| mrstickball said: I think it's because your not playing games right....... Games are ALOT longer now than they were. Call of Duty 4 might be 10hrs, but how long was Doom? I think, if I played it all the way through, it might of been 7-8hrs. Mass Effect is much longer than 15hrs if you actually pay attention to the story, and enjoy the game. I'm 70+hrs into mine, and it's still fresh. Oblivion is 100+hrs for just the vanilla game. SI + Expansions add another 50hrs. So there are plenty of great, long, single player games. The issue is that your conceptions of what makes Single Player long are rather weak. Goldeneye wasn't very long - most levels were 10-20 minutes long, and there were 24 levels. |
Oh this is appropriate. Tell people they aren't doing something right then tell them games of old are actually not what they think. That's how you prove a point and definetly don't get into an arguement.
Of course COD4, Doom, and Goldeneye 007 wasn't long. But were they fun to play through. Yes. It's alright if a storyline is short. As long as it's good I don't care. But it's when it is short and not good that I have a problem. Games such as Gears of War, Halo 3, and almost every stereotypical shooter since Halo 1. I'm pretty fucking tired of devs saying hey you don't want to play the singler player you just want a game that looks good and plays online. Ya know maybe for once I actually want an interesting storyline for a shooter, such as Metroid Prime or Bioshock(I liked the storyline in it). Instead devs keep putting the single player on the backburner and its really making me angry. And yet we praise these kinda games. We give games like Gears and Halo 3 and Resistance good reviews and praise. It's destructive to our own wants.
Now not all genres are falling like the shooter genre, but there are a few that are going its way, including RPG's and party games.
