RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS THREAD!

[Malcador]

Well, we're not there yet.

[Morgoth]

Well, we're not there yet.

I think I saw that movie too.

[Nepenthe]

Are AAA games too long?

 

Heavy Rain was long? Really? I mean, I had food poisoning when a played LA Noire, so I was up for two days straight and spent a lot of time throwing up, so I don't really have a time stamp for that, but... Heavy Rain?

 

Well, whoever these guys are, their studio tagline should be "by idiots, for idiots".

[Maria Caliban]

Are AAA games too long?

 

Heavy Rain was long? Really? I mean, I had food poisoning when a played LA Noire, so I was up for two days straight and spent a lot of time throwing up, so I don't really have a time stamp for that, but... Heavy Rain?

 

Well, whoever these guys are, their studio tagline should be "by idiots, for idiots".

 

"Alexis Kennedy, chief narrative officer at Fail Better games..."

[Rosbjerg]

Yeah I couldn't help but laugh at that too..

[Tale]

They stole my idea for a company name.

 

Though, it was actually Fail Upwards, for the abbreviation pun.

[Slowtrain]

What is it with this exodus of top staff from AAA studios into these non-games nowadays?

 

 

Based on the horror stories we hear from devs about their miserable experiences at major studios, it seems to make perfect sense.

[Morgoth]

What is it with this exodus of top staff from AAA studios into these non-games nowadays?

 

 

Based on the horror stories we hear from devs about their miserable experiences at major studios, it seems to make perfect sense.

This indie game and browser game nonsense isn't going to make them much money on the long run. Even soccer mums and non-gamers at some point in their lives will realize that they wanna play something with more depth, so they'll just return/discover to the big screen gaming.

 

If developers are unhappy with their working conditions at AAA studios, they better get their act together and do something about it.

Edited July 19, 2011 by Morgoth

[Slowtrain]

What is it with this exodus of top staff from AAA studios into these non-games nowadays?

 

 

Based on the horror stories we hear from devs about their miserable experiences at major studios, it seems to make perfect sense.

This indie game and browser game nonsense isn't going to make them much money on the long run.

 

 

That's probably true, but it may be a situation where less money in an independent environment is better for the moment that more money in a big AAA project.

 

Some of these developers we hear about worked in what appear to be pretty miserable* conditions for years while trying to complete a project. Those are years of your life you'll never get back. Maybe for some the money isn't worth it.

 

 

*when I say miserable I'm not comparing it to working in a coal mine for 50 years or starving in a refugee camp. There are a lot of people in the world who suffer a lot more genuine misery than game developers. I'm just talking miserable in a relative sense.

[C2B]

Are AAA games too long?

 

 

As a question in general.... Depends on the game really. Specifically regarding "bigger" rpgs I often feel that you could cut a lot of stuff from them. Like that one boring dungeon crawl or those 20 pointless fetch quests (that don't even have a interesting backstory). RPGs in general are horrible at pacing. But thats me, of course.

Edited July 19, 2011 by C2B

[Morgoth]

RPGs in general are horrible at pacing. But thats me, of course.

That's why they'll never reach sale numbers as say, their FPS counterparts.

 

That's why Bioware is also so succesful with the Mass Effect series because you got the depth and narrative from an RPG, but the pacing and adrenaline of a FPS. It's a perfect mix of emotions.

[Tigranes]

*shrug* Ironic thing about DS3 is that it actually went ahead and did what we are always thinking about - cutting out the fluff and filler to the max. In any other RPG, every single 'filler area' (i.e. fight through enemies to get from X to Y) would have been twice as long. Now, DS3 isn't a great proof of concept because it's so watered down in RPG elements and it's too short even accounting for this, but it does confirm my suspicion that if we really cut out all the 'fat' there would be just as many complaints as praises, about how their game is not 'epic' enough.

 

At least, enough to make it a gamble for the developer.

[Slowtrain]

rpgs tend to leave pacing more up to the player. You can always rush through if you want. Or take your time and explore every nook and cranny. It's why they are generally more more interesting that shooters.

 

shooters by and large tend to be stunningly dull.

[pmp10]

*shrug* Ironic thing about DS3 is that it actually went ahead and did what we are always thinking about - cutting out the fluff and filler to the max.

Yes that could have made a DS3 a more focused experience at a expense of freedom and exploration.

It's just a shame Obsidian took a step back by wrecking the pacing with it's dialogue and storytelling.

[Morgoth]

DSIII was imho a failure not because of the pacing but because it had no depth and it was just plain dull.

[Sannom]

As a question in general.... Depends on the game really. Specifically regarding "bigger" rpgs I often feel that you could cut a lot of stuff from them. Like that one boring dungeon crawl or those 20 pointless fetch quests (that don't even have a interesting backstory). RPGs in general are horrible at pacing. But thats me, of course.

BG2 is probably the only one that I feel didn't have problems in its pacing. Great and long side-quests that goes off the main story path, specific dungeons and areas for those, etc.

 

*shrug* Ironic thing about DS3 is that it actually went ahead and did what we are always thinking about - cutting out the fluff and filler to the max. In any other RPG, every single 'filler area' (i.e. fight through enemies to get from X to Y) would have been twice as long.

Yeah, DS3 really has only one of those 'filler areas', the swamp, and that's over pretty quickly. I wouldn't have minded more Gunderic Manor and Tomb of Heroes though, big dungeons that are actually 'optional'.

Heck, I think some RPG should go back to BG2's model, linear story but a huge chapter filled with optional quests... that you kinda have to do anyways if you want to have a good shot at survival. Not just 'four main hubs that you have to complete in any order you want'.

[Tigranes]

I'm obviously using DS3 as an example for the discussion. But sometimes, people just need to yell THE GAME SUCKS / THE GAME RULEZ.

 

It was a constant source of surprise for me to find those en-route areas, a passtime of ARPGs, over so quickly. I thought about how long I bloody spent and how many mobs I put down in, say, the jungle areas of Diablo 2 (some of which had no quests whatsoever, and simply randomly generated minibosses and a thousand urns with crap loot), and found that I much preferred it this way. After a while, though, I could see how other people could view it as a disappointment - you certainly do not ever get the feeling of "bloody hell, finally I'm here and I've reached the golden chest with the loot". Partly because DS3 doesn't have a lot of unique loot and it has no perishables economy, but what I'm getting at is that DS3 shows cutting out 'filler' in RPGs is actually a risky design decision, unless you have enough time to just make your entire game chock full of goodness.

 

BG2's model was great - it's funny how such a little thing (i.e. "Need X from each of 4 places" to "Go to up to 4 places, earn enough money") changes the whole dynamic.

[pmp10]

I'm obviously using DS3 as an example for the discussion. But sometimes, people just need to yell THE GAME SUCKS / THE GAME RULEZ.

The point isn't to yell what the game is but to point out that there are various opinions on the way DS3 handles pacing.

That makes it a rather poor example.

[Slowtrain]

Pacing is really only an issue in a linear game that keeps the player on rails the whole time.

 

Half-life for example.

 

not important at all in rpgs and strat games.

 

When I play a game I prefer to set my own pace anyway.

[Wrath of Dagon]

, but what I'm getting at is that DS3 shows cutting out 'filler' in RPGs is actually a risky design decision, unless you have enough time to just make your entire game chock full of goodness.

The problem with the modern gamer is they're so willing to settle for less.

[Tigranes]

That would be true if older games had no filler and great pacing. I love older games, but they don't. In many cases they have just as much filler.

[Volourn]

The problem with 'non modern gamers' is they have rose coloured glasses when thinking of older games. Stuff like the GB games - as fun as they were at the time - would likely be laugfhed at by those very same people if released nowadays.

[Gorth]

Stuff like the GB games - as fun as they were at the time - would likely be laugfhed at by those very same people if released nowadays.

The nervous, almost hysterical laughter of people not knowing how to set Irq and DMA channels in the audio setup

 

Maybe older games just left a stronger impression because you had to use your imagination to make up for the shortcomings in presentation? Never underestimate the power of imagination.

[Nepenthe]

"Alexis Kennedy, chief narrative officer at Fail Better games..."

 

:D Missed that, indeed.

 

*shrug* Ironic thing about DS3 is that it actually went ahead and did what we are always thinking about - cutting out the fluff and filler to the max. In any other RPG, every single 'filler area' (i.e. fight through enemies to get from X to Y) would have been twice as long. Now, DS3 isn't a great proof of concept because it's so watered down in RPG elements and it's too short even accounting for this, but it does confirm my suspicion that if we really cut out all the 'fat' there would be just as many complaints as praises, about how their game is not 'epic' enough.

 

At least, enough to make it a gamble for the developer.

 

Apparently "not epic enough" is the new "poor writing", the last-ditch complaint when you can't think of anything else.

 

BG2's model was great - it's funny how such a little thing (i.e. "Need X from each of 4 places" to "Go to up to 4 places, earn enough money") changes the whole dynamic.

 

Yet when they recycled it in DA2, I didn't hear anybody like it.

 

I doubt nostalgia is connected (at least directly) to how much imagination you need to fill in the blanks, I think those initial gaming experiences will be magical to each of us. For me, those games are Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, Secret of the Silver Blades and Gargoyle's Quest. For some of us here, it's going to be BG2, maybe Torment. For some kids down the line, it's going to be something else. But for most, everything new will either be a rehash of the old, or just not as good.

[Gorth]

For me, those games are Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds, Secret of the Silver Blades and Gargoyle's Quest.

Ah yes, those modern, mass produced games that all the new kids fancied. They had nothing on the old classics like Temple of Apshai or Lords of Midnight