ESpark on 3/12/2003 at 02:54
Quote:
Originally posted by screwed If IS used the exact same engine for DX2 and just added new content, I would have bought it in a second. I guess I'm not the type of gamer IS is targeting now.
You'd buy it. But how many else? How many normal gamers*outside of TTLG?
In the end, sales are what'll convince IS if their plan was right. My gut reaction is that despite the the braying and neighing of forum-goers, this game is going to sell like hotcakes. When it sells hotcakes, guess where the validity of the nay-sayers goes?
Down the tubes. The people who will look at the bottom line will say "we can afford to not pander to do".
* Don't be insulted, I'm using Normal to mean a more casual gamer.
** I hate that term. Show me someone complaining about something 'selling out', and I'll show you someone complainin because they aren't marketed to anymore.
heywood on 3/12/2003 at 03:41
Quote:
Originally posted by JonahFalcon You MUST be joking -- if DX2 had the same graphics engine as Deus Ex, it would be LAUGHED OFF THE PLANET.
Period. End of story.
One of the biggest criticisms was that Deus Ex had an antiquated engine WHEN IT CAME OUT!
No, I'm not joking. However, I am expressing a personal opinion that I realize a lot of gamers may not share. And actually, aside from some lukewarm comments from the Gamespot reviewer, I can't remember too many complaints about the graphics back when Deus Ex came out.
And here is another very important thing to consider:
My system has a midrange Athlon XP and a good graphics card. The DX:IW demo is borderline unplayable for me at 1024x768 even with all settings optimized for performance. Whereas Deux Ex is smooth at 1600x1200 with everything maxed out. So does DX:IW look better at 800x600 than DX at 1600x1200. No way. Not even close.
heywood on 3/12/2003 at 04:22
Quote:
Originally posted by ESpark You'd buy it. But how many else? How many normal gamers*outside of TTLG?
In the end, sales are what'll convince IS if their plan was right. My gut reaction is that despite the the braying and neighing of forum-goers, this game is going to sell like hotcakes. When it sells hotcakes, guess where the validity of the nay-sayers goes?
Sales prove nothing about the quality of a game. Supposedly, the best selling PC games are card games and hunting games. RPGs and adventure games are typically some of the worst sellers. I guess that means a lot of people here at TTLG like game styles that aren't very popular. That doesn't mean their opinions aren't valid.
I personally don't care if I'm playing a popular game as long as it's good. Hell, the only reason why I care about sales at all is that I would like to see a company that makes good games stay in business. But if they're not going to make good games anymore, then what's the point in supporting them?
What if, after the sales failure of SS1, Looking Glass/Irrational Games just decided to make SS2 a run of the mill Quake clone in an effort to appeal to a wider audience and sell more copies? Would this forum still be here?
ESpark on 3/12/2003 at 04:36
Quote:
Originally posted by heywood Sales prove nothing about the quality of a game.
Quality is irrelevent ; sales determine what, by and large, publishers and designers make.
Quote:
What if, after the sales failure of SS1, Looking Glass/Irrational Games just decided to make SS2 a run of the mill Quake clone in an effort to appeal to a wider audience and sell more copies? Would this forum still be here?
Prolly not - the fans would be using Looking GLasses's forums.
Udasai on 3/12/2003 at 06:43
A gamer getting 50 hours of play for $50 is robbing the poor game marketing companies (publishers, whatever) if they can make him pay $50 for 15 hours...in the future, all games will be 15 minutes long and you will have to pay for each minute. The alternative is the UO/Everquest/whatever subscription games.
The future is that you will not control your own computer and just turning it on will cost you money. Every penny you make will evaporate from your account instantly. Sort of like today, but without the opportunity to float checks.
Blackjack on 3/12/2003 at 08:55
Yeah, it's annoying. There are so many game devs who release short, inferior games followed up by short, inferior mission packs, then along comes DX and they don't even follow up with a straight sequel.
The Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six franchises spring to mind as classic short mission pack publishers. Probably makes them stacks of dosh. I tend to buy the GOTY versions off eBay, being the stingy git I am.
Operation Flashpoint, at least, made sure their mission packs were as huge as the original, and offered some cool new stuff, not to mention genuinely different perspectives to the story. I can't wait for OFP2.
How I wish both DX and T2 could have been followed up with quality mission packs / upgrades / gold versions. I don't mind giving extra dosh when the franchise is of that sort of quality. I'd have gladly accepted a prettier but less 'ambitious' DX:IW - a straight sequel. They could (should?) have made their 'new' game with a different name.
SirVincealot on 4/12/2003 at 19:58
For game lenght, $1/1hour is my sweet spot, for a single playthrough.
I was lent NOLF2 and found recycled levels, fewer levels and fewer environments overall. I'll buy a copy when it hits $20.
My counter after the first play of SYSTEM SHOCK 2 showed 45 or so hours. Almost perfect.
UNREAL kept me busy every night for a whole month. I'd say I probably spent roughly 70 hours in there. Great stuff. Keep in mind this includes many hours of just gawking at stuff and taking the perfect screenshots for wallpapers - all part of my play experience; "added value" so to speak.
I did very little except play SHADOWS OF AMN for a solid 6 weeks.
ALPHA CENTAURI took me 2 months to "beat".
DAGGERFALL and MORROWIND, of course, are so far off the chart as to render the very concept of time irrelevant except in the Einsteinian sense.
Considering the value of a book, anything that gives me less than $1/1hr is not worth my entertainment budget.
I don't subscribe to the "it's only 5 hours, but it's the best 5 hours ever!" mentality, since it is so obvious a fallacy.
Raymond Luxury Yacht on 8/12/2003 at 15:51
Well, being the cheap bastard that I am, I think I'll wait around Best Buy for this game to hit a sale right before Xmas. I played DX through the first time in around 30 hours, and I am one sorry gamer. But I also used a walkthrough, since, being not only a poor gamer but an impatient insomniac, I spent many a night stuck, then irate, then drunk and looking for clues. But the second time through, I managed it in a little over 8 hours. On Realisitic. And I didn't even cheat, since I'm too inept to edit files to get the cheats to work; hence so damn long to play through the first time - ENDLESS reloads, and about 60 saves. What does this mean? Shite. I'll probably take forever to get through the new one, if I can justify blowing fifty bucks. I love the first one so much, and there's WAY too much conflict for me to feel confident. I still can't decide on Max Payne 2. But rugby season's over so I should just quit arsin about and get the damn thing, right?
Right?
Saam on 10/12/2003 at 00:52
I think a lot of the reason games are getting shorter is because the complexity of today's games is much more than what it was 3, 4, even 5 years ago. The level of detail in today's games basically chews up development time so actual 'content' has to be shortened in order to release the game in ample time. For example, if a first-person game of the old-days was 30 levels, today's game could be 15, but it would have 4x the amount of level detail than those 30 levels of before.
I guess it's about quality, not quantity. To make the perfect game, length and detail-wise, the developers have to find a good middle-point.
Else every game company would go broke, games would never be released.
I do get annoyed every now and then at games that are short; NOLF2 is one example. I recall that NOLF 1 was incredibly long and satisfying. NOLF 2 however, my jaw dropped when I suddenly saw the end-game credits. I was like "whaaaaa????"
Deus Ex 1 was also amazingly satisfying in terms of quality and length. I hope DX:IW retains the same satisfaction and fulfillment as its predecessor.
BlackCapedManX on 10/12/2003 at 01:59
In reply to the above:
DX1 had more detail and depth than DXIW and was longer, maybe the engine in IW was better, but I was certainly dissapointed when desks lacked openable drawers (not to mention the lack of extensive weapon info, a training level, the shear amount of items that DX1 had, etc.)
Statement in general:
Best $50 I've ever spent on a game: Super Smash Brothers Melee. Total Play time is around 500 hours. 10hours/$ sounds like a good deal to me. Combined play time (if you add the play time of other human players) is well over a thousand hours. Now that's a long fucking game. Okay, now I realize that this is supposed to be play time for single player games, but part of the point I'm making is why games like HL and Quake and all those WW2 games sell like nothing else, multiplayerability=replayability. I hate online shooters with a passion (except for America's Army which is designed to realistically simulate combat, making sniping, say, useful?) so I own a slew of singleplayer games. What I really expect, especially from games like DXIW and maybe Max Payne is to have a long game, and long do to content and not just filler, because they don't offer multiplayer. And adding multiplayer on to a game as an excuse for it to be short is a piss poor excuse too, I'm glad games like DX and Thief are only single player because it makes a statement that games can sell for content and not just the ability to slaughter your friends (well, DXIW, though I personally never play DX1 online).
Personal opinion: Games are like augmented books, you can tell an excelent story, but it can be interactive too. Exclusively Single Player RPGs do this well, and I think just because a game is first person isn't an excuse to make it short. (I have a save on FFVII that is around 100 hours, granted a good deal of this is spent lvling my characters, but between 20 and 30 hours seems like a good runthrough for a semi-linear single player only first person game)
