FA+
Shop
The only one with this gaming realization?
11 years ago
I just learned that throughout my recent buying of games over the past few years,
That i am having more fun with games that are under $20 bucks versus the full retail price of a $60 game by bigger developers. They also hold more extra features, similar to older games back in early 2000 and beyond, cus I remember the Mortal Kombat, Sonic, Square Enix, and Metroid series having loads of artwork, interviews, BGM, etc that made the game what it was and it was interesting on my downtime to sit down and look at their stuff!
Last retail game I thoroughly enjoyed with replayability and content was Dragon's Dogma:Dark Arisen, and I purchased that this January. Yeah, I'm behind, but these games now are like movies that aren't having bang for their full buck. I guess what I'm saying is that things nowadays aren't really having replayability.
Take, Idunno, Bioshock 2 for example (or any story driven major title). You run through it, get stuff along the way, ending credits, done. ...Okay. What else can ya do? Go back again, pick up whatever you missed the first time and trudge on again. But you're unable to go back from your first run, so you have to go back all over again.
I'm not really seeing the fun in that unless it was a joyful game with many things to do that you can easily overlook, maybe a world like GTA, or FarCry.
Some games just hold that value just once, and just sit there when you go to another game.
Others enable you a more flexible runthrough the second time, or a New Game +. There are a few big titles that do give that as well, such as Dead Space, Metal Gear Rising, Bayonetta, and others.
But, smaller titles with simpler ideas and concepts make a better experience for someone like myself.
I play things like Pacman Championship Edition, Skullgirls, Rogue Legacy, Killing Floor, these games that don't hold heavy concepts, they give you what you need, instructions, and go. The lore and backstory may be optional, but it does enhance the world you're put in. imramblingincircles IDKMY POINT is that I'm just seeing some flavorless titles right now and it might be dwindling away to nothing but that. Extra things may have moved to other sources like on the internet or at conventions, so it may be elsewhere besides right there on the game itself. Any other thoughts? just a stupid thought of mine, dat's all x:
That i am having more fun with games that are under $20 bucks versus the full retail price of a $60 game by bigger developers. They also hold more extra features, similar to older games back in early 2000 and beyond, cus I remember the Mortal Kombat, Sonic, Square Enix, and Metroid series having loads of artwork, interviews, BGM, etc that made the game what it was and it was interesting on my downtime to sit down and look at their stuff!
Last retail game I thoroughly enjoyed with replayability and content was Dragon's Dogma:Dark Arisen, and I purchased that this January. Yeah, I'm behind, but these games now are like movies that aren't having bang for their full buck. I guess what I'm saying is that things nowadays aren't really having replayability.
Take, Idunno, Bioshock 2 for example (or any story driven major title). You run through it, get stuff along the way, ending credits, done. ...Okay. What else can ya do? Go back again, pick up whatever you missed the first time and trudge on again. But you're unable to go back from your first run, so you have to go back all over again.
I'm not really seeing the fun in that unless it was a joyful game with many things to do that you can easily overlook, maybe a world like GTA, or FarCry.
Some games just hold that value just once, and just sit there when you go to another game.
Others enable you a more flexible runthrough the second time, or a New Game +. There are a few big titles that do give that as well, such as Dead Space, Metal Gear Rising, Bayonetta, and others.
But, smaller titles with simpler ideas and concepts make a better experience for someone like myself.
I play things like Pacman Championship Edition, Skullgirls, Rogue Legacy, Killing Floor, these games that don't hold heavy concepts, they give you what you need, instructions, and go. The lore and backstory may be optional, but it does enhance the world you're put in. imramblingincircles IDKMY POINT is that I'm just seeing some flavorless titles right now and it might be dwindling away to nothing but that. Extra things may have moved to other sources like on the internet or at conventions, so it may be elsewhere besides right there on the game itself. Any other thoughts? just a stupid thought of mine, dat's all x:
With Steam, I've spent about 1,000 hours on games that haven't totaled to probably the full $60 of a regular triple-A-title.
The only game I plan on getting soon in physical copy will be Super Smash Bros in October
Honestly, Steam's where I was leaning towards recently. If my PC wasnt such a butt I would be on there a LOT MORE OFTEN. And those sales. Omg those sales on those full price titles. 10 STINKING BUCKS FOR DARK SOULS WHO WOULDNT TOUCH SOMETHING LIKE THAT
and on the sideline about Wii U, which I am going to invest in most likely. I need more time to look at pc parts and understand them more :x
But I would like to get a WiiU if I could sometime.
By comparison, piddly no-name developers are under EXTREME pressure to succeed. Their games have to be tight, sleek, and strong. To a certain extent, expectations are lowered slightly by the reduced cost, but people still need to seriously enjoy the game, because a LOT of off-the-wall developers' sales are driven by word of mouth and rave reviews. This climate, plus the tighter focus that comes from being developed by a small group of people and not a huge, sprawling team, means that cheaper games that "survive" are very much more likely to be GOOD games.
Or, another way to put it? Triple-A game companies have, in fact, become ACTUALLY "too big to fail," most of the time. They're big enough that their own momentum supports them through a stumble or two. Little companies, start-ups and indie devs and the like, very much live in a Publish Or Perish environment, and must succeed almost purely on merit, because they don't have any momentum.
The great sadness, unfortunately, is that most game developers START as little-guys that succeeded, and grow into the lazy megacorps we have now. Valve is one of the only examples I can think of that has retained a decent portion of its little-guy focus, in part because it remains on the lookout for fresh talent that retains the little-guy perspective (such as the people who did Portal). I honestly really really wish that more developers would do just that--find struggling, little-guy teams that are building their own ideas, perhaps off the big company's games as a baseline, and give them the budget and access to animators and voice actors and such to turn little-guy concepts into big-budget cinema.
Because that sounds like a match made in heaven. :)
It is indeed a shame to see those that start to care about their consumers but then transform to greedy devs that make nothing useful or appealing to their audience that would cater to innovative titles or things out of the generic content. Valve is doing very well with their results from what I've heard and they probably can be one of the major examples people should follow under.
Transistor and Bastion were the only really good titles so far. Oh and Shadowrun.