Originally posted by Lana
I know 20 hours is considered long for a shooter. And I can understand why they're usually short because they can be so very repetitive (which is why I don't like them, they're very boring for the most part).But there's really starting to be a lack of games with a decent amount of gameplay. It's becoming more of an instant gratification thing - "yaaaay you shot something have a prize!"
Now, if we can get back on topic...
Doesnt all games provide instant gratification in some form?
I never have a problem with long games when it comes down to shooters. If a developer can do it, I'm never going to complain.
But the majority of developers cant do it. It's extremely hard for a shooter to be still intense, and interesting and divese after 20 hours.
I look at Bioshock, great game but for me after the 20 hours, I stopped enjoying the experience and it became the " I gotta to finish it because I paid alot of money for it and I want to see the ending" mode.
I find it intersting that you say shooters are repetitive while RPG's in my opinion the most repetitive genres out there. (I'm under the impression you like RPG's).
What would you rather have, a game that is exicting and diverse and intense but only 12 hours, or a game that is repetitive and long? This is coming from a shooter point of view.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Doesnt all games provide instant gratification in some form?I never have a problem with long games when it comes down to shooters. If a developer can do it, I'm never going to complain.
But the majority of developers cant do it. It's extremely hard for a shooter to be still intense, and interesting and divese after 20 hours.
I look at Bioshock, great game but for me after the 20 hours, I stopped enjoying the experience and it became the " I gotta to finish it because I paid alot of money for it and I want to see the ending" mode.
I find it intersting that you say shooters are repetitive while RPG's in my opinion the most repetitive genres out there. (I'm under the impression you like RPG's).
What would you rather have, a game that is exicting and diverse and intense but only 12 hours, or a game that is repetitive and long? This is coming from a shooter point of view.
See, I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've played a shooter that kept me interested for longer than half an hour, let alone 12 hours. I just dislike them.
I'd prefer games to be long as well as exciting and intense. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
RPGs are not nearly as repetitive as shooters are, btw, and about the only way you could think that is if you've not played many RPG games. Just about every shooter game can boil down to being the exact same thing with a slightly different story. Not the same with RPG games, as there's just far more room for variety.
Originally posted by Lana
RPGs are not nearly as repetitive as shooters are, btw, and about the only way you could think that is if you've not played many RPG games. Just about every shooter game can boil down to being the exact same thing with a slightly different story. Not the same with RPG games, as there's just far more room for variety.
Or.. they simply get boring after awhile ermm. There's no such thing as one game factually being more repetitive then something else. It all depends on preference.
Some people live for scoring headshots with there sniper rifles, and there adrenaline spikes every time they do it, all 3000 times. The headshots the exact same over and over, but people still feel a thrill from it.
I personally find RPG's to be incredibly boring, and as stated earlier, I was simply sick of the one I was playing. The combat is just too slow for me. "You tell player a to attack. Player A runs up enemy B, whacks him with his sword, then runs back to his original position. Rinse and repeat. And if you want to mix it up a little, you can cast a spell or summon. I find it annoying that in RPG's, you can't move your character around so every time you do an attack your stuck doing it the same way over and over, while with a shooter you can choose to attack from the left, the right, up, down, lob a grenade toss a grenade, there's more to online multiplayer then just spending 50+ hours more then your opponent leveling up, etc.
However, there's a million people that prefer the exact opposite of all the things I just listed.. so this whoel discussion is moot..
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Or.. they simply get boring after awhile ermm. There's no such thing as one game factually being more repetitive then something else. It all depends on preference.Some people live for scoring headshots with there sniper rifles, and there adrenaline spikes every time they do it, all 3000 times. The headshots the exact same over and over, but people still feel a thrill from it.
I personally find RPG's to be incredibly boring, and as stated earlier, I was simply sick of the one I was playing. The combat is just too slow for me. "You tell player a to attack. Player A runs up enemy B, whacks him with his sword, then runs back to his original position. Rinse and repeat. And if you want to mix it up a little, you can cast a spell or summon. I find it annoying that in RPG's, you can't move your character around so every time you do an attack your stuck doing it the same way over and over, while with a shooter you can choose to attack from the left, the right, up, down, lob a grenade toss a grenade, there's more to online multiplayer then just spending 50+ hours more then your opponent leveling up, etc.
However, there's a million people that prefer the exact opposite of all the things I just listed.. so this whoel discussion is moot..
Tales series. Seriously. Battle system plays like a fighting game. Best RPG series ever, in my opinion, even against most of the Final Fantasies.
Originally posted by Lana
RPGs are not nearly as repetitive as shooters are, btw, and about the only way you could think that is if you've not played many RPG games. Just about every shooter game can boil down to being the exact same thing with a slightly different story. Not the same with RPG games, as there's just far more room for variety.
Matter of opinion. Any type of game can be fallaciously simplified to the point where they sound extremely repetitive (as you did with shooters). You can say shooters are walk around shooting things while following the storyline. You can also say that RPG's are just walking around fighting things and leveling up while following the storyline. Both are hugely wrong and show a startling lack of knowledge of each respective genre, they each involve much more.
That last statement is just flat out wrong. There are many many shooters that are completely different from one another. Sure, they all involve shooting things, but again, that would be like saying all RPG's are the same because they involve leveling up and casting spells. Play Half Life 2, and then play Halo 3, and then play Bioshock, aside from shooting things these games have very little in common, from pacing, to atmosphere, to story structure, to the ways the battles play out. These are all so so different that comparing them is difficult to do, let alone saying that they are all the same.
Lastly, this comparison of game length between RPG's and shooters is retarded. Shooters don't have 10 minute CGI movies followed by 40 minutes of dialogue followed by a 3 hour dungeon crawl. They are action games, and they have a much quicker pace than RPG's and it's simply not possible for a pure shooter to match the length of an RPG while keeping that pace going.
Originally posted by Lana
See, I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've played a shooter that kept me interested for longer than half an hour, let alone 12 hours. I just dislike them.I'd prefer games to be long as well as exciting and intense. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
RPGs are not nearly as repetitive as shooters are, btw, and about the only way you could think that is if you've not played many RPG games. Just about every shooter game can boil down to being the exact same thing with a slightly different story. Not the same with RPG games, as there's just far more room for variety.
Isnt the whole ideal of "grinding" completely repetitive?
Actually, what is going on here is that the argument has stepped into the wrong area. It's not actually about how much you can repeat the base mechanic- although why we are talking of those, the main difference betwene the two is that shooters are about fast reactions and timing, whereas RPs are about planning and strategic implementation. These are very different mental skill sets and are obviously going to appeal to different people.
Part of the length is about the inevitability of how conflict is applied in the two genres- an RP fight simply takes longer than a shooter one. Part of it is because RPs can repeat the same sort of fight in the same sort of place many times, whereas in an FPS you are aslways moving forwarda and it is simply impractical to create that much extra 3d scenery to fight in. part of the length is because fighting has no other purpose in a shooter other than to act as an obstacle, and there is a point where that becomes tedious to just about anyone; fights are deliberately kept short and punchy in shooters (decent ones, anyway). Whereas in an RP fights tend to have a wider purpose; even if there is no grind, as such, there are still normally direct benefits to fighting.
But actually the split between people who have a definitive preference for either genre is down to what kind of psychological involvement you have or want with a game. As Backfire points out, strip these games down and they both have very basic mechanics- shooters are about lining up a bunch of pixels with another bunch of pixels. RPs are about using a stick to beat up bad guys, as a reward for which you get a bigger stick to beat up bigger bad guys until you beat up the bgigest bad guy with the biggest stick you have managed to get.
But the differences in timing I outline above means the psychological pay-off is extremely different. Shooters are about gratification. RPs these days are about deep involvement. Shooter plots are entirely about trying to draw you into the moment. RP plots are much more akin to book oir film plots- pulpish as they might be, but they contain the exact same basic dramatic conflicts that have driven plots from the year dot; human conflict, relationships, personal identification etc. And all of this is why there is a much bigger nerd culture related to RPs in the areas of spin-off merchandise, cosplaying etc. Sure, some shooters get in on that scene but it is RP dominated by a huge margin.
I'll lay you heavy odds that it's this factor that keeps Lana more interested and her boredom with shooters is because they don't satisfy her in this area. The mechanics don't interest her because the whole concept does not interest her, not the other way around.
Incidentally... just in case anyone thinks it would be a worthwhile riposte... there will be nothing but the deepest contempt going out to anyone who thinks that Half-Life or Bioshock had deep storylines too. Really... good lord no, and they never tried to be. Also note that 'deep' does not mean 'good'. it's just a very different conceptual approach.
Why anyone would class Zelda as an RP is beyond me.
It's the same as my irritation with Diablo being classed as one- it's PURELY because they are using swords.
I think Bioshock being first thought of as an action game rather than an RP makes my point there rather well. I bet if that had been swords, it would have been called an RP.
Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
IYou tell player a to attack. Player A runs up enemy B, whacks him with his sword, then runs back to his original position. Rinse and repeat. And if you want to mix it up a little, you can cast a spell or summon.
Have you played any RPG outside of the first 10 Final Fantasies? XI and XII destroyed that forumal by allowing you to move about, Chrono Trigger also changed that, the Tales series takes you away from turned-based and time-based attacks, and really most RPGs have done away with the standard time-based and turn-based action.
Originally posted by Darkhalen
RPG'S
Oblivion, FF, Dark cloud, Mario RPG, 2 worlds, Pokemon, Zelda ect.
Dude, the only Zelda that could be called an RPG is Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. But every other Zelda is an action-adventure.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
Have you played any RPG outside of the first 10 Final Fantasies? XI and XII destroyed that forumal by allowing you to move about, Chrono Trigger also changed that, the Tales series takes you away from turned-based and time-based attacks, and really most RPGs have done away with the standard time-based and turn-based action.
And a lot of them have not. Look at Blue Dragon and Lord of the Rings: The Third Age.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Actually, what is going on here is that the argument has stepped into the wrong area. It's not actually about how much you can repeat the base mechanic- although why we are talking of those, the main difference betwene the two is that shooters are about fast reactions and timing, whereas RPs are about planning and strategic implementation. These are very different mental skill sets and are obviously going to appeal to different people.Part of the length is about the inevitability of how conflict is applied in the two genres- an RP fight simply takes longer than a shooter one. Part of it is because RPs can repeat the same sort of fight in the same sort of place many times, whereas in an FPS you are aslways moving forwarda and it is simply impractical to create that much extra 3d scenery to fight in. part of the length is because fighting has no other purpose in a shooter other than to act as an obstacle, and there is a point where that becomes tedious to just about anyone; fights are deliberately kept short and punchy in shooters (decent ones, anyway). Whereas in an RP fights tend to have a wider purpose; even if there is no grind, as such, there are still normally direct benefits to fighting.
But actually the split between people who have a definitive preference for either genre is down to what kind of psychological involvement you have or want with a game. As Backfire points out, strip these games down and they both have very basic mechanics- shooters are about lining up a bunch of pixels with another bunch of pixels. RPs are about using a stick to beat up bad guys, as a reward for which you get a bigger stick to beat up bigger bad guys until you beat up the bgigest bad guy with the biggest stick you have managed to get.
But the differences in timing I outline above means the psychological pay-off is extremely different. Shooters are about gratification. RPs these days are about deep involvement. Shooter plots are entirely about trying to draw you into the moment. RP plots are much more akin to book oir film plots- pulpish as they might be, but they contain the exact same basic dramatic conflicts that have driven plots from the year dot; human conflict, relationships, personal identification etc. And all of this is why there is a much bigger nerd culture related to RPs in the areas of spin-off merchandise, cosplaying etc. Sure, some shooters get in on that scene but it is RP dominated by a huge margin.
I'll lay you heavy odds that it's this factor that keeps Lana more interested and her boredom with shooters is because they don't satisfy her in this area. The mechanics don't interest her because the whole concept does not interest her, not the other way around.
Incidentally... just in case anyone thinks it would be a worthwhile riposte... there will be nothing but the deepest contempt going out to anyone who thinks that Half-Life or Bioshock had deep storylines too. Really... good lord no, and they never tried to be. Also note that 'deep' does not mean 'good'. it's just a very different conceptual approach.
And you would be precisely correct...I like the long, in-depth plots that are a major part of the RP genre. If I'm not interested in the plot of a game, I'm not going to want to play it, no matter how good it is (hence my hesitation about playing FF7, my inability to finish KOTOR, and complete disinterest in Oblivion). Shooters just simply don't have that. And considering how long they usually are? They can't. It's completely impossible. Thus they really lack anything to pull me in in the first place and, more importantly, lack anything to keep me interested.
And frankly, the fact that people think that Bioshock has a deep plot...goes along with the fact that people think 20 hours is long for a game and is a huge part of the distaste I have for games and gamers today.
(then again, recently one of my friends, who plays a lot of RP games like I do, was commenting on how easy Blue Dragon is, and how it seems they dumbed it down as most people on the 360 don't play games like that and thus would find it too hard. That bothers me a LOT.)
I Hate dumbing down games it annoys me I love RPG games and Just because some people don't play them like they used to they make them easier also I was Only talking about Zelda 2
Zelda is action and aventure however they do have trace elements of RPG's in all of the series some even have strong RPG ties