- This topic has 33 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Whoops, can’t edit comments, etc. My input is that earlier games were shorter which meant the more difficult levels ended up being more compact and closer to each other in the game’s linear scale. Games today either don’t require the most challenging aspects of themselves or the more difficult levels are just spaced out a lot more since the games tend to be longer.
ex: GameA (from, say, 1985) has 12 levels with 4 of them being notoriously hard. There’s about two hours total gameplay.
GameB (2009) has 15 hours worth of gameplay with 4 hard levels you MUST complete. There could even be more challening levels and stuff, but they’re optional.They have about the same content of challenging stuff only the earlier game is shorter and thus the ratio of difficult content is higher.
@MasterCheeze: While I agree that’s a general trend throughout history, I think it’s been reversed for the HD consoles this generation. With the massive development costs that come with a game for either/both of the HD twins, it’s simply impossible to make a length adventure and keep the game profitable. Even games like Halo 3 and CoD4 had incredibly short single player experiences despite the knowledge that the games would sell insanely well. With all the new gamers’ obsessing over online multiplayer (lol real life friends?), it’s easy to get away with it too. HD games that are epic in scale (i.e. FFXIII or GT5) require huge development times, and need massive sales to just break even.
Your trend still holds true for the Wii. For example, the Conduit, which has only sold a fraction of the aforementioned games features a campaign that is nearly twice as long and was profitable, too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.