I don't have anything to say other than I completely agree with everything kn has said.

Dodece said: Honestly however most games have around a six hour play through. What matters is the comeback. Even the highly rated Mario 64 can be dashed in six hours. The length is less important then the consistency of experience, and the desire to go through that again.

 Is that a serious reference or just a joke?

fkusumot said: Dodece said: Honestly however most games have around a six hour play through. What matters is the comeback. Even the highly rated Mario 64 can be dashed in six hours. The length is less important then the consistency of experience, and the desire to go through that again. Is that a serious reference or just a joke?

There's a difference between saying "I did pretty much everything I can do and got six hours," and "I did a super speed run skipping 80% of the game and got 6 hours."

Some understand it.  Some don't. 

Nothing new here. It just feels like the western computer attack on videogaming of the mid 80s.
Nintendo saved the world from terrible games that would sell based solely on their graphics. Same now. My Wii is getting lots of dust, but I still hope they will save gaming again. If Epic, MS and EA get their way to make this industry American centric like movies, then it is GAME OVER for me.
I guess money talks, so in the long run they will get it. Time for MAME then.

heres the problem. Small games that can be downloaded off the PSN and Live (and soon WiiWare) retailers wont allow the companies to advertise the games because they cant sell them. Companies like WalMart threatened back with Microsoft launched Live Arcade that any games were launched for only Live can not be advertised or else WalMart wont sell their console. Epic Gaming isn't hurting small games or companies that want to make many small (good) games but its retailers that force them to not to focus on some small games and have AAA titles that are supported from the success of the small games but make companies have to get big budget titles out without having the ability to have a pillow to cushion their spending budget for the game a bit.

Complain to retailers not Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo.

Crysis will kill all the rest!!

Bodhesatva said: I'm much more extreme in my views than you, Kn. I hate story driven gaming, and I hope it goes away. I think it's certainly less important now than it was 5 years ago, and I believe, as Raph Koster does, that single player games are doomed: http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/10/are-single-player-games-doomed/ Although I would add that I think casual-style single player games will remain relevant (games such as Tetris, Brain Age, or simple Solitaire), I otherwise think single player games are an anachronism that only existed because multiplayer games were technologically difficult to implement in a convenient manner.

i REALLY hope that isn't the case! i absolutely DO NOT like most MP games... whether online or right next to me, i greatly prefer the single player experience. now, i do like a story and a full experience... but there has to be balance, like film and tv, i don't always want to watch the epics like the godfather, apocalypse now, mr bean, etc, but they definitely have their place. just like the hour and a half action flicks, the hour long thrillers, the 30 minute sitcoms, down to the 10 min quickies, there's a place for them all.

I'd say a focus on cutscenes is what turned Square Enix into such a mediocre company. Considering how much space and time cutscenes take... and considering how amazing the 360 and PS3's graphics are you'd think they'd give it a rest already. They can already make awesome graphics the cutscenes are just wasteful crap that could be put into more playtesting, innovation and gameplay.

A lot of other companys have the same problem, but Square fell the furtherest. Then dragged Enix down with them.

Kasz216 said: I'd say a focus on cutscenes is what turned Square Enix into such a mediocre company. Considering how much space and time cutscenes take... and considering how amazing the 360 and PS3's graphics are you'd think they'd give it a rest already. They can already make awesome graphics the cutscenes are just wasteful crap that could be put into more playtesting, innovation and gameplay. A lot of other companys have the same problem, but Square fell the furtherest. Then dragged Enix down with them.

 you do know it was Enix which bought Square right? 

Cerise said: kn said: It's interesting to see so many titles coming out that are blockbuster budget, high expectation games. When I look at next-gen gaming with $25+ million budgets, phenomenal graphics, intense visual art styles. etc., I wonder if we are witnessing the financial undoing of the industry as a whole. Sony is now joining Microsoft in the "lose billions" on their next-gen platform (hardware-wise). We now have a few very high budget games this fall that have not performed well... I won't name titles but there are some obvious ones that come to mind... Where I'm going with this is that I've recently purchased several games that are amazing graphically but fall very short in terms of content. The multiplayer aspect is there, but I don't do that... We are seeing way too many 6 hour single player $60 games for me to continue this. I bought these games on Toys R Us's buy 2 get 1 free sale so my net was actually $40/title which is better, but still $40 for six hours is STEEP. Minimum-wagers need not apply. The industry, in my opinion, needs to return to gameplay fundamentals. First, a solid story. Second, solid gameply to back up the story. Third, enough content to keep the game engaing through AT LEAST 20 hours of gameplay. Lastly come graphics and sound to round out the whole. Yes, graphics are important, but if the game ends up being 6 hours because the budget was blown on graphics/art/sound, I'm not interested. This isn't a "gaming over graphics" argument though it may seem that it is... What I'm saying is that I think developers have become far too focused on presentation and are leaving real gameplay behind.... The current generation seems to be guilty of taking this trend to the extreme... That sounds really sad. If that's true, how would they fix it? ~Cerise

I think one of the easier ways to "fix it" is to use the console's hardware for more than just pretty graphics.  Sure, presentation is nice, but more levels, better written stories, unique art styles, etc. are just as good.  I would be fine if textures repeated more often and some of the high end stuff was just left out in favor of more "game".  Mass effect looks to be the first game out that really seems to be able to accomplish both so maybe there is hope, but I do think that if developers were to say "hey, we can reach near photo-realism if we push the hardware near 100 OR we can back down to using 75% and focus more time on gameplay and more levels" I'd vote for otption number 2.  I just finished stranglehold and though the graphics weren't the best, they were more than good enough and I'm CERTAIN that they could have built more levels and extended the game beyond 6 hours or so... especially considering they used a third party engine which they obviously didn't modify much.