By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - How this Gen almost Ended Console Gaming (For Me at least)

Barozi said:
Michael-5 said:

I don't feel I need to buy more cars, but when new cars are available, I would like to use them in game. $1 per car (if you buy a pack of 9, $3-$5 per car otherwise) is a rip off. I mean I really want to race in a Scion FR-S among other cars, do I really have to pay $3 to race in one car? I only want to test it out, maybe drive in it for 20 minutes total.

P.S. Forza 3 shipped with 400, Forza 5 shipped with 500, I think. Both have about 100 DLC cars now.

For hiding content, that content should have been a part of the original game, forcing people to pay extra for that content is effectively increasing the price of the game.

Also those aren't my two biggest gripes about DLC. I'm a huge FallOut and Mass Effect fan and because of DLC I am forced to wait another year to buy Fallout GOTY/Ultimate with all the DLC included. Without DLC the game is okay length, but you know what DLC is basically just as long as the game. I don't want to spend $140 on a 40 hour game. With Mass Effect, since their is no GOTY ed, I buy the DLC as it releases, and this sucks for 2 reasons. a) it makes the game expensive and b) it forces me to play a second run of the game just to activate the DLC chapters.

As for FallOut 3, how did it take you 80 hours? I took my time and got 1500/1500 in actually a little under 40 hours. My XBL is Pay4NameChange, you can see my achievement history if you need confirmation. The core game took me about 15 hours, which was also the average on most reviews and each DLC took me about 3-4 hours. Then add in 5 hours for non achievment quests and stuff and....40 hours.

Oblivion took me 80 though.....wow that game is long.

See and Oblivion took me 40 hours to get 1250G. But that was admittedly almost a speedrun.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=80065

The only time posted for Fallout 3 GOTY was by you and they heavily differ from the completion time of Fallout 3, which were posted by several people.

I got 1000G after 55 hours and the remaining 500G from the DLC took me 20 hours. I did however additional quests that were not achievement related (84 hours is my total playtime and the point where I reached level 30, so you can't say that I did a lot of grinding)
Even if you didn't perceive it as such, but you rushed through the game, just like I did with Oblivion. But I played the PC version before, so I knew what to do mostly.

Therfore I don't doubt that someone can get 1500G in 70 hours or even 60, but 40 sounds like a speedrun, since it's significantly lower than the average.

According to that link, the average time for 100% in FallOut 3 GOTY is 45 hours. I might fall a bit below the average, but that's what averages are for.

Also I didn't rush FallOut! I enjoyed every bit of it. I took my time, explored all the Vaults (which for the most part aren't chievement related) spent time going on murder sprees for fun, etc.

40 hours isn't significantly lower then the average, if you watch game reviews most reviewers got the main game with some sidequets done in 20 hours. The DLC chapters are short, especially Mothership Zeta, and well yea.

Anyway, no point arguing this, there are 40+ hour RPG's this gen....they are just WRPG's instead of JRPG's.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

Around the Network
Michael-5 said:
Barozi said:

See and Oblivion took me 40 hours to get 1250G. But that was admittedly almost a speedrun.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=80065

The only time posted for Fallout 3 GOTY was by you and they heavily differ from the completion time of Fallout 3, which were posted by several people.

I got 1000G after 55 hours and the remaining 500G from the DLC took me 20 hours. I did however additional quests that were not achievement related (84 hours is my total playtime and the point where I reached level 30, so you can't say that I did a lot of grinding)
Even if you didn't perceive it as such, but you rushed through the game, just like I did with Oblivion. But I played the PC version before, so I knew what to do mostly.

Therfore I don't doubt that someone can get 1500G in 70 hours or even 60, but 40 sounds like a speedrun, since it's significantly lower than the average.

According to that link, the average time for 100% in FallOut 3 GOTY is 45 hours. I might fall a bit below the average, but that's what averages are for.

Also I didn't rush FallOut! I enjoyed every bit of it. I took my time, explored all the Vaults (which for the most part aren't chievement related) spent time going on murder sprees for fun, etc.

40 hours isn't significantly lower then the average, if you watch game reviews most reviewers got the main game with some sidequets done in 20 hours. The DLC chapters are short, especially Mothership Zeta, and well yea.

Anyway, no point arguing this, there are 40+ hour RPG's this gen....they are just WRPG's instead of JRPG's.

Dude you didn't read what I wrote.

YOU posted those times. No one else so it's not an average time.

However Fallout 3 got votes from several people. It's average completion time (not 100%) is 33 hours. Now add at the very very least another 15 hours for the DLCs plus time for completing the rest of the side missions and getting the remaining misc achievements and the average would easily be at 55 hours and that's only the low end.



Barozi said:

Dude you didn't read what I wrote.

YOU posted those times. No one else so it's not an average time.

However Fallout 3 got votes from several people. It's average completion time (not 100%) is 33 hours. Now add at the very very least another 15 hours for the DLCs plus time for completing the rest of the side missions and getting the remaining misc achievements and the average would easily be at 55 hours and that's only the low end.

If it's average completion is 33 hours, and you add 22 hours for DLC/various quests, how does 55hours become the low end? Wou'dn't it be a good average for 100%?

Also, MY BAD, I didn't realize I was the only one to post for FallOut 3 GOTY, but like I said, in most reviews they said the main story was 20 hours or less. 30 Hours or so seems good to get all the on disk side missions, 15 hours more for DLC makes 45 (I thought I beat it in 40, but I posted 45 there, and I'm too lazy to check my save file). That's still 10 under your 55 "low end" and I think it seems reasonable.

Maybe I beat FallOut quickly, people tell me I beat XenoBlade quickly too (62 hours with some side missions), and I've gotten this for a few other games. Maybe I'm just fast with RPG's (Oblivion being an exception? Or maybe I was just lost playing it).

Regardless, we still are getting long RPG's this gen, The OP claimed this gen sucked because we no longer get 70 hour JRPG's (What PS2 RPG's are 70 hours?), but in reality we still get long RPG's. Just the core games have shifted to multiplayer focused experiences (CoD) so in general, games are getting shorter, but playtime per game isn't necessarily.



What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results

NightDragon83 said:
I'll never understand the reason for all the hate that FPS get.

The reason why FPS or first person in general games have become so prevalent this gen is that now that 3D gaming has been fully realized after expanding and going through some serious growing pains in the previous 2 generations, the first person perspective is the most immersive and lends itself well to 3D games the same way that side scrolling platformers and action games were staples of the 2D era.

Couple that with a mainstay gameplay element going all the way back to the Atari days... shooting things... and there's your answer why these types of games are so popular and common nowadays.

Plus, with the FP perspective, you don't have to worry about annoying camera issues that have plagued many a 3rd person action / platformer game over the past three generations and continue to do so.

Totally agree: I love also 3rd person games, if the camera is well handled like in Tomb Raider, or, even better, in Heretic II, but the PC version of Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was unplayable!



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Luckily all those reasons do not apply for the Wii.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Around the Network
forevercloud3000 said:

I was so excited for this generation to start back in 2006. The next gen consoles sounded so tantalizing.  I looked over the specs of each and envisioned the million possibilites of cool and unique games they could make with them.

Was I in for a rude awakening once this generation went into full swing. 

 

DLC

The bane of my existance. DLC at the begining sounded like a fantastic idea. Long had I dreamed of the day when games would be expanded upon without having to wait several years for the eventual sequel. What ended up happening was we are not getting more game......we are getting LESS! How is it that I can pick almost any game from last generation/one before it, and with ease find a game that will last me more than 50hrs without doing everything. God forbid it was a JRPG, a garanteed  80hrs+. What we got this gen? A 10hr game(if you are lucky) and meaningless DLC like outfits and customizations....you know, that stuff that would have been cool unlockables last gen. Map Packs? You mean the same maps that are in the story already I have to buy slightly modded versions of it? Worst offenders have to be Capcom. How dare they purposely release a game with only half the characters, over price them, then rerelease a budgeted(but not really) version of the game a few months later with all the extras. Or Resident Evil 5. How pissed was the gaming community when they found out that the $6 DLC for online play was actually a 5mb download "key" just to unlock it on the disc. Publishers have completely missed the mark on why we originally wanted DLC in our games. We wanted to be able to get more out of existing worlds, not have you gimp the original product to sell us the parts that should have been there in the first place. At least GTAIV got it right, with the game being packed to the brim with all the usual goodies, but then released epic DLC's that could ad another good 20hrs.

Which brings me to my next topic.....

Pricing

So last gen in the US games were capped at a steady $50 brand new, and some made cheaper from there. Those game could last you at a minimum I say 30hrs but usually much much more. Now? Will be lucky to get  10 out of a game.....and would have paid $60 for it. What? So basically we are getting even less for our money. Then once you add in the DLC(that stuff that would have normally been in the game anyway) and charge a dollar per costume,5 per 2 maps or something. Ludicrous !

Multiplatform

This is more bad for the developers than it is for the Consumers, yet it does have some ill ramifications for us as well. The "Cry Wolf" tactic at the begining of this gen set off a chain reaction of sorts. You see, last gen every game was predom exclusive to one system or another. You chose your system accordingly due to which exclusives each has. What was told to developers this gen was that they would not be able to make returns unless they were on as many consoles as possible to offset costs. What happened? Most games of previous gens sold less this generation than in previous ones, one of the systems would be getting shoddy "ports", and console developers had less to defrenciat themselves from each other and make them stand out. Basically the main premise of competition was almost completely eliminated. Thank God for 1st Party Developers, otherwise we would have no end to.....

 

Sequel-itis

Game Developers, now being forced to release content on as many venues as possible, had less and less time to be creative. The only thing Publishers care about is making a return and only want sure bets. Sequels are the answer to that. Now Sequels are not inherently bad...but the constant release of slightly tweaked versions of last year's games or just delving into the same story over and over is not fun. I have seen more direct sequels/Remakes/ReReleases this gen than I care to count. Where is the innovation? I miss the god ol days of walking in a gaming store and looking at the box of a game I had litterally never heard of and the feeling of discovering a new Gem takes over. Now everytime I pick up a box, it looks more and more like the last box.

 

1st Person Stir Crazy

I always hated this view point, I much prefer my games in 3rd person. So it should come as no shock at how disgusted I was with almost every game this gen being a 1st Person Shooter(least favorite Genre). I get it, it got popular over night due to great console shooters like Halo, but this generation became beyond oversaturated with them.

 

Patches

Now it seems to be ok to release a known buggy game to consumers because you can always release a day one patch! This is another great idea of this gen totally warped by corporate greed. This should have been a great thing. But what we ended up with is Skyrim on PS3, a buggy mess for most. Or any of the games from this gen with gamebreaking bugs, something that rarely existed on console last gen.

Focus on Online

I liked the idea of playing games online but never totally captivated by it. The way I saw it, I need to be able to fully enjoy a game by myself even if I don't have a freind to play with. That was the only way a game got my money. Now games this gen are almost entirely focused on twitch online gaming. Anything that impeded a gamer from getting straight to the online was seen as bad. I feel the same way about Online as I do about DLC. It shouldn't be the meat and potatos, but the dessert that enriches the experience as a whole. Maybe that is just me though.

Studios Dropping Like Flies

SO many great studios did not survive this gen. I can't remember it being like that in the last few previous. Knowing that I can never get a sequel to some of my favorite games now really bothers me.

This Generation was an improvement in some aspects, but I must admit that I also dislike some changes this generation brought:

DLC:

After some tryouts I must admit that almost all dlcs I have purchased so far were just a waste of money. Most of the DLC can be safely ignored without hurting the experience (well, the completionist in me hates that I miss the 100% completion with the added DLC-Trophies...)

Pricing: I live in Austria and I have to say that I almost pay the same prices since the NES-Era. There was not much noticeable change in game princing apart from Activision games who seem to cost € 10 more sometimes.

Multiplatform: Since I own the PS3 I do not have much problems with multiplatform games. Sony has a very good variety in their 1st Party games. The only games that I miss are some early JRPGs that went exclusive to the X360. Tales of Vesperia could be fun but I wont buy a console for 1 game. Saleswise some franchises expanded their audience in this generation.

Sequelitis:

I must say that I like Japanese games and this generation they had problems with their game output. Western Studios can only put out 1 game a year because they sometimes try to change as little as possible (ea... cough cough). Sometimes I get the feeling that I am playing the same game over and over again. Well, thats just western gaming philosophy. Never change a winning team. RE 5 + RE 6 and FF XIII tried to make something new and you can read on the internet how "Fans" think about change.

 

First Person View: I outright hate it and I fail to understand how it should be the "most immersive view"...

 

Patches: This generation many former PC developers brought their games to the consoles. They have a history of releasing "broken" games just to hold a realease date and patch the game later. The japanese companies always had to make the whole game working before the release. The thing is, that western developers get away with major bugs... the reviews will look over these issues if it is a big game (*bethesda* cough cough)

Focus on online: I hate online competitive games. I just want to have my singleplayer experience. The community is simply awful. I gave up on Worms after we could not end a single game... (not one!) because everyone was just quitting so that they could keep their record with 0 games lost. Fifa was the same... almost winning with a 2* team against a 5* team and in minute 89 he just quitted the game. And when I was playing Resistance 2 with my wife and my brother (my only first person view franchise) we had some random people insulting us the whole time... I despise online gaming and if the future will be going full online I will quit playing these games and will stick to my current gaming collection... or I will switch to Nintendo.



Good points.
With charging for online multiplayer, dlc and releasing unfinished games because its possible to patch later are terrible introductions this generation.

PC for next gen for me.



Ynwa.

forevercloud3000 said:

I was so excited for this generation to start back in 2006. The next gen consoles sounded so tantalizing.  I looked over the specs of each and envisioned the million possibilites of cool and unique games they could make with them.

Was I in for a rude awakening once this generation went into full swing. 

 

DLC

Pricing

Multiplatform

Sequel-itis

1st Person Stir Crazy

Patches

Focus on Online

Studios Dropping Like Flies

 

DLC makes old games feel new again otherwise to me they would just collect dust when I was done with it.

Pricing.....I wait for games to drop usually unless its a must have day 1. For example......I see Dead Space 2 can be bought new for $20. Games are like cars.....they depreciate over time. Get some will power and self control on those nice but not must-have games.

Multiplats are good as they give more choice to all console users. I sense your a little sensitive how PS3 lost all its 3rd party exclusive IPs last gen? If not then nm.

Sequels are proof that theres a market that loves the franchise and will keep coming back for more. If your not part of that crowd, then dont take it out on them for liking a IP.

FPS is the biggest genre in gaming. 3rd person isnt, with exceptions like Gears of War and Uncharted. Pleasing you means many millions more dont get what they want (fps). Its all about catering to the majority and what they want. Theres plenty of niche titles for all tastes though.

Patches fix issues. Nuff said. But if they really took the time to make sure games were bug free, would would see massive game delays and I wouldnt want that.

Your view on online is that of a dinosaur. Its the now and the future.

Yup with high costs of games, if they dont sell your probably gonna get laid off. But this doesnt impact you, except maybe your favourite niche game might not get a sequel. In which case, balme your fellow gamer for not opening up their wallets.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Alby_da_Wolf said:

Totally agree: I love also 3rd person games, if the camera is well handled like in Tomb Raider, or, even better, in Heretic II, but the PC version of Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was unplayable!


I played it! And that is one of my favorite games lol

Tho I may have played it with a gamepad I don't remember



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

zarx said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

Totally agree: I love also 3rd person games, if the camera is well handled like in Tomb Raider, or, even better, in Heretic II, but the PC version of Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was unplayable!


I played it! And that is one of my favorite games lol

Tho I may have played it with a gamepad I don't remember

I guess so, if you enjoyed it, I used mouse+kb instead, but even with a gamepad I wouldn't have appreciated that the control axes were solidal with the screen, not with the body of the prince, so when the camera changed shot angle, commands ceased being coherent with the prince's frame of reference, and the worst thing was that it often happened in the middle of combat or difficult jumps and acrobatics. Obviously with a gamepad it would have been a smaller problem, but for my tastes I enjoy the control axes solidal with the screen only in fixed camera angle games.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!