• 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?

RoadHazard

Member
Yes.

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.

So you value beating a game many times, faster and faster. Other people value a long, involved experience. Both views are fine!

My most played game ever, by far, is Rocket League, and that's fundamentally the exact same thing over and over in 5-minute chunks. So I get that (although I probably never would have gotten the game had it been $70). But with single player games I generally prefer a long adventure that I probably won't play again for quite some time after finishing it.

(People have beaten ER in like 20 minutes though.)
 
Last edited:
I value my time and prefer great 8-10 hour games over time wasting 120 hour grind fests.
Only Indie games and First Person Shooters featuring BR can get away with this now(without complaint).

False. People complained about Ratchet ($70) and Dread ($60)

Remember people saying Holow Knight (bloatfest) was only 15?
tommib tommib also didn't even consider the game that released right before RE:Village, Resident Evil 3 Remake.
 
Last edited:

tommib

Member
False. People complained about Ratchet ($70) and Dread ($60)

Remember people saying Holow Knight (bloatfest) was only 15?
Village sold 4 million copies like in a month. Ratchet 1 million as a PS5 exclusive. And Dread is the second best selling Metroid ever? The audience is there. It’s just not in the 10 of millions.
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Member
I suggest that you read again your posts. I don't even understand why you are getting so aggressive, calm down. I am simply sharing my point of view here.

Your are sharing nostalgia.

Thats it.

The very very thing you stated its not, very much is your "point of view", its nostalgia. Its not debating if you like that crap or not, its questioning if any of it was actually better and if you can properly quantify that without resorting to some teary eyed feelings fest about CRT tvs and Panzer Dragoon. Its like someone asking me what makes JRPGs so good and I'm like "has nothing to do with nostalgia, they are just better bro" and or "Play some FFVII or Xenogears for example. If you can't get this experience, accept that you don't know rather than dismissing everything"

Gives no real actual answer as to WHY such a thing is better, simply starts having a nostalgia trip and crying over fanfiction shit or something lol

I like all the games you listed too, they are amongst some of my favorite games of all time, but to prove they are better, you need much more then this whole CRT tv or play the game I like argument, its too personal, bias and filled with emotional shit to the point where who can believe you regarding this crap? You simply can't separate those ideas enough for anyone to believe something was really "better" back then, all we can say is that you have some attachment to that time frame, I'm not here to debate what you like, I like it too...I'm simply stating your personal feelings about this literally is called Nostalgia and just can't be used to debate such a thing.

A bias already exist which means you can't really form that view independently. Its not saying you don't love those games, its saying you love em a bit too much to prove this point properly. I could never fucking have you convince anyone to play Sonic 2 or Panzer Dragoon, it would be filled with "derrr da CRT tvz" and or "you don't know bro" etc. Help them know. Show them the exact things that are great about those designs, the moment you make this about um "my point of view" instead of the objective facts, it became a nostalgia trip and if I needed to get someone to get more Sonic fans, I would never pick you to do that job.

InfiniteCombo InfiniteCombo simply makes the better point and is able to actually quantify what is being talked about.
 

InfiniteCombo

Gold Member
Short and long games can coexist.

I'm on OP's side and advocating for a greater selection of shorter games, not the abolition of long games. And I'm advocating for shorter games while:

- Red Dead Redemption 2 became one of my favorite games of all time (probably top 5)
- I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Witcher 3 and plan to come back to it
- I've done 100% completion of every mainline Assassin's Creed from Brotherhood to Syndicate; a couple of them 100% multiple times.
- Yakuza (which are not necessarily as long as some other games, but they're not 10-hour games either) is my second favorite video game series after Resident Evil. And I'm really looking forward to playing Yakuza: Like a Dragon which is probably a 100-hour game.

Etc etc...
 
Yes, but it'll be AAA GAAS.

 

tygertrip

Member
You can still have those. We had those back in the days as well. The issue I have is that shorter big games have almost completely vanished.
What was so bad about MGS1-4? Nothing. Man, I remeber being hyped through the roof for MGS2 and then when it finally got out I finished it in one day. I wasn't mad - and considering it's status as classic I think not many others were.

I don't suddenly want the whole indstury to only makes games like that but I want them back. I'm sick of buying a new games and knowing it'll take me 3+ months to finish em. It's such a slog and like someone elese here say that no matter how good the games are at first buy the end I will certainly be sick of them.
MGS2 in one day??????? Holy fucking shit. I bought it day 1 also, and didn’t come nowhere close to beating it in one day. I wasn’t even working at the time... when it came out, I was shacked up with my then-girlfriend, taking it easy until grad school started. I mean, yea, we were fucking a lot, but not 12 hours a day, every day… not even close! My question is… how? Did you play that shit for 24 straight hours or some shit? You are one hardcore motherfucker, respect!
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Member
MGS2 in one day??????? Holy fucking shit. I bought it day 1 also, and didn’t come nowhere close to beating it in one day. I wasn’t even working at the time... when it came out, I was shacked up with my then-girlfriend, taking it easy until grad school started. I mean, yea, we were fucking a lot, but not 12 hours a day, every day or some crazy shit. My question is… how? Did you play that shit for 24 straight hours or some shit? You are one hardcore motherfucker, respect!

same.

I recall when it came out, my first day playing I got thru the tanker mission, started playing as Raiden on the Big Shell, got to meet Vamp and Sn....Plissken for the first time.

Second session was from that part all the way to Fat Man boss battle.

3rd session was from that battle to the end of the game. Even as a huge MGS fan, I don't recall doing it in 1 session or 2 or anything crazy like that, I do know some friends that did beat it like really, really fast lol
 

tygertrip

Member
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.
Been there done that, starting with a home pong system in the 70s
same.

I recall when it came out, my first day playing I got thru the tanker mission, started playing as Raiden on the Big Shell, got to meet Vamp and Sn....Plissken for the first time.

Second session was from that part all the way to Fat Man boss battle.

3rd session was from that battle to the end of the game. Even as a huge MGS fan, I don't recall doing it in 1 session or 2 or anything crazy like that, I do know some friends that did beat it like really, really fast lol
I suspect he had it on the easiest difficulty and was railing some KILLER meth!
 

tygertrip

Member
That game was always full price.
So was Half Life 2 for example... or Any of Gears of war trilogy.
All short, fantastic, replayable games worth of full price.

The new full price is 60 or 70 because it's 2022 and everything is more expensive. 70$ is equal to about 55$ from 2010....
I’m 90% sure I paid $70 for Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES on release day. Forgive me if I am misremembering, that was a LONG time ago!
 

tygertrip

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.

All those shorter games are the exact same experience you got the first time. They might be fun games to play but that alone doesn’t make it more replay able then something longer that is literally changing the experience depending on how you play
Maybe so, but most long games are NOWHERE near the quality of W3 or DOS2.
 

JimmyRustler

Gold Member
MGS2 in one day??????? Holy fucking shit. I bought it day 1 also, and didn’t come nowhere close to beating it in one day. I wasn’t even working at the time... when it came out, I was shacked up with my then-girlfriend, taking it easy until grad school started. I mean, yea, we were fucking a lot, but not 12 hours a day, every day… not even close! My question is… how? Did you play that shit for 24 straight hours or some shit? You are one hardcore motherfucker, respect!
It‘s not that long of a game and since I was hardcore into the story back then I wasn’t really experimenting that much. And yeah, I basically played from morning to evening.
 

tygertrip

Member
It‘s not that long of a game and since I was hardcore into the story back then I wasn’t really experimenting that much. And yeah, I basically played from morning to evening.
Bro, if you beat it the first day, you are hard fuckin’ core. My man. I had to stop playing because My nagging ass ex-gf came home and had us watch American Idol. Ugh. She did have amazing tits though , so it was a fair trade-off.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Isa

ZywyPL

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.

That's the point tho - who asked for 70$, for a cheeseburger in fact? Not so long ago games cost 60, even 50$, but along that 8-16h SP campaign they had MP which provided infinite amount of hours, and sometimes there was also co-op. And nowadays it's 70$ but you only get either a one-and-done open-world TPP SP, or a MP with just 2-3 modes and 5-6 maps, this is nothing but a steal in white gloves either way in my books. I'd personally love for the industry bto go back to those "short" but much, MUCH better paced games, with added MP that extended the gameplay for hundreds of hours.
 

cireza

Member
Your are sharing nostalgia.

Thats it.

The very very thing you stated its not, very much is your "point of view", its nostalgia. Its not debating if you like that crap or not, its questioning if any of it was actually better and if you can properly quantify that without resorting to some teary eyed feelings fest about CRT tvs and Panzer Dragoon. Its like someone asking me what makes JRPGs so good and I'm like "has nothing to do with nostalgia, they are just better bro" and or "Play some FFVII or Xenogears for example. If you can't get this experience, accept that you don't know rather than dismissing everything"

Gives no real actual answer as to WHY such a thing is better, simply starts having a nostalgia trip and crying over fanfiction shit or something lol

I like all the games you listed too, they are amongst some of my favorite games of all time, but to prove they are better, you need much more then this whole CRT tv or play the game I like argument, its too personal, bias and filled with emotional shit to the point where who can believe you regarding this crap? You simply can't separate those ideas enough for anyone to believe something was really "better" back then, all we can say is that you have some attachment to that time frame, I'm not here to debate what you like, I like it too...I'm simply stating your personal feelings about this literally is called Nostalgia and just can't be used to debate such a thing.

A bias already exist which means you can't really form that view independently. Its not saying you don't love those games, its saying you love em a bit too much to prove this point properly. I could never fucking have you convince anyone to play Sonic 2 or Panzer Dragoon, it would be filled with "derrr da CRT tvz" and or "you don't know bro" etc. Help them know. Show them the exact things that are great about those designs, the moment you make this about um "my point of view" instead of the objective facts, it became a nostalgia trip and if I needed to get someone to get more Sonic fans, I would never pick you to do that job.

InfiniteCombo InfiniteCombo simply makes the better point and is able to actually quantify what is being talked about.
I hope that you will eventually realize how condescending you have been during the discussion. You haven't been putting out any argument in favor of modern games either, but have been requiring precise arguments from me. How about you actually contribute to the discussion in a more constructive way than being condescending ?

What's more is that you made it pretty clear that you have played older games, so you know very well how different they are from modern games in terms of design. And if you know that they are different, you know perfectly well that some people will prefer one or the another, and there is not need to justify this in the first place. This is what we call personal preferences.

The fact that you know this very well demonstrates your true intentions, that are only to have a quick shit over some guy on the internet because you felt the situation was appropriate.

So since some people need to have everything they already perfectly know repeated to them, otherwise they will tell you that what you say is complete bullshit, let's go with it.

Here is my gaming setup :

"Oh my God, CRT TVs lolz, elitist hipster piece of shit"

Hopefully this picture demonstrate how easy it can be to have a CRT at home. Both my TVs combined probably take less space that those huge OLED panels.

CRT are better for older consoles, these are simple facts.
You can check this twitter account there are some examples : https://twitter.com/crtpixels


You can check blurbusters, there is an entire site about motion blur and people working closely with manufacturers to try to deal with this problem that plagues THE ENTIRETY of modern panels : https://blurbusters.com/

As you can see, I simply have to turn on both TVs and the differences will be obvious to me. Getting a CRT costs around 0$ for information.

"Nostalgia" "It's nostalgia" "You are talking about nostalgia"
This has been your only argument against what I have been saying, which is absolutely ridiculous by the way.

First of all, you don't have to demonstrate that I am wrong. I am stating my personal preferences. What you do with this is accept that others have different opinions from you, not that they are wrong.

Secondly, how can it be nostalgia when it is still part of my daily life, next to modern TVs and consoles ? I have told it was not nostalgia, because as far as I am concerned, these are not only memories but present days as well. I know perfectly what kind of entertainment I can get from older games, consoles and TVs because I have access to them anytime I want, in the best condition possible.

"You did not demonstrate that older games are better"

You know perfectly well the answer of how different they are, as you have stated playing these old games yourself. If you know that they are different, you know that people can enjoy them more than modern games. In reality, you don't need me to say it to you, but I will take the time anyway, maybe that will stop with you condescending attitude afterwards and leave aside the bad faith.

Older games were much shorter and much more intense. Time was spent crafting extremely well polished stages that you would blaze through in a few minutes. Content was not padded and you did not have a ton of things to do. The focus was on the player fun and the quality of the experience from beginning to end.

This applies to many genre. RPGs were turn by turn. Nowadays a ton of games are action games, but we lost a lot of things from moving to turn based to real time action. My personal preference is for turn based. See, I am not saying that real time is shit : simply that I don't like it much. I am very happy that a game like Brigandine exists by the way, but it is a low budget game. The time where the most ambitious games are called Shining Force is long gone.

And while we are with RPGs, games like Chrono Trigger and Phantasy Star IV were much shorter, which made for a much better experience. Who wants to spend 80 hours completing a game that only has 20 hours of really relevant content ? That's the exact problem with RPGs nowdays : bloated to no end.

Action games were most of the time Stage based, and it was awesome. You could replay the games, try other routes, it was extremely fun, scoring was often part of the experience. Imagine a game like Jet Set Radio but made AAA today : you would have to pick stuff everywhere and craft your rollers using detritus found in trash can. And of course, you would have to put points in a skill tree, points gathered by doing stupid fetch quests. Like it or not, the majority of the big, ambitious AAA games include all of this stuff, and it is not to my liking. See, again, stating a personal preference.

Where is the variety today ? It exists only in indy games. The expensive games have been reduced to a few genres that take absolutely no risk at all. Back then, ambitious games could be shmups (Radiant Silvergun) or fighting games, a genre that was seriously declined until Street Fighter 4 launched. Beat'em all ? Only as smaller budget games. Turn-based RPGs ? Smaller budget. Arcade games ? Small budget games. Platformers ? Not that many outside of Nintendo.

I am fine playing indy and smaller games, but it is obvious that modern games are molded the same way, more or less, having to provide a set number of hours of gameplay otherwise they will be unfairly turned down. Resident Evil 3 was a breath of fresh air, and I was surprised by how short and well designed the game was from beginning to end. You don't see this so often nowadays. After completing it, I started another run immediately, the game was that fun. Although I don't read reviews anymore, I am certain that the game was negatively impacted by the pretty short lifespan for a single run.

So in the end there isn't anything about nostalgia here. Old games were made differently, provide a different experience and they have my preference overall, even if I do play modern games as well. I think this was pretty obvious and that most older gamers on this forum know this very well, you included.
 
Last edited:

Zeroing

Gold Member
That's the point tho - who asked for 70$, for a cheeseburger in fact? Not so long ago games cost 60, even 50$, but along that 8-16h SP campaign they had MP which provided infinite amount of hours, and sometimes there was also co-op. And nowadays it's 70$ but you only get either a one-and-done open-world TPP SP, or a MP with just 2-3 modes and 5-6 maps, this is nothing but a steal in white gloves either way in my books. I'd personally love for the industry bto go back to those "short" but much, MUCH better paced games, with added MP that extended the gameplay for hundreds of hours.
Sorry to meddle in, I appreciate you being critical of the gaming industry - many people are not.

The problem is, between the “ anything below 90 metacritic sucks” the “it’s not worth 70 dollars” “we need better graphics” and “will wait for when the game is free on my fav service” - we sent a clear message to devs: graphics, long games with meaningless content and sequels are the way to go. So right now the gaming industry became homogeneous, bland and averse to taking risks.

Just that already poses a problem in the gaming industry, adding the fact that most publishers will go to any means to gain profit and it’s a perfect storm.

Nothing will change, we consumers have all the right to demand better. But most people think the current state of gaming is “normal” and acceptable.

I wish people would be more critical of everything, maybe thinks would change for the better. When I mean by being critical is focusing on the real issues and practices of the gaming industry.
 

EDMIX

Member
I hope that you will eventually realize how condescending you have been during the discussion. You haven't been putting out any argument in favor of modern games either, but have been requiring precise arguments from me. How about you actually contribute to the discussion in a more constructive way than being condescending ?

What's more is that you made it pretty clear that you have played older games, so you know very well how different they are from modern games in terms of design. And if you know that they are different, you know perfectly well that some people will prefer one or the another, and there is not need to justify this in the first place. This is what we call personal preferences.

The fact that you know this very well demonstrates your true intentions, that are only to have a quick shit over some guy on the internet because you felt the situation was appropriate.

So since some people need to have everything they already perfectly know repeated to them, otherwise they will tell you that what you say is complete bullshit, let's go with it.

Here is my gaming setup :

"Oh my God, CRT TVs lolz, elitist hipster piece of shit"

Hopefully this picture demonstrate how easy it can be to have a CRT at home. Both my TVs combined probably take less space that those huge OLED panels.

CRT are better for older consoles, these are simple facts.
You can check this twitter account there are some examples : https://twitter.com/crtpixels


You can check blurbusters, there is an entire site about motion movement and people working closely with manufacturers to try to deal with this problem that plagues THE ENTIRETY of modern panels : https://blurbusters.com/

As you can see, I simply have to turn on both TVs and the differences will be obvious to me. Getting a CRT costs around 0$ for information.

"Nostalgia" "It's nostalgia" "You are talking about nostalgia"
This has been your only argument against what I have been saying, which is absolutely ridiculous by the way.

First of all, you don't have to demonstrate that I am wrong. I am stating my personal preferences. What you do with this is accept that others have different opinions from you, not that they are wrong.

Secondly, how can it be nostalgia when it is still part of my daily life, next to modern TVs and consoles ? I have told it was not nostalgia, because as far as I am concerned, these are not only memories but present days as well. I know perfectly what kind of entertainment I can get from older games, consoles and TVs because I have access to them anytime I want, in the best condition possible.

"You did not demonstrate that older games are better"

You know perfectly well the answer of how different they are, as you have stated playing these old games yourself. If you know that they are different, you know that people can enjoy them more than modern games. In reality, you don't need me to say it to you, but I will take the time anyway, maybe that will stop with you condescending attitude afterwards.

Older games were much shorter and much more intense. Time was spent crafting extremely well polished stages that you would blaze through in a few minutes. Content was not padded and you did not have a ton of things to do. The focus was on the player fun and the quality of the experience from beginning to end.

This applies to many genre. RPGs were turn by turn. Nowadays a ton of games are action games, but we lost a lot of things from moving to turn based to real time action. My personal preference is for turn based. See, I am not saying that real time is shit : simply that I don't like it much. I am very happy that a game like Brigandine exists by the way, but it is a low budget game. The time where the most ambitious games are called Shining Force is long gone.

Action games were most of the time Stage based, and it was awesome. You could replay the games, try other routes, it was extremely fun, scoring was often part of the experience. Imagine a game like Jet Set Radio but made AAA today : you would have to pick stuff everywhere and craft your rollers using detritus found in trash can. And of course, you would have to put points in a skill tree, points gathered by doing stupid fetch quests. Like it or not, the majority of the big, ambitious AAA games include all of this stuff, and it is not to my liking. See, again, stating a personal preference.

Where is the variety today ? It exists only in indy games. The expensive games have been reduced to a few genres that take absolutely no risk at all. Back then, ambitious games could be shmups (Radiant Silvergun) or fighting games, a genre that was seriously declined until Street Fighter 4 launched. Beat'em all ? Only as smaller budget games. Turn-based RPGs ? Smaller budget. Arcade games ? Small budget games. Platformers ? Not that many outside of Nintendo.

I am fine playing indy and smaller games, but it is obvious that modern games are molded the same way, more or less, having to provide a set number of hours of gameplay otherwise they will be unfairly turned down. Resident Evil 3 was a breath of fresh air, and I was surprised by how short and well designed the game was from beginning to end. You don't see this so often nowadays. After completing it, I started another run immediately, the game was that fun. Although I don't read reviews anymore, I am certain that the game was negatively impacted by the pretty short lifespan for a single run.

So in the end there isn't anything about nostalgia here. Old games were made differently, provide a different experience and they have my preference overall, even if I do play modern games as well. I think this was pretty obvious and that most older gamers on this forum know this very well, you included.

Hopefully this picture demonstrate how easy it can be to have a CRT at home

yea we not reading the rest of that tbh.

If you stay stuck on this whole "how easy it can be to have a CRT" no fucking point to discuss anything. No one said its hard, no one said you can't, its almost as if you believe in order for us to fucking agree with you, oh we NEED to use a CRT ourselves and seeing MUST be believing, as if our disagreement is based on not knowing what the fuck a CRT tv is or something.

So that nostalgia and bias is just too strong. You just can't be emotional about a time frame to the point of making it sound as if our view is based on not using one or owning one before or some shit.

I'll have to have you on ignore for the rest of this thread man.

Have a good one.
 

cireza

Member
yea we not reading the rest of that tbh.

If you stay stuck on this whole "how easy it can be to have a CRT" no fucking point to discuss anything. No one said its hard, no one said you can't, its almost as if you believe in order for us to fucking agree with you, oh we NEED to use a CRT ourselves and seeing MUST be believing, as if our disagreement is based on not knowing what the fuck a CRT tv is or something.

So that nostalgia and bias is just too strong. You just can't be emotional about a time frame to the point of making it sound as if our view is based on not using one or owning one before or some shit.

I'll have to have you on ignore for the rest of this thread man.

Have a good one.
Wow. I wasn't expecting much to be honest, but this is even less than expected.
You simply repeated the exact same thing again.

It is nostalgia lol
You are enforcing your opinion lol
Not reading lol


This is entirely wrong. You expected a detailed explanation, you have it. I see that you won't even take the time to answer properly. That's fine, it's your loss in the end. You were asking for a discussion, but in the end, you are running away from it. I think it further validates your intentions to begin with.

I'll have to have you on ignore for the rest of this thread man.
Good idea, add me to the ignore list, next to all the facts that you are already ignoring :)
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Member
Yeah, it’s the most profitable business model. Unfortunately tbh. I’m leaving gaming if this is the future.

True. I love lots of long games, but any game trying to only make replayability based on mtx or some forced online thing, I just can't support.

I believe we'll still see lots of single player titles though as the market is wide open for them thanks to Spiderman, Horizon Zero Dawn, God Of War, Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption 2, and many more moving beyond 20 million. I hope that does show not everything needs to be a GAAS to be a long satisfying game.
 

InfiniteCombo

Gold Member
"elitist piece of shit"
At least you balance being an asshole (and a very childish, passive aggressive one at that) with an uncanny ability to describe yourself concisely and perfectly 😂

Eh, it's about high time I blocked you. Never liked you anyway. Not one bit.

--------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, back on topic... I said before that one aspect of long games that seems like padding is giant maps that require a lot of potentially pointless just "going from point A to point B." In many cases, doing all that traveling is boring, and indeed pointless. But in some cases traversal can in itself have an engaging gameplay component that can be a core part of the game. Take the Batman Arkham games. Being able to glide seamlessly for long distances is pretty damn fun, and the developers made it a core part of the game by adding gliding-related challenges. And even more so in Arkham Knight when you combine gliding with the Batmobile (that combination is even on the cover!)

I'm not a hypocrite though, and as much as I love Yakuza as a series, someone earlier in the thread made a good point: one the annoying things of traversing the world in Yakuza is that you're on foot, AND you get interrupted seemingly every 5 seconds to "fight the same 4 dudes", over and over again. (Putting it in quotes because I'm paraphrasing the person in this thread.)
 

InfiniteCombo

Gold Member
EDMIX EDMIX I see you have a Snake avatar. Do you think MGS5 is better because it's open world? Or would it have been better if it was a shorter (potentially more linear) experience? Curious about your thoughts, cheers dude 👍🏾
 

EDMIX

Member
EDMIX EDMIX I see you have a Snake avatar. Do you think MGS5 is better because it's open world? Or would it have been better if it was a shorter (potentially more linear) experience? Curious about your thoughts, cheers dude 👍🏾

Definitely one of my favorite stealth games of all time but definitely a Metal Gear Solid game that could have had a lot of the series staples if not for the publisher wanting to move the game to a different direction because I don't really believe with how story-driven Kojima is that was the way he wanted the game to be.

I think based on the stealth element the open-world is an aspect needed to work for the concept That Metal Gear Solid 5 is trying to drive you're basically playing a super soldier. Nothing is wrong with the previous concepts of metal gear solid or even Splinter Cell but in a situation that's a deeply scripted and fixed scenarios, Metal Gear Solid 5 dares to try something new by giving you much more free agency and allowing you to freely make your choice on what works to make the mission successful or improvise if you fail.

So the open-world helps in so many ways one of the best aspects would be the weather as randomly you would get those crazy sandstorms that would shield your visibility and allow you to either kill your target or kidnap them etc

Or the choice to wait until it's night time where they are less guards or even how you go with approaching the mission where you could go right in front of your enemies or you could climb a higher terrain depending on where the area is. Using the world to your advantage like a destroying the communications or destroying a generator to take out the lights so you can move in the Darkness all allowed that type of open-world designed to make sense for what they were going for especially when you're running to the landing Zone with someone you saved with a whole Army of dudes chasing you and shooting you lol

I think it just makes much more sense for an open-concept simply because you are pretending that you're the soldier in the first place, what fun could it ever be with all those deeply scripted things going on where you don't really feel that you're really making any cool decision at all? So Metal Gear Solid 5 breaks that norm and allows you to actually really feel like you're making those choices independently and seeing those random scenarios play out and seeing if you made a good choice or not waiting till dark to make the assassination. It almost plays like a puzzle where you try to figure out the right approach.

It's difficult to say if it was going to be better linear because in my opinion I think it would have been just as good as really any of the other Linear metal gear solid games but I like that Metal Gear Solid 5 was actually much different because we got such a great amount of those linear experiences I think it was great for a change that we got a different concept. Even though the game is lacking with any type of deep meaningful exploration I believe the world did it's a job to facilitate what it was made to do in terms of giving you an opportunity to approach the mission how you feel like it.

So with all the things actually wrong with Metal Gear Solid 5 I could never say its design or its gameplay are bad and if anything it's simply just the story being so limited compared to the previous.

So although I could never really recommend that game for anyone who likes the story of Metal Gear Solid, it will always be a recommendation to those who have beaten all the Metal Gear Solid on Boss Extreme the play one of the most difficult stealth games.



Maybe Konami hearing the story would be about a murdering, child kidnapping bad guy was just too much for them and they wanted something limited, less story, avoiding all the actual things stated in the past games about Big Boss, as to why.....well spoliers on that part lolz.

Even Snake not dying in MGS4, even with the trailers foreshadowing his death, its almost as if Konami simply didn't want that as, he is the face of that series to them anyway and they'd rather sell with the face, the let Kojima work a narrative without him, like a game with just Raiden or Sonny or someone else doing the stealth stuff in his honor or something. It just seems like they want a squeaky clean character, never dies, lives regardless and Kojima wanted to have a beginning, middle and end to that character as he actually does with lots of characters in that series. I don't think it being open world had much to do with that odd story as much as it had to do with the publisher not wanting such an evil person as the main character.
 

Bragr

Member
Half of you guys are always complaining about games with short campaigns, "why buy a 70 dollar game for an 8-hour campaign", like that has anything to do with quality.

But concerning the topic here, no, I don't think so, there is something about regaining players for long periods that are beneficial. Look at Assassins Creed, they fill those games with as much content as possible and it boosts the popularity, longevity, and microtransactions purchases. It's very successful for them and I imagine other studios are seeing similar benefits to creating longer games.

But I also miss those days when 8 to 10 hours was the standard of a game. Nowadays it's a fucking project every time a new game comes out to play through it.
 
IIt depends on the game, 60hours games have been a thing for a very long time.

I think that games like the last of us 2would have benefited from a much shorter campaign. Those padded open world games with all the markers are a chore to play and I keep away from them... I almost didn't buy the last Go of War because of this (however it was different enough to play.... But this is the only god of war game that I never went back to replay - this game has no high note).

Most games become kind of monotonous once you're in, especially the long and open world ones.

So yes 8 to 15 isn hours works, and should be the norm for story based games (however very long JRPGs of yore lasted much longer and they were still very good, their end game was worth the stay as well).

I guess what I'm trying to say time to complete is not the important factor, if you can keep me interested make a 300hours game, it will probably take me a year to complete but I'll be happy.
 

InfiniteCombo

Gold Member
Definitely one of my favorite stealth games of all time but definitely a Metal Gear Solid game that could have had a lot of the series staples if not for the publisher wanting to move the game to a different direction because I don't really believe with how story-driven Kojima is that was the way he wanted the game to be.

I think based on the stealth element the open-world is an aspect needed to work for the concept That Metal Gear Solid 5 is trying to drive you're basically playing a super soldier. Nothing is wrong with the previous concepts of metal gear solid or even Splinter Cell but in a situation that's a deeply scripted and fixed scenarios, Metal Gear Solid 5 dares to try something new by giving you much more free agency and allowing you to freely make your choice on what works to make the mission successful or improvise if you fail.

So the open-world helps in so many ways one of the best aspects would be the weather as randomly you would get those crazy sandstorms that would shield your visibility and allow you to either kill your target or kidnap them etc

Or the choice to wait until it's night time where they are less guards or even how you go with approaching the mission where you could go right in front of your enemies or you could climb a higher terrain depending on where the area is. Using the world to your advantage like a destroying the communications or destroying a generator to take out the lights so you can move in the Darkness all allowed that type of open-world designed to make sense for what they were going for especially when you're running to the landing Zone with someone you saved with a whole Army of dudes chasing you and shooting you lol

I think it just makes much more sense for an open-concept simply because you are pretending that you're the soldier in the first place, what fun could it ever be with all those deeply scripted things going on where you don't really feel that you're really making any cool decision at all? So Metal Gear Solid 5 breaks that norm and allows you to actually really feel like you're making those choices independently and seeing those random scenarios play out and seeing if you made a good choice or not waiting till dark to make the assassination. It almost plays like a puzzle where you try to figure out the right approach.

It's difficult to say if it was going to be better linear because in my opinion I think it would have been just as good as really any of the other Linear metal gear solid games but I like that Metal Gear Solid 5 was actually much different because we got such a great amount of those linear experiences I think it was great for a change that we got a different concept. Even though the game is lacking with any type of deep meaningful exploration I believe the world did it's a job to facilitate what it was made to do in terms of giving you an opportunity to approach the mission how you feel like it.

So with all the things actually wrong with Metal Gear Solid 5 I could never say its design or its gameplay are bad and if anything it's simply just the story being so limited compared to the previous.

So although I could never really recommend that game for anyone who likes the story of Metal Gear Solid, it will always be a recommendation to those who have beaten all the Metal Gear Solid on Boss Extreme the play one of the most difficult stealth games.



Maybe Konami hearing the story would be about a murdering, child kidnapping bad guy was just too much for them and they wanted something limited, less story, avoiding all the actual things stated in the past games about Big Boss, as to why.....well spoliers on that part lolz.

Even Snake not dying in MGS4, even with the trailers foreshadowing his death, its almost as if Konami simply didn't want that as, he is the face of that series to them anyway and they'd rather sell with the face, the let Kojima work a narrative without him, like a game with just Raiden or Sonny or someone else doing the stealth stuff in his honor or something. It just seems like they want a squeaky clean character, never dies, lives regardless and Kojima wanted to have a beginning, middle and end to that character as he actually does with lots of characters in that series. I don't think it being open world had much to do with that odd story as much as it had to do with the publisher not wanting such an evil person as the main character.
Great post. Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful answer! 👍🏾
 

Isa

Member
I think part of it is being a kid with no real perspective on life and the passage of time. A single day felt like forever, being grounded was practically a life sentence. I used to wish that games were far longer(and now realize are bloated) whilst beating and replaying them and many of the game modes. Now at 38 with my 50+hr job and girlfriend plus other hobbies I just can't and don't find myself as attracted to games that demand a huge time sink. So many titles since the PS4 gen would release and my friends and I would be super hyped only to find ourselves dropping them for the next big thing. No sense of completion and it really f'd up my best friend's sense of accomplishment and desire to game. He'd end up sticking with "free to play" stuff that would go on forever whilst dumping thousands into them.

I really prefer titles with great pacing and knowing when too much is exactly that. I think back on the Resident Evil games, I'll still replay them to this day. But some like RE8 I struggle to get motivated because of moments like the doll house. Old games often had multiple routes and endings, plus unlockable content such as costumes. Being able to see an(maybe the) ending and being rewarded for playing the game felt great and motivated me to change my gaming habits. Not being suckered into mtx filled slogs has been a boon. Not only that but replaying a lot of older games has shown me how soft I've gotten, so little hand holding and the need to build skill. I really appreciate the old devs and their game design philosophy. Like others have mentioned I'd be dying to see what was next in the story, what new gameplay feature would be introduced in the sequel. Apart from a few rpgs I can't think of a single game save for a hopeful Evil Within 3 that has me pondering what comes next. Not to mention the complete lack of desire to replay a damn game. That's sad. Like others have said when a game feels like work it starts to lose the fun factor.

I think the industry could shift gears to that shorter design philosophy but only of the market supports it and they suffer as a result of ballooning budgets and pressure. But with so much desire for gamer retention and concurrent spending habits etc I don't think that will happen much. If we're lucky the B-AA titles might fill this niche. Seems like most gamers are willing to spend their time between social experiences filled with MTX and bigger hit titles with a full price.
 

JimmyRustler

Gold Member
Yeah, it‘s kind of a bittersweet irony. I too prolly wished that games were longer back in days because I had the time but not the money. Now with 35 I wish the PS1+2 games back as they had the absolute perfect length for someone with a full time job...
 

Hezekiah

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
Same as Sekiro. Tons of bosses and sub-bosses, some of whom are repeats.

40 hours in and I've still got a fair bit to go.
 
Last edited:

InfiniteCombo

Gold Member
Yeah, it‘s kind of a bittersweet irony. I too prolly wished that games were longer back in days because I had the time but not the money. Now with 35 I wish the PS1+2 games back as they had the absolute perfect length for someone with a full time job...
I don't know about you man... But Ninja Garden 1 on the NES seemed pretty long to me (only because that fucking bird kept killing me 😂)
 

ANDS

Thought gaf was racist. Now knows better, honorary gaffer 2022
No, because you can't sell a 10 hour (or less) self-contained game at 60 or 70 bucks. The last game with a short timer like that that I played was TINY TINA and I absolutely feel robbed in the exchange.
 
Top Bottom