5punk

Counting The Pennies

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:
:likesmostofitbuthasafewquestions:

I'm not sure about the AAA title/30 hours SP thing.

CoD4, which is very much an AAA title (and still 30 quid from most places) has about 5-6 hours of SP gameplay. obviously this could be increased with replayability etc, but that depends how you're counting playing time, could something like tetris be considered a 1000 hour game, because you can replay it a lot?

I used COD4 as an example of a single player game with good multiplayer from my xfire. It had about 6 hours I think from SP. Obviously though there's going to be wild differences between some games. A generalisation will always have inaccuracies, but I'm trying to hit an average to make a point, which I think still stands. I was trying to get that across in the conclusion but haven't quite managed it yet.

I'm just not sure 30 hours is right, the longest games SP only games I've played recently are;

Spoor 10h
Bioshock 10h
STALKER:SoC 14h
Farcry 2 19h

That's a ~13hr average, counting my longest games only.

However, my stats are slightly skewed, because I'm not much of a replayer.

You could be right there.

Damn it, I've put my post in t'other thread. I'll move it here.

Right -

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:
:likesmostofitbuthasafewquestions:

I'm not sure about the AAA title/30 hours SP thing. etc etc

If it's SP only (or pretty much SP given problems with MP, such as far Cry 1/2) then the 30 hours is a bit optimistic.

But AAA beardy titles lend themselves to a far higher play time, so as I see it the average would have something like COD5 SP at the arse end (perfect place for it), but something like NWN and Fallout at the other.

Overall then the hours/pounds per title would then depend on whether you were a FPS nut or dabbled in other genre's too, because the FPS titles are the ones that generally supply the shorter almost episodic SP expansions with more in-depth MP. But when you beard and RTS too then your AAA pound to hour ratio is going to change quite a lot.

I blame Max Payne, as that was the first game to offer under 10 hours of gaming from an AA title.

The problem was that Max Payne did those 10 hours in a very movie like fashion which was acceptable as it was good. Other developers cottoned on and thought "Hmm, people are happy to recieve smaller lengths of play" while missing the point of the direct moving stylings that Max Payne introduced, ie, specific chapters and acts and a tied in plot to all of it.

Take CoD4, as much as it had it's issue with respawning enemies, the USA missions were only filler for the most part, the real excellent missions were the SAS ones, they were finely crafted works of level design and a loose plot. The SP game was only about 6 hours, it really was a tad too short but I'll concede it was action all the way at a fast pace, probably for it's detriment.

Half Life 1 was a massive game, probably around 20 to 30 hours in that I think, it's sequal was also fairly meaty, no reason why games can't be done like that at all, a gentle cresendo up to the final acts, rather than an all out conflict straight away.

For modern combat games, I think Black Hawk Down had it's pacings fairly spot on, and that was around 10 hours iirc, as it started off slowly with the feeling of being superior before you gained a sense of overwhelming numbers and desperation with things going wrong and lots of enemies appearing.

Beady games do have longer, but that's generally because they're a bit more freeform in the pacing and what the player can do, although Fallout 3 is exempt from this as it's main plot could be done in about 2 or 3 hours, with an utterly pitiful excuse for a plot.

Although this is all a tangent, but the value of games is directly related to current trends to have shorter games experiences.

I guess so few people actually finishing games is one reason they are gettng shorter, but the length of time I play a game doesn't match up with how long it takes to play through it once, but how much I enjoy being there.

I've played 28 hours of Bioshock - a ten hour game at best - I just enjoyed the setting so much, I had to revisit and poke into every corner. But Farcry 2, I've played about an hour - once I'd been to about five towns/camps I decided I'd seen all I wanted to.

Time playing doesn't always equal enjoyment, although with me having plenty of other games to choose from, it usually does. I had to horse myself to complete STALKER and more recently, Prey, both of which have a handful of memorable locations near the end, but a godawful slog to get there.

The absolute worst value games are the full price ones I've bought new, but played for an hour or less - Dead Space, Far Cry 2, Time Shift, MOH:Airbourne - at £35/hour that's pretty expensive entertainment. Casual games are a lot less risky proposition.

FatherJack wrote:but the length of time I play a game doesn't match up with how long it takes to play through it once, but how much I enjoy being there.

Very much this. FarCry 2 I enjoyed to the extent that I bimbled about trying every weapon and every car, standing on big hills as the sun set and generally misbehaved. The game itself was a little bland if it didn't grip you, but I enjoyed the place to the extent that it didn't bother me even slightly.

Buzz - Max Payne did offer the various modes for replay, the new york minute runs where insane attempts at finishing with veh tight time limits. And the kung fu mod is a wondrous thing. I put lots of hours into max payne. Got a bit bored of 2 though. I do see what you mean though, rehashing what the player has already done isn't new, just different.

I also think that COD4 really was MP with sSP as an addition. They know how well it sells and how long it'll be popular for, it's a huge franchise. I looked at it as a massive bonus that the SP was anything other than crappy and tacked on.

HereComesPete wrote:I also think that COD4 really was MP with sSP as an addition. They know how well it sells and how long it'll be popular for, it's a huge franchise. I looked at it as a massive bonus that the SP was anything other than crappy and tacked on.

I agree, although I thought the single player did feel crappy and tacked on. Felt like a bonus minigame with some CGI.

The article assumes completion of the game (it does say that somewhere), as it's pretty obvious a game you buy and hate is going to be poor value for money. The point, which may need some more clarification, is that gamers who limit themselves to only buying stuff like Far Cry 2 and Crysis are actually paying more than if they went for the options they wouldn't usually consider because they don't like the price - casual games are considered to not be long enough, and MMOs too expensive.

Berk mentioned (on xfire I think) that there are a few bits missing from the article, such as micropayment games. I'd have liked to address those too, but it just opened up a huge can of worms because of how variable the cost is.

Also, has anyone any criticism or comments on the layout and flow? This article is as much a prototype for the publishing system as it is an article in its own right.

Dog Pants wrote:Also, has anyone any criticism or comments on the layout and flow? This article is as much a prototype for the publishing system as it is an article in its own right.

On a purely aesthetic level I think the picture of pennies could be a bit smaller.

I could be wrong, but I think that picture is of cents, not pennies.

/pedant

They are. Although septics call them pennies as well as cents no?

Maybe link to this discussion at the bottom of the article?

I like the layout and style and it'll make a good template/example.

Don't know if the title should mention games, or if that's implied by us being a games site.

Nice, brief intro statement that says what the article's about so you know if you want to read it.

The stats/cost breakdown could perhaps have been a breakout or graphic to illustrate the price difference with a graph.

Good conclusion at the end - matching what you said you set out to do in the intro.

Good points all, nothing I disagree with there. The images were a bit slapdash as I was busy with Sprog and wanted to give Stoat something to play with. I'll probably edit them at some point, and add a graph. I've also noticed it looks better on my little monitor at work than it does on my 22" widescreen monster at home. Looks longer.

I'd also change the Conclusion subheader to something else or remove it altogether. It never reads right to label the conclusion, because it's obvious that the concluding statement goes at the end.

Actually I wouldn't use subheadings at all, but here it does seem to split it up nicely.

Dog Pants wrote:I've also noticed it looks better on my little monitor at work than it does on my 22" widescreen monster at home. Looks longer.

Don't worry, formatted articles are likely to be gelatinous-width. That's a term I just invented. It means it won't stretch out to stupid sizes on huge monitors and be unreadable, like the forum does at the moment.

Shada wrote:I'd also change the Conclusion subheader to something else or remove it altogether. It never reads right to label the conclusion, because it's obvious that the concluding statement goes at the end.

Actually I wouldn't use subheadings at all, but here it does seem to split it up nicely.

Yeah, I didn't like 'Conclusion' either, but I needed a heading and was losing the will to live. Think of it as a placeholder. I agree too that the headings may well work better in Wiki format than html. That remains to be seen I suppose.

Stoat wrote:Don't worry, formatted articles are likely to be gelatinous-width. That's a term I just invented. It means it won't stretch out to stupid sizes on huge monitors and be unreadable, like the forum does at the moment.

Mmmmm, gelatinous.

Stoat wrote:Don't worry, formatted articles are likely to be gelatinous-width. That's a term I just invented. It means it won't stretch out to stupid sizes on huge monitors and be unreadable, like the forum does at the moment.

I like that term.

It's settled. Fixed-fluid is now referred to as Gelatinous.