/games/ - Video Games

>>49756
Because you need to be able to say "40 hour campaign" on the box, or goad people into buying your microtransactions by having some inane grind.
>What happened to just making a decent couple of hours game play?
These still come out.

Are you daft?
Since the very beginning of gaming devs have been coming up with ways to inflate game time so that people would play the game longer and be more likely to feel like they got their money's worth.

Like did you really not think at all about this? Is this a brainfart?
Games are almost never intentionally made to take someone only two hours in their first play though. Even back in the 8 bit era games were intentionally made brutally difficult so that it would take people weeks or even months to be able to complete them.

>>49756
I noticed that when I was playing gta online. And I agree, it's kinda ridiculous. You cannot skip cutscenes, all the content is locked behind hundreds of hours playing. UI is clunky and unintuitive, what you can supposedly do in two clicks - you need 5 submenus, again to waste your time.

But then again, the last time I saw official rockstar's streams - there were always some bizzare
set of people that they choose for theirs promotional streams. Some niggers that can't even talk properly like a normal humans. That's probably their real target audience after all.
Maybe it's just that particular game. Stick to the singleplayer, my dudes

>>49759
>Since the very beginning of gaming devs have been coming up with ways to inflate game time so that people would play the game longer and be more likely to feel like they got their money's worth.
The complete opposite is true. They used to try to get you off of the game as quickly as possible to make maximum profit from it.

And no games in the 8 bit era were not intentionally made brutally difficult. There's plenty of examples of easy games in that era. You sound like you get your knowledge from twitch streams.

>>49760
I imagine niggers are the core audience for GTA online. Someone has to be spending that money on worthless shit.

Single player is what wastes the players time more than anything else. Games like The last of us, god of war and FF7 remake contain huge long drawn out sequences which add nothing to the game.

Have you considered your attention span is the problem? Anyway try playing stuff with arcade sensibilities like fighting games

>>49756
This only applies to f2p games or MMOs. most games today are instant gratification. They’re too easy and predictable well mostly AAA games are.

>>49762
Fighting games are just as big a problem now. Huge insane combo strings to learn. Compare that to SF2.

>>49763
Tell that to Mario Galaxy with a 20 minutes intro before you get to play the game. Or the intro cut scenes in every level in Odyssey when Mario 64 just worked as soon as you entered a level or got 1 dialog box which left in 2 a presses.

Try reading the thread in the future. You can see lots of examples.

>>49761
>The complete opposite is true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_video_games#The_spread_of_games
>Spacewar! on the PDP-1, inspired by science fiction books such as the Lensman series.[33][34] The game was copied to several of the early minicomputer installations in American academic institutions, making it potentially the first video game to be available outside a single research institute
>he game was developed to meet three precepts: to use as much of the computer's resources as possible, to be consistently interesting and therefore have every run be different, and to be entertaining and therefore a game.
>to be consistently interesting and therefore have every run be different
What's this, the game used randomly generated content to extend interest in the game and thus get people to play longer?
You ain't going to out nerd my knowledge of video games.
You know shit compared to me.

>And no games in the 8 bit era were not intentionally made brutally difficult.
Cite your source on that.
>There's plenty of examples of easy games in that era.
Name some.

>>49765
Meh, you just want everyone to agree on your jaded perception.

>>49767
Wikipedia articles are your argument? You know so little you googled it and posted a wikipedia article. Since you clearly know so much you don't need easy games listed, maybe you can find a wikipedia article on that as well.

>>49768
No. I'm pointing out specific industry changes where games went from being fast to pick up and play to being drawn out. Often with forced cut scene's presented in Half-life's style where the player has no way to by pass events they are just an observer in.

>>49756
>What happened to just making a decent couple of hours game play?

Nothing happened OP, you're just not playing them. There are hundreds of games out there with couple of hours of gameplay getting released every month. There's also many with 20, 70, 100 hours and more. I feel like you framed the situation as if every game out there now is a super long grindfest and that's not true at all.

>Rogue likes where you spend 20 hours unlocking different weapons just so you can get lucky and find a good one to finish the game.

But that's fun. What else are you going to do with those 20 hours? Exercise? Socialize?

>>49770
Unlike you I back up what I say unlike you who just spouts out bullshit then acts like a braying ass when met with descent. Wikipedia is far better then the source of information you are using to back up your statements, which is your ass.

You have nothing but non-arguments and troll tactics. Not a leg to stand on or a thing worth listening to to say.
With each post you only display your profound ignorance of the topic.

>>49772
It's not fun. It's a waste of time. Yes, i would rather exercise and socialize than watch virtual people do that while I'm forced to observe passively.

>>49773
You didn't back up shit. You denied the existence of Arcades, the primary way to play games for the original gaming userbase. Do you know how fast Pac-man kills you if you don't know what you're doing?

The only one ignorant here is you. You read wikipedia articles and claim people who lived the era know less than you.

>>49774
>i would rather exercise and socialize than watch virtual people do that while I'm forced to observe passively.

Wizchan 2077

>>49774
And now to pull out the strawmen once you get called on your bullshit.

Proving you can't even address what I actually said so you have to make shit up.

>>49777
lol, normalfag upset that bars are closed and parties are illegal so he comes to a virgin forum to shit on their hobby

>>49774
>>49777
get the fuck out outsider.

>>49777
Why are you here?

I strongly suspect this was just a troll thread.

This thread is blood curdling garbage ripped straight from /v's/ rotten ass crack and it'd be great if a mod could just delete it already or move it to /b/ (and seriously why don't they? what exactly is stopping them from doing this?), but, having said that, I'll agree that there are ways that certain games waste a player's time and that sometimes get on my nerves.

Games like Half-life with in-game cutscenes where you walk around as they're happening and are unskippable, or cinematic heavy games with non-skippable cutscenes, are one example of this. Not really a problem to deal with for a first playthrough of course, but fucking dreadful beyond words when you want to replay them. Max Payne 3 especially was fucking infamous for this kind of shit. And that game had the fucking nerve to then put in a bunch of unlockable hardcore modes on top of that, such as one where a single death sends you back to the very beginning, thereby forcing you to re-watch all the unskippable crap again. Contrast this with the original Max Payne where you could just skip everything and immediately get into the action. However, even original Max Payne wasn't completely free of time wasting crap, since the Maxs' nightmare levels are pretty tedious once you've already seen them and are, again, almost like a playable cutscene in some sense, but it's not really the same thing, I'll admit.

Another type of thing that I feel needlessly wastes time are just obnoxious grinds in games. For instance, these days, if after already beating the game there's something that costs like 100000000 gold, or whatever, and requires hours upon hours of further grinding to obtain then I'll usually just bust out cheat engine and give myself the required amount, so as to circumvent the obnoxious grind required. I don't mind a grind in certain games where it's paced out and implemented well, but there are some I just don't have the patience for. Rogue-likes are a good example of grinds in this sense. Take Rogue Legacy, for instance. I wasn't gonna do 100 runs, or whatever it'd take, to get the necessary gold required to unlock all the character classes and abilities, so I just gave myself a shit ton of gold and unlocked them all that way, so I could just focus on beating the game and trying out different stuff. Now, of course, unlocking everything wasn't really all that necessary and it was definitely overkill, but the grind still annoyed me and I simply wanted it out of the way. Other rogues this doesn't tend to be possible, like with Enter The Gungeon for instance, since the only thing you can grind there are new unlockable guns which can only be picked up and found and not bought with in-game currency.

Another game with obnoxious time-wasting mechanics for me was Cult Simulator. Save editing resource amounts was one of the only things that made that game actually palatable to me.

Another game which I felt wasted the player's time with its mechanics was Wasteland 2. The punishingly RNG heavy skill checks on doing literally anything in that game were a pain in the ass and required a huge level grind to deal with, so I just gave each of my characters one uber specialization in each category by editing my save file, so as to keep them all distinct in a roleplaying sense and not have to deal with the RNG heavy/time wasting crap.

I'd say most times I have a problem with a grind, it's usually very unique and specific, like in the above 2 examples. Obviously when it comes to cheat engine or editing saves, this only only applies to PC gaming. If you primarily game on consoles, then yeah, you're pretty much just at the mercy of obnoxious grinds, or bad design. I'd say that right there is one of the perks of gaming on PC and is why I prefer it. Having the freedom to overturn a developer's dumb horseshit decisions, or insultingly long grinds, and make something actually decent to play as a result, always turns out to be a great and sublime pleasure.

>>49758

>These still come out.

Of course they do and anyone with two working eyeballs can clearly see that. OP is just being deliberately obtuse so as to gin up discussion over a largely dumb topic that happens to have a grain of truth to it (that being how most AAA games do tend to waste a player's time by being too easy, cinematic heavy, bland and grindy). If that isn't like /v/, then I don't know what is.

>>49785

Seems that way. Outsider pissants like OP must be pretty bored/desperate to want to come and troll in a place like this. They're probably going stir crazy from the lack of being able to mingle with other disgusting normal apes like them. I wish they'd just fuck off and go shitpost/troll on reddit, or something.

>>49756
Disrespecting the player starts with multi-gigabyte 0-day patches. Ship the game properly coded and compress your patches (7z or zip).

Don't hold the players hostage!

>>50727
I'd go even further and say disrespecting the player begins with uncopressed textures and shit making the games over 100GB

>>50744
Let's go further and include games that run less than 60fps on average hardware.

>>50727
i dont ever wanna download 50+gb games, what a joke

No more grinding please…