In an earlier Start Fox Zero thread I saw a lot of people complaining about the pricetag of the game for the content and it was pissing me off so argue with me about game content and value. Here are my thoughts on it:
>TL;DR: stop focusing too much on the ammount of content in a game because its dangerous to other aspects of design.
Video games are a unique medium because of their player agency and interactivity, meaning they should be judged on both the content they provide as well as what kind of experience they can produce with the player, but "Content" of games is becoming a dangerously overdominant factor.
Even if a full playthrough of a game is short, I find I can spend a lot of time playing a game repeatedly for unlocks, high scores/ranks, and/or any kind of game-based or personal goal that represents a sense of mastery. Almost all games can be compatable with this kind of play, and is just as valuable if not more than, say, having 100s of sidequests in an RPG
Games made with replays in mind (designed so each playthrough new content is explored, different playstyles can be adopted, diverse ways to accomplish something, etc) also add value through unique engagements, and could make a 4 hour game feel different every time.
Packing as much shit as possible in a game is fucking stupid trend. "hours of content" is now seen to some as a metric for how good a game is. How much time you spend shitting around before the credits is starting to see precedence over quality
People play games for different reasons, so here are my questions for you, /v/:
>does a game have to have a lot of content for it to be worth paying for?
>If not, do you think it has to be made with replay value in mind for you to come back again?
>How long are your favorite games?
>What keeps you coming back to them?
>Do you think that wanting more and more content is dangerous to the overall game experience?
name some games that were great but you feel were unfairly judged by this line of reasoning you're describing.
I'm not paying 60 dollars for a game that will be over in 5 hours.
Simple as that.
>>334912018
I mean, plenty of games praised by this board and others have very thin content but they are still amazing. Ghost Trick comes to mind. Or Super Metroid which is very very short.
>does a game have to have a lot of content for it to be worth paying for?
The price should be a direct reflection of the development cost and customer demand.
>If not, do you think it has to be made with replay value in mind for you to come back again?
Are you fucking retarded? If it doesn't have replay value, I'm not going to come back again.
>How long are your favorite games?
Story based games should be as long as it takes to read a decent novel, maybe a little shorter.
Competition based games have a playtime that is relative to the skill curve, playerbase and depth of the game
>What keeps you coming back to them?
Entertainment consumerism
>Do you think that wanting more and more content is dangerous to the overall game experience?
No. We want the same amount of content seen previously, but at higher levels of quality. While it seems that quality has platued, and content level has decreased.
>>334912249
It's five hours? What a shit show.
>>334912018
Why do you care so much if people buy star fox zero or not? Anyone who has ever played a star fox game before, knows it's an arcade-style game. Meaning you will be playing it many times over. Why do you try and sell this game to people on this board? It's nintendos job. The game reached the target audience they wanted.
>>334912510
These posts trying to imply "shill" are hilarious considering all the Dark Souls 3 and Ratchet and Clank threads we got in the recent days.
>>334912510
it shouldnt cost 60 then, if its that short then I dont think it took that long to make
>>334912902
kill yourself
>>334912598
not implying anything. He wrote a 2000 word essay about why people shouldn't complain about the price tag. Which i agree with. People who complain about the price tag are people without a job, i know because i used to be 18 as well. Like i said, the target audience already knows what's up with star fox. People who complain about the "short" length of this game, have never played a star fox game before. Which is understandable considering the last good one came out in 1997 and that's the one everybody played.
It's like arguing with people that rising was only 5 hours long, which the first run was. But was rising 5 hours long? No it wasn't.
>>334912018
>Value
good goy. Think in shekels. Look at all those "free" DLC we promise you it's "worth" 50$ because that's how much we bill for it. hehehe.
>>334912998
>no argument
yeah thanks
inb4
>"MUH NOSTALGIC 64 EXPERIENCE WAS PERFECT"
and this is why the star fox series will never evolve to anything bigger and better it will always have to be the same quotes and same planets killing Andross again, you're father is alive again, Peppy is a traitor again
it was sad the copy pasta someone posted of leaked features like the bayo amiibo activating bayo on top of the arwing and no one batted and an eye
>>334913465
Thanks for confirming that you never played a star fox game. Just like >>334913253
said
>>334913670
nah I played 64, Assault and fucked around with 2, but thanks for implications
>>334913748
No you didn't.
>>334913748
>same planets killing Andross again, you're father is alive again, Peppy is a traitor again
woha... yeah dude. You totally did.
>>334912902
>, if its that short then I dont think it took that long to make
What makes you think that?
I love how everyone forgets that this game is actually $50. It's only $60 at retail because it comes with Guard for what will likely be a short amount of time.
People complaining about the playtime are stupid. There's nothing else I can say to describe them. They are stupid. If I enjoy this game as much as SF64 I'll get years and years of replayability out of it.
>but there's no replayability, it's shit!
Said everybody who hasn't played the final game yet.
>>334913790
thats fantastic anon, thanks for not providing me with discussion about the SF series, how it could evolve to big 3d space battles, space exploration and maybe as a TPS (it was shit in Assault but I liked it as a concept), however Star Fox as a series has to rely on remaking a version from 20 years ago, in essence you can get the same experience in 64 than in Zero for what its worth mechanically
but no i'm a casual who has never played the games because I'm not constantly sucking 64's dick, thanks
>>334914079
>same planets killing Andross again, you're father is alive again, Peppy is a traitor again
woha... yeah dude. You totally did.
Your**
>>334912018
Another aspect of what you're talking about is that the focus on content has actually resulting in some games being overly large now.
The Witcher 3 is the best recent example by far. I liked that game a lot, but they were so obsessed with creating a big open world that they ended up making it way bigger than it should have been. The vast majority of the map is covered in the same small handful of meaningless, repetitive encounters that get incredibly boring after a while.
The most frustrating part of the game for me was the "scavenger hunt" quests that are literally just fetch quests that send you running and swimming all over these endless landscapes just to find scraps of text. You have to do these if you want to find the best equipment in the game, and it's really unfulfilling.
Compare this to the hunt for items the original Legend of Zelda, a much shorter game in a smaller world, with only a few special items to find. But when you found the new sword, it was so exciting. It felt special because it was one of a kind and hidden. The Witcher 3 could have taken all its retarded scavenger hunts, condensed its world, and turned them into one or two much more well-developed quests to find special items that would have been fun and rewarding to complete, and we could have lived just fine without the hours of running around pointlessly to complete them as they were.
More does not always equal better, basically.
>>334912018
The problem is that Star Fox 64 is a well-designed game
And Star Fox Zero, despite trying to emulate SF64, is not.
>>334914428
Ok, hotshot. Where's your objective proof of that?
>>334914079
So you're saying that 64 is the pinnacle of StarFox and nobody should try to refine and improve on it's gameplay? Should every new game in the series be something completely different every time? Why have it be a series then?
>>334914590
I'm all for asking people to back their shit up but "objective proof" for an opinion is not a reasonable request.
>>334912018
I'm not worried about playtime
I'm worried about playing corneria for the five hundred thousandth time. make a new fucking game Nintendo you fucking pricks. assault was a step in the right direction, fucking let star fox snes go. Even the newer punch out featured more additions and shit compared to this and Nintendo put all of 4 dollars into the marketing for that game
>>334914859
>Even the newer punch out featured more additions and shit compared to this and Nintendo put all of 4 dollars into the marketing for that game
From what I can see, SF Zero has about as much "additions and shit" as the Wii Punch-Out remake.
>Familiar mechanics smoothed out and a new gimmick
>Returning familiar battles/stages/bosses with a twist
>Some new, interesting battles/stages/bosses
I'm yet to see if there's a new, challenging mode like Punch-Out's Title Defense/Mac's Last Stand.
there isn't even a level select or a suspend mode in star fox 64, you're supposed to play the damn thing from start to finish in one sitting like a movie
>>334914859
>assault was a step in the right direction
No, it wasn't. Command was more of a step in the right direction than Assault.
When I think Star Fox, I think of an on rails arcade space shooter, not poorly designed on-foot missions.
They've tried new things, they didn't work, so it's time to go back to the basics. Sure, Zero is a reboot of a reboot, but it's not like it's a 1 to 1 remake or anything, there is plenty of new content and gameplay to make it feel fresh.
>>334914859
>assault was a step in the right direction
>>334915812
command had no on rails portions whatsoever, it was entirely "all range mode" with poor man's turn based strategy mixed in. and the missions were all tedious and repetitive like "destroy all enemies", "fly through these hoops" or my favorite "fly around this barren landscape and shoot 5 of x then barrel roll into the mothership in the center of the map"
>>334912197
Metal Gear Rising's review's major complaint was that it was too short, which I was agreed with and pretty much thought it was a 6/10 game at best (like a lot of reviewers gave it if i recall) at first until I played the game again way later over and over for about a month with unlocking things and challenge runs and when I started seriously thinking why I enjoy games I found I enjoyed the experience of playing it over and over wayyyyy more than I enjoyed and played GTAV which I was playing around the same time.
I know /v/tards generally have a high opinion of MGR already though. there arent many other games I think are great but were unfairly judged by people and the ones that are are already generally liked by /v/. My main point of making this post was not for justice for games victimized by this viewpoint, but to try to be more conscious of the alternative aspects of games that add to their value and to think about what is sacrificed when a game focuses primarily on a content quota and to try to convince people not to want "bigger" games and give short games the same value
>>334912197
Read the OP again.
>>334912356
>>If not, do you think it has to be made with replay value in mind for you to come back again?
>Are you fucking retarded? If it doesn't have replay value, I'm not going to come back again.
I was asking if you think a game has to be intentionally designed with replay value in mind to feel like a game is worth playing again. Some games base their interaction on playing with player's inexperience, but I find myself replaying anyways if they are designed well, such as Resident Evil, (besides the bonus modes like Invisible Enemy) which is easy and lacks a lot of its horror elements after multiple playthroughs, and Visual Novels which have a large base in mystery. I only know what I do so I can't assume its what other people do, and was wondering if other anons replayed games that are generally really unreplayable and why
>>334915547
Does anyone know what getting all the medals does? If its an expert mode with sweet shades itll be goty 2016
There's no replayability for niggers who want to run through the game once, experience it all, and primarily expect Nintendo to just entertain them for a while. Miyamoto said you stupid faggots who want to just sit down with the expectation for a game to "entertain" you are the people he's not making anything for. He's making a game for people who want to play games.
And don't be a retard, just because a game doesn't have 80 hours of open copy pasted world with a bunch of worthless crap to do doesn't mean it didn't take some time to make.
if you're a casual who just plays games for the sake of it, or god forbid, for the story, then of course overall time is what's important. but if you're a true gamer, then it's all about the skill ceiling.
super mario 3d world has a lot more content and is more polished than super mario 64, yet the latter is the superior game by a large margin. how is that possible
>>334916778
Horror aside, RE has plenty of replay value in mind.
The maps are designed to have shortcuts and the inventory and ammunition systems are here to make you plan your actions in the most efficient way.
Sometimes I feel like some games are too long.
Look at Sin & punishement 2. It's awesome but it's so hard and intense, my body can't take a full playthrough.
My most replayed game is probably Viewtiful Joe. It's just a load of fun to play again and again.
>>334912018
Back in 1997 value was good on SF64. But desu I don't think I'd be able to replay SFZ like I did 64 in 2016.
I hope there'll be a speed mode or something, game looks a bit too slow so a game mode that makes everything run at 1.5 speed or so would be dope.
>>334917385
>But desu I don't think I'd be able to replay SFZ like I did 64 in 2016.
Why is that? Too many other games to pay attention to?
>>334917639
I saw a high-speed stage in one of those preview videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Xnr587jdDw
Playing more stages at this speed would be real fun.
>>334912197
Luigi's Mansion.
>>334917385
Why? You were paying $60+ for SNES and NES games.
If anything, the value of replayability has declined in the consumers' and AAA companies' eyes
over certain genres of games. Stuff like Souls sells because of replayability, but the general masses
may not see it as that
>>334917924
>Why is that? Too many other games to pay attention to?
In large part yes. My backlog is a mile long
>>334917924
Not him but yeah
Back when I was 9 when I got SF64, during a good year id probably get 2 games/year. Now since I can buy any on a whim it feels like I have less time per game.
Was there ever any definitive statement on whether or not gyro controls can be turned off? Can I play it the old way or do I have to use the gyro?
>>334917924
Pretty good and fast, at least some levels are like that then. Like how the attack carrier has weakpoints on it's joints too, alternative way to defeat it.
>>334918239
>You(r parents) were paying $60+ for SNES and NES games.
Fixed that for ya bro.
Probably the reason why the value of individual games has declined is due to emulation and piracy. I have the capability to play millions of games right now, so I'm not stuck with the 2-3 I got in a year like back then.
>>334918317
I've heard you can put it on co-op mode, set the gamepad down and just use the Pro controller and it's like regular Star Fox controls.
>>334918317
You have to use the gyro controls, the movement of your arwing and aiming are two different entities
>>334912018
>tfw the reason that most people look back at starfox 64 with fond memories is because
>A.) They didn't pay for it, so the campaign being 2-3 hours, four at most didn't mean anything to them
and
>B.) They were kids when they played this game. So nostalgia plays a big part here
So this game has only survived on nostalgia alone and little substance?
Wow...what a great game!
>>334918462
A lot of the footage I saw didn't have the player shooting at really weird angles. I imagine most, if not all of the game can be done without the gyro controls, similar to how Splatoon did it.
>>334918239
>Stuff like Souls sells because of replayability
No. Games like Dark Souls sell because they last for longer.
>Dark Souls 1 can last for up to 70 hours on the first playthrough alone
Skyrim is also a good example.
>>334918538
I should clarify here. So the game is probably good(in spite of what I said in the previous post). That doesn't mean it's flaws shouldn't be criticized
>>334918650
Yeah but it seems like the all range fights greatly benefit from it, you can do circles around the target as you fire
Also alot of early players seem to have difficulty grasping the controls, thats probably why you havnt seen the crazy angles yet
I value Nintendo games to be worth twenty dollars. Their concepts are rehashed, but fun. Something that essentially Star Fox 64 in HD is not worth more than thirty dollars in my eyes.
Then again I don't value many games to be worth sixty dollars and only buy used or when they are on discount. I have the money to pay but I feel like when I pay sixty dollars, I always go through buyers' remorse.
Does it come with guard as a digital code if I buy the main game?
>>334917262
Level design, mostly.
>>334912018
Its an arcade style rail shooter, they're all short. Its just part of the genera. If its more than 4 or 5 hours it would be considered extremely long for the genera.
>>334923773
It's something like 5 hours for the first half of game.that one faggot that leaked some of it showed his completion and play time.
>>334923773
>genera
>>334912249
This. Feel free to make it short, but don't charge 60€ if so, cut the price down to at most 40€ retail. Also, offer a robust multiplayer mode.
Smash Melee has about a 1 hour campaign, 5 hours if you count all the event matches, classic, and all star, but the unlocks and multiplayer add hours of depth.
Assault had a robust multiplayer, 64 had multiplayer, does Zero have multiplayer? No? And you're asking how much?
>>334912249
This. Feel free to make it short, but don't charge 60€ if so, cut the price down to at most 40€ retail. Also, offer a robust multiplayer mode.
Smash Melee has about a 1 hour campaign, 5 hours if you count all the event matches, classic, and all star, but the unlocks and multiplayer add hours of depth.
Assault had a robust multiplayer, 64 had multiplayer, does Zero have multiplayer? No? And you're asking how much?
>>334913253
I have a job. I blew 1600€ on a cintiq. And I'm more than happy to blow 600€ on VR.
SFZ is not worth its price tag though.
>>334924485
>And I'm more than happy to blow 600€ on VR.
what a retard
From what i played recently in 64 DS and watching all the walkthroughs posted, it looks really underwhelming.
And i might be wrong but the easy and normal routes doesn't seem to be 5 stages long anymore, they seem shorter.
>>334924825
>Says the kid buying SFZ.
Don't worry Timmy, when you grow up like me, maybe you too can buy all the things your mommy can't afford for you!
>>334925114
>look at me I'm such an adult wasting cash on the biggest shitty gimmick of the decade
rev up those phallus controllers.
>>334924223
Genre. They're easy to mix up.
>caring about homonym mistakes on a Mongolian shitposting forum
>>334925214
>look at me I'm such an adult wasting cash on the biggest shitty gimmick of the decade
Irony of saying this on a Wii U game thread is off the charts.
>>334925214
>and yet here I sit, trying to shill Nintendo's next flop
Will you be buying the NX as well?
>>334925326
Whats truly ironic is that retards who were mocking Nintendo for waggle shit are buying into the VR meme en masse.
>>334925402
If it has games, sure.
One of the reasons why you should avoid VR. It wont get shit.
>>334925326
Didn't you know? It's the Nintendrones who are most butthurt about VR. Because Iwata said VR was not good and that Nintendo wouldn't do VR.
They just can't take another generation of irrelevance, do they're desperately hoping VR flops so the NX isn't as big a failure as the WiiU.
>>334925558
VR has games though. Are you dumb?
>>334925717
>VR has games
>>334925558
>NX
>having games
Hahahahahahahaha
Enjoy your two years of WiiU ports before Nintendo drops support halfway into its lifetime.
>>334925764
Yes, VR has games. Thank you for quoting me.>>334924825
>>334925868
>VR has games
>>334924825
>>334925214
>>334925558
>waahh, he's not blowing money on my shitty game
What a child. Fuck off shill. I'll buy Zero from wallapop for 15€ once Nintendrones grow tired of the 5 hour campaign.
>>334925923
Yes, VR has games. If you agree with me so much, why do you keep quoting me?
>>334926050
Not him but are you fucking serious? Name one VR game that isn't Wii tier waggle shit.
>>334925317
anon, the fact that you're on a mongolian shitposting forum is why you can't expect to get away with saying dumb stuff.
>>334926669
EVE Valkyrie
Costs as much as SFZ, has tighter and more responsive controls, and offers much more content and has an addicting online multiplayer.
I wouldn't recommend you get VR just for this game, but if you have VR, it's a nust play. Similar case to SFZ, except the lack of content makes SFZ 60€ tag too steep.
Also, EVE Valkyrie was made for VR, and is a lot of fun. Especially if you set up a flight stick. I can't wait for Star Citizen.
Also, with VR you have a back catalog of dozens of last gen games to play in VR. Like Skyrim, GTAV, and Battlefield 4. I didn't own a PS3 nor a 360 last gen (I only had a Wii, and this gen, a WiiU), so I'm glad I get a chance to play all these games with mods, in VR. I wanna get a Virtuix Treadmil to play Battlefield 4 with. That honestly looks amazing. All the mods also give Skyrim tons of replay value, at a cheap price too, and playing it in VR really is something worth experiencing. I'd recommend that just about anyone. I hope Halo 3, and Destiny eventually make their way to PC. I'd love play those in VR.
>>334926050
>VR has games
>>334925983
>he's a shill because he didnt fall for the garbage VR meme
>>334927627
>he
Stop samefagging OP, we know it's you.
Look, I already told you. I'm not spending 60€ on a game that doesn't interest me. Stop shilling for Zero. I'll get it used off Wallapop for a discount price, that's what I value 5 hours of content at... around 15€
Blame Nintendo for not expanding on Assault's multiplayer.
>>334927924
with that sort of paranoia it wouldnt surprise me if you were a /pol/ regular.
>>334928023
You're literally using tge same reaction images. Try being more subtle next time, retard.
>>334928096
Yes, I was the guy posting elf men.
Not the OP you shitposting shizoid.
>>334928171
Sure you aren't...
>>334927924
that wasn't me.
I'm really not shilling for Star Fox Zero, I'm not gonna buy it cause I'm away from home and I don't give a shit if you buy it or not.
What I do care about, however, is an inevitable decrease in quality of games if everyone's competing to have the longest single player and instead of focusing effort on gameplay, design, mechanics, etc.
I'm interested in trying to convince people that trying to convert single player length to value is wrong and that it will result in games sacrificing design for content.
I don't think this is doomsday stuff. I'm honestly not extremely worried about it anyway, I've just been noticing a trend lately with people constantly clamoring for longer, bigger, games and then seeing games like MGSV suffer greatly from this design choice.
SFZ was just something that reminded me of it and I don't want to see games that offer super solid replayable experiences disappear because people don't want to put in the time and effort for things that are seemingly less important and more subjective like good design and gameplay when they can show an specifically polished section at an expo or something then make it as long as or as big as possible and tell everyone about the loads of content, and just leave it as shallow or repetitive
Star Fox was always shit.
>>334912018
Everybody here (and I mean EVERYBODY) was shitposting about how short Gone Home is, so yes amount of content has always been something put into consideration on /v/
Generally speaking I don't actually mind short games, but 60 dollars for 3 hours is ridiculous, unless those 3 hours are fucking amazing
>implying I have a problem with short games
shovel knight was $30 and I gladly forked that over. Game's roughly 5 hours, but it has a good degree of replayability and extra content, not to mention in game achievements, co-op with the amiibo, and the DLC campaigns. If your game is short, at least make sure the player gets some bang for their buck.
>>334930090
Same thing with shit like Street Fighter 5.
Easily the best first version release of any SF game but people throw a fit because they dont get ebin cinematic modes like in garbage games like MK.
Complaints about fucked online were justified, all this casual single player whining was awful.
>>334912018
>"hours of content" is now seen to some as a metric for how good a game is.
It is for Monster HUnter
When this this "games need to be long" meme die? No one buys a movie and goes "Ugh! I payed $30 dollars for only one and a half hours of content!" It's the quality that matters. OP has Star Fox 64 in their image. A 45 minute long game that I've probably spent over 100 hours with over the years.
>>334917381
You're right. RE's replayability is actually handled masterfully. It's seriously so easy to take things for granted in that game because of how intelligent all of its design choices are and how perfect it implements everything.
So much of what makes it great is usually achieved in the first playthrough (Learning the layout, accommodating to the controls, menus, item management, limited saves, fear of what's next making you lose all your progress etc.) but damn it if it doesn't do everything in it's power to keep you coming back.
>Multiple Characters
>Multiple Endings
>Hard mode
>Invisible Enemy
>Real Survivor
>One Dangerous Zombie
>Costume and gun unlocks
>Ranking and Time
on top of any self restriction your brain is capable of coming up with. Fuck. If I ever say RE isn't replayable again please slap me.
Also, I agree, some games can feel too long. I love games you can beat in one sitting and I love games that take days or weeks, but depending on the game, there're lengths where things are just too short for multiple sessions but too long for one.
And its also tiring if a game's long and requires a lot of concentration or is so intense. Sin & Punishment 2 is a great example.
Viewtiful Joe and all Clover/Platinum action games are amazing! I can't get enough of them. Perfect example to me of games that provide a fun, short, first playthrough, but the real length comes from everything afterwards. It's always up to you how much you can get out of it. In a perfect world it would please everyone.
I think God Hand and MGR are my favorites.
>>334930272
I think with Gone Home, it's combined with the fact that there isn't really any gameplay. You just read stuff.
>>334931582
Monster Hunter is great! I love it, but it really has some kind of devious manipulative formula
When you really look at it, MH has a lot of things already going for it that length just works for and complements that style of game. The core gameplay works great, which is of course the required foundation that's built upon, but its seriously a simple concept when you look at it. You can tell that a lot of effort went into building in and balancing it, but the game length comes from how the content is provided to you.
Theres 75 monsters in the game, which is already huge, but it's presented to you through a billion quests, which you can do if you are a completionist
You can learn all of the monster patterns if you like feeling a sense of mastering something
Theres millions of weapon and armor set combinations which means billions of skill combinations. On top of that different play styles to take down each monster if you like experimenting
There's hundreds of sets and weapons to make if you like collecting
You gotta make them by grinding monsters which is a like a skinner box
And you can do it with friends and help friends if your social
And there was new DLC like once every few weeks for a while
It's literally impossible to do everything and monster hunter... and damn, they really don't want you to stop. I always feel dirty having hundreds of hours in MH, like different pleasure centers of my brain are being satiated systematically at every turn. It's the closest video game to a drug. I like it, but it really feels unhealthy to me
