How Much is Alan Wake Worth?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Susan Arendt:

Depends entirely on the game's story. Once you know the end of the mystery in Alan Wake, it's doubtful you'd enjoy a replay, because the story is so intrinsic to the game. (That's assuming you're like me and really take stories you like to heart and remember them very well even years later.)

I agree with that entirely. Being a big fan of (real) horror flicks, I find that re-watching them loses a little appeal because I already know the story, and the mystery is part of the fun in them. The Ring? Sure it was a good movie (though they over-hyped what was only a marginally scary movie), but I've watched it once and I will probably never do-so again unless I'm showing it to a friend. Sure it still has the chills, but they just don't grab you as well when you know why the ghost is doing what it's doing.

Unless it has a fair amount of replayability, I wouldn't buy it. Imagine if MW2 came out with just campaign. It'd be a pretty good campaign (for those who liked it), but its short and has no replayability what-so-ever. Except for higher difficulties and intel, but thats not really much fun.

If a games story, which is supposed to be a good one, can also end in about 6 hours, I don't think I'll get attached to any of the characters. I don't knot though. If its a single player experience, its got to at least last 10 hours minimum.

Mcface:
Becuase I refuse to buy single player games that are not RPGs. It's pointless. Why spend 60 dollars on a game I will play once or twice with no replay value? I can just rent it for 6

On the other side, I don't buy games that are based around multiplayer, and I almost never play multiplayer modes in the games that I do buy. I've played through dozens of RTS's and only a handful of multiplayer matches. If I'm playing an MMO, I inevitably spend 90% of my playing time solo.

To me, a video game is like a book or a movie. I consider playing with other people online to be primarily a waste of my time. It's something I want to experience on my own time, at my own pace, and mixing other people into it will either ruin the experience entirely at worst, or just be a hassle at best. I'll talk about the game with my friends afterward, and I'll definitely play with a small circle of people on occasion, but they're mostly the kind of people that also keep odd hours and play games solo as well.

Frybird:
As other commenters hint at, the whole "per hour" value starts to change drastically once your free time gets limited by that little thing called work.... but thanks to having an income, i can of course buy more games.

And this is the primary reason why. I consider my time to be valuable, so I'm not going to play the same game for a long time. A multiplayer game that consists of doing the exact same thing over and over again for "points" or "stats" quickly becomes pointless to me - there are other, better things I could move on to.

I'm picking up Alan Wake, and if it keeps being entertaining, I'll probably grab the episodic releases as well. $5 an hour for solid, non-repetitive entertainment sounds like a good deal to me.

ThrashJazzAssassin:
So you never read a book or watch a film more than once? There's more to a story than just finding out the sequence of events that take place; if it's well told, it's worth experiencing a second time. You might even pick up on things you missed the first time around.

Very rarely for me, unless there's a good incentive. I'll usually run through Bioware games twice, using different classes and choosing different solutions to problems, but that's only because I know it'll be worth it. Other than that, I might run through a game again several years later if it was really good, but I usually prefer to devote that time to playing something I've never gone through before.

Susan Arendt:
Depends entirely on the game's story. Once you know the end of the mystery in Alan Wake, it's doubtful you'd enjoy a replay, because the story is so intrinsic to the game. (That's assuming you're like me and really take stories you like to heart and remember them very well even years later.)

True to an extent, but the one thing movies, books, tv, and games all have in common is story. Just like all other forms of entertainment I personally like going back to the source, glowing shiny waterfall source, once in a while to absorb it all over again and remind myself why I loved it, or to find some other subtle moments that I might have missed before. Hell, I've been watching Ghostbusters since I was a baby and I'm still finding new little things in it.

How much is Alan Wake Worth?

Well, certainly not as much as the Twin Peaks DVD Box Set:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Twin-Peaks-Definitive-Gold-Version/dp/B0030IM458/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1273842341&sr=8-2

If you want a story, read a Novel, watch TV, go to the Cinema, visit the Theatre, or treat yourself to a night at the Opera.

Don't play a dumb-ass videogame whose developers are all frustrated film-directors.

I'm sick of how Pac-man and Robotron 64 are seen as inferior to these uninspired poorly lip-synced overly-linear interactive stories. The last game I bought that represented real value for money gave me well over 1000 hours of consistently rewarding, challenging, entertaining, varied and fun gameplay - and that is only counting the Multiplayer experience. Did any of those games have a story? Did they suffer from not having an objective other than "plant the bomb in the enemy base" (or similar)?

I really want developers to snap out of the delusion that they have been in since they decided that the average gamer wants (weak) characters and a (lame) plot at the expense of limiting player freedom due to the necessity of story requiring linearity.

Yes, yes... I know there are supposed to be exceptions to this, where games such as Deus Ex have non-linear narratives and alternative endings, but how common are they? How many joyously replayable 'choose-your-own-adventure-style' games have been made?

I reckon I can count them on the fingers of one finger.

Uncompetative:

DividedUnity:
Well I think I can quantify fun. If we use this formula

Total fun= ((how likely are you to die from happiness from 1-10 during certain moments in the game)*(how long these moments last)) /(total game cost -(0.5% total game cost for every hour of total gameplay)

As for what to call the unit of measurement im not sure

i dont even know if that formula even makes sense

You are missing a close parentheses at the end of the formula.

That explains why my work PC started mumbling things about 'dividing by zero' and wondering what I'd be doing with my soul when the Old Ones awaken from their eternal sleep when I had it compute that formula.

OT: Great article, Susan. I think that some stories are worth replaying even after the "gee whiz" factor of their big reveals. I know Xenogears is plagued with some gameplay and graphics problems, but it's still a good story that I enjoy replaying now and again.

Susan Arendt:

GonzoGamer:
I can't imagine what game's you've bought 4 times. That's excessive.

Yeah, hard to argue with that, really. In the one game's case, it makes a certain amount of sense because each version was somewhat different. In the other game's case....I was being at least somewhat loony.

Don't tell me you bought all 4 versions of Nintendogs.

Seriously though, I've only bought the same game twice: I liked San Andreas and Fallout 3 so much on the consoles, I got the PC versions too. Are we talking something like that, or are we talking Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" buying a new copy of 'Catcher in the Rye' every time he thinks of it.

When do we get to know what these alluring titles were?

GonzoGamer:

Susan Arendt:

GonzoGamer:
I can't imagine what game's you've bought 4 times. That's excessive.

Yeah, hard to argue with that, really. In the one game's case, it makes a certain amount of sense because each version was somewhat different. In the other game's case....I was being at least somewhat loony.

Don't tell me you bought all 4 versions of Nintendogs.

Seriously though, I've only bought the same game twice: I liked San Andreas and Fallout 3 so much on the consoles, I got the PC versions too. Are we talking something like that, or are we talking Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" buying a new copy of 'Catcher in the Rye' every time he thinks of it.

When do we get to know what these alluring titles were?

I already told ya. Just gotta read the whole thread. :)

For the record, I bought the version of Nintendogs with the Corgi. I freakin' love those little dogs, with their stubbular legs and huge bat ears. SO CUTE.

Personally, I know I've bought Arcanum four times. Each time was worth it.

Oh yes, and Alan Wake is the first game I've pre-ordered since um... the first 360 came out and I pre-ordered Oblivion (a disappointment compared to Morrowind).

I bought Morrowind PC, and GOTY.

And PSO for DC and XBox, but I gotta disagree there-it bored me. Mostly becuase I'm not a big MMOer.

HandfulofWolf:

TheAmazingTGIF:
My friends and I had this running gag with ourselves that included a copy of The Bouncer (terrible game but it had multiplayer brawling on the PS2). One of us would buy it we would all play it to get all of the characters, cry at the unfairness of the final final boss, play the multiplayer for a while, something new would come out, we would sell The Bouncer, come back a few months later and say, "Hey! Look! Its the Bouncer let's play it!", rinse and repeat. I think this happened at least five times. It was always selling for like $5.

Duragon C. Mikado! The anouncers voice sometimes haunts my dreams.

I know! I hated that fight so much. You had to fight him three times with each time not regaining health and he gets more deadly each time. So many terrible memories associated with that game.

For me deciding to buy/pre-order Alan Wake with my limited funds was a hard desician. In general I decided to in order to support development of the horror genere. You wouldn't believe some of the movies I've bought/seen as part of a sort of warped genere loyalty.

To be entirely honest there is no way to justify a 12 hour game costing $60 nowadays. This is where I come from when I'm constantly talking about cartel behavior and price fixing. While there are exceptions (I will mention one below) by and large the industry has set a policy that a new game costs $60, the playtime, development budget, and other factors are totally irrelevent. What's more there seems to be a general agreement to avoid competition, at least within the same genere. An example of this was the number of titles that good pushed up during the release of Modern Warfare 2, as opposed to any kind of price lowering competition.

One of the big defenses of the game industry is that they provide the best bang for your entertainment dollar. While at one time this might have been true with games that clocked in on an average of 40 hours it seemed, with the proliferation of short games I feel that this is rapidly ceasing the be the case. Especially when you consider that even with some short games you see people argueing "well they start off slow". I pretty much maintain "Heavy Rain" is not a game, but for whatever reason it's being considered one. Along with it's short play time, people have commented on the amount of time wasting that takes place in it, waiting for things to happen.

What's more, the $60.00 price tag is deceptive with the way DLC is being exploited. It's impossible to tell whether your even getting access to everything on the disc you buy. Heck, despite protests to the contrary it seems a common practice now is to take a complete game, slice pieces off of it, and then sell them later as DLC. Thus to get the entire experience you might very well be paying another $20 to $30 on top of what you dished out to begin with.

Looking at Alan Wake for example I notice that it began development as a "Sandbox" game which probably would have had a lot more playtime and things to do. The workable cars, which serve no real apparent purpose, are however still left in the game. While I'm not psychic things like this tend to make me wonder if there will be additional content released like "Alan Wake racing" add ons (given that racing is a side activity shared by pretty much all sandbox games), or perhaps a multiplayer mode similar to Left 4 Dead with a handfull of flashlight wielding survivors taking on hordes of those possesed people (some of whom might be other players). I can't predict things specifically, but Alan Wake despite it's short length seems to be jumping on the DLC bandwagon with both feet and it's not even released yet. Take a look at how many Avatar accessories and the like are already on XBL... most games don't even have that much DLC in general (even if it is Avatar wear). Granted I do not "know" anything, and the above features are just for the sake of making an arguement (what kinds of things there might be), but right now Alan Wake seems like a game with a lot more content waiting for piecemeal release.

People constantly talk about the $60 price tag being "fair" due to the amount of money being spent on development, but at the same time most games never release their budgets. What's more when they do, there are big questions as to where all that money went. Generally speaking as purtyful as the graphics in a game might be, if someone is throwing 40 million dollars to human resources to produce 12 hours of content that's probably a bit much. Although this gets into arguements between sources like "Maxim Magazine" (talking about how much these dudes get paid), those claiming friends in the industry who are not making good money, and of course simple math. Not to mention of course the amount of work that is actually done and at what pace. I look at games that allegedly spent years in development, eating up millions and millions on human resources, and yet needed to see a massive crunch when the producer cracked the whip because people more or less weren't working. The key point here is that all of these costs get passed back to YOU the consumer.

On top of this you have rather expensive advertising campaigns like ARGs (for various games), and the current "Bright Falls" webisode set for Alan Wake. As cool as those things are, again the cost is arguably what they are using to justify charging you $60 (which I still feel is fairly excessive), plus whatever DLC they feel like releasing, which may or may not be developed along with the game, or simply be pieces of the game chopped off to be sold seperatly by the marketing people.

To put things into perspective, what I'm saying is that the $60.00 price tag is too high. While I feel games in general are overpriced (and yes, I've read some statements on the amount of profits made after expenses). What's more I think $60.00 should be the absolute limit for what a game should cost, with shorter games of this sort going for the $20-$30 price range if that. As a few articles, including some on The Escapist go, it's been shown a LOT of money can be made simply by selling games for $5.00 a pop. If a criminal syndicate in Brazil can build shopping malls financed by pirating games for that much, I'd imagine a game company/producer could still make a reasonable profit... and honestly I'm not suggesting anyone lower their prices that much officially, just using it as a counter point.

Okay now for the "exception" I pointed out, let's look at a recent game of the same genere as Alan Wake, that was going for the same vibe. It's called "Deadly Premonition". DP is a mixed bag overall, it posseses a number of workable game systems, a huge sandbox world to explore, excellent voice acting... and well, some pretty bad graphics by current standards (mid-range PS-2 level). The thing is though that the game sold for $20, and included a lot
of the aspects that were cut out of Alan Wake.

Now, I suppose Alan Wake's price tag would be less shocking IF it was a sandbox game like "Deadly Premonition" (which proved what they set out to do originally is possible), and yet had Alan Wake's graphics quality. I can't speak for the gameplay elements, because I haven't handled AW's yet, all I can say is the DP's are fairly old school, and while they might seem bad at first to people used to more current games, are actually pretty solid. Give Alan Wake three or four times the playtime due to side missions and such, and well...

Of course I could eat this, and be screaming "OMG the best $60 I've ever spent". See for all of my comments, I've already committed to buying AW due to the genere, forgoing other games. I put a lot of thought into it though. But then again if I didn't eat my hat with some frequency I probably wouldn't be gaming much at all... which I guess is what the game companies are relying on. Though I admit there are a lot of games I specifically have not purchused for very similar reasons.

I still don't understand this notion of playing a story-driven game only once and then never again. Story-driven games are my favourite and if I've finished one that I loved, I dive straight back in for another playthrough. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but if I love the gameplay, the story and the characters, then that's more enough replay value for me.

BlueInkAlchemist:

Uncompetative:

DividedUnity:
Well I think I can quantify fun. If we use this formula

Total fun= ((how likely are you to die from happiness from 1-10 during certain moments in the game)*(how long these moments last)) /(total game cost -(0.5% total game cost for every hour of total gameplay)

As for what to call the unit of measurement im not sure

i dont even know if that formula even makes sense

You are missing a close parentheses at the end of the formula.

That explains why my work PC started mumbling things about 'dividing by zero' and wondering what I'd be doing with my soul when the Old Ones awaken from their eternal sleep when I had it compute that formula.

image

from: http://xkcd.com/312/

Susan Arendt:

GonzoGamer:
I can't imagine what game's you've bought 4 times. That's excessive.

Yeah, hard to argue with that, really. In the one game's case, it makes a certain amount of sense because each version was somewhat different. In the other game's case....I was being at least somewhat loony.

I'm guessing Street Fighter 2 and Resident Evil 5.

EDIT: Oops... 4... I meant Resi 4.

WillItWork:

And PSO for DC and XBox, but I gotta disagree there-it bored me. Mostly becuase I'm not a big MMOer.

Oh, I never said it was a good game. But oh, I do love it so...

Susan Arendt:

GonzoGamer:

Susan Arendt:

GonzoGamer:
I can't imagine what game's you've bought 4 times. That's excessive.

Yeah, hard to argue with that, really. In the one game's case, it makes a certain amount of sense because each version was somewhat different. In the other game's case....I was being at least somewhat loony.

Don't tell me you bought all 4 versions of Nintendogs.

Seriously though, I've only bought the same game twice: I liked San Andreas and Fallout 3 so much on the consoles, I got the PC versions too. Are we talking something like that, or are we talking Mel Gibson in "Conspiracy Theory" buying a new copy of 'Catcher in the Rye' every time he thinks of it.

When do we get to know what these alluring titles were?

I already told ya. Just gotta read the whole thread. :)

For the record, I bought the version of Nintendogs with the Corgi. I freakin' love those little dogs, with their stubbular legs and huge bat ears. SO CUTE.

Really? RE2? I can see that actually. However, I always have more fun watching someone play an RE game well than play myself... not quite so well. I own the first two PSOs too (Dreamcast) but I didn't enjoy them as much as the singleplayer originals.

Those Nintendogs are cute. I have the one with the husky (I named him Ballsniffer after the George Carlin skit) and the pug (Waits after the musician).

Mcface:

Woodsey:
Nice article.

I for one would (and do) happily pay 35-40 for a 6/7/8 hour game (singleplayer only), and I'm a penniless 16-year-old.

It irks me to see people leave comments about games saying "no mutliplayer no buy", as well as a "short" playing time generating a game tonnes of undeserved hate.

You are over paying then, and I'm assuming it's not your money you are spending?
Becuase I refuse to buy single player games that are not RPGs.
It's pointless. Why spend 60 dollars on a game I will play once or twice with no replay value? I can just rent it for 6 bucks.

I play a little game called mount and blade. I have over 200 hours into it. Guess how much i spent? 9 dollars. And it's a much more innovative and fun game than Alan Wake.

I paid 40 dollars for ArmA 2.
And have over 500 hours on it.

So tell me why should I pay more for less?

How am I over paying? That's how much it costs to buy a game - like it or not. If they were charging me 100 then yeah, but they need to make a profit. And yes, it's my money I'm spending. I also tend to replay games a lot.

Your idea that quantity = quality is baffling.

That's why I will forever defend the argument that games should be priced differently in reflection of their worth.

But then again, who can measure said worth?

Ah, the dilemma

Casual Shinji:
I still don't understand this notion of playing a story-driven game only once and then never again. Story-driven games are my favourite and if I've finished one that I loved, I dive straight back in for another playthrough. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but if I love the gameplay, the story and the characters, then that's more enough replay value for me.

Same with me. I've rarely ever only played through a good game once.

Anyone who is criticizing linear, zero-replayability, story-based games...is, whether they realize it or not, basically dissing on Phoenix Wright.
Prosecutor Godot, it's time to crack some skulls...attorney style.

The gripe I think a lot of people have with these sorts of stories, besides the fact that video games are overpriced in GENERAL, is that a number of the story-games we've seen so far actually kind of suck. Heavy Rain? I only saw about an hour of footage, but already I was facepalming at their poor narrative ability. Not much changed from Farenheit. Alan Wake? Could be good; I know very little about the specifics. So far, I don't know of anyone who has played through Phoenix Wright and honestly thought the story wasn't worth it, so I'd like to hear some opinions.

A penny;
-because a million is an eternity, and a nickle is a minute;

*then a guy asks me for a million and i answer him:*

-in a minute.

Katana314:
Anyone who is criticizing linear, zero-replayability, story-based games...is, whether they realize it or not, basically dissing on Phoenix Wright.
Prosecutor Godot, it's time to crack some skulls...attorney style.

The gripe I think a lot of people have with these sorts of stories, besides the fact that video games are overpriced in GENERAL, is that a number of the story-games we've seen so far actually kind of suck. Heavy Rain? I only saw about an hour of footage, but already I was facepalming at their poor narrative ability. Not much changed from Farenheit. Alan Wake? Could be good; I know very little about the specifics. So far, I don't know of anyone who has played through Phoenix Wright and honestly thought the story wasn't worth it, so I'd like to hear some opinions.

Let me put it this way. I would like it a lot better if all the characters in these "Cinematic games" spoke Japanese, forcing you to read subtitles.

1. Localisation would be trivial as you could select the subtitle language from the game menu

2. Lip-syncing could be poor and you would hardly notice it (as you would be looking at the subtitles)

Bottom line: Story-bound games are uneconomic. Non-linear dynamical systems (like Robotron 64, Pac-man, or Geometry Wars) will have far more replayability and, often, greater immersion; lasting longer and selling cheaper from some so-called 'AAA' title with filmic production values.

The best value for money game at the moment is the Halo 3 Multiplayer disc that comes with Halo: ODST - ten pounds online.

My past self would disagree with me but my current self is saying that almost no game is worth $60 plain an simple. And absolutely no game is worth $60 + $40 in DLC that probably should have been included in the original release.

Then you consider the ALL games go down in price astronomically quickly you will see paying full retail price for a new release is just insane unless you happen to be rolling in money.

Bioshock and Beyond Good & Evil possibly?
No?
Oh well.

An interesting article overall. Though... I've never really been one to complain about how many hours a game has in it, I will admit that I do appreciate it when a game has good replay value. But, I've pretty much been a proponent of the "as long as it needs to be" viewpoint when it comes to writing, so perhaps Alan Wake's length works for it. I wouldn't know of course, since its a 360 exclusive (I'm a PC gamer, and my grandfather has a PS3)... but if they ever do release a PC version of the game, I might pick it up.

As for games I've bought several times over...
Well... I'm pretty sure I bought the original Sly Cooper about five times (four of them were used, so they were a bit wonky, finally got my hands on new copy)
I've bought Beyond Good and Evil twice... PC and PS2 versions... what?
Let's see...

The Witcher - twice... lost my registration codes for the Enhanced Edition patch, so I had to buy the better version.

Fallout 3 - when it first came out and the Game of the Year edition... both of which have stopped working. Damn.

Silent Hill 2 - about twice.

Shadow of the Colossus - ruined my first copy by playing it too much.

Portal - I think I've gotten this about 3 times. Once for myself, and twice as gifts for other people.

Psychonauts - got the PC version when my PS2 version started crashing around the final boss fight.

Both Mass Effects - my fucking laptop refuses to read disks anymore... speaking of which... could someone please help me out here? I've installed the update for my disk drive several times and it just refuses to read disks.

Grand Theft Auto EFLC - again, my fucking laptop.

And... that's about it I think.

Diablo II and Starcraft.

:)

My guess for one of your quad-purchases is Sid Meier's Pirates [I've had that on Dos, Xbox, PSP and Win32).

If one makes the argument that Civilisation is fundamentally the same game every time, that could be your second.

That's why I enjoy indie games, $1-5 for a 4 hour experience is a good deal for me. I tend to buy games and never finish them so a short game is cost effective for me.

As for games I've bought multiple times:
Persona 3/Persona 3 FES: I bought it, bought FES, lent FES to someone who lost it, bought FES again.
Persona 4: Same as Persona 3 (-) the FES part. Also bought it a 3rd time because I forgot I had purchased it the week before, returned it later that week. To top it off the person I lent these games too found my copy of 4 so now I've got an extra copy of this game without a case...
Brave Story(PSP)-Bought it, lost my PSP as well as the game at school. Bought it again, game broke, bought it again (never did finish this game...)
The Orange Box: Bought this when I only had a PS3, loved it. Got a 360 and bought it for 360. When they started updating the characters in TF2 I bought it for the PC. Which I eventually lost, and had to buy again (this time I got it on Steam (though I bought JUST TF2). When they were doing a sale on Steam I bought The Orange Box for like a dollar.

Woodsey:

Mcface:

Woodsey:
Nice article.

I for one would (and do) happily pay 35-40 for a 6/7/8 hour game (singleplayer only), and I'm a penniless 16-year-old.

It irks me to see people leave comments about games saying "no mutliplayer no buy", as well as a "short" playing time generating a game tonnes of undeserved hate.

You are over paying then, and I'm assuming it's not your money you are spending?
Becuase I refuse to buy single player games that are not RPGs.
It's pointless. Why spend 60 dollars on a game I will play once or twice with no replay value? I can just rent it for 6 bucks.

I play a little game called mount and blade. I have over 200 hours into it. Guess how much i spent? 9 dollars. And it's a much more innovative and fun game than Alan Wake.

I paid 40 dollars for ArmA 2.
And have over 500 hours on it.

So tell me why should I pay more for less?

How am I over paying? That's how much it costs to buy a game - like it or not. If they were charging me 100 then yeah, but they need to make a profit. And yes, it's my money I'm spending. I also tend to replay games a lot.

Your idea that quantity = quality is baffling.

How is wanting more for your money baffling?
The average xbox and ps2 games had about 20 hours of solid gameplay.
These days you are lucky to get 12 hours.
So, you get the same shooter mechanics, with upgraded graphics, and 7 hours less of gameplay. That's worth MORE money?

This isn't even talking about "DLC" that adds an hour of gameplay for 40 bucks.
or a few maps for 15 dollars.

You release a well-crafted single-player game, one with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative

... if you do that your time and money spent making it will surely be rewarded with not just piles of cash to clutter up your desk, but also many, many happy gamers!

Too bad hardly any game developer truely has that ambition or the time/money to make that well-crafted single-player game with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative. Unless they're Blizzard ;)

Most games suffer from bad QA tho; think Mercenaries 2: a load of gameplay breaking bugs that make immersion poor and worse, some missions are almost impossible to complete.
I've had a nice amount of pretty entertaining hours in it, I just knew about the bugs beforehand and picked it up for 1/3rd of the original price after it was out for a long time; THIS was a good proposition for me in this case. If I had paid full price I'd be pissed about the bugs, because they prevent me from going for the normal 100% completion...

Kenjitsuka:

You release a well-crafted single-player game, one with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative

... if you do that your time and money spent making it will surely be rewarded with not just piles of cash to clutter up your desk, but also many, many happy gamers!

Too bad hardly any game developer truely has that ambition or the time/money to make that well-crafted single-player game with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative. Unless they're Blizzard ;)

Or Valve, how long have they been polishing Episode 3? hahaha

tavelkyosoba:

Kenjitsuka:

You release a well-crafted single-player game, one with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative

... if you do that your time and money spent making it will surely be rewarded with not just piles of cash to clutter up your desk, but also many, many happy gamers!

Too bad hardly any game developer truely has that ambition or the time/money to make that well-crafted single-player game with a sophisticated, absorbing narrative. Unless they're Blizzard ;)

Or Valve, how long have they been polishing Episode 3? hahaha

Isn't that episode a myth? Like Duke Nukem Forever? ^_^

Uncompetative:

If you want a story, read a Novel, watch TV, go to the Cinema, visit the Theatre, or treat yourself to a night at the Opera.

Don't play a dumb-ass videogame whose developers are all frustrated film-directors.

I have to admit this post irked me somewhat... Why should good stories be limited to TV, Books, Films, theatre and opera? Why would the humble video game be shoved aside from that already huge list of entertainment activities? Video games have as much right to tell a story and frankly I would be bored as hell if they did not.

I'm sick of how Pac-man and Robotron 64 are seen as inferior to these uninspired poorly lip-synced overly-linear interactive stories. The last game I bought that represented real value for money gave me well over 1000 hours of consistently rewarding, challenging, entertaining, varied and fun gameplay - and that is only counting the Multiplayer experience. Did any of those games have a story? Did they suffer from not having an objective other than "plant the bomb in the enemy base" (or similar)?

Games have evolved. Simple. I'm sorry if that's not to your liking but it's a fact. We no longer have to settle for mindless violence, now we can have a reason tacked on the side. Some games use a poorly written story as a crutch while others base the entire game around it. Even multiplayer games such as Left 4 Dead have a loose narrative in the background which let you know why the world exists and what you're doing in it. I understand the need for people to play multiplayer non stop (it's not my thing at all) and I can see how a story would get in the way, but do you not desire just a little more depth sometimes?

I really want developers to snap out of the delusion that they have been in since they decided that the average gamer wants (weak) characters and a (lame) plot at the expense of limiting player freedom due to the necessity of story requiring linearity.

Ummm no one actually decided that... ever. The average gamer (who that actually is, I'm not sure) would prefer fully fleshed out characters and a good plot so that they have direction and meaning for their actions. I don't want to wander aimlessly around an area with no goal, nor do I want to kill endless hoardes of people for no real reason. I don't feel that I have been limited because of the story at all and a good game would make sure that you are never given that feeling. Granted, Alan Wake does feel linear, but the overall experience is so engaging I really couldn't care less.

Can you guess what game I have played 1000 hours of and am still not bored of yet?

You do realise that Halo was originally a story driven game before the hoardes online decided multiplayer was more fun? In fact the original Halo:CE is probably one of the exceptions to your many rules. The characters are interesting, there is a rich world barely hinted at and the gameplay is fun and engaging. The levels are open and allow the player plenty of freedom to dispatch enemies in a variety of ways and you're fighting to save the entire galaxy. What's not to like?

Halo 1, 2 and 3 are probably some of my most played games but not for the multiplayer...

Interesting isn't it, how we all have such radically different opinions?

For me there is a diffrence between, there isn't enough of it and it's too short. A game that is too short is not worth how much it is e.g. MW2. A game that there isn't enough of it is worth the cost cos it means that you want more for example a game like Half-Life 2 needs more length cos it's a game i want more of.

I also don't agree with the Multi-Player saves it,it can but then it shouldn't cost how much it is if the Multi-Player excuses the short length or poor quality. If the single player is too short and Shit then it should just be left out to focus on a good Multi-Player, with balence and good maps etc. It should be cheeper then like 8 or 12 pounds or somthin'

Well I just finished Alan Wake today and it was an absolute joy to behold. There were literally two points in the entire game which irked me, to do with the fact that Alan is actually an unfit bastard (i.e. he can only run about 25 feet before he's tired, and when he's tired he can't dodge- leading to a whoop down). Normally there's a few bloody annoying bits in every level of every game.
Strangely people who say they've completed it in 6 hours must have ran through the thing and missed out on most of the game experience. I spent ages just walking around checking out the scenery (it's breath-taking, especially the water and lighting/sunshine effects) and looking for hidden items etc. You can listen in on radio programs and watch a tv series. As for the story, well it's fantastic.

Definitely worth the 5 year wait. Cannot wait for the DLC/sequel or whatever is next.

For those of you who are concerned for time limit - play it on nightmare mode and I assure you it will take at least 12hrs, cuz you'll get you're ass kicked!

Hell of a fun game with friends though. Plus loved how they encouraged multiple play-throughs. Clever. Also always worth a laugh is how a flailing body does about a million times more damage than the strongest attack.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here