The 2010 Video Games Thread

[PurdueBrad]

I enjoyed Heavy Rain, a lot, and like the idea of the plot-driven experience provided by games like Heavy Rain, Uncharted, and Mass Effect. I thought it was definitely worth my time (although I will not be playing through again) but I do look forward to someone putting together a story with a much more solid, clear plot.

I agree with Harris, there are some absolute stand-out scenes. There are also some pretty big issues (and I actually thought, after playing the demo, they wouldn't bother me but I was wrong).

I think for me this is a game that scratches the surface of what is possible and I look forward to others digging much, much deeper into that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

I think for me this is a game that scratches the surface of what is possible and I look forward to others digging much, much deeper into that.

Yeah, this is a case where I'm hoping for some level of copycat games. The HR developer has already said they aren't looking to make a sequel, so there is a void to be filled.

I was a huge fan of 'Choose Your Own Adventure' books when I was a kid. When I play this game, I get that same feeling that I loved with those old books, except it's obviously a much more involved experience.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Just Cause 2?? WTF is this game?? It's fucking awesome!!

If you missed the original, pick it up cheap and play it.

[Radii]

Definitely my biggest issue with Heavy Rain is that for whatever reason I did not feel immersed in the story until very late in the game. There were some intense scenes mixed in but just way too often I was just rushing to the next step. Without that immersion the games flaws were overwhelming at times.

Originally Posted by PurdueBrad

I agree with Harris, there are some absolute stand-out scenes. There are also some pretty big issues (and I actually thought, after playing the demo, they wouldn't bother me but I was wrong).

I have a few big general problems that I just could never get past. The first was the R2 mechanic to walk, and the fact that there were just two set camera angles in every area. The simple act of walking felt clumsy the entire way. When you are simply walking down a hallway or looking for some stairs the difficulty of trying to get from point A to point B while looking around to make sure you don't miss anything to interact with was immensely frustrating. This frustration was evident in the tutorial and in the very last chapter of the game and every single chapter in between. And heaven forbid if there was a crowd. There were some critical chapters at parties and clubs that were just immensely frustrating for me because I didn't immediately figure out the right place to go and spent 5-10 minutes bumping into people in a crowd hoping to find someone to talk to. This completely ruined the great surprises/plot advancement contained in those scenes.


Additional major issues, some spoilers(not about the ending/killer but some specifics):

Spoiler

1) The playground scene where the kid gets kidnapped - hated it. It should have been a major, touching, intense scene. Instead I was just annoyed the whole time, clumsily using my R2 mechanism that I hated to walk from ride to ride on the playground, dealing with 3 and 4 button combo mechanism just to generate 1 line of dialogue from the kid before you get to the carousel. Because of how clunky this plays out by the time it ends I'm just happy I don't have to deal with another 4-button combo to push my dumbass kid on a swing, instead of devastated that the poor father is dealing with another tragic event involving his children.


2) The cop, Blake, was ridiculous. You just can't put a character so unbelievably and ridiculously over the top in a game where the story is so important. I know it was supposed to help with the immersion and emotion when you're controlling the FBI Agent, the classic bad cop willing to ignore the law to get what he wants, but instead my feelings were: "oh come on, is he really willing to beat the shit out of a psychologist the *exact same way* he beat the shit out someone he thought was the killer? This is just dumb, didn't they put any thought into this? And again like the tedium of some of the other scenes, no matter how important a scene was, the disbelief in this character basically ruined every chapter he was in for me.


3) Super annoying plot holes, again, you have a story driven game, so some of the complete failures in dialogue/actions/scenery kicked me out of the story and killed the immersion. The PI wiping down fingerprints BY PICKING UP EVERY ITEM WITH HIS BARE HANDS, alzheimer's lady in the hospital wondering why they won't give her a TV in her room WHEN THERE IS A TV IN HER ROOM. Again, if I was more immersed in the game maybe I overlook this, but its a story driven game, the story is paramount, I'm not going to forgive the problems in the story like I would in other video games

Ok, done with spoilers. I think one of my biggest problems was that I played the game on the most difficult level so I got more difficult button mashing combos than I might have on easier levels. Here's the thing... I wanted that difficulty in intense fight scenes where you might live or die, loved it. It made me be hyperfocused on those intense scenes and was *great*. But they made cooking up some eggs or operating a swingset just as challenging as surviving an apartment fire on that difficulty level. If they had matched the importance of button mashing with the intensity and focus required for any given scene I would have enjoyed it a lot more, instead of wondering why every tedious task was just as difficult as... well any of the many scenes where it was clear that I might die if I fail.

I think for me this is a game that scratches the surface of what is possible and I look forward to others digging much, much deeper into that.

Definitely. I have my problems with the game but as I said originally even though I have a ton of issues with the game I am still glad I played it and hope to see this taken further.

[MikeVic]

I've only played the Heavy Rain demo, but the walking was so stupid that I won't be playing this game until it's really cheap or even then, I'm just not sure. Maybe I'd like to see someone play through it, but that's about it.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If you missed the original, pick it up cheap and play it.

totally missed the original. it's cheap on Steam though.

graphics in 2 look even more amazing though hmm?

[PurdueBrad]

Originally Posted by Radii

Ok, done with spoilers. I think one of my biggest problems was that I played the game on the most difficult level so I got more difficult button mashing combos than I might have on easier levels. Here's the thing... I wanted that difficulty in intense fight scenes where you might live or die, loved it. It made me be hyperfocused on those intense scenes and was *great*. But they made cooking up some eggs or operating a swingset just as challenging as surviving an apartment fire on that difficulty level. If they had matched the importance of button mashing with the intensity and focus required for any given scene I would have enjoyed it a lot more, instead of wondering why every tedious task was just as difficult as... well any of the many scenes where it was clear that I might die if I fail.




Definitely. I have my problems with the game but as I said originally even though I have a ton of issues with the game I am still glad I played it and hope to see this taken further.

I agree with a ton of your points, in your spoilers as well. But the main one I agree with is the one that is above. Simple tasks needed to be just that, simple, while the more challenging tasks really needed to be over the top intense and hard (which some were).

The plot holes, not going into any spoilers, were pretty bad. In addition, I thought the archetype characters (the bad cop, the prostitute with the heart of gold, the evil rich father, etc.) were well over-the-top. I would've appreciated more subtleties in those characters.

[RainMaker]

I guess my problem with Heavy Rain is the 8-10 hours. I have trouble justifying it against a $60 game like The Show or Battlefield that I'll play 10 times as much. The concept is cool but I think I'd be more down with games like that if they were $20.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess my problem with Heavy Rain is the 8-10 hours. I have trouble justifying it against a $60 game like The Show or Battlefield that I'll play 10 times as much. The concept is cool but I think I'd be more down with games like that if they were $20.

Yeah for sure. I actually signed up for Gamefly for this game. There are a number of other games I'm interested in checking out but would never purchase, this was the tipping point getting me to sign up though.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

totally missed the original. it's cheap on Steam though.

graphics in 2 look even more amazing though hmm?

PC graphics hardware has advanced just a bit since the first one came out, so yeah

[Big Fo]

I'm trying to decide if I'm going to get Final Fantasy XIII next week.

Reviews are generally good although EDGE was quite harsh. The GameTrailers video review has me leaning toward a yes thanks in part to how good the game looks, plus the reviewer liked most other aspects of the game. And even the Edge reviewer liked the gameplay/battle system once it got past a certain point where the shackles were taken off the player, it just took far too long for that to happen according to them.

It's been awhile since I played a big budget, good looking, current generation RPG (Mass Effect doesn't count since I had to turn all the graphical settings down on my laptop to make the framerate playable). All the ones I've played since Fallout 3 have been DS, PS2, or SNES games, so I'll probably give FF13 a go.

Either the $10 gift card from Target or the 50% trade in bonus at Gamestop will ease the cost somewhat if I decide on getting it. Returning to what was discussed half a page or so back, something about many PS3 games costing $60 rather than $50 bugs me. Maybe it's because 50 is such a simple number, being half a hundred, and a $10 increase from what I was used to during the PS1-PS2 era (plus Wii and current PC games top out at $50 most of the time) seems like a bigger jump than it should in my head.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

I'm trying to decide if I'm going to get Final Fantasy XIII next week.

Reviews are generally good although EDGE was quite harsh. The GameTrailers video review has me leaning toward a yes thanks in part to how good the game looks, plus the reviewer liked most other aspects of the game. And even the Edge reviewer liked the gameplay/battle system once it got past a certain point where the shackles were taken off the player, it just took far too long for that to happen according to them.

EDGE sort of enjoys being... edgey when it comes to reviewing highly anticipated games. They also gave "Dragon Age: Origins" a 5 in what was a very questionable review. I can't say the same here, never having played FF13.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

EDGE sort of enjoys being... edgey when it comes to reviewing highly anticipated games. They also gave "Dragon Age: Origins" a 5 in what was a very questionable review. I can't say the same here, never having played FF13.

They do have a reputation for being harsh on occasion. I'd heard about DA:O getting a 5 but didn't read the review and haven't played the game, though from what I understand is that many people found it to be very good.

It was the text in the FF13 review that worries me more than the score, the complaints about the beginning of the game in particular.

It’s best to get the beginning out of the way: it’s a disaster of pacing that both bores and condescends to the player. There’s an excellently rendered cutscene to start off, and for the next two hours you’ll do little but run forward through walled-in environments and press a single button over and over to dismiss enemies. By the time you encounter anything approaching a challenge, FFXIII is stirring one emotion in particular: boredom.

The combat system is the culprit. Square Enix has constructed a masterpiece within the structure of turn-based battling, but the game is scared of you getting it wrong. While the system is complex, it’s not too hard to get to grips with the basics, but you won’t have access to the full capabilities of your party until around 20 hours in. It introduces every element at a crawling pace, and seems to think the only way players learn is through repetition – you’ll get a new tactic and then have to barrel through a series of identical enemies that are defeated by spamming it.

The rest of it was mostly positive, it's just that if the game does take that long to really get going I don't know if I'll even feel like playing long enough to get to the better parts of the game.

[RainMaker]

So 2K is no longer making a hockey game? Or taking a year off? This isn't good news although not surprising.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So 2K is no longer making a hockey game? Or taking a year off? This isn't good news although not surprising.

Where do you see that? They do have NHL 2k10 out, it came out around the same time as NHL 10.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So 2K is no longer making a hockey game? Or taking a year off? This isn't good news although not surprising.

They are taking a year off on the PS3/360 versions in order to make some changes that couldn't be done with only a year of work. NHL2k11 will be released on for Wii, just not the other consoles.

kotaku.com link

[Calis]

Originally Posted by Radii

Ok, done with spoilers. I think one of my biggest problems was that I played the game on the most difficult level so I got more difficult button mashing combos than I might have on easier levels. Here's the thing... I wanted that difficulty in intense fight scenes where you might live or die, loved it. It made me be hyperfocused on those intense scenes and was *great*. But they made cooking up some eggs or operating a swingset just as challenging as surviving an apartment fire on that difficulty level. If they had matched the importance of button mashing with the intensity and focus required for any given scene I would have enjoyed it a lot more, instead of wondering why every tedious task was just as difficult as... well any of the many scenes where it was clear that I might die if I fail.

I finished up the game last weekend. After playing through it I see absolutely no reason not to play through on Easy. The added "difficulty" of playing on a harder difficulty level is stupid.

I'm a bit torn on the game in general as well. I had a really fun time playing it, mostly because I was so impressed with the concept and occasionally by a really well done scene that really nailed creating suspense and making you have no idea what was the correct move in that situation.

I enjoyed it as I played but after I finished and thought about it a bit, it really started to fall apart on me.

Spoilers ahoy-

Spoiler

With regards to Blake as a character. I agree. I think what they were trying for was the obvious good cop/bad cop theme, and also he was the misdirection as a character that was so blatantly the "bad" guy of the bunch that you actually couldn't believe he had anything to do with the murders. They definitely built up towards wanting you to think it was him when the hint drops that it is someone on the police force doing the killings.

They just went obscenely overboard with it, and while I think the scene with the religious fanatic suspect was one of the highlights of the game, the one with the doctor was way too much.

I actually didn't even think of the comment from the mother about the TV as weird, I just heard it and thought she was obviously completely out of it because there is a TV right there. I'm not sure that was unintentional.

I think the most obvious plotholes and the ones that REALLY bother me looking back it are pretty damn big. One being the scene where Scott murders the old clock guy. You are controlling him the entire time, and that's the one point in the game they pull the stunt of having your character do something you obviously didn't do, in the same scene. That one annoyed me quite a bit. Apart from that I had a problem with Scott as the culprit in general, because so much of his buildup doesn't make a bit of sense after knowing he is the killer. Sure, gathering up the evidence to destroy it makes sense but a lot of his inner dialogs and actions don't mesh up...unless he has multiple personalities or some such.

I also thought the shootout with the guards in the mansion was pretty lame. He'd up to that point been a pretty average guy, with asthma...who almost got his ass kicked, but he is an action movie star in that scene.

The other big thing was Ethan's blackouts and waking up with Origami in his hands. I would have liked to see some sort of explanation for this..I have to reach pretty far to try and justify this with what they gave me.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

They do have a reputation for being harsh on occasion. I'd heard about DA:O getting a 5 but didn't read the review and haven't played the game, though from what I understand is that many people found it to be very good.

It was the text in the FF13 review that worries me more than the score, the complaints about the beginning of the game in particular.



The rest of it was mostly positive, it's just that if the game does take that long to really get going I don't know if I'll even feel like playing long enough to get to the better parts of the game.

I heard Eurogamer was very harsh on the game in their preview, but I haven't read it myself.

IGN also posted a preview recently that praises combat, storytelling, and voice acting, but rips the game for how linear it is (they claim the first 25 hours or so are entirely linear) along with some other gripes (no cities, just mashing X for the first few hours of combat, no control over party for the first few hours as well). Of course they then recommend people on the fence go out and preorder the game. It was a strange preview and it's a good example of why I don't take reviews on FF games very seriously. I read it as a mostly negative review with some strong positives, they admit it's not one of the best in the FF series, and then go on to recommend it as a preorder. The fanboyism with this series and reviewers is like nothing else.

[rowech]

I know there are a lot of games coming out that I would like to buy and I know my wife is going to hate me monopolizing the TV. So, I'm wondering, is there a cheap monitor type display that I could buy to hook up my 360 and PS3 into? I don't want to pay for an HDTV really...more like a widescreen computer monitor. Just not sure if they make something that would be able to handle the PS3, 360, and still produce sound out of it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I heard Eurogamer was very harsh on the game in their preview, but I haven't read it myself.

IGN also posted a preview recently that praises combat, storytelling, and voice acting, but rips the game for how linear it is (they claim the first 25 hours or so are entirely linear) along with some other gripes (no cities, just mashing X for the first few hours of combat, no control over party for the first few hours as well). Of course they then recommend people on the fence go out and preorder the game. It was a strange preview and it's a good example of why I don't take reviews on FF games very seriously. I read it as a mostly negative review with some strong positives, they admit it's not one of the best in the FF series, and then go on to recommend it as a preorder. The fanboyism with this series and reviewers is like nothing else.

I, for one, like linear RPGs but that's not really the American norm any more. Everyone seems to want wide open games which, for me, seems like a license for devs to claim they put in 100+ hours of gameplay which again, to me, feels like mind numbing mini games and crap which take away from a strong central story.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I, for one, like linear RPGs but that's not really the American norm any more. Everyone seems to want wide open games which, for me, seems like a license for devs to claim they put in 100+ hours of gameplay which again, to me, feels like mind numbing mini games and crap which take away from a strong central story.

SI

+1

I was thrilled to see that it's more linear. Open world games end up with far too much time wasted wandering around the open world looking for the kick-off point of the next part of what they could have just made linear in the first place. Give me a linear game with a good experience any day over aimless wandering.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I, for one, like linear RPGs but that's not really the American norm any more. Everyone seems to want wide open games which, for me, seems like a license for devs to claim they put in 100+ hours of gameplay which again, to me, feels like mind numbing mini games and crap which take away from a strong central story.

SI

I agree. So long as the central story is interesting and engaging, I don't mind games that are linear. Sure, I like the ability to explore the world and do side missions and get involved in things, but I've been very happy with games like Fallout 3, Dragon's Age, Mass Effect 1/2, etc.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I agree. So long as the central story is interesting and engaging, I don't mind games that are linear. Sure, I like the ability to explore the world and do side missions and get involved in things, but I've been very happy with games like Fallout 3, Dragon's Age, Mass Effect 1/2, etc.

To me, Fallout 3 even suffered a bit from this (I haven't even played the other games) but was good for what I've seen described as an "American-style RPG". I felt like there were about 20-30 hours of actual plot, which is pretty good these days but I dumped about 100 hours into it, hoping to find more, and the side stuff was just that, "side stuff". It wasn't all that satisfying when you go in, spend 2 hours clearing out a building or part of town, just to get a few assorted goodies. Give me some sort of broader plot advancement for every item like that- make the world really interconnected.

SI

[Calis]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To me, Fallout 3 even suffered a bit from this (I haven't even played the other games) but was good for what I've seen described as an "American-style RPG". I felt like there were about 20-30 hours of actual plot, which is pretty good these days but I dumped about 100 hours into it, hoping to find more, and the side stuff was just that, "side stuff". It wasn't all that satisfying when you go in, spend 2 hours clearing out a building or part of town, just to get a few assorted goodies. Give me some sort of broader plot advancement for every item like that- make the world really interconnected.

SI

Hmm, see I like both JRPG style games and Western style, but I think it is being overstated how linearity equates to depth of story. JRPGs in the bast most definitely added dozens and dozens of hours of tedious random encounters and in some cases grinding. If I'm being forced into a rather menial series of combats I'd at least like some exploration or something to encourage me. Different sorts of gamers I guess. It isn't like JRPGs are in general finally tuned and paced narratives. It is a slog to get to the good parts.

JRPGs are more focused in the narrative because there is usually little or no player influence. You either die or move the story forward, not much in the way of branches to worry about, unlike something like Dragon Age. This is good and bad.

In general though I think both styles definitely suffer from this need to be epically long. This interested me ten years ago, but lately I'm much preferring a tighter focused story that doesn't take a year to complete.

One thing both do for completely different reasons that I despise is the silent protagonist. It is not more "immersive" to play a statue. Sometimes options aren't better than being focused.

[Tasan]

Originally Posted by rowech

I know there are a lot of games coming out that I would like to buy and I know my wife is going to hate me monopolizing the TV. So, I'm wondering, is there a cheap monitor type display that I could buy to hook up my 360 and PS3 into? I don't want to pay for an HDTV really...more like a widescreen computer monitor. Just not sure if they make something that would be able to handle the PS3, 360, and still produce sound out of it.

Something like this?

Newegg.com - ASUS VE246H Black 24" 2ms(GTG) HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor 250 cd/m2 50000 :1 (ASCR) Built-in Speakers - LCD Monitors

or

Newegg.com - Acer G245Hbmid Black 24" 5ms HDMI Widescreen LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 80000:1 Max (ACM) Built-in Speakers - LCD Monitors

Not sure about audio though. Do the PS3 and 360 have a headphone out audio connector?

*edit Actually, you could get an RCA Red/White to headphone jack adapter and make that work. So yes, these should do just fine for you.

[Scoobz0202]

No. I bought adapters to use my pc speakers if I use my pc monitor.

You can buy Turtle Beach's that have the headphones w/ mic.

edit: I am speaking for xbox. Dont know if the ps3 has a headphone jack

[SportsDino]

In regards to 'epic length' of games... if a game doesn't deliver a large amount of play time it is almost universally bashed out in the community. No one wants to spend $50-60 (or even 30) on something less than 20 hours.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

In regards to 'epic length' of games... if a game doesn't deliver a large amount of play time it is almost universally bashed out in the community. No one wants to spend $50-60 (or even 30) on something less than 20 hours.

I do. I dream of short games with linear stories that I can theoretically aspire to actually finishing. I hate exploring, with the exception of in GTA where 'exploring' is just a bi-product of all the wanton destruction.

[DeToxRox]

So is FF13 in the MGS4 cut scene department? I found MGS4 to be awesome but I know some were turned off by all of the cuts. I figure FF13 will be as cut heavy if not more so which makes me wonder how much people will complain about it.

I do agree linear stories are good if done right. Resident Evil 5 was a blast though it was different then it's predecessors. I wish it had been more openish like 4 was but it was still very good.

On the flipside I didn't think Fallout was too open ended, mainly because you could whip through the main story fairly quick. Me personally though, I enjoyed discovering all the little nuances of the game but I can see how some people can find it to be a waste of time.

[Izulde]

It's a good thing I don't have my PS3 here or I'd get FFXIII at midnight release and not get anything done the rest of the semester.

I do know what I'm going to be doing all Spring Break in WI though.

[Calis]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I do. I dream of short games with linear stories that I can theoretically aspire to actually finishing. I hate exploring, with the exception of in GTA where 'exploring' is just a bi-product of all the wanton destruction.

I do as well. I don't have the time to devote to games that I used to but I still follow the scene closely and like to try them out. Where ten years ago id have scoffed at a less than ten hour game, now I become annoyed with obvious filler and end up shelving the game.

I do love exploring though, but I think newer GTA games aren't good for it. I think of games like the Gothic series where I had a blast wandering the countryside and seeing what they had tucked away off the main path, or a game like Crackdown and searching for agility Orbs. GTA has taken the sense of discovery out of the game in exchange for a more "realistic" setting.

I think with exploring it depends on how much the developers fleshed out the areas or how much they just plopped more terrain in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

To me, Fallout 3 even suffered a bit from this (I haven't even played the other games) but was good for what I've seen described as an "American-style RPG". I felt like there were about 20-30 hours of actual plot, which is pretty good these days but I dumped about 100 hours into it, hoping to find more, and the side stuff was just that, "side stuff".

Definitely count me in that "opposite crowd".

I have little interest in the main storyline of most games (still haven't bothered to complete Oblivion's main story in spite of being something like 125 hours in, still have additional sidequests & at least one full DLC - Shivering Isles - still to go), the more open the world & the more time I can spend the better afaic.

[DaddyTorgo]

Oblivion is fun like that, I agree with you Jon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oblivion is fun like that, I agree with you Jon.

I think it does create a bit of a downside for me as far as enjoying other games goes though.

I mean, it was Fallout 3 that put me back on a console for anything other than a sports game for the first time in years (I'm thinking as far back as stuff like Romance of the Three Kingdoms on Genesis). And after it I picked up on Oblivion. Given that, it's pretty tough for me to come away satisfied with most other games that aren't similarly broad (bordering on epic) in scale.

In the same way, the "event points" (or whatever that style is properly called) in F3 really ruined me for games that respawn completely predictably (my big gripe with Borderlands aside from some of the bugs).
Knowing that there are certain places where you may encounter some spawned enemy but not knowing what it will be nor if it will happen on that particular pass really feels like an entirely different experience to me.

[RainMaker]

I'm with Jon. I'm not really in it for the storyline, I'm in it to fuck around as much as I can. Experience points and stuff are more important to me than a storyline. I like building up a character over time and doing what I want.

[Calis]

Oblivion is also definitely a game where the world is focused on before the story. They're tacking a main story on, not throwing open world elements on a story. The main plot for Oblivion is terrible imo. Fallout 3 was better, but still poor in that respect.

I enjoy a good focused plot, but I realize the game moments that I remember years later and really enjoy are the emergent narratives that arise through play. I'm thinking of games like Dwarf Fortress orDarklands and X-Com to go further back. I enjoy having the story be my own.

[SportsDino]

I don't advocate that games should be a certain way, I'm more flexible, just putting out that I noticed that every short duration game has been panned harshly. Personally, I love any game as long as it is well done, I love Dragon Age, I love Fallout 3, I love Oblivion, all for different reasons.

I think there is some value in short games certainly, but that is not the trend because of the feedback and market the studios are seeing is generally pushing 'hours of gameplay' as a key metric.

I'd like to see more short but highly variable games. A playthrough might be even as low as 5 hours, but you get at least 4 to 5 highly divergent paths, and maybe a lot of little micropaths along the way. Its a hard sell though, replaying a game is hard since most people expect it to be a rehash for the most part, I'd like to see a game really break that expectation and be massively different the second time through.

[DaddyTorgo]

if i'm paying 50 or 60 dollars for something it ought to have some good replayability

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

if i'm paying 50 or 60 dollars for something it ought to have some good replayability

Or some serious first-run playability.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

if i'm paying 50 or 60 dollars for something it ought to have some good replayability

I think that depends on how good the initial experience was. While I got "Fallout 3" for like $20, since I bought it a year late, I would have definitely felt like I got my $50-60 worth after one play through.

Same goes for "Dragon's Age." I've only played it once, for just over 80 hours, and totally feel like I got my money's worth.

I am not sure what the replayability of either game is for me. As much as I enjoyed those games, I am not sure if I will ever go back and play them, in their entirety again. I just have too many other games to play.

[RainMaker]

I'm kind of surprised we don't see more variable pricing in video games. Every new game comes out at around $60 (unless a store is discounting it). I think it would make a more interesting marketplace if some games came out for much less and even some for more.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm kind of surprised we don't see more variable pricing in video games. Every new game comes out at around $60 (unless a store is discounting it). I think it would make a more interesting marketplace if some games came out for much less and even some for more.

Well, special editions push prices much farther up on both consoles and PCs. Consoles rarely have much downswing thanks to the console maker taking a cut, but PC prices vary widely depending on the game and quality.

But when it costs $25million on up for the major games everyone is talking about, don't expect the price to come down much from $60.

[SportsDino]

I'd like to see more variable pricing, it happens much more often in computer games than console (for obvious reasons).

I wouldn't mind paying $100 for a really top notch epic game (say Fallout 3 if it had a high quality storyline/characters on top of a slightly more massive world). I wouldn't mind paying $20 per episode of a long series (say a Dragon Age esque game, but they release a new section of world map every 6 months for about 2 years, on top of the 50-60 base game).

I think with the growth of Steam we'll probably see more creative pricing schemes in the future, at least in the computer market. Hopefully that will ripple back to the consoles which are getting increasingly better networks.

-----

For instance, in my own game-making ambitions I'm really keen on play as you go massively multiplayer, and the base + episodes model. Most of my investments in a project come up front, but additional use of the more fixed assets (like an engine or gameplay interface) is relatively easy... as in content is cheap and can be farmed out. Also in-game microtransactions seem promising as well (if people are auctioning WoW gold on eBay, why not just corner the market in the game itself and take a cut?).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I think with the growth of Steam we'll probably see more creative pricing schemes in the future, at least in the computer market. Hopefully that will ripple back to the consoles which are getting increasingly better networks.

With two kids under the age of three currently in my home, I'm opting right now for the 'wait a few months until a game drops to half its release price since I don't have time to play it now anyway' pricing scheme or the 'look at the Under $5 tab on Steam exclusively' pricing scheme.

[terpkristin]

I picked up my copy of Final Fantasy XIII today. I wish that work this week wasn't so nuts, it'd be a perfect time to come down with a cold/flu. Of course, this weekend looks like rain, YAY!!!

/tk

[SportsDino]

I'm a big fan of the wait for the games to go half price (or used), and I'm sure its some component of the industry strategy anyway (collect premiums from the gotta have it crowd, then liquidate inventory down the stretch at half price which is still profitable).

Still, never hurts to play with distribution strategies, never hurts to become the next iTunes, Amazon, Steam, etc...

Overall, Steam I think is a wild success, particularly compared to the arms race of copy protection. (Search youtube for interviews with Gabe Newell for example)

[sterlingice]

Half price? Rookies

Rare is the game I pay more than $20 for and many under $10 or even $5

But I suppose that's why I have cheapassgamer bookmarked

SI

[DataKing]

Decisions, decisions. Do I pick up Final Fantasy on my way home from work tonight, or wait? I've been looking for a good RPG lately to complete my personal "holy trinity"; 1 racing/action game (Forza 3), 1 Shooter (Borderlands), and 1 RPG (currently vacant). Haven't touched the Final Fantasy series since X-2, so I'm not sure what direction it's taken.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by DataKing

Decisions, decisions. Do I pick up Final Fantasy on my way home from work tonight, or wait? I've been looking for a good RPG lately to complete my personal "holy trinity"; 1 racing/action game (Forza 3), 1 Shooter (Borderlands), and 1 RPG (currently vacant). Haven't touched the Final Fantasy series since X-2, so I'm not sure what direction it's taken.

I thought XII was one of the weaker iterations in the series, although I did enjoy Fran. For me it still goes:

1. Tactics
2. VI
3. IV
4. X
5. VIII
6. I
7. VII
8. V
9. XII
10. IX
11. II
12. XI (MMORPG, but still)
13. III

Edit: Forgot IX and I haven't played X-2 yet.

I and VIII could flip-flop depending on how nostalgic I'm feeling, but OTOH, a lot of people say I remind them of Squall, so who knows?

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by DataKing

Decisions, decisions. Do I pick up Final Fantasy on my way home from work tonight, or wait? I've been looking for a good RPG lately to complete my personal "holy trinity"; 1 racing/action game (Forza 3), 1 Shooter (Borderlands), and 1 RPG (currently vacant). Haven't touched the Final Fantasy series since X-2, so I'm not sure what direction it's taken.

By most accounts, this one doesn't get good til about 1/3 through. I picked it up at lunch but don't plan on starting it til tomorrow or maybe not even the weekend, too much going on my weeknights this week and not enough time to sit down and really get into it.

/tk