Jake

Idle Thumbs 22: Put On the Top Ghost

Recommended Posts

My son, now 13, played an unbelievable amount of Medieval 2 Total War, but he didn't want to progress slowly, he wanted to dominate.

His first goal was to become the Pope, which you achieve by having a priest/cardinal of high enough piety to win a Papal election, but he was highly disappointed when he discovered that when a member of your faction is elected Pope, you essentially lose that guy and he becomes the NPC leader of the Vatican. I guess he wanted to have both his starting faction and the Vatican under his command, and this pissed him off. Shortly thereafter, he found out that you could unlock some unplayable factions through a config file edit, including his coveted Vatican and the Mongol Horde. But again he was disappointed to find those factions buggy and lacking in the ass-kicking department.

This was about the time he found out about console commands and cheat codes, and sadly he has never looked back. He figured out how to create units, bump unit experience, place buildings in cities, and of course, how to give himself any amount of money. Before long he was sweeping across Europe with a dozen French armies whose only units were elephants with cannons on their backs, all while his treasury was filled with millions of dollars. This is blasphemy to me, since it removes any sort of challenge and actually makes him worse at the game since he doesn't have to worry about unit balance, city/resource management, budgeting, etc.

I kept giving him shit about playing with the cheats, and several times he'd restart a campaign, swearing that THIS TIME he would do it legit. When I'd ask him about his new campaign a few days later, he'd insist he hadn't cheated, but later add that, well, he did cheat just a little bit because he didn't like being out of money.

Hearing that Empire has removed those cheat codes is great news for me. I bought it last week but haven't had a chance to play it yet. My son has given it a few hours, but it doesn't seem to have grabbed him the same way Medieval did. Part of that is probably his great interest in the Medieval setting as opposed to the 18th century, but I'm sure some of it has to do with the fact that he can't cheat anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like he was actually modding the game in places, which I think you can still do (it's all LUA stuff isn't it?).

I didn't find the demo as engaging either, the game is more distant because of the focus on ranged combat. You don't pin units in place by attacking them like you used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you have less time to spend on games doesn't mean you don't enjoy playing long games. Though, long games often do make it more difficult to be played with long pauses between sessions (unless you keep your own notes during playing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thing is, SOME experiences are mostly suited to short term pleasure, but if you are just looking for the pleasure of completion, then you'd be logically looking for shorter games, but you'd have to admit that if a game can suck you up for 30 hours, then this game has the potency to make you cry or laugh or anything because it's long. Instantaneous short term games make me feel like it's just in and out feeling, you just taste a bit of pleasure and then switch to something else, I'm more of a long term relation guy with games where passion turns into something longer

For me, at least often enough, it breaks down in two ways -- the games in which I feel learning about and simply experiencing the game's different scenarios and mechanics is the fun, and the games where it's actually the mastery and repeat use of those systems which makes it appealing. Being able to actually complete a game is one thing, but more importantly than that, is the feeling that I've experienced all the game has to offer. So often, with longer games, I've found that after a certain number of hours I just feel like I've seen everything the game has to offer, or I've gotten enough out of it to be satisfying.

Surprisingly often, longer games turn into TV shows which have run a season or two too long: even if they're still watchable, they're no longer doing the worthwhile or original things which drew interest in the first place (or are just re-treading old hits), so maybe they should go off the air while people are still watching. If you stay on the air too long like that, nobody is there to watch the last episode.

Edited by Jake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, at least often enough, it breaks down in two ways -- the games in which I feel learning about and simply experiencing the game's different scenarios and mechanics is the fun, and there are some games where it's actually the mastery and repeat use of those systems which makes it appealing. Being able to actually complete a game is one thing, but more importantly than that, is the feeling that I've experienced all the game has to offer. So often, with longer games, I've found that after a certain number of hours I just feel like I've seen everything the game has to offer, or I've gotten enough out of it to be satisfying.

Surprisingly often, longer games turn into TV shows which have run a season or two too long: even if they're still watchable, they're no longer doing the worthwhile or original things which drew interest in the first place (or are just re-treading old hits), so maybe they should go off the air while people are still watching. If you stay on the air too long like that, nobody is there to watch the last episode.

Well said. This is a more concise version of what I was trying to convey on the podcast in response to the reader comment about me seeming to simultaneously want shorter games and more open games.

It's not so much that I can't decide if I want shorter games or more open, simulational games--it's that I like both of those. What I don't like, are huge games that reveal all they meaningfully have to offer long before they actually end, as Jake describes. If a game is going to be a relatively linear, single-player experience that is more about the progression and the pacing and the arc, I very much prefer it to be shorter, even if it's still priced at $50. The reality is I'm only going to play a game like that for a limited number of hours anyway, so I'd rather pay $50 and spend 10 hours completing it than pay $50 and spend 10 hours not completing it.

However if a game is actually about mastery of mechanics and exploration and immersion into a world, and if I enjoy those things, I am a lot more likely to spend more time in it -- not deliberately so, it will just work out that way because I enjoy being inside the game.

Neither of those is particularly more preferable than the other, I like both. What I don't like is games that are simply long. I like dense, focused games, and I also like open, player-driven games (broad, rather than long); I don't so much like games that are really long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly often, longer games turn into TV shows which have run a season or two too long: even if they're still watchable, they're no longer doing the worthwhile or original things which drew interest in the first place (or are just re-treading old hits), so maybe they should go off the air while people are still watching. If you stay on the air too long like that, nobody is there to watch the last episode.

Hi there Okami, Final Fantasy XII, nice to see you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When referring mass killing of snakes, please use the term serpenticide.

Now, on to the short game vs. long game debate

I am an old crotchety gamer who uses words like crotchety. That being said, I have no problem with 'short' games, provided they give me a complete experience. Of course, it helps that due to wife and child I rarely get a chance to play for much longer than 1 hour at a time. Hence even a short game can take me a while.

I also have no problem with 'long' games, provided they don't drag on without a purpose. Actually, scratch that, I enjoyed Darklands back in the day, and that was a single-player game with NO ending whatsoever. As the men with small penises say, it's not the length that matters, it's how you use it.

Just don't ask me how long I've been working on getting through NWN2... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short games need to be raped and sent to the purgatory in repentance for their sins against mankind...

In the nicest possible way, up yours.

The single player game in Call of Duty 4 is still one of the best player experiences I've had in recent years. Fan-fucking-tastic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember getting in an argument with a few friends over this exact issue a couple years ago, mostly because I think people get the word "value" stuck in their head, not because it makes any sense.

Them: "Man, I'm sick of all these games coming out being so much shorter and everyone still praising them. COD4 and Portal got all these GOTY awards and it took me no time at all to beat them!"

Me: "Name a game that came out last year that you completed, other than COD4 or Portal"

Them: "..........."

As far as cheating goes, I actually always run a trainer for the Tomb Raider games. My appeal for those titles is figuring out the huge environmental puzzles and quick moves. Once they get really complex, I already have to repeat the same series of movements for what can amount to minutes before I can figure out where to go next, dealing with insta-death or health packs just gets annoying, as does the mostly forgettable combat. (Although this improved with the latest one, where some of the bosses actually served as a type of puzzle all their own.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the nicest possible way, up yours.

The single player game in Call of Duty 4 is still one of the best player experiences I've had in recent years. Fan-fucking-tastic!

Link, watch out !

Short does not mean bad, it means not long enough, yes, I and you and everybody I guess prefers good games, the question is, would you rather have a call of Duty lasting 6 hours or 26 ?

Because it does seem obvious that the reason call of Duty can be such a strong experience is that every other second there is a scripted event that is to say an new authored content to be shown. So that makes the experience twice as strong, the question being then: would you rather have longer levels in CoD4, like twice as long, twice as many enemies, with longer segments? Instead of just passing through a hangar you just go through 2 of them, instead of getting through 2 storage compartments in the boat you go all the way through 4 of them etc...

To me it was unnecessary to have such a huge density of authored content and not to trust the player to be something, too much direction makes the game stronger as in "more movie and less gaming". To me it's a fault of CoD even if it does make the game stronger, it's pushing games towards hollywood: you live a game that lasts a handful of hours but is really strong rather than taking the time to live the story by yourself. Spectate or play ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you rather have a call of Duty lasting 6 hours or 26?

...

Would you rather have longer levels in CoD4, like twice as long, twice as many enemies, with longer segments? Instead of just passing through a hangar you just go through 2 of them, instead of getting through 2 storage compartments in the boat you go all the way through 4 of them etc...

6, thanks, without question. Especially if the alternative is arbitrarily doubling the size of the levels and therefore completely diluting the extremely well crafted gameplay of the shorter game.

No, I'm more than happy with what some might consider to be a ridiculously short story as the main game. Instead of trying to force the story out to be longer than it needed to be - a teeth-grinding agony I have with almost all popular TV serials at the moment (Lost, Heroes, etc.) - Infinity Ward were smart; they stuck to their brilliantly paced 6hr design and then augmented the single-player story experience with the inspired Arcade mode and their amazing multiplayer game.

Take Left 4 Dead as another example; the main story only takes approximately 4-5hrs to play through -- with or without friends. But Turtle Rock new exactly what they were doing, by augmenting 4 excellently designed scenarios with the randomness of multiplayer and their AI Director.

That's what I'd rather have over anything else: brave, inspired and confident game design. And when it's this replayable, I get way more than [26hrs] out of it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

It's not so much that I can't decide if I want shorter games or more open, simulational games--it's that I like both of those. What I don't like, are huge games that reveal all they meaningfully have to offer long before they actually end, as Jake describes. If a game is going to be a relatively linear, single-player experience that is more about the progression and the pacing and the arc, I very much prefer it to be shorter, even if it's still priced at $50. The reality is I'm only going to play a game like that for a limited number of hours anyway, so I'd rather pay $50 and spend 10 hours completing it than pay $50 and spend 10 hours not completing it.

However if a game is actually about mastery of mechanics and exploration and immersion into a world, and if I enjoy those things, I am a lot more likely to spend more time in it -- not deliberately so, it will just work out that way because I enjoy being inside the game.

...

So what you're saying is that you like to complete the game but not necessarily all the levels. Does that even make sense?

Pretty much all games are about mastering the mechanics given to you it's just the ones in linear games tend to be very limited and specific.

I'd can't say I could take a longer COD4. The American missions particularly intense and I don't know if I'd want to or be able to sustain the concentration and drive to keep playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short does not mean bad, it means not long enough, yes, I and you and everybody I guess prefers good games, the question is, would you rather have a call of Duty lasting 6 hours or 26 ?

6, unquestioningly. My job and friends keep me so busy I don't generally have time to play through long games (Fallout 3 being the latest, halfway through I've stopped playing, not because I don't want to play it, but because I don't have time).

I say this as someone young and single. Getting married or having children greatly compounds lack of time for games; fathers I know were kind of happy when the DS was first around, saying "At last, I can play games again".

Long games get tedious for me, ending up in the uncompleted pile if not the dreaded to play one, aka the unwise purchases pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very much in the "dad" camp Nachimir mentions.

6hrs is about a week's gaming for me, on average, though I've been pushing things a bit lately since getting my PC more up to spec. I've also stalled twice in trying to complete Fallout 3, because it's a game that's not only long, but commands long play sessions to get the most out of it too.

Games where you can't simply duck in, play for 30 minutes and then duck out again tend to fair pretty badly with me, regardless of how critically great they might be. Portable gaming does come to the rescue to a lesser extent, but not when the machine's gaming library is as hobbled - and glaringly dull - as my PSP's is. :hah:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what you're saying is that you like to complete the game but not necessarily all the levels. Does that even make sense?

Pretty much all games are about mastering the mechanics given to you it's just the ones in linear games tend to be very limited and specific.

I'd can't say I could take a longer COD4. The American missions particularly intense and I don't know if I'd want to or be able to sustain the concentration and drive to keep playing.

No, I DO like to complete all the levels. That's why if it's actually a level-based game, I prefer it to be shorter. Some games can't be described as having "levels" in the same sense, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like completing levels, how will you get to level 17 to complete your destiny and reach the apogee of tears ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I forgot to say thanks for mentioning the Mirror's Edge time trial pack. I ended up buying the PC version too, and just assumed like most other games, the DLC would only be available on consoles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had me thinking back to the whole "players get what they deserve" thing:

"I love short games, I love call of duty, give me more of that"

Well the easy way is to take that litteraly and make another one, a sequel

wheras talking about actually good long games, you'd have a hard time making a sequel in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I DO like to complete all the levels. That's why if it's actually a level-based game, I prefer it to be shorter. Some games can't be described as having "levels" in the same sense, though.

Ah, ok it seemed like you're interested in seeing everything the game has to offer which I took to mean more in the way of gameplay than raw content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, ok it seemed like you're interested in seeing everything the game has to offer which I took to mean more in the way of gameplay than raw content.

Yes, I mean that also--I'm just saying, that if I'm going to feel like I'm "done" with the game after a certain amount of time anyway, I'd like to be done for real, instead of only halfway through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh man, SimTower was the first Sim game I ever played. Played it more than SimCity, actually. Bloody brilliant game.

Yeah SimTower is great, as is simcopter. I really wish we had a SimTower, or even just a clone, for the iPhone. I was never very good at SimCity type games, but impressing VIPs when they visited? Hell yes!

Also note the sequel, Yoot Tower, along with the GBA game, and the recent Japanese DS release, The Tower. I think I once stumbled across an open-source clone, but I don't think it ever went anywhere :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I mean that also--I'm just saying, that if I'm going to feel like I'm "done" with the game after a certain amount of time anyway, I'd like to be done for real, instead of only halfway through it.

I'm curious what's your take on games like Lumines or something like the new Riddick game? I always get a nagging feeling that I didn't finish a game if I didn't beat the core games that it offers.(not like achievement hunting or anything) In the case of Riddick and even the Bioshock ps3 version, you not only get the game but an extra "story" as well. Do you feel compelled to beat those extra ones as well? Or in case of like Lumines, where it goes on forever, at what point do you feel it's enough? I always have a hard time feeling I get my moneys worth because once I reach a certain level in a game like Lumines I know for sure I can't get there again and just stop playing the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I lost a lot of faith in Will Wright and stopped playing Spore when I learned that he was not only an avid Republican but that he donated monstrous quantities of money to McCain/Palin this last election and to the RNC all his life.

It blew my mind that someone so seemingly smart and rational and scientifically-minded could in any way support the Madman/Snowbilly ticket, exactly because they were so crazy anti-intellectual, anti-progressive and were pandering to the worst ignorant hick America with all might. In a particularly crazy year when moderates fled the republican label, he seemed to stick by it. The only explanation I have is that he is extremely well-monied and likes his monies more than everything else he purports to stand for. For fuck's sake, they ridiculed science spending. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

He seems like a cool guy, his talks and his games are kindof neat, but he just made three games. I've come to look at his gaming god status as somewhat unfounded.

In a same kind of breath (thinking of other god/sim games), I have started to appreciate Peter Molyneux a lot more. Sure, dude births hyperbolas every time he opens his mouth, but his portfolio is actually more rad than Will Wright's: Populous, Syndicate, Theme Park, Magic Carpet, Dungeon Keeper, Black and White, the Movies, Fable. Sure, they were not perfect games by any stretch of imagination (the lasting reputation of his games would be a lot better if it weren't perceived he was hyping them, refer to graph at the bottom of the post), but the dude should get more respect than Will Wright with his trifecta of Sim City, Sims and Spore.

Plus, I don't think Molyneux donated to goddamn Sarah Palin. :(:(

:molyneuxcrown: :molyneuxcrown: :molyneuxcrown:

Appreciation|From+game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here dude, I was both surprised and disappointed when I saw he'd donated to their campaign. Damn those Republicunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooh, also, regarding Unreal Amadeus: I spent a summer playing Jedi Outcast and listening to an Irish folk songs CD someone gave me. So every time I hear St Patrick was a gentleman I think of lightsaber battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now