro game is a stinker... It's a very quick process. Since in a lot of retro games you get thrown into the gameplay right away, you can tell easily within the first 10-15 minutes if the game is good or if it sucks. For long-ass modern games, within the first 15-20 minutes I haven't even done a single video game action, let alone finding out if the game is good or sucks. For a lot of these really long modern games it feels like it takes at least 1/2 hour to do anything significant from a gameplay perspective.
He was talking about nostalgia......that usually applies when you have played a game before and want to enjoy it again. If you are playing retro games now that you never played before, what are you nostalgic about?
You just missed out on those games and are going back to play those. I guess you have a different definition; because if you played games back then....you'd most likely have played the popular ones and wouldn't need to figure out if a game is a 'stinker' or not.

EDIT
I think I may have misunderstood you!
 
Last edited:

InfiniteCombo

Gold Member
All this talk of CRTs is not helping the main argument. [I'm a big retro gaming fan, with lots of original games and consoles; and often what I see "CRT" I cringe... because it's elitist, gatekeeping garbage that doesn't help anyone except maybe the person talking about CRTs because they somehow feel superior.] You can buy a used SNES Mini or Genesis Mini and even those things offer the 99% solution to get into the retro scene. Or, for purposes of this thread, see the main point being made: that games of old were shorter, and their shortness can directly lead to tighter, more focused experiences, which will often make the player want to replay them. And, ultimately, this desire has little to do with nostalgia.

The main advantage of shorter games is that they tend to force the developers to focus on the main gameplay loop. When people say "longer games feel padded out," what does it mean to me? That I spend a lot of time doing things that are not part of the main gameplay loop:
  1. Game size: Since a lot of these longer games tend to be fairly big in sheer size, I spend a lot of time just travelling from A to B. I know a lot of games have "fast travel" but often that feature is not unlocked until later, and fast travel is generally discouraged because the developers want you to encounter things (or even just admire the scenery) when going from A to B.
  2. Minigames: I don't have a problem with minigames at all. But often minigames are not part of the main gameplay loop; they tend to be different activities altogether. In some extreme cases [mainly thinking Witcher 3's "Gwent" card game] they are so substantial that the developers make them a stand-alone game of its own. The problem with this is that it often leads to a "jack of all trades but master of none" phenomenon where you have all of these possible activities, with all of them being passable or in some cases even good, but not great. Additionally, the player has their attention split into all of these possible activities, instead of doing the main thing you're supposed to do in the game.
  3. Repetitiveness/copy-and-paste: This is a tricky argument because, at some level, video games have been repetitive since the beginning of time. A legendary game like Super Mario Bros. only a very small variety of enemies, so enemies become repetitive after a while. But what's not repetitive about SMB is the level design; each level feels fresh and new, and a different challenge from the previous level that encourages the player to use different techniques and solutions to beat the level. When I say repetitiveness I mean shit like in Assassin's Creed, where you have to go to the same-looking fort, to kill the samey-looking assholes, in the same exact way, only to "liberate that zone" (or whatever term they use), and climb up the tower in the same way, to play the same exact sequence. And your reward for doing that same exact copy-and-paste activity? Congratulations, you now get 15,000 new markers for this area on your map. Have fun :cool: Someone will say, "oh it's easy to attack Assassin's Creed," and you may be right... but I've seen the same argument levied against the shrines in Breath of the Wild, for example.
  4. Fetch quests/collectables/etc: I want to address this specifically because EDMIX EDMIX brought up a good point about this earlier. Collectibles are not always bad; the "just go to this corner of this giant map and hope you find the collectible" -- that is bad. But some games with collectibles -- like Super Mario 3D World, Batman Arkham City, etc -- incorporate elements of the "main gameplay loop" into the collectable experience, which makes them good. But when it's collecting stuff just for the sake of collecting -- that's dumb and it's a form of shitty padding of long games.
Keep in mind, I have nothing against long games. I love Yakuza games, and more recently Red Dead Redemption 2 became one of my favorite games of all time. I'll get back to Witcher 3 this year but from the 50 hours or so I played last year, I absolutely loved it, it's a magnificent video game.
 

Dr Kaneda

Member
Even Elden Ring is too big and bloated with repeated bosses, crafting and plenty of weird additions.
I can replay Dark Souls 1,2,3 each in 20 hours or 30 if I go deep.
But for Elden Ring, you need as much time as for whole trilogy...

I never had nothing against 6-20 hours curated experience. I like to replay these games. Half-Life 2 did not needed to be 50 hours. Yet I still replayed it 10 times and found new stuff and details every time. And it's a 10 hour game.
Edit: and yes. I replayed Max Payne 2 last year. It's the best 5 hour game ever. You can play it 15 times and you find something new every time
If you know where to go, only do the mandatory content required to beat the game and don't get seriously hung up on any bosses then ER is still around a ~30 hour game. Probably less actually. I feel like it's good in that regard with the amount of truly optional content it has, so you can kinda of get the type of experience you want.

But I do agree with the point of your post and the premise of this thread. I generally prefer shorter more replayable games. "Generally" because there's nothing wrong with losing yourself and indulging in a long ass game every once in a while.
 

cireza

Member
because it's elitist, gatekeeping garbage that doesn't help anyone except maybe the person talking about CRTs because they somehow feel superior
Or you can give your various arguments without taking such a ridiculous attitude.

Nobody is feeling superior because they game on a CRT. However, things that we call "facts" have clearly demonstrated that it is a much better way to enjoy these games. Nobody is saying that it renders the act of playing these games through emulators on modern TVs pointless. It works as well, but it also has many issues and does not compare well to the original, intended experience.

If you are experiencing your retro games exclusively through emulators on modern TVs, you are not taking the best start.
 
Last edited:
And EDMIX EDMIX as well.

So what should I do ? A complete list of all the games and consoles I have and why I find them still perfectly fine nowadays ? I don't have the time right now to go into so much detail.

Why wouldn't you go back to playing Master System ? It is an awesome console, picture is fantastic through SCART RGB on my CRT, I replay often Power Strike II on this console. Timeless game. There are many others like this that I still enjoy to this. I always preferred Sonic 1 and 2 on MS to the MD games, I find that they are much more fun, well designed and perfectly playable even today. Asterix, Castle of Illusion, Dragon's Trap etc...

I could go on like this will all my old consoles and how a ton of games perfectly stand the test of time. How is this going to help convince you of anything ?

I largely prefer how these old games were designed compared to today. They were simpler, not bloated with stuff, provided great fun. This is something that was lost in time, especially on the bigger games. More variety as well.

If you don't play on CRT anymore, you most probably don't remember all the advantages of this type of display over modern technology. Softer picture, perfect motion resolution. It was perfect for 2D games, and great for 30fps games as well. Modern TVs are especially bad for 2D scrolling, leading to a ton of blur.

And I don't think that current cartoons suck or whatever. I simply live in both worlds, I watch older movies and series as well as the most recent ones. Isn't it possible to enjoy both ?


There is no other way to understand (or remember). Just as you cannot understand what VR brings to the table as long as you haven't experienced it yourself.

All I read was "I'm the gaming equivalent of 2010s hipsters" going out of your way to my 26" tube TV has superior image quality because of the imperfections. I played Defender, hell I have betamax copies of Thriller and Chinatown. I'm NEVER going back to that low resolution shit and I'm still rocking 1080p. Next thing you'll be telling me is leech therapy should be used instead of insulin.
 

cireza

Member

All I read was "I'm the gaming equivalent of 2010s hipsters" going out of your way to my 26" tube TV has superior image quality because of the imperfections. I played Defender, hell I have betamax copies of Thriller and Chinatown. I'm NEVER going back to that low resolution shit and I'm still rocking 1080p. Next thing you'll be telling me is leech therapy should be used instead of insulin.
I don't understand why you are so triggered by this.

You could be stating your opinion that old TVs and consoles don't interest you anymore without resorting to this kind of aggressive argument. You don't have to disrespect people that have a different opinion.

I am certainly not dismissing modern technology. However not everything is better with modern TVs, these are facts that have been largely documented and are very easy to witness. You can turn a blind eye on this if you want, but I don't understand the point of doing so. If you have no interest in older consoles and TVs, and are prefectly satisfied with LCD and OLED, then great. It doesn't mean that everything is better with these though.

Game-design is pretty much the same. Things have changed, but not everything is better.
 
Last edited:

greyshark

Member
Conceptually I would prefer shorter games that have better replayability. But we have far more availability today than we did 20-30 years ago. As an example I loved Octopath Traveler, and it's a game I absolutely would enjoy playing through again. Deep battle system that can be tinkered with in many different ways. But I also have a huge backlog of great games I want to play (and minimal time do it with life/kids/etc.). Given the choice of replaying Octopath vs. playing through Horizon Forbidden West I will choose playing the new game.
 
All this talk of CRTs is not helping the main argument. [I'm a big retro gaming fan, with lots of original games and consoles; and often what I see "CRT" I cringe... because it's elitist, gatekeeping garbage that doesn't help anyone except maybe the person talking about CRTs because they somehow feel superior.] You can buy a used SNES Mini or Genesis Mini and even those things offer the 99% solution to get into the retro scene. Or, for purposes of this thread, see the main point being made: that games of old were shorter, and their shortness can directly lead to tighter, more focused experiences, which will often make the player want to replay them. And, ultimately, this desire has little to do with nostalgia.

The main advantage of shorter games is that they tend to force the developers to focus on the main gameplay loop. When people say "longer games feel padded out," what does it mean to me? That I spend a lot of time doing things that are not part of the main gameplay loop:
  1. Game size: Since a lot of these longer games tend to be fairly big in sheer size, I spend a lot of time just travelling from A to B. I know a lot of games have "fast travel" but often that feature is not unlocked until later, and fast travel is generally discouraged because the developers want you to encounter things (or even just admire the scenery) when going from A to B.
  2. Minigames: I don't have a problem with minigames at all. But often minigames are not part of the main gameplay loop; they tend to be different activities altogether. In some extreme cases [mainly thinking Witcher 3's "Gwent" card game] they are so substantial that the developers make them a stand-alone game of its own. The problem with this is that it often leads to a "jack of all trades but master of none" phenomenon where you have all of these possible activities, with all of them being passable or in some cases even good, but not great. Additionally, the player has their attention split into all of these possible activities, instead of doing the main thing you're supposed to do in the game.
  3. Repetitiveness/copy-and-paste: This is a tricky argument because, at some level, video games have been repetitive since the beginning of time. A legendary game like Super Mario Bros. only a very small variety of enemies, so enemies become repetitive after a while. But what's not repetitive about SMB is the level design; each level feels fresh and new, and a different challenge from the previous level that encourages the player to use different techniques and solutions to beat the level. When I say repetitiveness I mean shit like in Assassin's Creed, where you have to go to the same-looking fort, to kill the samey-looking assholes, in the same exact way, only to "liberate that zone" (or whatever term they use), and climb up the tower in the same way, to play the same exact sequence. And your reward for doing that same exact copy-and-paste activity? Congratulations, you now get 15,000 new markers for this area on your map. Have fun :cool:Someone will say, "oh it's easy to attack Assassin's Creed," and you may be right... but I've seen the same argument levied against the shrines in Breath of the Wild, for example.
  4. Fetch quests/collectables/etc: I want to address this specifically because EDMIX EDMIX brought up a good point about this earlier. Collectibles are not always bad; the "just go to this corner of this giant map and hope you find the collectible" -- that is bad. But some games with collectibles -- like Super Mario 3D World, Batman Arkham City, etc -- incorporate elements of the "main gameplay loop" into the collectable experience, which makes them good. But when it's collecting stuff just for the sake of collecting -- that's dumb and it's a form of shitty padding of long games.
Keep in mind, I have nothing against long games. I love Yakuza games, and more recently Red Dead Redemption 2 became one of my favorite games of all time. I'll get back to Witcher 3 this year but from the 50 hours or so I played last year, I absolutely loved it, it's a magnificent video game.

Levels are exactly where SMB suffers from copy and paste syndrome at a point or two. About 5 stages are mirrors of others with slight rearrangements.
 
Unfortunately, I doubt it. Gamers are obsessed with padding, bloat, hundreds of hours in length and pointless fetch quests.
Silent hill shattered memories is a great 10 hour journey but would I have payed full price for it back in the day? Probably not.

You can't ask 60-70 €$ for short games. Just as you can't ask Gordon Ramsay prices for a big Mac.
 

InfiniteCombo

Gold Member
You can't ask 60-70 €$ for short games. Just as you can't ask Gordon Ramsay prices for a big Mac.
Not sure the Gordon Ramsay/Big Mac analogy is what you intended. Because if you intended it, what you're saying is that less playtime = lower quality. And that would be an absurd claim.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
There are long and varied games, long and repetitive games, short games with a lot of replayability, and short games with little replayability. I'm glad things like Elden Ring exist, and that it's not all just games you can beat in an afternoon like in the NES days.
 

RoadHazard

Gold Member
Not sure the Gordon Ramsay/Big Mac analogy is what you intended. Because if you intended it, what you're saying is that less playtime = lower quality. And that would be an absurd claim.

Quantity and quality aren't mutually exclusive. A game can have one or the other, neither or both. But a good game that takes me 70 hours to beat is a better value than a good game that takes me 7 hours to beat if they both cost $70.
 
Last edited:
Silent hill shattered memories is a great 10 hour journey but would I have payed full price for it back in the day? Probably not.

You can't ask 60-70 €$ for short games. Just as you can't ask Gordon Ramsay prices for a big Mac.
I think it depends on the quality of the game or if the game has any replay value. For example, I thought Kena was excellent and it was probably around 10 or 15 hours on average. I would of gladly paid full price for it. Returnal isn’t that long either from what I’ve heard, but it’s also excellent. I really think Kena and Returnal would of lost some of their appeal if they were 80 hours long.

Personally, I rather play a great 8 to 10 hour game for $60 to $70 over an average 100 game with plenty of filler. It could also be me where I sometimes lose interest in a very long game because I feel it just drags on or the gameplay isn’t compelling and fun enough to keep me playing.
 

InfiniteCombo

Gold Member
Quantity and quality aren't mutually exclusive. A game can have one or the other, neither or both.
Yes.
But a good game that takes me 70 hours to beat is a better value than a good game that takes me 7 hours to beat if they both cost $70.
That's your view, which I respect, but don't necessarily agree with.

Let's assume a top tier player can speedrun Sekiro in 2 hours. That same player has spent over 100 hours on Elden Ring. Does that player necessarily think that Elden Ring is a "better" value than Sekiro because a full playthrough takes orders of magnitude longer? Maybe, maybe not.

Putting people like OP and others that think like him (me) in this situation, we'd probably prefer Sekiro. Why? Because not only is a full, complete Elden Ring playthrough not a great time proposition (on an per completion basis), but also... To get to the point of beating Sekiro in 2 hours took A LOT of replay. Replay that is encouraged by a shorter running time and emphasis on a linear path and tight gameplay.
 
Top Bottom