11-19-2011, 12:27 PM
Video games cost too much, but that's just part of the problem. These over-priced, big budget games are getting more and more realistic and filled with eye pleasing graphics, but in the end fall short on content.
Since when did entertainment come second to packaging? How fun was Super Mario Brothers? Generations of all ages played this simple 8 bit graphical game that featured a whopping 16 colors. The key to it's success(besides being something new in it's day) wasn't how great the graphics were because in truth they weren't. It was the amount of time spent on the actual gameplay. When you only have a few colors to work with, it leaves a lot more memory available for programming- less graphics used to mean better gaming.
But now we have consoles that can store up to 8GB in a single game disc, games that require more than one disc and PC games that can take as much as 20GB for the installation. What excuse to these developers have for not making their games more content-rich?
For example: a friend and I waited for over six months on a Black Ops sequel and finally it came. Three hours later we were watching the credits roll and wondering what happened. This game had a huge budget that resulted in a killer design and fundamentally sound gameplay, but only enough content for a game one quarter of it's size. At $60 per game, I think they owe us more.
Give us more games like GTA that include free modes we can exploit for as long as we can think of something else to try, give us game that we complete in any order we wish like Oblivion. You can keep the all star cast and the nextgen graphics if it means I get a paper thin plot and a short playing experience.
Since when did entertainment come second to packaging? How fun was Super Mario Brothers? Generations of all ages played this simple 8 bit graphical game that featured a whopping 16 colors. The key to it's success(besides being something new in it's day) wasn't how great the graphics were because in truth they weren't. It was the amount of time spent on the actual gameplay. When you only have a few colors to work with, it leaves a lot more memory available for programming- less graphics used to mean better gaming.
But now we have consoles that can store up to 8GB in a single game disc, games that require more than one disc and PC games that can take as much as 20GB for the installation. What excuse to these developers have for not making their games more content-rich?
For example: a friend and I waited for over six months on a Black Ops sequel and finally it came. Three hours later we were watching the credits roll and wondering what happened. This game had a huge budget that resulted in a killer design and fundamentally sound gameplay, but only enough content for a game one quarter of it's size. At $60 per game, I think they owe us more.
Give us more games like GTA that include free modes we can exploit for as long as we can think of something else to try, give us game that we complete in any order we wish like Oblivion. You can keep the all star cast and the nextgen graphics if it means I get a paper thin plot and a short playing experience.
Wildcard is awesome.
