Omnimaga
General Discussion => Technology and Development => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Hot_Dog on June 13, 2011, 10:52:44 am
-
I'm going to start off by saying that I have not played Portal 2 yet.
However, I was reading about it, and when I heard the designers say that each of the 2 campaigns would take 6 hours each, I was hesitant, especially considering how much time the company took to make Portal 2. Furthermore, I read that many players beat the game in far less time.
What do you think? Was there enough gameplay in Portal 2 to make it worth $60?
-
All games these days are now $60. $10 above the norm. :P
I have never played Portal 2 either, but the games and their quality and support these days do not make it work $60.Think about it. Developers are saying "release now, patch later."
(What I'm saying makes a bit more sense if you play PC.)
-
Hehey, and you are lucky !!! In France, most of the games cost 70€, 70€ above the norm ;) .
-
They cost 700 SEK here, which is about $110 or 80€.
-
They cost 700 SEK here, which is about $110 or 80€.
You may blame the game prices, but I wish I was living in sweden as you...
-
Any game above $60-70ish is too expensive IMHO. Unless you're buying hardware that come with the game, e.g. the complete set of Guitar Hero/Rock Band instruments. Also note that stuff in Canada is usually more expensive than the same exact stuff in the USA, even if the canadian dollar is almost equal with the US dollar now (the US one used to be way stronger).
-
Ok, let me rephrase my question:
Is it too short for it's cost compared to other games that cost the same amount?
-
Well, for example, Crysis (the first one) was quite short, but as I replayed 24851 times, it was not that expensive. But I don't know about Portal 2. But, if you don't usually play more than one time to a game, then don't buy it now and wit for The Game to get less expensive.
-
I tend to not like when a game is too short. MANY SNES RPGs and almost all N64 adventure/RPG games suffered from that. Usually after 6-8 hours you finished them. However some are so good that it doesn't matter as much anymore. As for FPS'es I prefer if they're not too long, since I get bored eventually, but I think a game with puzzles or platforms like Portal should have a decent lenght.
-
It got cut down to 40 bucks on amazon and at other places. It's definetely worth 40.
-
Ok, let me rephrase my question:
Is it too short for it's cost compared to other games that cost the same amount?
Portal 2 is not a normal game, it's an intelligence game, level design must be very hard. The engine is also amazing, I think they're fine to charge 60$ for it, especially since a lot of people hack it because it's a single-player game.
Multiplayer games aren't hacked to much because if they're downloaded instead of bought, they can't play multiplayer.
I am in favor of high prices in quality single-player games.
-
Also to comment on the post about "release then fix later", sometimes having to fix stuff later is inevitable.
Example: Starcraft series.
Sometimes, after the game comes out, people will start using certain strategies that the company did not expect them to use, but ends up over-using them. A big example is the 4-pool rush in the first Starcraft. Back then, the spawning pool costed 150 minerals, which left no time for people to defend against such early Zergling rush. Eventually people started abusing this strategy, causing the game to be unbalanced and boring for non-zerg players, so Blizzard had to address that issue by increasing the pool cost to 200 minerals.
The same thing happened in Starcraft 2 with marine rushes. Blizzard decided that barracks would now require a supply depot, to prevent people from going 6-rax. Also people abused reapers early in game so they forced the construction of a factory to get the speed upgrade.
Also sometimes new bugs might slip by with the time, due to them going unnoticed by beta testers.
-
Also to comment on the post about "release then fix later", sometimes having to fix stuff later is inevitable.
Example: Starcraft series.
Sometimes, after the game comes out, people will start using certain strategies that the company did not expect them to use, but ends up over-using them. A big example is the 4-pool rush in the first Starcraft. Back then, the spawning pool costed 150 minerals, which left no time for people to defend against such early Zergling rush. Eventually people started abusing this strategy, causing the game to be unbalanced and boring for non-zerg players, so Blizzard had to address that issue by increasing the pool cost to 200 minerals.
The same thing happened in Starcraft 2 with marine rushes. Blizzard decided that barracks would now require a supply depot, to prevent people from going 6-rax. Also people abused reapers early in game so they forced the construction of a factory to get the speed upgrade.
Also sometimes new bugs might slip by with the time, due to them going unnoticed by beta testers.
What about games like "The Witcher"?
The first edition was so much crap, the made a "enhanced version", which IMO should've been an update for the original Witcher buyers.
Sure, bugs spring up from time to time, but I'm talking about the things that were the fault of poor development and laziness.
-
Yeah I know. I just meant you shouldn't generalize and say it should never happen, regardless of the game. In some cases, like Starcraft, it's inevitable. In some other cases, the game might end up being too hard for most people and might see an update or alternate release afterward (example: Final Fantasy II on the SNES in USA). Of course for games like the Witcher I think it's not justified.
One other example of such developer laziness is Texas Instruments OS'es and MTV Music Generator series. MTVMG was nice on the Playstation 1, but the company sure didn't do a good job at making it bug-free.
-
Hell, there were some old, crappy, unwanted, GBA games at my local game stop that cost about 20$. it really sucked. Luckily for me, there was another gamestop a bit farther back that had good GBA games for a more reasonable price (5 or 6 dollars)
-
I'm going to start off by saying that I have not played Portal 2 yet.
However, I was reading about it, and when I heard the designers say that each of the 2 campaigns would take 6 hours each, I was hesitant, especially considering how much time the company took to make Portal 2. Furthermore, I read that many players beat the game in far less time.
What do you think? Was there enough gameplay in Portal 2 to make it worth $60?
$60? On steam you can buy it for ~$40 which is worth the money.
-
I'm going to start off by saying that I have not played Portal 2 yet.
However, I was reading about it, and when I heard the designers say that each of the 2 campaigns would take 6 hours each, I was hesitant, especially considering how much time the company took to make Portal 2. Furthermore, I read that many players beat the game in far less time.
What do you think? Was there enough gameplay in Portal 2 to make it worth $60?
$60? On steam you can buy it for ~$40 which is worth the money.
It's 49.99USD on Steam atm. It's a fantastic game, (not quite the messiah of games some make it out to be, but quite an experience regardless) but I've become such a cheap tightwad when it comes to Steam that 50 dollars does seem pretty high for the game. If price is really that much of a concern for you, you could do what I did-- wait for a sale. Steam has very attractive prices on sales occasionally, I've picked up every game I have on Steam on a sale: Got Orange Box years ago for 20 (HL2, EP1, EP2, Portal, TF2), Garry's Mod for 5 dollars, Counterstrike: Source for 5 dollars, Left4Dead for around 4.50, Left4Dead2 most recently for 5 dollars. Given due time I have no doubt that you'll find a sales figure much more to your liking. It's just a matter of time. And not having people spoil the story for you. :p
To address one other concern of yours, the suggestions that one could complete Portal 2 in astonishingly short lengths of time of anywhere from two to six hours is a rumor generated around launchtime when Steam's ingame time tracking was malfunctioning -- some spent days playing Portal 2, and their playtime was recorded as a couple dozen minutes. Needless to say, the game is satisfyingly long. If I recall correctly, it took me around 2-3 days of mostly fully dedicated time to beat Portal 2's singleplayer campaign. The multiplayer campaign took a friend and I around a day or two, though we took some breaks and have played co-op many times together, so we're comfortable coordinating together. Your experience is likely to vary on this account.
-
of course you can beat the game in short time, but that won't be the first time you play...
-
Which reminds me...if I recall correctly, Portal 1 had 19 levels (besides the big ending puzzle). How many levels are in the single-player version of Portal 2?
-
22 Chambers in Portal 2. But I think there are extras.
-
There are 52 "Test Chambers" in Portal 2, but that is also ignoring a significant amount of gameplay that is not test chambers as well. I haven't put my opinion in here yet, but let me just say I originally bought Portal 2 on steam for $50 and would gladly make that same decision again having played the game.
EDIT: And there are 40 test chambers in the co-op section
-
Simple answer: Not if it's on a calculator.
Seriously though I think these FPSes are all a bit short... They'd be so much more replayable if they added more rooms/secret areas that are obvious enough that you find them once in a while.
-
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that many FPSes have puzzles or things to solve. In some cases you might end up being stuck for hours before you figure things out. Also some are extremly hard, even in the lowest difficulty. This can inflate the lenght, but the second time you play you usually go through the entire missions in a few hours.
-
of course you can beat the game in short time, but that won't be the first time you play...
sv_cheats 1
bind v noclip
Also, you can look for easter eggs like the turret quartet.
-
^Laser vs turret ^^
Seriously, everything Valve has made has been epic. Half-Life 2 is a great example of an FPS that retains its awesomeness under the most strenuous conditions.