Are video games getting to big?

[SawQuart]

Wii games seem to be shorter than Xbox games. I like Xbox games, don't get me wrong, but I've made that observation. In fact, the first Wii game I ever got was the first (and only) game I ever beat.

I'm assuming that the developers for Wii games realize that there aren't hardcore addicts/gamers for the Wii (excluding the new FFs), so they try to shorten them a bit. Also, the average age for Wii gamers is probably significantly less… Then again I'm only using assumptions.

Now I'm ready to move on from Wii and switch to Xbox, but it's always nice having a Wii around for casual rainy days.

[Anna Comnena]

I'm pretty sure there are more older people who play the Wii than the other consoles. 10 year olds would rather play most Xbox and PS3 games than Wii games. But that is true, the Wii has always been lambasted for being "casual".

One thing about this topic, is what the hell does "casual" really mean? This is like one of the biggest buzzwords in the video gaming community of recent years, and it denotes some sort of stupid supremacy to game types. As if the generic rail shooters that are all considered "hardcore". Casual games are awesome in my opinion (like flash games and other things), because they are closer to the successors of the arcades, than these stupid interactive cutscene generic action games.

Yes, games are getting big, this is because the video game industry has been gradually emulating the film industry, and are trying to become more sophisticated mediums to tell a story. This can be good as a nice presentation helps flesh out a world, but when games take the focus off gameplay for the narrative, that's when things get bad.

[death]

3 words.

Call of Duty.

[Kusy]

If something - games are getting smaller. Fallout New Vegas was an attempt to rewive the old days of sandbox games and failed at it - it's boring, and the longer you play the more quests you  have in your pimp-boy. At some point you can't even reach that moment where you had no quests to do because there's a quest inside of a quest.

[Murdoc]

@Anna:

> I'm pretty sure there are more older people who play the Wii than the other consoles. 10 year olds would rather play most Xbox and PS3 games than Wii games. But that is true, the Wii has always been lambasted for being "casual".
>
> One thing about this topic, is what the hell does "casual" really mean? This is like one of the biggest buzzwords in the video gaming community of recent years, and it denotes some sort of stupid supremacy to game types. As if the generic rail shooters that are all considered "hardcore". Casual games are awesome in my opinion (like flash games and other things), because they are closer to the successors of the arcades, than these stupid interactive cutscene generic action games.
>
> Yes, games are getting big, this is because the video game industry has been gradually emulating the film industry, and are trying to become more sophisticated mediums to tell a story. This can be good as a nice presentation helps flesh out a world, but when games take the focus off gameplay for the narrative, that's when things get bad.

You couldn't have said it better. I hate it when people dis the Wii because it's not "hardcore". Who wants hardcore all the time? Maybe people who are violent and only want to play beat-em-up action games? I dunno. But variety is best imo. I like a wide range of games, and I enjoy games with "old school" graphics, games that blast your mind with how graphically enhanced they are, and anywhere in the middle.

At some point games are going to be so advanced you'll think it was real. But then what? What happens when games can't get any more badass? Then the focus will have to be on better gameplay because there's nowhere left to go. Any game company who doesn't focus on gameplay now will be pretty much forced to once graphics technology is at it's max. As far as games being more media oriented, and taking from the movie scene.. there is no doubt. But in the end we can only be so stimulated before we start thinking, "hey this game is too intense, id rather play mario kart"…

I guess I'm trying to wrap my head around this idea of "games getting to big" and I wonder what the definition of "big" is. And maybe it's really just relevant to the person's idea of a good game. Personally I come from the age of mario bros for nintendo (yes original nintendo).. that was the first game I ever played and I still love it. Other people must too, because they basically remade it for the Wii. I don't dislike action packed, and mind-blowing 3d games (if this defines big) at all. For example I love first person shooters, and fighting games, etc. But as Anna pointed out it seems like the Wii wouldn't have games people consider "big" because they aren't "hardcore" enough. Anyone else see the connection there? And if big means action packed and loaded with all kinds of stimulating visuals... I'm not sure I care about whether they are big or not. lol  ;D

[Thorn]

All I know is I like having a really big world with a lot of lore and background to it, something that I can sink my teeth into. Basically, if you couldn't write a short story or five based on it, it's likely going to be a bit harder to catch my attention with.

For example, I find Mario Kart and almost every racing game absolutely mind numbing. The only storylines they ever have are completely tepid (huzzah I got to use the word tepid) and I'll likely fall asleep sometime mid-race.
On the other end of the spectrum, that's the reason why I was so absorbed by the Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Assassins Creed and World of Warcraft. Interesting, detailed settings that stir the imagination.

I actually just finished reading the latest WoW book, the one setting the stage for the new expansion. I don't think that they could release a novel that size as set up for the next Super Smash or Mario Party.
R.I.P. Cairne Bloodhoof and Magni Bronzebeard, the world of Azeroth is darker for the loss of you.

[Murdoc]

@Thorn:

> All I know is I like having a really big world with a lot of lore and background to it, something that I can sink my teeth into. Basically, if you couldn't write a short story or five based on it, it's likely going to be a bit harder to catch my attention with.
>
> For example, I find Mario Kart and almost every racing game absolutely mind numbing. The only storylines they ever have are completely tepid (huzzah I got to use the word tepid) and I'll likely fall asleep sometime mid-race.
> On the other end of the spectrum, that's the reason why I was so absorbed by the Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, Assassins Creed and World of Warcraft. Interesting, detailed settings that stir the imagination.
>
> I actually just finished reading the latest WoW book, the one setting the stage for the new expansion. I don't think that they could release a novel that size as set up for the next Super Smash or Mario Party.
> R.I.P. Cairne Bloodhoof and Magni Bronzebeard, the world of Azeroth is darker for the loss of you.

I also love highly detailed and intricate games. For example Elder scrolls 3 and 4 are two of my all time favorite games. :) I merely used mario kart as an example of gaming that requires little to no effort, to get relief from so many games that are intense. But I'm all with you on that. Especially when it comes to roleplaying games. Unless there's a lot of lore and intricate stories , theres not much to them besides killing ogre and trolls, and looting gear. lol

[demon xxx x]

Ok, I'm stuck on this right now.. I disagree, Gwen.  I finish every game I play, in quick time.  I beat GTA3 in 4 days, I beat GTA4 in 3.  I beat Fable 2 in a day, I just got Fable 3, and I beat it, and got almost all the achievements.  Games are fairly easy for me.  The only game I see as long is Ninja Gaiden 2, simply because you gain a level of boredom after a level or so. I'm currently playing that on Master Ninja, and I usually play through a level, turn it off, come back to it a few hours later, or smoke a little weed and play it again, always different.  But, as I said, games are fairly easy, and if you give me one, I'll finish it probably in 2, 3 days tops.  Resident Evil 5(just saying.. lol) I beat in literally several hours. and didn't even take much out of me, I woke up, did that, went out skating, came home and slept.  Was just a regular day, where I'm not cutting into my skating time at all.

[Robin]

Difficulty != Length

[Patrick]

I just like games where there is a point.

Also I like games where you cause havoc or build stuff, then cause havoc to it.

[Murdoc]

@Robin:

> Difficulty != Length

ahaha. I just got that. Its true… Just because a game is long or shot, doesnt tell you how hard it is. Some short games are easy, some are hard. Some long games are hard, some are easy. I totally just set that up for perverted minds to make fun of. lol XD

[DrNova]

Honestly more and more I end up dissapointed with how quickly a game seems to be over.

ESPECIALLY games with a healthy multiplayer element, they seem to think the extra play time of MP lets them off the hook for some story mode.

I love long games, but I dont think they are common enough.

[SilentGamer]

I see where you are coming from Gwen. Like games such as call of duty which has thrown what was loved by the first three and made into a massive testosterone filled 4 hours with no means of accomplished, what makes a good game is highs and the lows.

I think that was is happening now is that there are looking at the less intellectual audience because it sells more. I love my gaming, you can probably tell from my avatar, but development companies are watering down games too much….

[Anna Comnena]

The first three Call of Duty games weren't that great, they were just another series of WW2 rail-shooters. The only reason they are popular is because their presentation was well done (mainly with CoD4). I don't know why I'm defending that medicore series though, I guess it's more that I don't see how you can use CoD games as an example of games getting too large.

Also, as I've said before, games are not getting water-ed down, anyone who uses the terms "casual" and "hardcore" for gaming are usually mistaken in their schema about that subject.

[ToshiroHayate]

See, even if a game gets too popular, it won't last long. Once companies see their game becoming a success, they release a crap ton of sequels, with barely any new features. And eventually dry the whole experience out.

Look at Halo, First was okay, Second wasn't bad. After that, it got old. As Anna stated, the first 3 CODs weren't too popular. Each release had a graphic upgrade, and more and more features. Now since Modern Warfare, it's become kinda horrible. I'd honestly rather play Counter-Strike.

The same thing is starting to happen with Sonic The Hedgehog. Ever since Nintendo got ahold of it, they started milking the games one after another. And now, I don't even bother checking out the new Sonic games.

[gamesucker]

@Anna:

> Also, as I've said before, games are not getting water-ed down, anyone who uses the terms "casual" and "hardcore" for gaming are usually mistaken in their schema about that subject.

I use "hardcore" to mean someone that regularly plays games for money or in competitions. "Casual" I use for everyone else.

[mrmiguu]

Would _Castlevania: Symphony of the Night_ be considered a sandbox-game? You run around a castle. It's open for the most part (you have to gain abilities to reach some areas). Long ass game. Very addictive. Very challenging. Very fun.

[renzo]

@Anders:

> @Anna:
>
> > Also, as I've said before, games are not getting water-ed down, anyone who uses the terms "casual" and "hardcore" for gaming are usually mistaken in their schema about that subject.
>
> I use "hardcore" to mean someone that regularly plays games for money or in competitions. "Casual" I use for everyone else.

I thought the image proved appropriate.  That and it's so fucking true.