Lessons from a Metal Warrior

Hey this is a great story. I’m going to email this to my buddies. I stumbled on this while surfing for some free downloads, I’ll be sure to visit regularly. thanks for sharing.

I’m assuming you invested exactly $0.00 on a metal warrior snes rom. If you purchased a new game for $60.00 would you still be satisfied with a 4-8 hour experience? No matter how good it was I would feel cheated out of money.

It would be like going to see an incredible movie that is 20 minutes long.

Bioshock was a game that was 25-30 hours long and other than the weak ending, i was totally satisfied. If it had been 4-8 hours instead I would have thrown it out the window.

An argument from Personal Incredulity is a bad argument. So because you can’t imagine getting value out of a short game therefore no one can?

Well I urge you to go play Half Life, Half Life 2, MW2, Heavy Rain, Contra, or any number of other fantastic yet short campaign experiences that have been released or were released for up to $69.99. Apparently myself and millions of others have found enjoyment in these experiences.

My point is still valid, extending the length of a game for no good reason (like mining in mass effect, or wandering across a pointless open desert like fallout 3) doesn’t make the game better, it often waters down the great experience when it’s done poorly (which it often is).

I believe you’re mistaking an argument for an opinion. I never said no one else could possibly enjoy a short game, I said I would feel cheated if developers opted to package up a shorter experience.

Picking two poor examples of long boring games is weak. You mentioned Final Fantasy 8, but what about 1-7? All excellent from beginning to end and are each 20-40 hours. If they had been decimated in length to tighten the experience, I personally would have felt disappointed. A short game doesn’t feel as epic or give you much of a sense of accomplishment if it requires minimal dedication.

Contra is only short if you’ve played through it 300 times and can do it blind folded. Otherwise they are notoriously hard games that take significant practice before you can actually finish it.

Don’t get your panties in a bunch Alan.

As I say in my article, it hurts the overall product when you make a game unnecessarily long. “I would RATHER have a 4-8 hour incredible experience … ”

I think the several examples I provided are great at showing that those video games were made unnecessarily long and it ultimately detracted from the overall experience. Did it make them terrible games? No. Could they have been more fun if the designers chose to improve the stories, visuals, enemies, or level design instead of simply focusing on extending the length through repetitive missions and tasks? Probably.

And you can beat Contra in under an hour. The fact that you choose to replay it on harder modes to extend the difficulty shows the value you can get out of a shorter more polished game. Would Contra be as famous if it were 20 – 35 hours of shooting the same enemies over and over again, or spending hours at a time wandering about vast empty levels fighting an enemy once every 10 minutes? Pointless length simply doesn’t make a good game. You’re telling me that the first time you beat Contra III (without cheating) on normal wasn’t one of the most epic, high-fiving video game moments ever?

In my opinion, I’d still rather see games tightened up in length so the developers can focus on giving me a more polished package. No game ever made a top 10 list simply because it was really, really long.

“A lot of the games out there are just too long.” – Shigeru Miyamoto.

Your argument completely depends on the type of game you’re even talking about. You’ve got 1st person action-adventure tangled up with side scrollers and RPG’s. The point of some RPG’s is to be an epic adventure, like reading the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It takes time. I hardly would have enjoyed them if I skipped straight to the Coles notes.

Yes, a side scroller with jumping robots had better not be 30 hours long.

Oblivion would have been a failure if it was only 6 hours long.

A game doesn’t have to be under 6, 8, 10 or even 20 hours to be good. I agree there is no magical number. It totally depends on the game type and amount of effort put into the game by the designers. I’m saying that extending game play for the sake of making a long game doesn’t benefit the game itself. Would I be disappointed in a 6 hour RPG? Of course. Am I happy with a 90+ hour RPG just because it’s long? No.

Take Fallout 2 for example, you could beat that game in about 30 minutes, or you could probably play it for up to 30 hours. They filled the game with great content all the way through, instead of tacking on garbage game length extending missions ala Mass Effect 2 (mining planets) or frustratingly boring monster encounters like the FF series has succumbed to.

Normal people with lives that extended off of their tear stained couch cushions don’t want to fight the same slime monster for the 1000th time to collect 2 exp. More often than not people would rather player a shorter game with more development time spent on a richer story, or a visually stunning world to explore.

I would prefer that developers sacrifice some of the length in exchange for a tighter and more polished final product any day.

I think you have a valid point Alan. There is no magical number of hours a game has to be in order to be good. It should be long enough to tell the story, remain fun and exciting, and most importantly stay fresh. Extending the length of a game simply to extend it, is terrible game design.

It’s funny though, that you use Mass Effect 2 as an example of an “unnecessarily long” game. Compared to the grinding that’s required in Final Fantasy type games, all the experience you ever need is given to you during core missions in mass effect, meaning no unnecessary fights. It’s commonly thought of as a short rpg, which is why in my opinion it’s so good. It kept me entertained all the way through, told an amazing story, and didn’t drag on.

Regardless, I agree with your views in this article, and find them completely relevant to my demographic. I have a full time job, and can maybe squeeze in an hour of gaming each night. During that hour, I want a really tight, refined experience. I don’t need to dilute my gaming with running through wastelands, or driving aimlessly around liberty city. I want crazy action, top notch cinematics, and/or an enthralling story. I want the high end shit. Games like GTA and WOW are for budget gamers, trying to squeeze every last bit of entertainment out of their hard earned cash. And while they may have their place in the market, I’d rather leave that junk for the peasants.

Would you rather a 1000 tricycles or a mazarati?

Would you rather a shot of moonshine or 6 cold beers?

And if you’re looking for the high end shit, then why would you give a rats ass about Dragon Quest?

Mike, your analogy makes absolutely no sense. Did you even read my comment?

I guess you’re right about Dragon’s Quest though. Would explain why I haven’t played it yet, even knowing that it’s been out for a while. I just don’t have the time or the patience for those games anymore. I guess they just hold some inherent nostalgic value to me, and I’ll always have a soft spot for them in my heart. But that doesn’t mean that they abide by good game design rules.

That being said, I just want to clarify that I’m not opposed to a bit of grinding in games, but everything in moderation. It’s more the open world concept that Alan and I were talking about. Linear levels is what made Uncharted 2 such an amazing experience from start to finish. You simply cannot achieve that level of sophistication in an open world game. I don’t need to see Drake drive from the jungles of Asia to the snow capped peaks of Tibet. It’s not relevant to the overall story, so it should be cut.

Would you rather a check for $1040 or $10 a week for 2 years?

Yea, I did read your comment. It sounds like you just want to play the game with out putting in any dedication at all and be wowed by pretty pictures. You’re a modern gamer, along with every other high school kid.

You’ve basically said you want a spoon fed plot that doesn’t leave you guessing so you can be tucked into bed by 9:00 with a glass of warm milk.

Granted there are lots of boring games that I’d rather eat a bullet than play, but I avoid them. It’s simple. I like grinding JRPG’s, no I don’t want them condensed to accommodate your schedule.

You’re the kinda guy that would rather watch the movie than read the book because it’s easier. I get it, it’s cool.

1000 tricyles over a Maserati? How does that make sense exactly? What does a guy do with a 1000 tricyles? Maybe if you had said going from point A to B on a tricycle or in a Maserati.

Dear Mike,
Once again, you’ve totally missed the point I was trying to make.

“It sounds like you just want to play the game with out putting in any dedication..” Incorrect. I’ll be dedicated to a game so long as it remains enthralling and fun. I don’t have time to waste dedicating myself to a game if it’s boring. I have other things to do.

“…and be wowed by pretty pictures.” Great graphics are a bonus, but not the be all end all. What I was referring to are the tight, scripted, jaw dropping moments that only a linear based game can provide at regular intervals.

“You’ve basically said you want a spoon fed plot that doesn’t leave you guessing…” I never even remotely suggested such a thing. Heavy Rain is the perfect example of a short game, with a crazy story and multiple endings. Games like FF, with overly convoluted plots than only an autistic child on crack could follow don’t make for better games, and are no less spoon fed to the player than other shorter games.

“I like grinding JRPG’s, no I don’t want them condensed to accommodate your schedule.” Well fortunately, you don’t have to Mike. You play what you want to play, and I’ll play what I want to play. To each their own. Don’t fret, they won’t stop making JRPGs because of this article.

“You’re the kinda guy that would rather watch the movie than read the book because it’s easier.” Again, I’m not sure where this comment is coming from. If you assume that because I enjoy shorter, tighter experiences in my games, that I don’t enjoy a reasonable challenge, then you would be incorrect. I think a comment that would be more analogous to our conversation would be: ‘I’m the kind of guy who skips over the songs and poems in LOTR, because they’re boring.’

You’re sounding more and more like a comment refuting, personally attacking troll, than someone who has genuinely interesting opinions on the topic. Is your stance that you simply refuse to play a 6-10 hour game, on the very basis that it’s not good value for your money? Or is it that long, drawn out, often monotonous segments are necessary in games to make them enjoyable and “epic”?

Your point is obvious, I’m not disputing the fact that a game that is riveting from beginning to end and is only 6-10 hours is awesome. In other news the sky is blue and cocaine is a hell of a drug. I would still feel a little ripped off if I spent 60 bucks on it.

What is this argument about exactly? That I would prefer to play an RPG that requires time and patience so I can celebrate with a fist pump and that you would rather play a short action game that doesn’t waste your time?

I personally love leveling characters. You even got a boner when I mentioned it in the Dragon Quest article.

Sure, the poems in LOTR are boring, who doesn’t skip those? But I don’t skip every chapter that can’t keep my interest for longer than 5 minutes.

“Fuck, are they still walking?”

*flip* *flip* *flip*

“Cool, here’s a battle!”

This doesn’t need to be an episode of Peoples Court. Different strokes for different folks, GymStar.

If my point is so obvious, why do you insist on debating it? To quote myself, “You play what you want to play, and I’ll play what I want to play. To each their own.” Glad you feel the same way.

Well I’m glad we had this pointless conversation. Go lift some weights you tubby nerd.

So that’s how you view this site? As a place for pointless conversations? I was simply agreeing with Alan’s article and sharing my own opinions because I thought he raised some valid points. Go back to the depths from whence you came you old feeble troll. YOU SHALL NOT PASS!