The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:17 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Stupid Gamer Biases
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:45 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
I find that I agree, either in full or in part, with all of these (the rebuttals, not the originating quote).

Quote:
Smug Gamer Quotes

Everybody knows at least one gamer who is an insufferable jackass. And if you don't know one, then chances are good you are that insufferable jackass, spitting out smug stuff like, "Final Fantasy VII is overrated." You cannot just enjoy games for yourself, you have to crap all over everybody else's tastes because they are not as refined as yours. We've assembled seven classic smug gamer lines posted on message boards or overheard at the local GameStop, and pointed out exactly why each of them is not just incorrect, but annoying as hell.

"Realistic graphics trump kiddie/minimalist art styles."
Since the dawn of gaming, people have set out to make videogames look as true to life as possible, leading to graphical triumphs like Heavy Rain and Modern Warfare 2. But games of their ilk never age well -- jebus, we once thought the characters in Mortal Kombat looked realistic -- whereas a stylized game like Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker will always look great.

"I only listen to the Japanese voice tracks in JRPGs."
Sorry you had to miss out on Final Fantasy XIII then. Blame the Xbox 360, because everybody knows the reason Square cut it is because the 360 has such tiny discs. It had absolutely nothing to do with them redoing all of the cutscenes to lip sync with the English voices, something that cost considerable time and money.

"Longer games are better games."
No, they're not. Padding a game with endless dialogue, constant backtracking and useless sidequests for the sole purpose of extending their length does not make them superior to a concise and focused ten-hour game simply because they last longer. See: God of War I – III.

"I don't play… waggle games. The Wii is for babies."
Then so are your Xbox 360 and PS3, because both Microsoft and Sony looked at the Wii's billion-dollar business and decided they want some of that. If you think the Sony Move isn't Wii HD, then you are in serious denial.

"No multiplayer, no buy."
People have been increasingly obsessing over this one in last few years, to the point where developers just assume that we don't even need single-player campaigns anymore. Uh, we do.

"Real gaming died with the Dreamcast."
This is actually true. Since SEGA discontinued the Dreamcast in early 2001 because it simply could not keep up with demand, no actual videogames have come out. Just light shows operated by win buttons. Oh, and SEGA really wanted to keep making games in the Jet Set Radio and Panzer Dragoon universes, but just decided against doing so out of spite...

"I won't play a game that runs lower than 60 frames per second."
Then you better stop watching movies right now, because those are filmed at an epic fail rate of 24 frames per second. Don't worry, we'll let you know what happens in TRON: Legacy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:03 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
Awesome, although I disagree with "Longer games are better games." If they can't make a game longer than 6 hours without making it suck, then they suck. Although I consider that problem linked with "No multiplayer, no buy."

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:08 pm 
Offline
Near Ground
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 6782
Location: Chattanooga, TN
10-20 hours is generally the sweet spot for me. Shorter than that and I feel a little cheated, but 10 hours is a perfectly decent game length to me. Longer than 20 hours, and chances are your game is A) just like the example says, full of pointless, stupid crap to pad out the length, and B) not going to be completed by me.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 6:33 pm 
Offline
I am here, click me!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:00 pm
Posts: 3676
It depends on what type of game it is. 25 hours is the bare minimum for an RPG for me. If it is any less, I feel cheated. Really, though...most RPGs, even the older ones like Final Fantasy 6 or 7 can be finished under 10 hours. All of the length comes from leveling up and fighting all of the extra uber bosses. I happen to enjoy that a great deal. Then you have these open world games like Fallout 3 and the Elder Scroll games. Those also appeal to me because I really love the open exploration I get out of them. I could just wander around for hours on end finding hidden caves and such. Hell, I haven't found everything on either game and I've sunk well over 300 hours into each respectively. Not to mention that you have various ways to play these games(in terms of stats and skills, or even on the good versus evil side, something you don't get out of JRPGs).

But it's hard to make a first person shooter or action game longer than 20 hours because it really is just more of the same. Without some kind of character advancement, I can get bored after 20 hours. I think that is the main thing. A game needs to have some sort of character advancement for me to really enjoy it. Either by upgrading stats or upgrading weapons in some fashion. If all I have to look forward to is more badguys to kill, I'll want to beat it as soon as possible. But if I have stats to max out and upgrades to finish off, I will find my self playing the game a lot longer.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:11 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Raltar wrote:
It depends on what type of game it is. 25 hours is the bare minimum for an RPG for me. If it is any less, I feel cheated. Really, though...most RPGs, even the older ones like Final Fantasy 6 or 7 can be finished under 10 hours. All of the length comes from leveling up and fighting all of the extra uber bosses. I happen to enjoy that a great deal. Then you have these open world games like Fallout 3 and the Elder Scroll games. Those also appeal to me because I really love the open exploration I get out of them. I could just wander around for hours on end finding hidden caves and such. Hell, I haven't found everything on either game and I've sunk well over 300 hours into each respectively. Not to mention that you have various ways to play these games(in terms of stats and skills, or even on the good versus evil side, something you don't get out of JRPGs).

But it's hard to make a first person shooter or action game longer than 20 hours because it really is just more of the same. Without some kind of character advancement, I can get bored after 20 hours. I think that is the main thing. A game needs to have some sort of character advancement for me to really enjoy it. Either by upgrading stats or upgrading weapons in some fashion. If all I have to look forward to is more badguys to kill, I'll want to beat it as soon as possible. But if I have stats to max out and upgrades to finish off, I will find my self playing the game a lot longer.


QFT; except.. I only have 75 or so hours on F3 and 55 on Oblivion

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stupid Gamer Biases
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:57 am
Posts: 849
I think I had something like 140 hours into Persona 4 by the time I finished it the first go 'round. Some of that time is padded in ways I am not fond of but by and large I loved it and would buy a Persona 5 with great glee.

But yes, RPGs aside I would generally agree. Even within the RPG genre, dragging out a game in a poor fashion doesn't improve it.

I still feel cheated by Parasite Eve! :(


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stupid Gamer Biases
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:29 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
Noggel wrote:
I still feel cheated by Parasite Eve! :(


That game had so much potential.. and blew it all

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stupid Gamer Biases
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:57 am
Posts: 849
Yeah. I think it had a good game at its core, but the terribly short length (likely a result of FMV fever at its height) was... not what I expected. Maybe if I had gone into it knowing it was going to be way, way shorter than other Square games of its time it wouldn't have been so bad? As it was, though, I was caught way off guard.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stupid Gamer Biases
PostPosted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:10 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Quote:
"I don't play… waggle games. The Wii is for babies."
Then so are your Xbox 360 and PS3, because both Microsoft and Sony looked at the Wii's billion-dollar business and decided they want some of that. If you think the Sony Move isn't Wii HD, then you are in serious denial.


This

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stupid Gamer Biases
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:57 am
Posts: 849
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:20 am 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
Screeling wrote:
Awesome, although I disagree with "Longer games are better games." If they can't make a game longer than 6 hours without making it suck, then they suck. Although I consider that problem linked with "No multiplayer, no buy."


As people grow older we don't always have as much time to plow through a 60 hour RPG and maintain an interest two months in.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:28 am 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I think the issues about game length and multiplayer are valid preferences but they shouldn't Govern the industry as a whole.

I, personally, don't get much playtime during the week, and some weekends for that matter. So I am looking for something I can sit down with for 20 ish minutes at a time.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Stupid Gamer Biases
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:38 am 
Offline
Evil Bastard™
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:07 am
Posts: 7542
Location: Doomstadt, Latveria
Quote:
"I won't play a game that runs lower than 60 frames per second."
Then you better stop watching movies right now, because those are filmed at an epic fail rate of 24 frames per second. Don't worry, we'll let you know what happens in TRON: Legacy.
This one pretty fallacious, since most games/hardware can't/don't handle motion blur the same way a video camera does.

_________________
Corolinth wrote:
Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 2169
Its ironic that so much of what is railed against in that "gamer bias" OP is exactly what I see illustrated by a majority of the posters in the Entertainment/Games sections of this board.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:04 pm
Posts: 488
I don't have anything against a game based on length. I don't buy a lot of games in the first place, because I've got pretty specific wants. I do prefer games where I get better over time, so some sort of levelling system is crucial.

I do like games that involve exploration, which to me adds all sorts of time. Fallout 3 I played through twice, first playthrough over 300 hours, and probably another 200+ on the second. Borderlands, despite being fairly one dimensional in a lot of aspects, I've been playing the hell out of. 2 playthroughs with my 61 soldier, on the Armory DLC after completing my first playthrough on a 43 or so hunter, and I'm on a 4th playthrough with the siren, and outside of the Underdome DLC I've seen and done it all, and want to keep playing it. The original Bioshock I've even played through 3 or 4 times, because I enjoyed it that much.

Truth be told, I have put more time into each of those games than I've put into Mass Effect/ME2 and Dragon Age. I know there's a lot replayability there, and while I enjoyed playing them, I just don't get that "damn, that was bad *** and I must play again!" vibe from it.

I think the big difference is that in games like Fallout 3 and Borderlands, when you get up there in levels and get good gear, you feel like some sort of angel of death, ready to lay the smack down on any and all who dare to look at you sideways. With ME/ME2, and Dragon Age, I never got that. I always felt out classed, and spent a lot of time going out like a chump. Toss in the fact that there is essentially nothing outside of the story and side quests to add to the chances of levelling, well, meh. You give me a game with a 25 or 30 level cap, and I expect to be able to go grind exp to be a min/maxing *****, but at the end of the day Bioware has consistently failed to deliver for me.

Don't even get me started on the retarded achievements for the 360 that Bioware games have. Dragon Age was pretty easy to obtain, but ME/ME2 would involve way more time investment than I'm willing to give.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 201 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group