Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Idoit40fans wrote:Did they change RE6? RE4 and 5 were my favorite RE games.
AlexPKeaton wrote:skullman80 wrote:I'm a console gamer and I've loved this generation of console games. There have been some clunkers, but there has been some awesome series of games as well.
The generation was much better in like 2008-2009. It has gotten stale the past few years imo.
Spangler wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:Did they change RE6? RE4 and 5 were my favorite RE games.
RE6 tried to cram too many elements from past games, and it did not work. It tried to move closer to RE's roots, which I liked, but it could have been better. Although I enjoyed the game, it had wasted potential. I don't feel like getting too detailed about it.
SolidSnake wrote:I never understood why some people complain about the length of games. Some NES games like Contra, Bionic Commando, Castlevania could be beat in 30 mins or less and others with passwords, codes and cheats could be be even quicker then that. NES games ranged from $40-60 like how most games are now. That was at a time when there was no achievements, DLC, or unlockables. When games are too long or have too much DLC (Skyrim, Fallouts, Mass Effect) I start to lose interest because it then starts to feel like a chore playing. I admit I haven't been playing too many new games recently, mainly been playing older stuff but I'm gonna get The Walking Dead, MLB The Show 13 and that will hold me off for a long time.
Here's a good read about Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski stating the industry is in turmoil
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/26/ ... of-turmoil
Pavel Bure wrote:I've been playing GTA: San Andreas recently and gotten pissed quite a few times in the game. There is so much meaningless fetch questing and traveling large distances simply in the name of making the game longer. Does that make for a better game? Does adding length for the sake of adding length make the game better?
Pavel Bure wrote:SolidSnake wrote:I never understood why some people complain about the length of games. Some NES games like Contra, Bionic Commando, Castlevania could be beat in 30 mins or less and others with passwords, codes and cheats could be be even quicker then that. NES games ranged from $40-60 like how most games are now. That was at a time when there was no achievements, DLC, or unlockables. When games are too long or have too much DLC (Skyrim, Fallouts, Mass Effect) I start to lose interest because it then starts to feel like a chore playing. I admit I haven't been playing too many new games recently, mainly been playing older stuff but I'm gonna get The Walking Dead, MLB The Show 13 and that will hold me off for a long time.
Here's a good read about Gears of War creator Cliff Bleszinski stating the industry is in turmoil
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/26/ ... of-turmoil
I'd like to see you beat any of those NES games in 30 mins. The only time those are completed that quickly are TAS runs and regular speed runs. A normal person picking up those games doesn't beat them in 30 mins. Heck Contra is/was so hard people needed the 30 lives code to beat it. Super C was even harder. Just because a game could be beaten in 30 mins doesn't mean it is beaten in 30 mins when playing.
I've been playing GTA: San Andreas recently and gotten pissed quite a few times in the game. There is so much meaningless fetch questing and traveling large distances simply in the name of making the game longer. Does that make for a better game? Does adding length for the sake of adding length make the game better?
SolidSnake wrote:Every player is different but games were short then too regardless as well. People tend to forget that.
Idoit40fans wrote:Spangler wrote:Idoit40fans wrote:Did they change RE6? RE4 and 5 were my favorite RE games.
RE6 tried to cram too many elements from past games, and it did not work. It tried to move closer to RE's roots, which I liked, but it could have been better. Although I enjoyed the game, it had wasted potential. I don't feel like getting too detailed about it.
I'm glad I didn't get it then. If they come back with another in the style of 5, i'm all in. Otherwise, not interested in the series.
SolidSnake wrote:I know for me when I was younger, I only got games for birthdays and for Christmas. I would ocassionally rent a game but I didn't rent it long enough to beat the game and renting games were hit or miss because then there was no demos or reviews to go by. I got good at the games I had because I had no other choice.
I agree, I liked just sitting down and beating games, thats what I would do with Bionic Commando, Castlevania, Ninja Gaiden, Renegade, Rygar. Though TMNT 1 and RC Pro Am still both own me.
SolidSnake wrote:I'm getting sleepy, I feel asleep!
newarenanow wrote:SolidSnake wrote:Every player is different but games were short then too regardless as well. People tend to forget that.
And even the longer games were only like 3 or 4 hours of time to put in.
JoseCuervo wrote:newarenanow wrote:SolidSnake wrote:Every player is different but games were short then too regardless as well. People tend to forget that.
And even the longer games were only like 3 or 4 hours of time to put in.
And then there's legend of zelda...
bhaw wrote:Didn't the NES games have to be shorter due to the inability to save games unless the game had a battery built into it by the developer?
Idoit40fans wrote:You can get a lot of hours out of painting a white wall white as well.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests