«

[Blood-Pigggy]

Originally posted by _r.u.s.s.@Apr 1 2006, 03:53 AM
you cant compare multiplayer and singleplayer games

Yes you can, just like you can compare any game, the one that's more fun, wins! :P

[_r.u.s.s.]

i mean that massive multiplayer games r based on competition with other players(like olympic games) while single player are more based on story(like books) and/or "prepared action scenes" for single player, well of course there are freeware like games just for fun and killing time.. you know what i mean

[thatmexicanguy]

Plus, new games are too damned expensive. Old games are also more difficult, which makes them a heck of a lot more fun.

[Blood-Pigggy]

More expensive?

I remember that Earl Weaver's Baseball cost a horrifying $80 dollars when it first was released, and other titles such as Warthog Flight Simulator cost upwards to $100, I think that games have come a LONG way in terms of price.
And in the difficulty area...

Have you tried Challenge of the Gods in God Of War? If you have, then I doubt you'd be saying that :P

[The Fifth Horseman]

Honestly, new games can sometimes be difficult... for example when I was trying to beat Bloodrayne in a single sitting without saving the game (ie - I die, the game's over), and it took me a lot of time and many, many attempts to get through.

But still, IMO modern games are often way too easy to finish... the old, good Space Hulk took me well over a week of 6-to-8-hours-per-day gameplay to complete... man, that was pretty taxing, but nothing beats the great feeling when you get through all the difficult stuff.

[Eagle of Fire]

I was trying to beat Bloodrayne in a single sitting without saving the game (ie - I die, the game's over)

Well, that's some limitations you setted yourself and which have nothing to do with the game in itself... So you can't say that the game was that much difficult per se...

[The Fifth Horseman]

The basic game, without any of those limitations, took about 12 hours of gameplay to complete the first time round. That's kind of lame.

[Eagle of Fire]

Ha. I never played it but I'm pretty sure you refered to Fable here. :P

And what you just said is a pretty good argument for new games bashing... Just glad you can see it by yourself. Games nowaday are really more profit centered... So who cares if it doesn't last long as long as it sells right? And Fable did just that.

[The Fifth Horseman]

Well... 12 hours was only in the case of a completely untrained player who never played a TPP game before. :bleh:
Minimum completion time is really under 3 hours - that's if you don't skip the cutscenes, anyway.

But playing some older games for time can also extend the gameplay time - ie Another World can take quite a while to achieve an ideal run (under 16 minutes).

Now, on the other hand there are games that offer quite a decent degree of playability... and enjoyable playability, too. Unreal Tournament 2K4 was quite a good one in that aspect, IMO. Easy to learn, difficult to master, with a decent single player mode. Not to mention the ability to set additional limits when playing single maps, for some extra challenge.

[Eagle of Fire]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I have a movie sitting here in my computer about someone playing Super Mario Bros III for the NES, and not only does he complete the game in 11 mins flush but he actually manage to enjoy himself, getting an highscore I probably never got myself and getting 99 lives easily..! I have another one, same setting except it's about Mario 64 this time, and the guy pass it in about 22 minutes... Amazing!

However, how much time did those guys play to get to that level? Hundred of hours at least... Hardly compare quality and price wise to Fable if you ask me...