Mad5cout
07-31-2007, 05:09 PM
I am sure there has been talk on this of late but I thought I would throw it out there, even if it is as a soapbox item. I am sure all gamers have recognized the recent surge in hardware capabilities and the cooresponding race in the game development field to utilize new technology to come up with a game that can do more, have better graphics, etc. etc.
As developers focus on creating the greatest engine and the best textures and graphics, I feel something has been lost: game content. Personally, I would prefer game content over the latest graphics any day. I remember back in the days of Unreal and Half-Life, you would buy a game and it would take at least 2 weeks of 4-6 hours of play to finish the game. The story lines were in depth and in some cases rivaled good books I've read.
In contrast, Unreal 2 (which was a major flop) only took me three days to finish. It seems most games can be completed in that amount of time. Even the RTS's are getting smaller. Starcraft took almost a month to complete but Warcraft 3 was two weeks tops. Half-Life 2 seems to be the main exception in my mind. However, when I bought Episode One, I was expecting an expansion that was perhaps synonomous to that of Blue Shift or (what was the other expansion for HL?). Anyway, for $10, Igot a game that took me no more than 6-7 hours to finish. I was extremely disappointed.
In contrast (sorry for those who know this and I sound like a broken record), I also recently purchased the Resident Evil 4 PC version (ported from the PS2) and have been playing that. The game is 2 years old so it gives us some historical perspective. The original story line took 26 hours of play. When I was finished, 4 new subgames were unlocked that I just now working through. The first of these unockables took me about 6 hours. If the others are the same, that's a total of about 50 hours of game play - GOOD gameplay and with a great story I might add - for only $20.
I guess in the end, you could shoot holes through the examples I have provided, but the observation is true, IMO. I don't think anyone can deny that the games are getting smaller. Do we have to settle for less game to get the good graphics or physics? or are the developers getting lazy? Personally, I would prefer captivating and in depth game content over graphics but it would be nice to have our cake and eat it too.
Perhaps, when DX10 settles in and the recent consoles are not so new, the developers will start focusing on the games rather than flexing their tech-penises. or not...
As developers focus on creating the greatest engine and the best textures and graphics, I feel something has been lost: game content. Personally, I would prefer game content over the latest graphics any day. I remember back in the days of Unreal and Half-Life, you would buy a game and it would take at least 2 weeks of 4-6 hours of play to finish the game. The story lines were in depth and in some cases rivaled good books I've read.
In contrast, Unreal 2 (which was a major flop) only took me three days to finish. It seems most games can be completed in that amount of time. Even the RTS's are getting smaller. Starcraft took almost a month to complete but Warcraft 3 was two weeks tops. Half-Life 2 seems to be the main exception in my mind. However, when I bought Episode One, I was expecting an expansion that was perhaps synonomous to that of Blue Shift or (what was the other expansion for HL?). Anyway, for $10, Igot a game that took me no more than 6-7 hours to finish. I was extremely disappointed.
In contrast (sorry for those who know this and I sound like a broken record), I also recently purchased the Resident Evil 4 PC version (ported from the PS2) and have been playing that. The game is 2 years old so it gives us some historical perspective. The original story line took 26 hours of play. When I was finished, 4 new subgames were unlocked that I just now working through. The first of these unockables took me about 6 hours. If the others are the same, that's a total of about 50 hours of game play - GOOD gameplay and with a great story I might add - for only $20.
I guess in the end, you could shoot holes through the examples I have provided, but the observation is true, IMO. I don't think anyone can deny that the games are getting smaller. Do we have to settle for less game to get the good graphics or physics? or are the developers getting lazy? Personally, I would prefer captivating and in depth game content over graphics but it would be nice to have our cake and eat it too.
Perhaps, when DX10 settles in and the recent consoles are not so new, the developers will start focusing on the games rather than flexing their tech-penises. or not...