todays games

hardc0re_tid

hardc0re_tid

hardc0re_tid

Soldato
Joined
4 Nov 2004
Posts
3,040
Location
Norn' Iron'
why are todays games not what they used to be like, length wise, for instance, the resident evil's, playing them for 3 hours a day still took nearly a few weeks to complete, and choosing when to save, you had to find a save point unlike most of todays games were you save where and when.

any recent games out that will take me ages to complete?

i was really looking forward to L4D, but its been a bit of a let down, i was expecting resident evil style in FPS :rolleyes:
 
The ability to save where and when has been around since the dawn of time in PC gaming. Its mainly console games that have save locations, a trend from days of old probably due to storage limitations on older systems or something, but even today a lot of console games dont let you save anywhere you want. RE4 still had save locations. I guess 5 will too.

One of the reasons RE took longer to finish was its slow-paced gameplay, and the fact it had you re-visiting the same areas moving back and forth.
 
Last edited:
BIA Hells Highway is very long. I've been playing it for a few hours a day for the last week and a bit and still not over, I keep thinking it's got to end, but then suddenly a whole new story line and level opens up. The levels are massive to, not in the way Crysis is, but they allow you to flank enemies and be tactical etc.

I'd recomend it anyway, despite all the stick it seems to get.
 
I agree, im very dissapointed with games theese days. Its been years since i really felt a wow factor on a agme or played it non stop for like a year online. Now i play for a week, get bored move on.

IT seems almost all FPS campanges can be completed in under 7/8 hours as well, which sucks and usualy their online is just the same as everyone else so not much replay there.

Games seem to be getting to easy as well, which actually ends up making it harder in some respect anyway because the noobs can now play better if you follow while at the same time taking out the aspects making the pros that much better . What i mean is like for RTS for example, they used to be quite hard to get to the top and there was a very big jump between each of the "classes of skill". Now it seems all those things which make people great like micro management, resource management are being totaly dumbed down. a lot of games only needing 1 resource now etc, or great ai but taking out a lot of the micro management as a result.

In FPS it seems guns are getting less and less recoil and doing more and more damage. Yeah i like being relistic, but when i can kill someone in 3 easy spray shots to the body or 1 to the head. Does it really make that much of a difference? Or i could just spray with my low recoil at their upper chest and just see what happens. Where is the skill in that? Only recently i saw a video of cod5 where a guy using the tommy never once lifted the trigger on each kill. Thats just rediculas. While i dont play css any more their recoil and damage system was far superior to the "noob" friendly systems we are seeing in all the new games. Bf2 got it pritty good as well.

Sure there are still the great players, but its just all being dumbed down.
 
Last edited:
You said some valid things, right up until you tried to insinuate BF2's damage model was anything other than 'awful'... and this is coming from someone who loved the game to bits :p
 
the weapon system in BF2 is well flawed
for instance a single shot from the barret M95 to the engine bay of any of the jeeps would instantly blow the engine in real life yet in BF2 it doesnt seem to phase them
same can be said for a burst of fire from the assault rifles at close range should kill anyone yet in this game it seems the opposite.
 
There is a good reason for games becoming easier, every gamer should be able to complete a game they fork out money for, no one wants to go back to the days of games being ridiculously difficult to the point you have to play a level sixteen times just so you can get lucky that your opponent on the hill with the bazooka will blow himself up instead of half your squad and you can miraculously get through.
 
yantorsen said:
BIA Hells Highway is very long. I've been playing it for a few hours a day for the last week and a bit and still not over, I keep thinking it's got to end, but then suddenly a whole new story line and level opens up. The levels are massive to, not in the way Crysis is, but they allow you to flank enemies and be tactical etc.

I'd recomend it anyway, despite all the stick it seems to get.
Click to expand...

its a good game but not long, took me about 8 hours to complete
 
Killerkebab said:
You said some valid things, right up until you tried to insinuate BF2's damage model was anything other than 'awful'... and this is coming from someone who loved the game to bits :p
Click to expand...

I know it has its flaws. But compare Bf2 to cod4. Also its more aimed at long range combat where as cod4 with its non existant recoil and all close range combat is a joke. I only play hard core becaue the grenade thing is lame as well.
 
sir-les-mp said:
the weapon system in BF2 is well flawed
for instance a single shot from the barret M95 to the engine bay of any of the jeeps would instantly blow the engine in real life yet in BF2 it doesnt seem to phase them
same can be said for a burst of fire from the assault rifles at close range should kill anyone yet in this game it seems the opposite.
Click to expand...

But your missing the point. iTS not about realism. If you can kill people in 1 quick burst in a game it ruins ita nd takes out the skill of learning recoil, headshots and all that. Instead its who ever clicks first wins.

CSS has a very good system as i said before between damage and recoil on guns. You cannot just burst and kill someone, it takes several with an ak to get the bullets required into the chest or single firing or head shot. That is skill. Not spraying or a single burst.
 
Personally I just think a lot of things have been done now when developers try to make something completely new and different it has a higher chance of failing miserably. Spore for example great concept but I've heard it is short then lacks substance at the end.

We got a tirade of FPS's with this whole "next gen" falaffol. Now all us gamers are just wanting out classic games re-touched with updated graphics.
 
yaeh i was really dissapointed with spore. The end game was rediculas on the harder setting being attacked every 3min prevents you doing anything but istting there doing the same thing over and over again. It wasn't hard just irritating.

Also anuyone play the rainbow six series? Look how stupidly dumbed down that has got. Vegas 2 is rediculas. Does recoil exist in that game? never gota scope, people die easy. Just pick the AKS, very high damage and fast rate of fire and you absolutely muller people at every range but long range, which is only present in a few places.
 
Perhaps you are getting better, not games getting easier?

Also, I don't particually want hyper realism games, I enjoy my Unreal Tournaments and HL2 DM style games more than CSS etc.
 
Far Cry 2 is pretty long. I logged around 19.5hrs until I hit a game-breaking bug, and bear in mind that's in-game time; actual playing time including reloading saves etc is probably 22hrs or so.

C&C3 is fairly weighty when you consider the fact that you've got multiple campaigns to play through; I'd imagine the same goes for RA3.

I'd disagree that BiA:HH is a very long game though; sure, it's longer than stuff like WARHEAD and CoD5, but it only took me a few days, maybe 10-12hrs tops. The fact they padded it out with quite a lot of in-depth cutscenes probably makes it feel longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom