585/600? What the heck kind of grading scale is that?!
Yeah, I've heard that it's really good, but I haven't gotten around to buying it yet. I'm sure I will eventually since I really like their previous game, KOTOR.
Oh no! I only have a few days before the game ships out, so I better frickin' preorder! I won't stand to have an... incomplete... version.
At the very least, I understand this game is actually a REAL XBox exclusive and Bioware is simply not allowed to port it to another system like the PC for instance. If I wasn't certain of that, then at this point I'd be waiting for the PC version :D.
Don't worry, the whole pre-order thing is bullshit. You can still buy the Halo 2 "limited edition" set for $30 at walmart.com.
I think I'll get this game. KOTOR dragged on for too long, so a shorter length is very welcome. I don't have time for 30+ hour games anymore.
"Welcome"? Well, it's not like you HAVE to play the whole thing. If it's getting too long for you, put the controller down. Trust me, later when you want to play that game again, you'll be glad there's more to do. KOTOR wasn't exactly long though, was it?
It wasn't really long for an RPG, only about 27 hours for me.
It was too long. Well, it was too boring. It held my interest for about 20 hours, and then I just got sick of it. What I'm saying is that I'd rather have quality over repetitive quantity. Since gamers are always demanding long-as-hell games, developers put more time into stretching out the gameplay as long as they can instead of concentrating on the best experience possible. I'd rather play ICO for 12 hours than all of the Final Fantasies for several hundred hours. And "just quitting" is stupid. I want to experience the entire game, from beginning to end.
KotOR is short, actually... just 40-something hours. I know Bioware agrees with you -- they have said multiple times "we will not be doing another Baldur's Gate II" -- but I don't like it. Sure, it takes a long time to get through a BGII. But it's so much fun, and it's so worth it... I spent 100 hours to beat BGII (not including expansion, I've been doing that quite slowly and am maybe 60% of the way through at somewhere between 30 and 50 hours) and it was one of the best gaming experiences I've had in years... KotOR? It's a bit short, but long enough that it's not a big problem. It's not a 25-hour game, after all. But this one... 22 hours? Now THAT is short for an RPG. Sure, some RPGs are that short, and they definitely still can be great games well worth getting within that time limit (and if it's a very repetitive game, you might be welcoming the end by 20 hours)... but for a big, epic RPG, 20-something hours is short. Of course, if the game is great that can be less of an issue, but it's worth mentioning.
Not for people with lives.
Well yes I understand that from a developer's point of view. I'm talking about in a perfect world where we can have both. All I'm saying is that if the game suddenly starts "dragging on", you can just go outside and play or something.
As for wanting to finish a game all the way, good for you, but if it's long you shouldn't complain that it takes a long time to get to the end. Really, if it gets to be too boring, just stop for a while and play it later when you are interested again, but don't be all "ugh, if this was a shorter game, I wouldn't have to put up with this any more!".
Quote:Not for people with lives.
So you finish it slower. Oh well.
As for finishing games, I don't do that very often... and often even then it depends on your definition of 'finished' (is it "completely 100%" or "you've beaten the last boss/last level"?)... too many games and not enough time. I don't mind, really... but when there is a game I do finish, in any sense of the term, it means that either it's not very long (and keeps my attention) or it's one I like. Such as Baldur's Gate II. :) (The list of unfinished games I have is so long... there are some that at least I'm working on, every so often, so I'll probably finish them someday, but others... who knows...)
Quote:Well yes I understand that from a developer's point of view. I'm talking about in a perfect world where we can have both. All I'm saying is that if the game suddenly starts "dragging on", you can just go outside and play or something.
As for wanting to finish a game all the way, good for you, but if it's long you shouldn't complain that it takes a long time to get to the end. Really, if it gets to be too boring, just stop for a while and play it later when you are interested again, but don't be all "ugh, if this was a shorter game, I wouldn't have to put up with this any more!".
Nonsense. There are too many good games out there to play, and I don't want to spend several pointless hours in an RPG leveling up or searching for some blasted crystals. That's filler gameplay. It sucks. I want to experience a beginning, middle, and end. If the gameplay is diverse and riveting for a hundred hours then GREAT, but that never ever happens. It
always gets repetitive. It's like having a hundred-episode anime series with a few great episodes in the beginning and the rest of them being crap until the very end, which you want to see. Only with a game you can't just skip past all of the boring parts. When I pay for a game I want to finish the entire thing, and I want it to be worth my time.
Baldur's Gate II was awesome because it didn't get old. I'm still playing that party (in ToB) and loving it... you have plenty of new places to go to and new people to talk to (and kill)... sure, in some games the repetition gets old, and that gets me to stop playing. Like Lunar Legend... only the autofight option has gotten me as far as I am (in the last dungeon)... or Icewind Dale II, where the sheer volume of combat gets old after an hour or two... but games like that I consider 'fun once in a while' -- I'll pick them up, every few weeks or months, and play them a bit... and I have no problem with that. They'd get dull playing straight through, but are fun games, so 'sometimes' is the answer...
Yes, it is a good mark for a game if it makes you say "I want to play this straight through and not play anything else until I'm done". Like I felt with Starcraft, or Torment, or BGII, or Warcraft I, or Ocarina of Time... but 'I like this game every so often so I can get the 'it gets dull' out of my system in between sessions' is okay too. I'm not overly hung up on wanting to finish everything.
That's obvious when you look at how many games (especially PC games) I haven't finished. :)
Well good for you. I know people that have played Diablo II for thousands of hours, but I could never do that.
I couldn't either... that's a good game, but for a normal length of time for a game, not something ridiculous like thousands of hours.
I couldn't even play it for ten hours.
It's a very well made game... it just gets repetitive. How much you can play it depends on how much you mind clicking on monsters (it's got reasonable depth with all the skills and abilities in the three-section tree (Diablo is no Dungeon Siege, thankfully)... but even so it does definitely get repetitive), among other things, I think.
I don't like clicking on monsters.
Well, if the game is enjoyable througout, then honestly I don't mind. "Filler" through a massive game when only the first part and last part are worth playing? Yeah, that sucks, but I've played a number of long games that don't have that. I don't mind having 30 dungeons if they managed to actually make them all good. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation here mind you.
And as to your need to get to the "end" of a game.... well.... Ever hear the phrase "the journey is more important than the destination"? I mean, it's a martial arts movie cliche (and no, I don't want you to point out that most of them don't have that lesson, they probably don't, but the majority of people who aren't "in the know" would think martial arts movie when hearing that phrase). For me, that means I don't CARE if I am getting to the end any time soon so long as I'm having fun right THEN. If I'm having fun the whole time, I don't WANT to get to the ending. If I ever actually get tired of it, I stop playing for a while! I'm okay with that, and as I said, when you finally want to pick up that controller again, wouldn't you RATHER have something more to do in the game than have NOTHING to look forward to than closing the game's box and sticking it on some shelf somewhere so you can say "I have BEATEN you, GAME! Bow to me!".
But, I do understand what you mean when you say quality over quantity. I believe that too. I'm just saying that it's impossible for a game to ever be "too long", when you consider length as a quality in and of itself, ignoring the developer side of things completely.
That's all I'll say on this.
You certainly have a weird way of looking at things.
I like to complete games, see all there is to see. In games where the gameplay gets repetitive (i.e. every single RPG I have ever played), what I
want to do (explore, progress in the story) is blocked by chore-like gameplay (the combat if it gets old, fetch quests). KOTOR's combat was fun for a while, but I really got sick of having to go on those fetch quests and the game became nothing more than a means to an end, which I got tired of. Games should
never feel like a chore, ever. And there
is a great feeling of satisfaction when you have beaten a game. No, for most games I would not want them to go on forever. That's silly. Would you really want your favorite book to go on forever and ever, never getting any sort of closure? I want a complete experience, and that means having a beginning, middle, and end. As much as I love ICO, for instance, having it end was extremely important. And I don't even want a sequel to it.
Quote:I don't like clicking on monsters.
It's not very different from button-mashing in a console game... but yeah, in either case it gets old. That doesn't change the fact that it's a very well made game.
Quote:And as to your need to get to the "end" of a game.... well.... Ever hear the phrase "the journey is more important than the destination"? I mean, it's a martial arts movie cliche (and no, I don't want you to point out that most of them don't have that lesson, they probably don't, but the majority of people who aren't "in the know" would think martial arts movie when hearing that phrase). For me, that means I don't CARE if I am getting to the end any time soon so long as I'm having fun right THEN. If I'm having fun the whole time, I don't WANT to get to the ending. If I ever actually get tired of it, I stop playing for a while! I'm okay with that, and as I said, when you finally want to pick up that controller again, wouldn't you RATHER have something more to do in the game than have NOTHING to look forward to than closing the game's box and sticking it on some shelf somewhere so you can say "I have BEATEN you, GAME! Bow to me!".
I agree with this (well, the point it makes anyway). If I'm having fun along the way, I don't really care if I finish it or not... sure, it's nice to be able to say 'I have finished!', but it's hardly necessary. I really am not all broken up over that big pile of unfinished games, and with most of them haven't tried to progress in a long time... finishing is a nice thing to do, but for most games what I care about is the 'having fun' part, not that 'must finish!' part. I mean... if I quit because I was stuck somewhere sure, it's annoying, but after a while I won't go back and keep trying to beat it (like Wizpig in DKR)... if I stopped playing because I was bored, or just for no reason other than because I wanted to, though, I will probably pick it up again sometime. When that 'sometime' will be I don't know, of course, but sometime...
Oh, and this really isn't that weird. I know other people who also usually don't finish games... it's a perfectly normal thing.
Last... yes, there is a sense of satisfaction when you beat a game. Of course. But I don't see a point in forcing myself to finish a game when I'll have more fun doing something else... and I really don't mind leaving what's left for later, in most cases.
Why do I finish games then? Who knows. Some because they are awesome, but I haven't beaten all of the games I would describe as 'awesome and well worth getting'... sometimes because they are short, or just because I was having fun and managed to get through it... who knows. Various reasons. Luck, sometimes, perhaps (ie I didn't get anything better while I was working on it). It really doesn't matter. What does matter is that while it's nice to win a game, I don't base my fun on winning and don't require winning when I start a game (ie I don't say 'if I don't finish this game I'll be dissapointed').
Heck, even with Starcraft I quit on the final mission (cheating to see the end cutscene), and I never finished Brood Wars (again, cheating to see the end -- which shows how good the story was -- I actually cared about seeing what happened)...
Hey I don't finish tons of games, that's the problem. Most of the games I play I get too bored of to finish, and usually never come back.
I guess the difference is that I don't consider it a huge problem. :) A bit annoying, sure, but not a big problem really...
Well, I've stated my opinion, you've stated yours. There's nothing in the way of evidence that one viewpoint is right or wrong here, it can only be opinion.
PS, my favorite book is The Universe in a Nutshell, which is a nonfiction account of our current understanding of the laws of physics, and no, I don't want that to end :D, but I get your point as far as storyline goes... As for me, I'll be playing some more SSBM :D.
Quote:As for me, I'll be playing some more SSBM .
Was that supposed to support your point or something? I never said anything about never coming back to the games you beat, just that finality is important.
And I only ever stated my opinion. You tried to contest it for some reason.
SSBM's single-player replayability is definitely overrated. :)
I thought KOTOR's length was fine from the point-of-view that I never got bored with it. As I am one of those people OB1 refers to with a "life" it took me an extended time to complete, but that didn't bother me because I thoroughly enjoyed the game. I have around 10-15 games I haven't even touched yet because of a lack of time, but it doesn't bother me much because I know I'll get to them eventually. I guess if OB1 got bored with KOTOR I could see his point about the length, but I don't see it that way since I thought it was a lot of fun. The last time the length affected the fun-factor of a game for me was FFX, which I had fun with for a while, but it just dragged on to much and I didn't give a damn about the characters. Anyway, I'll get Jade Empire eventually, probably once it drops in price.
You see though, I hate having 10-15 untouched games because more and more must-have titles come out all of the time. At this rate we'll have a hundred untouched games in five years.
Yeah, but there are time-periods (such as the month of August and winter break) where I have a lot of free time to catch up on those games.
What's so bad about it? So they're unfinished, and more games come out... yeah, that's true. Oh well. Not a big deal.
DMiller Wrote:Yeah, but there are time-periods (such as the month of August and winter break) where I have a lot of free time to catch up on those games.
Ah, well lucky for you. :) I haven't had a break in years...
Aren't you legally allowed to take some?
Perhaps instead of taking his vacation time, he prefers to get the money, and keep working?
Going on vacation does not pay the bills!
I thought some vacation is paid...
Most places give you paid vacation time. Working in a school is an even better gig since you get three months of paid vacation time. :) Most people in education are smart and work during the summer as well, though.
I'm a student hourly, so I don't get paid vacations.