But if something came along and duplicated the game play exactly, from the surface down to the very depths of the mechanics, and also had passable 3D graphics even just like Minecraft style it would be even better.
Cool, that helps a bit, if they’re both the same kind of game.
But just so we’re clear, you can have a 10 hour game that results from abhorrent crunch over several years. Or that is super buggy and unpolished.
Personally, I find that there is no perfect length for all games. If it’s a narrative game it’s easier to pace a shorter game, sometimes, and it’s often easier to at least see the end, at least.
Of course you can also make a game with no ending at all. I am less and less interested in narrative games as time goes on.
I’m a sucker for a good story or just brainless fun. For example, rdr2 story would’ve been fine for me even without the open world, the storyline drew me in. I also like rocket league cos big ball and explosions.
Great example. That Hollow Knight expansion-slash-sequel thing that was supposed to be a smaller thing has been delayed multiple times and has been in development for four years. I have no idea what’s up behind the scenes, but it sure sounds grueling.
Hard agree. Especially when a no small amount of gameplay is “postgame content” so you’re basically expected to rush an 50 hour playthrough to unlock extra features just so you can play the game, at which point you might have lost interest already. I’d rather complete a full playthrough of a shorter story that holds my interest to the very end, instead of playing a game that takes so long to finish that it feels like a pointless chore towards the end.
I hate to break it to everybody sharing either version of this, but… yeah, it’s not the graphics.
I mean, it’s also the graphics, but it’s not just the graphics.
Shorter helps in narrative games, though. Shorter is easier. Makes for better games, too, IMO.
Dwarf Fortress is an amazing game.
But if something came along and duplicated the game play exactly, from the surface down to the very depths of the mechanics, and also had passable 3D graphics even just like Minecraft style it would be even better.
I’d rather have a polished 10 hour game than a buggy 50 hour game
Cool, that helps a bit, if they’re both the same kind of game.
But just so we’re clear, you can have a 10 hour game that results from abhorrent crunch over several years. Or that is super buggy and unpolished.
Personally, I find that there is no perfect length for all games. If it’s a narrative game it’s easier to pace a shorter game, sometimes, and it’s often easier to at least see the end, at least.
Of course you can also make a game with no ending at all. I am less and less interested in narrative games as time goes on.
I’m a sucker for a good story or just brainless fun. For example, rdr2 story would’ve been fine for me even without the open world, the storyline drew me in. I also like rocket league cos big ball and explosions.
it’s not about graphics, it’s about visuals.
Rain world and Hollow Knight for example, they don’t have ray tracing or whatever the fuck everyone wants now, but they look gorgeous
Great example. That Hollow Knight expansion-slash-sequel thing that was supposed to be a smaller thing has been delayed multiple times and has been in development for four years. I have no idea what’s up behind the scenes, but it sure sounds grueling.
Seriously, it’s not the graphics.
Hard agree. Especially when a no small amount of gameplay is “postgame content” so you’re basically expected to rush an 50 hour playthrough to unlock extra features just so you can play the game, at which point you might have lost interest already. I’d rather complete a full playthrough of a shorter story that holds my interest to the very end, instead of playing a game that takes so long to finish that it feels like a pointless chore towards the end.