Finishing games

19 replies [Last post]
Carmine
Offline
Joined: 09/05/2010
You're right it should be

You're right it should be very relevant to the game's price because multiplayer is what everyone buys the game for really. COD, with its popularity, can be taken as an indication of the future of gaming though, and what it shows me is that nobody really wants single player stories anymore, and that the multiplayer component is becoming much more of a sport than a game, which really scares me...

Bill Loguidice
Bill Loguidice's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Just saying...

I would think a big portion of the appeal of Black Ops is the multiplayer, which can't be taken out of the equation for the total package. Also, a few hours for you might be many days or weeks for someone else.

n/a
Carmine
Offline
Joined: 09/05/2010
I just got into a little

I just got into a little argument with someone over the cost of MW2/Black Ops (same thing). Just like the film industry, mainstream games are becoming entirely spectacle driven, and single player campaigns in games like COD are really just becoming $60 movies.

On the normal setting I was able to beat MW2 in just a few hours--about one third the time to beat a Halo game (COD direct competition). I played it a second time through on highest possible difficulty and it took only another couple hours, and I was grossly disappointed to discover the only added difficulty was having less health and the enemy reaction times taken to truly insane levels. It became a matter of simply memorizing where the enemies would spawn and adapting to their predetermined routes. Essentially, once you spend your couple hours playing through the game on regular mode and you've seen it all for single player. Unless you love the story (which I found to be disturbing pro-fascist regime) there's really no reason to play this very short game more than twice.

I'd say no then, it is not worth the extremely high production value, if games are going to be this short and shallow and $60. Halo Reach gave me gobs of content (massive map editor, far more multiplayer playlists with a more mature online community, and a highly variable and replay-value friendly single player). My 2010 game of the year is Red Dead Redemption, why so is another discussion entirely...

Bill Loguidice
Bill Loguidice's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
It's all relative
Matt Barton wrote:

I started COD MW2 the other day and am again just so impressed with their package. The single player campaigns are a blast in this series. Granted, they are too short, but I guess I'd rather have a good short game than a long bad one. I just wish they weren't so damned expensive when they came out.

It does make me think that maybe folks are right about game development being too expensive. Do we really need to be spending tens of millions developing games, especially when it means a shelf price of $60 or more?

Considering the record breaking sales the game has made across all of the platforms, I think in this case both the investment and shelf price are perfectly justified. If you create a good enough carrot, gamers will eat it at any price. Personally, I only feel ripped off when something sucks or disappoints. I'd gladly pay $60 for a game I'll treasure versus four $15 games I won't care about.

n/a
Matt Barton
Matt Barton's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/16/2006
I started COD MW2 the other

I started COD MW2 the other day and am again just so impressed with their package. The single player campaigns are a blast in this series. Granted, they are too short, but I guess I'd rather have a good short game than a long bad one. I just wish they weren't so damned expensive when they came out.

It does make me think that maybe folks are right about game development being too expensive. Do we really need to be spending tens of millions developing games, especially when it means a shelf price of $60 or more?

n/a
ironmaidenrule
ironmaidenrule's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/02/2010
One at a time

I found the best method was to only play one game at a time, until it is complete before moving onto the next. For example, I have PoP: The Forgotten Sands on the go at the moment, and will not even install Dante's Inferno on the 360 till I have completed PoP.

Obvious omissions to this rule include, Fifa 11 and the Football Manager games, as you cannot really complete them.

clok1966
Offline
Joined: 01/21/2009
I consider any game with a

I consider any game with a single player component done when you finish it. COD:BO is one like this, multiplayer, how would you finish that? I guess you could get all unlocks (err it does have unlocks like the others right?). I have been really dispointed in the single player parts of the last few MW/COD games.. way to short, they are loads of fun, but being able to play on a HARD setting and finish um in 5-6 hours? maybe I should like that, I could finish more games :)

I think my problem is just simply I buy to many games. I tend to check out alot of 360/PS3 games, wait for them to update (i really think its sad how many console games need updates... its great they can do it now, but man... does anything releaes without and update anymore?) play um 10-30 minutes and never look at um again. When I do sink some time in (fallout lately) i am to easily distracted.. WoW has the big expansion and wholesale changes (and yes, I'm a bit of a WoW player) it was almost finished, but I was worried I would miss some part and was doing all the old quests I hadnt finished. So now I was at end, but didnt finish it, gotta do it in next couple nights.

forcefield58
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2006
Finished Another One..

Just finished the campaign in COD Black Ops. I'm a game-finishing fool now-a-days. I guess the classification of "finishing" a game needs to be debated, however, my definition of this is getting through the single-player campaign. If available, also the co-op campaign. I don't care for the Multiplayer that much due to all the glitching, cheating, jumping around like crazed people, etc. A few people at work who have 360's say "finishing" a game means getting max gamer score (achievement points). I have to admit, I'm an achievement junkie, however, I won't waste my time repeating the same thing (boosting) over and over to get 5-10 achievement points. I know some people that have done this for months just to get 1 or 2 achievements.

It would be interesting to hear people's thoughts on this. We sometimes have heated debates at the office as far as "finishing" games go and what this means. I say if you spend your hard earned cash on a game, finishing it is whatever you make of it.

Cheers

n/a
forcefield58
Offline
Joined: 05/19/2006
Seems my Gaming habits change as I get older...

I used to have your problem, but now find myself finishing 95 percent of the games I buy. Sometimes I'll go back to a game and there will be up a year between plays, but eventually they'll all get done. I converted from computer to console gaming back in the early 2000's and mainly play Xbox 360 games. I think part of it is the "achievement" feature Microsoft came up with and is obviously a stroke of genius. Most often I'll buy the gaming guide for the games and the first place I'll go to is the achievement section to see what was put in. To me, finishing the game is completing the single-player or campaign. I'm not much for multiplayer, so I typically leave those achievement points alone.

To me, if you enjoy playing the games you buy, don't worry about it. You're still contributing to the people that make the games so more games can be made, hahahaha. One thing I do though is check sites like Metacritic before I buy, unless I know the game will be good; Fallout, Halo, etc. If there is a game I'm not sure about, I'll download the demo or check web sites before I purchase it, such as Front Mission: Evolved, which I bought yesterday after reading the Metacritic reviews.

Cheers

n/a

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.