Hey guys, about Splinter Cell 5

[Wulfstand]

It only has 5 hours of singleplayer gameplay, at least that's what the reviewer said.
The rest of the gameplay seems to be pretty f. awesome tho, its stealth system kinda reminds me of Batman AA. I'm pretty curious to test it out myself, can't wait for the pc release.

 

[Markman]

5 hours? Is it really realistic to charge 50 euros for a 5 hour game? Plus the bonus DRM no matter how good the game is?

 

[Achilles]

Seriously, I can't believe that people actually buy these games full price, finish them in an afternoon and feel satisfied about their purchase. Granted they are console people, aka dumbfucks, but still, it's really sad.

 

[MetalCraze]

You will believe it. I still remember comments like "Crysis is so awesome I finished it in one evening! Wow wow!" Such length is so common these days people don't even suspect anything.

Anyway there is no Splinter Cell 5

There was Splinter Cell 5
And it didn't look like a crappy shooter like it is now
In fact it was going to be Jason Bourne game on a very beautiful modification of UE2.5, but they decided to kill it in favour of Ass Creed

 

[catfood]

Nowadays it seems it takes longer to download a game than to finish it. Not worth the bother.

 

[poocolator]

Nowadays it seems it takes longer to download a game than to finish it. Not worth the bother.

Hah! This is an excellent observation.

 

[ChristofferC]

Actually, casual gamers WANT short games. Most people never finish a game if it is too long. They want to get it over with and move on to the next game as fast as possible.

 

[MetalCraze]

Of course. That's because their games are so 10/10 good
This crappy zombie version of a real Conviction looks like a shooter with an XTREME Fisher according to recent videos.

 

[Achilles]

Do you think there's a chance they've been "conditioned" to think that? I mean, who in their right minds would complain that a game is "too long" if they're enjoying it? If you're playing a game and, after some hours of gameplay, you can't be arsed to continue and finish it, it doesn't mean that the game is too long; it means that the developers couldn't create a consistently fun experience throughout the game.

So what do game companies do? Instead of creating better content, they make games shorter and shorter and then come up with stupid claims such as "only x% of buyers finished our game, so now we've removed excess fluff and streamlined it! Yeah, awesum " etc. Casual gamers (=sheep standing on two legs) see that and go "fuck yeah, now the game is maximum awesomeness", they buy the game and they finish it, without even realising that they've paid the same amount of money for half a game.

TL;DR: Casual gamers are the man's bitches.

 

[Vibalist]

Press Average: 9.3

Reader Average: 6.4

 

[Secretninja]

Used game sales are killing the industry people!

 

[HOPELESS MORON]

SPLINTER CELL HAS GONE TO SHIT AFTER CHAOS THEORY

 

[.Sigurd]

Chaos Theory is the righ point, after that everything went downhill.

 

[Vibalist]

Really? I didn't think Double Agent was too shabby either, but I hear a lot of people do. What exactly is wrong with that game?

 

[dx__]

The second game was the worst, Chaos Theory the best, the original being okay. Double Agent felt like the second one, for me, and that killed it for me. it's the one of the few games I stopped playing halfway through.

 

[Boyarpunk]

Chaos Theory is the high point, after that everything went downhill.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Do you think there's a chance they've been "conditioned" to think that? I mean, who in their right minds would complain that a game is "too long" if they're enjoying it?

Nah, casuals just want a quick play, and a long game discourages them no matter how good it is. A long game takes commitment (for lack of a better word), it's simply not attractive to that public (like no matter how good a sports game is, you have to at least care about sports, i.e, be the target audience). The fact that companies are making casual games shittier than ever is just the usual company jewery.

Likewise, that thinking allows them to buy a short game for full price because that time will consist of fun, so the cost-benefit is worth it. And if you have the money to spare, it sort of makes sense - you can play like that because there are always new games coming out, and you can even trade your current ones for the new ones.

 

[Reject_666_6]

I'd rather see a substantial price drop than to see these games longer. If anything, they should become shorter. It's because almost every game I've played made in the last 5 years got really, really shitty near the end/after the second half/after the beginning.

It's like they invest 50% of development time on the first 15% of each game (which they do).

 

[treave]

So what do game companies do? Instead of creating better content, they make games shorter and shorter and then come up with stupid claims such as "only x% of buyers finished our game, so now we've removed excess fluff and streamlined it! Yeah, awesum " etc. Casual gamers (=sheep standing on two legs) see that and go "fuck yeah, now the game is maximum awesomeness", they buy the game and they finish it, without even realising that they've paid the same amount of money for half a game.

It's funnier when somehow budgets have drastically increased to the point that we're making million-dollar games, yet the actual content of those games are decreasing.

 

[A user named cat]

Not every console game is super short, just the mainstream, shitty action games. I'm over 60 hours into Persona 4 and it's still not over.

 

[anomie]

yet it's still a bad game.

 

[Grunker]

Press Average: 9.3

Reader Average: 6.4

You know you've got a fucked up press when the public are more verbal with their criticism than the critics.

Imagine if IMDB rated movies lower than New York Times

 

[Jaedar]

So what do game companies do? Instead of creating better content, they make games shorter and shorter and then come up with stupid claims such as "only x% of buyers finished our game, so now we've removed excess fluff and streamlined it! Yeah, awesum " etc. Casual gamers (=sheep standing on two legs) see that and go "fuck yeah, now the game is maximum awesomeness", they buy the game and they finish it, without even realising that they've paid the same amount of money for half a game.

It's funnier when somehow budgets have drastically increased to the point that we're making million-dollar games, yet the actual content of those games are decreasing.

Graphix, Physix, full voice acting costs a lot of money, and so do some other things iiuc.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

And they wonder why players prefer used games when the game costs $12 per hour of gameplay. If developers hadn't figured out that great achievement system that causes a special group of retards to actually spend time on a game, the gaming industry would be on the verge of collapse.

 

[MetalCraze]

Graphix, Physix, full voice acting costs a lot of money, and so do some other things iiuc.

Wow that explains why B5 IFH was free, had better physics than most of space sims, had pretty good graphics for the time (2003) and had VOs better than that of certain "professional" studios.

Especially considering that today you can just download UE3.5 engine for free and pay for it only after you've sold certain amount of copies and use free ODE engine which is p. much on a par with Havok and PhysX. Just because indie games are shit doesn't mean developers don't have money - it just means that indie developers are shit.