I buy used. I don't buy a new game for $5 less if it is used. That is ridiculous. But buying a new game at $60 is ridiculous unless its price will never go down (and sometimes, that's the case for a long time). I want to justify keeping my games––after all, I PAID for them, and I want to enjoy them for all they have to offer (if that offering is good), and even if I dislike a game, sometimes I just enjoy having it. I like collecting...used games. Ironic? Maybe my habits seem bad. But I'd rather own a bunch of games I at least kind of like (say, 20), and half of which I've beaten, for about the average price of $20 a game (rather than $60).

You know how this world works. So perhaps you compensate for your gaming investments by selling––and losing access to a game you paid a premium for. So when you sell for something like $30 (or, God forbid, much less), you're basically paying $30 in the long run for renting a game for only a limited amount of time. See, I differ there. Or perhaps you differ––we all do!

But we have something common at the end of the road: we don't like paying a lot for games. Some of us barely have time to invest in how much we spend, too. Some games take an average of FIFTY hours to fully get every penny out of. Not just some, but many. And that might not even include replaying it.

How would you feel if the world of music started doing this? If you had to spend up to $60 to buy an album (okay, I know here on STC some of us may pay a lot more), and then you have 20 hours of music to listen to? Okay, so music isn't as engaging as games. But I don't think games are that much more engaging, if more at all. I can only handle about 2.5 hours maximum of any given game, unless it's REALLY good. What is videogame's DEAL with time investment? Are we really expected to devote half of our real-life commitments just to experience the latest thing in gaming? Something we'll probably never even touch again? Am I the only one here who thinks that games are ridiculously demanding? Maybe I'm getting to old for this. But hell, I'm only 20. But I've been around, and like many others, I'm a bit dissatisfied with the current state of things. I think this is the biggest roadblock in modern gaming, though. Why can't we all just have nice things? Games that START at $20 and only last maybe 10-15 hours? That we would like to replay? As we still do with some of our favorite old classics? Would you not agree that the industry is doing its own peril? It has cornered itself into a standard that gamers nor developers want to consent to. Okay, maybe Bethesda still wants 700 hour plus WRPGs, but f--- that. Those aren't games. Those are life-burning programs.

Personally, I find it quite funny when I want to play a 'new' game, and the first thing I think of is something that came out maybe like 5-10 years ago, or the occasional SNES or handheld game.

I don't fit well into a life where I must dedicate half of my time and half of my money to something that only marginally pays off. Older games do, but I'm talking about the new wave. The 'future'. It's here, and it's ugly. With few exceptions.

Disappointed,

Technique.

(This post isn't meant to offend anyone. So it might. I simply find it hard to discuss how I feel on an issue which is clearly and undeniably an issue no matter which way you look at it. I'm realistic. I apologize for anyone offended. Your thoughts are welcome either way.)

I believe NES games were $50-80 when they came out. A $50 game in 1988 would be around $95 today, and an $80 game would be around $150. So while there are always things to complain about (DRM, crappy games, etc) I think that the price of games is not one of them. That's my personal opinion anyway.

I dont spring much for new games often, but when I do, it's for games I truly appreciate. I count every dollar I spend as a vote. Games like Dark Souls or Human Revolution absolutely get my money whereas something like a Resident Evil or Halo gets a demo playthrough before I make a purchase.

Music of course is designed to be listened to over and over. It has infinite 'replay value' as it were. It's not really comparable.

Technique, I totally agree with you. The only games that have been worth the $60 purchase price to me this console generation were Marvel vs Capcom 3 (unlimited replay value...at least until Ultimate Marvel came out and that was only $40...but still, I had waited 10 years for the damn game!) and Rock Band 2 (was like getting 80+ songs for less than $1 apiece plus a new interface, pretty good deal since new RB songs were about $2 apiece). Everything else I have bought this generation has either been used or I waited for a massive price decrease, which seems to happen faster than usual, compared to previous generations. Even Persona 4 Arena (which my friends are more into than I am), I am waiting for it to drop to at least $40.

They can argue technology and fair enough, NES/SNES games were often priced insanely back in the day, but after the whole Playstation era of cheap games, the gradual increase feels like a rip-off (although I hear early on, PS1 games were regularly $60-70...glad I didn't own the system back then, as I can't think of any pre-1997 PS1 games that would have been worth that). But honestly, there isn't anything on the shelf at the moment worth $60 or more. And in the case of Street Fighter X Tekken, gamers reacted very violently when Capcom tried to charge extra money for DLC that was found to be on the disc. The game is now pretty much dead and that was a huge factor in it. Lots of bad press.

And as for time, I don't have time to sit through tutorials, learn whatever crazy button layouts each separate game uses, play through a large quest, etc. Also doesn't help that the biggest genres nowadays (sports, FPS) don't interest me in the slightest. Older 8/16 bit games are great because you can pick them up for 15-30 minutes at a time and be done with them. And they don't FEEL like the cheap flash games nowdays, because back in the day, there were considered premium product. For example, you can play through Ducktales on the NES in less than 10 minutes or Megaman 2 in less than an hour, but they don't look or feel like "budget" games from nowadays. Even Rock Band had an "arcade" game like feel, where you could pick it up, play a couple songs and be done with it for the day. I'm very much a retro gamer nowdays, although I'll readily admit there was a ton of junk released back in the 8/16 bit era that would definitely not have been worth paying full price for.

Edit: It also must be said that a lot of the game companies I've grown up with have burned their bridges with me pretty good.

Capcom: Years upon years of heaving Resident Evil down our throats as their "flagship" series (I can't give two shits about this series or survival horror in general), junk like Megaman X7 and Final Fight Streetwise and generally forgetting or ignoring the fact that Megaman has existed recently (and no, the 25th Anniversary album crap doesn't count). The fighting game revival has been a mixed bag overall (many Marvel players feel Xfactor was a mistake), but generally has been one of the company's few pluses.

Konami: What was once possibly the best game company of the 8/16 bit era has become the MGS/Silent Hill/DDR show, 3 entire series I don't care about. And newer "Castlevania" games have not been worth my time at all, it is like they can't even get a grasp on what made this series good in the first place.

Square side of Square-Enix: A money grubbing parody of the Squaresoft of old. Heck, their president came right out and said: "it's very difficult to hit the jackpot, as it were. Once we've hit it, we have to get all the juice possible out of it", which is the LAST thing you want to say to your fanbase. Frankly, seeing these guys go out of business at this point would benefit the industry. And who's bright idea was it to basically let Tetsuya Nomura basically take over the company!?

Nintendo: I haven't been thrilled with them for the majority of the Gamecube or Wii generations, with many questionable decisions in both eras. They are finally starting to feel it on the financial end, which might actually shock them back to their senses. After the Wii library fiasco, the Nintendo Seal of Quality is borderline worthless. At least they are discovering their 2D roots again, thankfully sans the stupid bongos (although controller wiggling is mysteriously required).

The last time I played a video game (all the way through) was in 2005, but I know people that own Xbox 360 and PS3 systems, so I hear about (and observe) new games frequently. I've watched people play Call of Duty (series), Gears of War (series), Halo (series), Borderlands, Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Skyrim, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resident Evil 5 and I'm baffled as to why people pay anything or invest more than 1 minute playing them.

I believe I have an aversion to new video games. Just two weeks ago, I played the original cartridge of Mega Man 2 and got through most of the game and loved the experience. It felt good. I also played a few NES games I had never played before and I loved them. But if I try Gears of War or just try to observe Skyrim, I feel disgusted.

This may have to do with what I consider "the standard". A video game consists of a title screen and gameplay. Anything beyond that just makes me angry, so this may be why new video games piss me off. The characters won't shut the f--- up! If I want to watch a movie, then I'll watch a movie! Contra is a video game. Gears of War is not.

Jodo, I had the same experience. A friend had bought Prototype (a sandbox-type game) and was saying how great it is (which is funny, because all the reviews I saw for it were mediocre at best). After a half hour of watching him run around doing stuff, it became unbearable watching it.

Arkham Asylum was probably the one game I saw someone playing and was like, "wow, I'd actually consider playing that one!". And part of that was because the characters are familiar. But for $60 when it first came out? Hell no!

And yes, I know both games are old and have sequels. Have been too caught up in the fighting game scene to pay attention to much else.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can feel that Nintendo's FIRST PARTY offerings the last two generations are worse than what they put out on the N64.  Even ignoring missteps like Other M (which in terms of actual gameplay feels far more like the old games than the Prime series ever did), you're still left with things like the Mario Galaxy games, DKC Returns, Rhythm Heaven Fever, Sin & Punishment, etc. etc. etc..  It's not like they're ONLY making the "Wii [something]" series or anything.  I seriously wonder how exactly one justifies putting down the entirety of their output and if it's just that there are people who ignore the stuff they DO make for "gamers" and pretend the only things they produce are for a casual audience.

I feel like there are a bunch of old fogies on here saying:

"Back in my day sonny, games were games! Not like today, when you  have your fancy graphics, and all that life and stuff! Yup, back then, one hit and you died! And we had to go through levels twice, uphill, both ways, before reaching the castle!"

Yes, "back in the day" there were some great games, but today there are games being released which I think are just as good and fun, if not better, than games "back in the day". As I said before, prices are way better now then they used to be. Also, the reason games are often $50-60 when they come out, is due to development cost. If no one had purchased Arkham Asylum at full retail when it came out, it never would have become a "greatest hits" and dropped down in price, and there never would have been a sequel. By the way, I would rather pay $60 for a great game that's 6 hours long, then $20 for a so-so game that's 100 hours long.

Joe, I thought you would have gotten tired of my posts about how little I thought of Nintendo's first party output on the Gamecube (and how little I think of Iwata as leader of Nintendo) so I tried to spare everyone the recap. Basically:

3D Mario = no thanks
3D Zelda = no (ESPECIALLY Wind Waker)
3D Metroid = gave an honest try, did not like.

I have no comment on the N64, as I never owned one nor had any desire to own one. The lack of RPG's, fighters and 2D games (all things I loved about the SNES and all things the Playstation excelled at) in general did not impress me in the least. I was happy with my Playstation and (later on) Saturn during that particular era. I was initially excited for Gamecube because I thought it would be an improvement over the N64's often-bare output and was hoping it would do a better job of attracting 3rd party developers. Launching with Melee as a semi-launch game was wise, but I feel like it was all downhill from there.

As for Wii, I think I have praised Donkey Kong Country Returns before (along with Punch Out and 4-player Brawl) as games I liked on it and have said New SMB Wii is somewhat fun, but generally disappointing. Not owning the system means limited exposure, but I don't feel I am missing much on it. The occasional trip to the Wii section of Gamestop confirms that on a consistent basis. I count two 3rd party games that even remotely interest me (Tatsunoko vs Capcom and Xenoblade, although the former is obsolete in the tournament scene now...It was a nice surprise seeing Itadaki Street finally brought over though). The best time I've had with a Wii is playing Dracula X Rondo of Blood. Sorry, to me, Wii deserves all the mocking it gets. I mean, their pack-in game was freaking Wii Sports! BTW, Mario Galaxy 2 was another game I watched my friend play and generated absolutely no excitement out of me whatsoever. Ditto for Kirby's Epic Yarn (THAT was disappointing).

Well, inflation goes both ways, no? If you were making $8 per hour back then that would be worth more too. So, prices have been relatively the same. So price might not be important to anyone that has MONEY, but some of us don't! And besides, I don't think that price point was ever fair. I'm a college student whose every extra penny spent goes to a huge debt. My point is that developers are JUSTIFYING keeping videogames' prices too high by making the games 100 hour campaigns of fluff that only satisfy gamers' demands for 'value for the money', which actually has nothing to do with a game's length. And there aren't always things to complain about. The PS2 in its heyday had regular value-priced offerings along with a huge, available backlog, all priced more reasonably for their time than anything before. This generation, developers practically say "oh no, you aren't paying any less than $60 for a new game. LOOK, IT'S HD!"

They are perfectly comparable––just not at the surface. Games, like music, CAN be designed to be replayed dozens of times! Again, those 1 hour average NES games that GoldfishX mentioned. Modern games are instead trying to make the main game so long that when the player is finally done, they feel accomplished. And this might be how the average player thinks nowadays. The more time they commit, the more they try to justify the 40 hours they just wasted doing so.

And music doesn't have 'infinite' replay value. It gets old if you play it over and over again. I've played my favorite album about 80 times average, but even now I'd rather listen to something half as good if I've never heard it before. I think videogames can and should have similar replayability.

The difference between quality and quantity is astounding, no? It seems that some genres simply have more protection against bullshit––and what luck they have! Fighting games and rhythm games, hard-as-nails games and single-player oriented games. All really just the (spiritual) successors of the types of games that arose in the arcade.
The difference between these games and the new wave of games, however…is light and day. It IS the difference between a game that invites you to explore its depths and a game that guilt trips you into wasting time because you invested a large quantity of money in it.

I think these next few years, something is going to happen. The same formulas will stagnate. Companies will be forced to think of new tactics––to either turn to the dark side even further and exploit their fantasies for every last penny (as they're already basically doing) or to approach the market from a different angle. I feel that once their formulas become predictable for everyone, the average gamer will turn to cheap flash games on the iPhone/iPad/whatever and then we may see the demise of videogames. If so, then good riddance to these companies that have become corporations rather than art publishers.

And what companies bridges HAVEN'T been burnt, other than those that were never established?! The only thing that protects new games from harm is the players' power over the developers (with their $$!), along with their demands for certain qualities, and, not surprisingly, this only really happens with fighters and RPGs. Those same quality standards don't exist in Average Joe who will still buy the latest Call of Duty if only to complain how bad it is, instead of saving himself the time and trouble by looking it up to begin with.

Seriously? Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword don't even compare to Ocarina and Majora's Mask (Wind Waker is up there, but still not as good; SS isn't really even Zelda). Mario Sunshine was alright, but after playing through both Galaxies twice (and I regret playing each to some degree), I am certain that I won't return to either ever again. Nintendo's first party effort on the 64 at least had the same integrity (okay, if only a bit less) as it did when it was publishing SNES and NES games. With the Gamecube, Nintendo truly did transform into the conservative corporate giant it is today. Most of its first party Wii games are trashy with few exceptions (and most of those include SECOND party games: Metroid Prime 3 and Xenoblade). Nintendo didn't even try on the Wii. Rehash after rehash after rehash. You can literally see how ugly their business practices are after playing only a few of their Wii offerings. That is, if you're familiar with the old Nintendo. DKC Returns and Sin & Punishment don't offer much new either. And Rhythm Heaven Fever is the 3rd entry in the series after only beginning in 2007 or something if I'm not mistaken? Just proof that all of Nintendo's solutions are right in front of them: new and original games. And they're avoiding this tactic like the plague for some reason!

No, inflation does NOT go both ways! You clearly don't understand how inflation works. Again, the POINT is that if games had not decreased in overall price, you would be paying $95-150 PER game today. In other words, a $50 NES/SNES game would cost today $95. Fortunately, games are far cheaper today to manufacture, which is a big thing, but of course production cost on many games is much higher, due to the sophistication involved in most games. That said, you're paying nearly 50% what a person in 1988 paid for games! Again, I claim that game prices, even when you're paying $60 per game, is perfectly fair.

Also, what are you implying, just because you're a college student you think you are entitled to having developers produce inexpensive but high quality games? The gaming industry is a BUSINESS. If they don't make a profit, then no more games are produced. Frankly, when I was an undergraduate I hardly played at all because I did not have the time nor money. No money, then don't purchase games. People are not entitled to cheap games, and if you think prices are too high again just don't purchase games.

Actually, in this situation, I think music IS comparable in many ways:

1. Many albums prior to the 90's generally only run about 40-50 minutes long, where's it is normal for albums nowadays to have 60-70 minutes worth of music (and sometimes, even rereleases have added content tacked on to create the illusion of "value"). Who wants to invest 70 minutes into listening to an album of bad music? At least if I buy a crappy 80's album, I only have 9-10 tracks to flip through.

2. If anyone has noticed, they try to raise the prices of newer CD's. No one in their right mind, save for mindless consumers that don't shop around for the best price, is going to pay $20 for a new CD at Wal-Mart or Best Buy, when it can generally be found online easily for less (in either legal or illegal forms) And most CD's don't hold value at all. THAT is hurting CD sales, by not pricing them appropriately in retail situations.

I mean, granted, I don't think there is a videogame equivalent of the loudness wars, which basically renders most new music unpleasant to listen to anyway, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive either.

Avatar, let's pretend I'm fine with the price of games increasing. Let's pretend there are at least 2 games a month coming out that I am fine paying $60 apiece for. One big issue is they don't hold their value. They LOWER the prices after a certain amount of time. If you bought the games at $60 apiece, you'll be lucky to get a fraction of that back if you resold them a year later. So to me, the smart thing to do is simply wait for those price decreases, because you know they are coming. Unless it's something with a ridiculously small print run, which is more uncommon nowadays than in the days of Working Designs. After awhile, you end up with what you have now: Yesterday's models at fresh $20 prices (still good/great games though) alongside the new models at $60 apiece. It creates a glut in the market.

Again, that's the assumption that the games are good. I had a rough time picking out a 3rd game the other day, when Gamestop was having a buy 2 get 1 free sale. I settled on Bayonetta at about $13 because what little I had seen looked cool (ironically, I chose between that and Arkham Asylum).

I agree with this. For the most part, game prices will go down, unless it's a limited edition, which by the way seems to be far more common these days. For instance, Atlus often releases their first print games with a soundtrack and/or art book. That way it's arguably more collectible. Still, I do agree with you, most game prices will decrease with time. However, that does not change the previous argument I made with inflation, which is that we're basically paying around 50% what we would have paid for games in 1988. Also, there are lots of quality games. That said, I can understand why most people wait for prices to go down.

Good for you! Your claim is baseless. My brethren in third world countries get so little out of life––even food!––and you think they aren't entitled to videogames? They certainly can't afford any. What kind of world do you come from? You could have been born in f---ing Africa. Your life COULD HAVE been over in a matter of years! You're lucky enough to live in a f---ing first world country, and you think you are entitled to your social privileges?! What part of the word 'fair' do you not get?!

I think I'm "entitled to having developers produce" WHAT? What are you saying dude!?! That makes zero sense. And no, I'm not implying anything. I'm not begging any pathetic publisher to pander to me. Millions of other fans already have, so it's pretty obvious that these publishers are autistic or deaf. And I stress publisher because the developers actually do have good intentions, while the publisher EATS UP all of the money the developer makes––the developers would surely agree with me on this subject matter.

It's just like the music industry. An artist doesn't know how to produce records, but they're an amazing songwriter––they still need SOMEONE to make their music. Whoever comes along usually ends up exploiting them for every dollar they make, and build an ENTIRE company around exploiting this single songwriter's abilities. The same goes for videogame developers. Go figure that, oh yeah, the wonderful business MUST make its profits! And so it must enslave the developer with as little pay as possible to keep the profit machine working. At the end of the day, we have one totally fucked-up system.

So if you understood the meaning in my posts you would know perfectly well what I have said: games should be shorter, and therefore easier to produce, and therefore cheaper. This even gets around your little profit equation argument. Games shouldn't take years to make––that is ridiculous, especially considering all of the HUNDREDS, if not THOUSANDS, of colossal failures that took MILLIONS of dollars to produce (see: GTA4––100 million dollars). Profit needn't be a part of the equation.

When your failure of a game company decides that designing the hairs on your characters' toes are more important than your combat system (which took 10 minutes to come up with!), you know there's something horribly wrong. Well, maybe you don't, but I do.

Videogames have never been about profit. Videogames are an art form, and to place more value on the wallets of the vapid consumers that eat them up rather than the games themselves is to forget why they exist in the first place.

First of all, clearly you can't make any point without having to say "f---" a few times. That right away says volumes about you. Next, your "brethren" "get so little out of life"? So because there are third world countries and because not everyone is as fortunate as we are, you're saying we shouldn't have to pay $60 for video games? A completely and absurdly asinine statement. I could have been born in a third world country? So what? I could have been killed by a falling tree yesterday, or may be killed by a falling tree tomorrow. What does fair have to day with anything. Here's a lesson from you: life is NOT fair. It never has been, it never will be. The best anyone can hope for is to lead a honest and "moral" life, and you know what, I'll purchase as money $60 video games as I want and can afford! Also you think you can dictate to the world what video games should be: "shorter...easier...cheaper". And you think you're some great game designer, "Games shouldn't take years to make––that is ridiculous" riiiiiiight, because good games grow out of the Earth, like carrots. I hope Adam implements an "ignore" feature, since I would put you on ignore right away!

That's something I've always hated about Gamestop. It's all about their markup. I guess it worked out for them since they've never stopped the practice. If only the used goods devalued like in Japan where I've read that even the smallest of scratches on a game discs gets the whole thing super bargained or thrown away.

Buying a $60 game is a great way to reward and pay respect to great developers. I get offended when you have great games like Killer 7 that people purposefully waited for its price to drop (and it soon did a few months later). It will end up costing gamers more when those same companies nix the idea for a sequel or similar title because everyone decided to treat quality games like buying stocks ("buy low").

You should just rent games if you aren't too thrilled with them and then buy them much later at super discounted prices.

Music is getting more experimental with bands releasing pay what you want albums and releasing tons of crap for free digitally. It's hard to imagine a band releasing that much new content in physical media. It seems the masses just want to nibble on singles rather than devour albums. I think that having more content would be met with resistance.

I had to stop playing Etrian Odyssey for this reason. I put a ton of time into it but eventually stopped on the post-game stratum which demanded I grind characters. 

Just getting more bloated. Either with cutscenes or filler missions to meet some sort-of game length quota for schmuck game reviewers.

I'd love to see this happen. Unfortunately, we're getting the extreme opposite of this: small teams making shitty $5 games that aren't worth playing for 5 minutes letalone their "short" playthrough time.

For me this makes buying games at launch more justifiable to myself (before I'd buy a launch game like every month). The less that is out there the more you can indulge. I agree that we're living in times of extreme game quality disparity. If it's good, it's really good (Vanquish, Ninja Gaiden 2, etc.). The rest are unbearable.

How many games do you estimate you buy a year?

Beating the crap out of bosses just wouldn't be the same without bongos to mash. Much more pleasurable than alternate hitting two controller buttons.

What because it uses less buttons? Other M is nothing like Metroid or Super Metroid, nor was it supposed to be. It is way too linear and melee oriented to be so. Prime kept the exploration focus...

I think you guys are going to hit a dead end soon. You brought up $60 being a fair price to charge, avatar! Technique was using an example to say "fair to whom?". That's why we shouldn't even be using the word fair as no one here can agree to it and we'll just leave everything up to the buyer's market. You really don't have to go to third world countries to provide such sharp contrast. There are plenty of Americans living paycheck to paycheck for whom buying the new Batman or CoD game is the farthest thing from their mind.

So we can see that there are people who should not bother with videogames

He never said "easier".

This is all dependent on what the game is and if they're making a brand new engine. I would generally disagree with his statement. I think the colossal failures of big games such as GTAIV and Resident Evil 6 go to show that companies need to think smaller AND THEN when they get it right go big. Companies probably are unwilling to scrap games though that aren't up-to-stuff to make up the money or simply cancel the game to save face.

That's pretty harsh...

You're missing my point. A music CD is meant to be listened to over and over -- there's no real 'finality' to it like a game will have (unless it's a falling block game or something), and on top of that one doesn't have to necessarily invest their full attention to it so it entertains on top of whatever else you might be doing, as it were.

As for 'holding value' that's true for many, though there's many thousands of discs one would be hard pressed to be able to buy for $60 let alone $20. Just because many discs can be had for $1 doesn't mean all of them can be.

I play many classic games over and over. It is similar to listening to a CD over and over again. Obviously, you can't do that with a 40 hour game, but many NES games can be beaten or at least be given a solid run in the same time it takes to listen to a CD. I believe replay value is a sign of quality when judging a game (I'm more likely to rate a game with high replay value higher than one I'm one-and-done with) Likewise, it's the same with a CD...I can't say I like a CD more where I don't really want to go back and listen to it anytime soon (even if it was somewhat enjoyable) over one that I can't wait to go back and listen through again.

And I'm one of those people that likes to give the music my main attention when listening (working or reading is usually secondary when I multi-task), but I can carry on a conversation or even concentrate more on my headphones while playing a game with no problem. So...yeah.

And yes, some CD's hold value or even appreciate better than others. The example I used was the mainstream, overpriced stuff sold at Wal-Mart or Best Buy, which are unlikely to see any type of meaningful appreciation. If you're paying $20 for an album that can be had at thousands of other places for $14-$15 the day of release, you're already paying an inflated price and the CD's value is likely to be well under $10 used. Not a direct synchronicity with games, but not too far off the mark either (usually plenty of places to find games less than $60 when they first come out).

Short answer: Nope.

Longer answer:

After several months of playing games that conform to this standard, I can agree with that statement. I have only been playing old NES games and RE4 over the past few months, so whenever I see or try anything else that has cutscenes, or pages of dialog, or pointless meandering to move along the plot I lose my mind. I picked up both Parasite Eve titles at a yard sale several months back and made it maybe, MAYBE 20 minutes in to the first one before I shut it off, and only booted up the second one to test before I sold it. I don't know if it's because I don't have patience for that shit anymore, or if it's because I just don't want to waste my time while playing games, or what, but I was immediately turned off. I want to play games that involve gameplay, not watching FMV or slowly walking from the concert hall through the lobby to the cop cars outside to the lobby back to the opera hall again for no apparent reason but to make a game longer than it should be. I could have played halfway through Contra in that timeframe and would have had a hell of a lot more fun doing it. (Side note: nostalgic games like FFVI/FFVII are the exception to the rule. Reading through that dialog and aimlessly meandering to advance the plot feels like an old friend telling a story I've heard a dozen times over, and doesn't feel like wasted time to me.)

I feel similarly. Swap "5-10" with "15-20" and make it exclusive to NES and SNES games and you have my thoughts. The only "new" games I have bought over the past several months (not including the occasional yard sale bargain that ends up on eBay anyway) are old NES games I haven't tried out before, or can't remember playing years ago.

I've been a gamer for more than 25 years. I've been either playing games or have been knowledgeable about what's been going on in the industry throughout that whole time. I believe that since the release of the XBox and online console gaming the entire industry has gone downhill, and continues to now even more than ever. It's style over substance, graphics over gameplay, revenue over integrity. I know there are games out there that don't conform to the norm, but I'm not going to spend money on a new console so I can play the occasional game that reminds me of what it feels like to plug in my NES and play Startropics.

Side note: I can play an SD game (NES through PS2) on a CRT television for hours on end without any eye strain, but literally all of the new games that I have tried on an HDTV give me extreme disassociation and/or headaches/eystrain and/or vertigo. I know that's saying more about me than it says about technology, but I physically can't enjoy new games, even if I wanted to. That would be a real shame if they weren't all shit.

Yes, but it all depends on your taste buds.

But then, I tend to buy pc games from steam sales nowadays, unless it's a new game that I'm very interested and from certain developers. Though, with my current backlog, some of those games do get dropped in to the queue, but that doesn't matter. At least I've supported the devs nicely. Sure, most devs are indie, but for instance I'm thinking of buying AC III when it comes out on Steam, especially if it will have some Deluxe Edition with all the dlc bundled together.

Also, I just like games, be they old, modern, 8bit, gazillion bit. As long as it's entertaining me, heck if 60€ game which gives me really good 10-20 hours and stuff to remember in the ages come, I'm damn happy.

Also, am I the only one who's thinking Technique is Bernie again?

Technique, it sounds to me like you would be a great candidate for a streaming, all you can play game service for a monthly fee. This way, you could try out anything you liked, play as much or as little as you want, and never have to worry about paying too much for games again. Sure, you wouldn't "own" anything this way, but I think the upcoming console generation will be last one where any of us get to "own" video games. PC gaming moved on from ownership to licensing years ago, and console gaming will be next. Sad? Sure, but that's what they call "progress" for better or for worse. PC gamers swear by Steam these days, but when it came out with Half-Life 2, the uproar was deafening.

As for game lengths and pricing, only certain kinds of games are long and only certain kinds are expensive. I played and beat Escape Goat on 360 last night. It cost $1, I played it for 3.5 hours, and it was a lot fun. Sure, it wasn't the latest AAA big-budget, ad campaign supported title, but I had fun, and that's all that matters. That's not to say I don't buy AAA games too, but as Goldfish mentioned, games lose their value so fast, and all you have to do is wait a few months to get them much cheaper than their initial $60 MSRP. The only games I buy at launch these days are ones I want to support politically. I don't have time to play them at launch, but I want to vote with my dollars, so for those I spring for the launch price. For everything else, I simply wait for sales. And I rarely have to wait very long. About a month ago, I picked up a new copy of Resident Evil Revelations for $20, half of its launch price. I didn't have time to play it between its February release and now anyway, so I saved $20 by waiting seven months.

Man, I'm so glad that, at the age of 33, I can still just enjoy my vidya games (old and new!) without thinking they're a waste of time or money or incessantly complaining about whatever my old-man bones want me to whine about this time.

That said, my back is killing me lately.

Foreword: avatar! if you'd like to ignore me, then don't bother reading this. Otherwise, if you choose not to, here is my response!

Dude, I said it about 3 times. You're offending me, so I'm making it more clear when I'm offended, and that you might like to tread with caution or you'll offend me more. But I don't really care anymore about what you have to say. I'll respond to this post of yours and nothing more after that. And if you really think my use of swear words says volumes about me, be my guest and write to your heart's content what exactly you're talking about. I won't be reading them.

Yes, my brethren, because I feel a human connection to other humans and I generally care for them unless they choose to make enemies with me, as you have done. Please don't ask me to pity you any more. And how is me saying that $60 is ridiculous 'asinine'? Asinine, lol. oink oink oink. I think games should cost less. I don't care if you have truckloads of money. Everyone deserves what's best, plain and simple––and we live in a world where if not for corporate evils, that would be perfectly possible.

It doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's your meaningless comment, not mine. And what I'm saying is that you probably lack the appreciation that these other humans feel, and in doing so you're only lessening the value that you could feel. You seem to underestimate the value in understanding others, and furthermore yourself.

I did not need that 'lesson'. I did imply that life is unfair, in a way, in my post. I am not here to learn. Really though, life could be perfectly fair if we collectively chose that path. If you were fair to me and didn't instigate an argument in the first place, for example. And only for the sake of going against me, yes? And go buy your games. I wasn't telling you you couldn't. Consume. Anyway, you are putting words in my mouth, and that is a sign that you've given up what could have been fair argument. But you also gave up any respect I could have had for you with your initially aggressive and distasteful tone. Do you enjoy making enemies?

Yes, I do think I'm a potentially great game designer. I've probably played and understood many more and better games than you have, some of the best of which were made nearly effortless (Tetris, Panel de Pong, etc). I don't need Hollywood-style games to have fun. Only those waste abysmally large amounts of time. Are those games really what you prefer? You really would prefer a world where games take an eternity to make? As IF that somehow increases their qualities? I think not. Yes, it is indeed very ridiculous!

Your style of arguing is quite weak. You like to attack certain points simply for the sake of feeling like you have some better point to make, but you don't make any better points. Your thinking is visible in your typing––and I wouldn't say either are very substantive.

You don't need an ignore feature to ignore me. Are you really that dependent on stupid features like that? Just ignore me...

There are thousands of discs that one wouldn't want to buy…? ? There are plenty of records that I would pay $20 to own (like a quarter of my collection). Maybe we don't come from the same worlds of music.

Yes, I think the critical point here is that the value of the game matters to the second. Instead, the modern generation thinks that every minute it steals from the gamer is points won. And I've been an avid RPG fan at points in time; I don't think FF (/DQ/whatever) are simply nostalgic. They definitely don't waste that much time (compared to 3D JRPGs). Their values lie in their writing, music, graphics and the resulting atmospheres. I don't think they're comparable to traditional games. They're meditative practices to me––when done right.

Agreeable, although I say 5-10 (and mean more so 10) because that's simply where the majority of games I've played are, for better or worse. You get the point. Not older=better. Better = better, haha. As vague as that is. I'd probably side with you if I did play more (S)NES.

(delete)

I think you may have misread what I meant. I was saying there's a huge number of CDs that are rare and wanted enough that you wouldn't be able to find them for as low as $60, responding to the comment that CDs don't hold value. Some do, some don't, just like games. And just like games, some really cheap ones are great and some really expensive ones aren't.

Wanna switch, my knees are killing me lately. But yeah, the post of the thread your is I guess.

Just because you've played and 'understood' games, doesn't make you a great game designer. But please be free to prove me wrong and design a game.

And what's this complaint that games do take long time to make? Have you ever tried coding a single game and see how much time that takes?

Touche.

been thinking. Im actually a bit thankful for this percieved rut the industry is in. Without it, I dont think I'd be able to appreciate the true gems when they come along.

Games like System Shock or Silent Hill 2 would not be as memorable. Without yearly Madden and Need for Speed updates, I wouldn't be paying attention to Dark Souls or Bioshock as much. This isnt to say they'd be worse or anything, just that I wouldnt pay them much mind in an industry saturated with amazing games of similar quality.

I think this stark contrast is a needed thing. Sure, we may be "losing" in terms of numbers of games sold or fans in love with the games in question but is that really a bad thing?

the drama in this thread is not nearly as good as the dog-off-leash thread i started on the mountain biking forum yesterday.
http://forums.mtbr.com/arizona/where-of … 17726.html

I can kind of see this. I mean, DURING the whole SNES/Genesis thing, it didn't really hit me that some of the greatest games ever were being made. It was just kind of business-as-usual. I realized it after I was shopping for a 32bit system and basically all the EGM editors were going on about how great the SNES was over the then-current 1997 line-ups, despite the more advanced graphics. So that made me re-evaluate some games, plus some of the ones I had missed.

On the same hand, during the post-FFVII years of the Playstation, I took for granted the amount of good J-RPG's that were coming out, like it would become the norm. I remember just walking up and buying great RPG's like Star Ocean 2, Suikoden 2, Xenogears, Grandia, Legend of Legaia, etc like they grew on trees and knew they would be good. SNES had like 1 good JRPG a year in the US, so this was like that on steroids. Then PS2 had less and less of these, current generation hardly any.

I guess my problem is, with a few exceptions, I just look at the whole mid-late 2000's (before the fighting game scene reignited itself) as generally a huge gaming void, so I had plenty of time for perspective. The most exciting time to be a gamer was the time right before and after PS2 hit. Dreamcast was out and trying like mad to capture people's attention (and it could run Capcom's fighting games perfectly, which was a HUGE accomplishment at the time), Neo Geo Pocket was out (I was a huge enthusiast of this system and never had any desire to own a Game Boy Color), we actually had a REAL fighting game arcade scene in our area, even N64 had a handful of games that were somewhat tempting, like Kirby 64 and the first Smash (and the "Dolphin" buzz was that all the systems issues would be rectified in the upcoming generation) and the late-era Playstation games were out. Also, anime was blowing up in the US around this time and it seemed to be the perfect compliment to gaming...THAT seems to have died off. Was just like, every couple weeks, there was a huge new buzz to take in and the question wasn't if I was going to spend my paycheck, but how. Oh yeah, and it was right at the start of getting into the whole VGM addiction for me too. I was actually happy during that slow period when PS2 was building up its library, just to get caught up on as much of this stuff as possible. Even gaming magazines were amazing to read at the time (EGM and Gamefan always had great perspectives...Gamefan died and EGM's quality of writing and overall credibility just tanked over the years).

And I understand this is one huge "back when I was your age" paragraph, but the current era has NOTHING on that time period for gaming to me. Even the 8/16 bit eras, despite many great games being released, didn't have so many different things going on at once.

^Looking back on Gamefan, it had its moments that made the mag look shady. Gamefan was no stranger to controversy. Still, easily my favorite mag for games. I'd love to get my hands on some old issues.