Videogames you love, videogames you hate thread

[Alpha Six]

if a really good game is really short, that's not really great either.

????????????

If a really good game is really short, I would assume it's a really good game, because it's a really good game?

[TomGuycott]

if a really good game is really short, that's not really great either.

????????????

If a really good game is really short, I would assume it's a really good game, because it's a really good game?

I'm suddenly imagining Super Metroid ending after beating Kraid. I think I'm going to have nightmares about my childhood being retroactively changed.

[Gwen]

if a really good game is really short, that's not really great either.

????????????

If a really good game is really short, I would assume it's a really good game, because it's a really good game?

I'm assuming she meant something that was good, but was completely ruined by how short it was, like Wet. That game had so much potential but was ruined by how short it was and sadly how repetitive it was, even with the really cool gameplay.

[Alpha Six]

Wet was ruined by being repetitive and generic, not by its length. If Wet was longer it probably would have been worse. You can't fix a flawed game (or anything, really) by making it longer. Wet needs a rework in general.

I can't think of a "great game ruined by length." Some games can stand to be longer but I legitimately can't think of a game that was so severely harmed by its length that it ruined its potential. Even Vanquish, a game that can be beaten in 3-6 hours (depending on how good you are), was the perfect length; for it is a game focused on skill.

[Gwen]

Wet was ruined by being repetitive and generic, not by its length. If Wet was longer it probably would have been worse. You can't fix a flawed game (or anything, really) by making it longer. Wet needs a rework in general.

I can't think of a "great game ruined by length." Some games can stand to be longer but I legitimately can't think of a game that was so severely harmed by its length that it ruined its potential. Even Vanquish, a game that can be beaten in 3-6 hours (depending on how good you are), was the perfect length; for it is a game focused on skill.

Wet was hardly generic, and that car chase scene was beyond all radular.

[Koopaul]

I don't feel a games length should factor if its good or not. If I had incredible fun for that short time its still a good game.

[Alpha Six]

Wet was hardly generic, and that car chase scene was beyond all radular.

Okay, "generic" is the wrong word; "lackluster" is more like it. It had tons of great ideas but the overall execution is flawed. Nothing about Wet is better than anything we've seen before in terms of execution.

Wet is one of those games that could have used a delay or two for refinement and making some of the "special" levels less bland.


Still fun? Sure. But its execution was flawed, and making the game longer would have only made the issues look bigger.

[Gwen]

Wet was hardly generic, and that car chase scene was beyond all radular.

Okay, "generic" is the wrong word; "lackluster" is more like it. It had tons of great ideas but the overall execution is flawed. Nothing about Wet is better than anything we've seen before in terms of execution.

Wet is one of those games that could have used a delay or two for refinement and making some of the "special" levels less bland.


Still fun? Sure. But its execution was flawed, and making the game longer would have only made the issues look bigger.

This is something we can agree on.

[Kriven]

Also, if a game is great but short... why not... I dunno, replay it?

[Gwen]

Also, if a game is great but short... why not... I dunno, replay it?

Well not all games have that replay value. Usually if a game is short it doesn't bug me, but if it feels abrupt and more could have been done, thats when it annoys me, otherwise short games don't bother me at all.

[Garamonde]

if a really good game is really short, that's not really great either.

????????????

If a really good game is really short, I would assume it's a really good game, because it's a really good game?

No, I was trying to say if a good game is short then it would get complaints about being short, that's all.

I don't feel a games length should factor if its good or not. If I had incredible fun for that short time its still a good game.

I wasn't trying to imply at all that length makes it good. That's the exact opposite of how I think. Look at Luigi's Mansion. I could beat that game in less than a day if I wanted, but it's such a fantastic game anyway that I don't care! I've played through it like 9 times or more now, lol. I'll keep playing through it every now and then when I get the urge.

Also, if a game is great but short... why not... I dunno, replay it?

I am a master of replaying. How many times have I beaten Kirby 64 in my lifetime??? I'd say 20 or more, lol.

[Rakia]

I liked the Force Unleashed, but it was too short.
If it were longer it'd have been better, I think. Some people found it too repetitive though, but whatever.

[Alpha Six]

Force Unleashed wouldn't have been better longer, either. That game was too clunky and didn't do much with what it had aside from a few cool scenes-- making it longer would have just made it worse. Force Unleashed 2 was a huge improvement in the gameplay department but took a shit all over the story and level design, so it's not a very good overall package, either.

[DioShiba]

I liked arkham asylum for a comic based game but I didn't like the fact the enemies couldn't respawn at all.

I would have at least appreciated edios not completely killing off every enemy you knock out unconscious so you can never fight them again, that was a retarded thing to do.

oh and it was lacking good boss fights.

[PrettyNier]

A good enough game will make itself replayable purely because it is an enjoyable experience. artificial additions to length or replayabilty serve only to hinder the actual experience.