5-hour singleplayer games are the future, right guys? Right! - Games

[QUOTE=Achilles123;28841211]I honestly don't see why you dislike it.[/QUOTE] I've played Doom 3 recently which had a level design that was quite similar to that and it was unnecessarily complex and retarded, forcing me to run from one area to the other over and over again to complete an objective. This is frustrating and frankly dumb. In more linear games such as HL2 you feel more obligated and interested in completing an objective because it progresses the storyline and keeps the game flowing.

I played half-life: opposing force for the second time yesterday. And i have to say, the way our games used to play, is ten times better than our games today. A little rhyme for the ladies.

Games that are "linear" are like that to keep the game in a fast paced motion, because it's not really designed for backtracking. Same reason for regenerating health, during a battle in say Halo you didn't want to go back through the map to find a health-kit because it would slow the pace of the game.

That's what Deus Ex is here for, with it's huge success the other developers will drop their jaw and might aswell do the same.

even the puzzles in myst got dumbed down to skill jumps and timing what happened to play with buttons until you got it right

Future? I thought OP meant present times.

[QUOTE=Rapist;28841250]Remember the first mass effect? Sure the gameplay wasn't good at all, but the story was great, that's a lot better than good shooting and shit story. The second game had the mix of both, and even then some. Games should be more like that.[/QUOTE] Mass Effect 1 gameplay was bad? What? I'll give you the Mako but that's about it.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28841232]Funny how cheap games like Torchlight provide ten times the gameplay as 60 dollar "blockbuster" games[/QUOTE] Not really a fair comparison, it's a Diablo clone from the creators of Diablo, so it doesn't count :v:

Non Linear gameplay is the way of the future, they'll realize it eventually Who wants to go down the same scripted hallway more than twice? Not many people, just hardcore fans... But no one will mind going down that hallway if something different happens every damn time.. Look at some of the most successful games that are played and sold YEARS after their release... You need at least One of these 2 things: Mod Support. Non-Linearity. Its rare to see a single player game with no mod support and nothing but scripted events stay in the spotlight and popular for more than a couple months. Add some freedom to play your way and you got some longevity, add mod support and you get shit like Half Life, Morrowind, Fallout, KotOR, etc etc... Morrowind came out in 2002 and that shit is still played, and modded with new content, and even upgraded to compete with today's graphics... And the gameplay in Morrowind isn't even THAT spectacular, but it's a fantastic game

[QUOTE=Melnek;28841407]I've played Doom 3 recently which had a level design that was quite similar to that and it was unnecessarily complex and retarded, forcing me to run from one area to the other over and over again to complete an objective. This is frustrating and frankly dumb. In more linear games such as HL2 you feel more obligated and interested in completing an objective because it progresses the storyline and keeps the game flowing.[/QUOTE] That 1993 map is most likely also from Doom, and I can't see what's wrong with it? The level design was excellent and varying, plus, the game was really fast-paced and your movement speed was extremely quick. So, moving from one place to another shouldn't had been a problem.

[QUOTE=proch;28840609]That's why I stick to sandbox games, RPG's or sandbox RPG's. Picture also relevant: [img_thumb]http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images/orig/3/8513420297-orig.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Man, I wanna play Quake or DooM or something now. [img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5636656/DOOM.png[/img_thumb] :buddy:

The best level design would be the 1993 but with other objectives then find the key-card.

[QUOTE=Melnek;28841407]I've played Doom 3 recently which had a level design that was quite similar to that and it was unnecessarily complex and retarded, forcing me to run from one area to the other over and over again to complete an objective. This is frustrating and frankly dumb. In more linear games such as HL2 you feel more obligated and interested in completing an objective because it progresses the storyline and keeps the game flowing.[/QUOTE] Along with what griffith said, what the 1993 plan does better than the others is it helps you immerse yourself more in the game, because when you have more places to explore, and more things to do (even if not all of them serve to progress the story) it makes you feel that it's an actual place and not a hallway designed for heroes to shoot pop-out targets. (also, in Doom the open spaces helped to produce ambiance and heighten tension, but that's another thing entirely)

No one else to blame but the idiots who buy those pieces of shit.

If Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare can be beaten in 6 hours, and Call of Duty: Black Ops can be beaten in 4-5 hours, that's about a one hour drop in length per game. Through these statistics, I estimate that the tenth Call of Duty will be able to be beaten in just over an hour. The eleventh Call of Duty game will last around 5-7 minutes, and consist entirely of profanity and "controversy"

Saw all of the flashy lights and bullshit of the Black Ops campaign, went outside for the first time after about 20 minutes of bad cutscenes and got 15 FPS. I told the [del]game[/del] movie to get the fuck off my hard drive.

I dunno about you guys but Crysis 2 has a pretty long singleplayer. If you take the time to explore the entire map that is, instead of rushing through it. It has a lot of details and multiple ways to handle situations, its how every single playr game should be instead of CoD campaigns :frown:

Ok, to be fair, black ops had a 6 hour gameplay! Even if the game was truly 2 hours long without the cutscenes, its way better then 5.

I hate how these modern games, specifically Call of Duty, hold your hand like you're a baby during stealth missions. It was cool the first time in Call of Duty 4. But after that, do I really need to follow some guy around, having him tell me "Wait here, there's an enemy patrol up ahead"? I'd like to be able to go in and do the stealth mission myself. In fact, FUCK STEALTH MISSIONS! I should be able to choose if I want to go in Master Chief style or Sam Fisher style for any mission. I also hate where there are always moments where the helicopter gets shot down, I'm dizzy, and another character has to help me up. It's getting old and overused.

Well, I just stay away from those games and buy less games in general. Saves lots of money and I can look at my collection with pride.

[QUOTE=Juggernog;28842273]If Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare can be beaten in 6 hours, and Call of Duty: Black Ops can be beaten in 4-5 hours, that's about a one hour drop in length per game. Through these statistics, I estimate that the tenth Call of Duty will be able to be beaten in just over an hour. The eleventh Call of Duty game will last around 5-7 minutes, and consist entirely of profanity and "controversy"[/QUOTE] I think you could make a good single player game that was only a couple hours long... Just imagine the entire Single Player game being one continuous engagement like we have in Helmland province in the real world, and you're just part of the action, not the driving force of it, and it can unfold an infinite number of ways because it's dynamic... That would make for a pretty cool single player game I think... of course I don't mean Call of Duty cover peeking for 2 hours, I mean a Fire Fight that has intense moments and more quiet ones with a battlefield a few square miles... Think Arma 2 + ACE in smaller scale. A game where cover and suppression works, and you can't always see what you're shooting at and vise versa... where thousands of rounds are fired just in a general direction to help suppress to give a squad 200m to your right room to breathe There have been large 30 minute firefights in Arma where AI on both sides try to dynamically develop the situation without any scripted events that were more immersive than any 100% scripted single player game has been able to produce

Most games nowadays are only fun if you go apeshit with friends online/start beating up civilians/doing sandbox stuff/modding the shit out of it.

I don't know about you but I wish developers would work on the single player content more than the multiplayer shit. Take GTA IV for a example, Multiplayer was fun and the single player was long.

Nowdays most of the FPSs have a shitty singleplayer that compliements multiplayer.

Dead Space 2 had a damned good singleplayer campaign.

To be fair, as a 3d modeler, I have to say, It takes a long time just to get a single model finished, And games are filled with them. I dont think its so much that they're getting lazy as it is that the technology is making it harder. Weapons and props back then required a lot less time to model, because they didn't have the technology yet to show you the fine details. Oh course they made up for this by texturing it more. Nowadays, the graphical standard has made it take far longer because of what is expected for everything. Large polycount models with detailed bump mapping and specular shading with high resolution textures and realistic animation are considered the norm and are more required. This plus the coporate side of the industry rushing them and expecting all those things along with the best gameplay make it a lot harder on developers. Every artist, no matter the media wants to create something the best they can, all those factors make it more difficult to create quality in a set time span. Honestly, people should atleast be grateful that they're trying to make them something of quality.

[QUOTE=cyclocius;28842739]Dead Space 2 had a damned good singleplayer campaign.[/QUOTE] And the Multiplayer is more like a "secondary" gamemode Great Singleplayer and a complimentary multiplayer, some years ago the games used to be that way.

Devlopers should release them seperately. Campaign is $30, Multiplayer is $30. Valve sorta did that with HL2, the camagin is seperate from deathmatch.

[QUOTE=Cows Rule;28843284]Devlopers should release them seperately. Campaign is $30, Multiplayer is $30. Valve sorta did that with HL2, the camagin is seperate from deathmatch.[/QUOTE] Except Half Life 2 was good and Half Life 2 Deathmatch was shit.

Bulletstorm and AS:B lasted me about 5-6 hours. It's terrible the money they expect these days. Started to move onto RPG they last long but traveling is very boring.