Gaming The appeal of shorter, simpler and more direct games

[teteus]

I have nothing against open-world, huge and immersive experiences of the likes of GTA. In fact, I love that they exist and signalize how far gaming has come and what a good age we live in. And I remember playing GTA San Andreas a lot (and more recent installments are far bigger, I heard so).

At the same time, there is a timeless great pleasure to be found in relatively more simple, shorter and more direct games. Like classics from the NES and SNES eras or many modern indie games. They have a strong and appealing pick-up-and play value. And also infinitely replayable in a way that I can't imagine a draining and huge open world game being. Once you beat them, you can endlessly replay them and have casual and really good fun without interfering you from getting invested in games that you will be playing for the first time. I also think that it's maybe easier that people in the future will come back to play the shorter classics rather than the big open world games that completely take control of your life.

And if I truly just want to have some time playing in an entirely casual manner, I just put the original Super Mario Bros. in an emulator. Or Tetris. Games based around simple, fun and easy to understand mechanics, but with a great amount of hidden depth with these mechanics.

To be clear to everyone and avoid some possible misunderstandings and questions, I'm not saying in this thread that one type of game is inferior to other. I love a good game, be it an open world and complex one, like GTA, for example, or a relatively simpler one by comparison, like 2D platformers, for example. I'm just contrasting their differences and I'm glad that gaming has come so far and diverse nowadays.

Also, a game can last a fair amount of hours even if being relatively short and simple. The main way to do this is having an engaging mechanic that you need to master to beat the game and offering a good challenge. So, even if the gameplay itself is actually quite short, it will still take you a good amount of time and effort to beat it. And once you do and become really great at the game, you can just pick it up anytime, play and beat it for fun in a short time.

 

[Vidyoyo]

I've thought about this a lot over the years as I've gravitated between indie games and big releases, and yes you're right - there's an obvious benefit to shorter, more defined and/or replayable titles. Sometimes games are too long and I find myself getting bored before they're over, longing a little for more of the solid 8-10 hour experiences we had back in the PS2/PS3 era. The move to open and semi-open worlds seems to be one of the big reasons for it.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I have nothing against open-world, huge and immersive experiences of the likes of GTA. In fact, I love that they exist and signalize how far gaming has come and what a good age we live in. And I remember playing GTA San Andreas a lot (and more recent installments are far bigger, I heard so).

At the same time, there is a timeless great pleasure to be found in relatively more simple, shorter and more direct games. Like classics from the NES and SNES eras or many modern indie games. They have a strong and appealing pick-up-and play value. And also infinitely replayable in a way that I can't imagine a draining and huge open world game being. Once you beat them, you can endlessly replay them and have casual and really good fun without interfering you from getting invested in games that you will be playing for the first time. I also think that it's maybe easier that people in the future will come back to play the shorter classics rather than the big open world games that completely take control of your life.

And if I truly just want to have some time playing in an entirely casual manner, I just put the original Super Mario Bros. in an emulator. Or Tetris. Games based around simple, fun and easy to understand mechanics, but with a great amount of hidden depth with these mechanics.

To be clear to everyone and avoid some possible misunderstandings and questions, I'm not saying in this thread that one type of game is inferior to other. I love a good game, be it an open world and complex one, like GTA, for example, or a relatively simpler one by comparison, like 2D platformers, for example. I'm just contrasting their differences and I'm glad that gaming has come so far and diverse nowadays.

Also, a game can last a fair amount of hours even if being relatively short and simple. The main way to do this is having an engaging mechanic that you need to master to beat the game and offering a good challenge. So, even if the gameplay itself is actually quite short, it will still take you a good amount of time and effort to beat it. And once you do and become really great at the game, you can just pick it up anytime, play and beat it for fun in a short time.

I’m not a massive gamer (and haven’t played games in years) but complete agree. As soon as the whole “sand box” games trend started that was the end of it for me.

 

[acnumber9]

It’s reached saturation point with them now. Every other big game feels like the same thing.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Long games have put me off gaming for years. I just couldn't get into them and as I play sporadically, I always forget what I was doing in said games.

Luckily the Switch bought me back into gaming with its amazing selection of simpler games and handheld mode.

I've not loved gaming as much as I do now for a long time.

 

[teteus]

Long games have put me off gaming for years. I just couldn't get into them and as I play sporadically, I always forget what I was doing in said games.

Luckily the Switch bought me back into gaming with its amazing selection of simpler games and handheld mode.

I've not loved gaming as much as I do now for a long time.

Nintendo has a philosophy that really puts fun gameplay above everything. Nintendo's games in many ways follow the opposite direction of what AAA gaming has become in the last decade. And I've heard that Switch is a great platform for many amazing indies too. And there is the library of NES and SNES classics as well.

I want to try Shovel Knight someday. I don't have money to buy a console or make a PC now, but I intend to in the future.

 

[Dirty Schwein]

Nintendo has a philosophy that really puts fun gameplay above everything. Nintendo's games in many ways follow the opposite direction of what AAA gaming has become in the last decade. And I've heard that Switch is a great platform for many amazing indies too. And there is the library of NES and SNES classics as well.

I want to try Shovel Knight someday. I don't have money to buy a console or make a PC now, but I intend to in the future.

I'm actually enjoying the indie more than the AAA games!

 

[Beachryan]

The last two AC games have been a excellent on every level, but I had absolutely no urge to get close to finishing them. They're just too big.

 

[VeevaVee]

It’s reached saturation point with them now. Every other big game feels like the same thing.

This is partly because it feels like they barely push any boundaries when it comes to setting and themes despite having so much to choose from (I mean infinite really), and one of the only companies that does tends to make their games on a big scale but ultimately pretty repetitive and despite being a good game they deliver a frankly not so epic experience (AC).

Why is no one else doing what Rockstar has done with cowboys for other things? Why's no one doing an open world police game with the depth of RDR2 and the gameplay of Rainbow Six? Why isn't there more open world pirate games? Why there's not more games where you're a street gangster, considering the popularity of that aspect in San Andreas? Same with the mafia (I know there is the Mafia series but this could surely be done better now).

I realise it's no easy task but some of companies have endless resources. I know the real answer is because there's more money in churning out popular online games, which is incredibly disappointing.

 

[Shane88]

I'm tired of giant games. Although I'm saying that two weeks before I dive back into the Mass Effect trilogy but that's a special case.

 

[teteus]

In the topic of this thread, a beat 'em up is a good example of a genre of relatively shorter, more direct games. The genre may be experiencing a resurgence nowadays.

2D platformers also fit well, such as classic 2D Mario games.

Also action side-scrollers such as the Contra series count.

These are only a few examples. And all these kinds of games now blossom again in the indie scene.

 

[el3mel]

I feel like the older I got, the more appreciation I gave it to the linear games that don't extend beyond 10-15 hours and want to focus on a tight, story focused and compact gameplay. Maybe it's either time or that I just got tired of how many open world games I have played especially with most of them following a similar formula.

 

[dumbo]

Or Tetris.

Hard Drop or Soft? 1roll, 4 roll or 7 bag? What variation? console or emulator? What's your top score for each variation. DAS, Hypertap or Roll? When are we going to have our match? Are you on Tetris Effect. I will crush you.

 

[Raw]

I'm trying to avoid games like these more. Just no time for them. Especially when they're lazy with it by creating a huge realistic world map filled with copy-pasted objectives (climbing towers to reveal maps is a big one that developers love). It wouldn't be as bad if travelling the map is fun, but more often than not its just walking/horse riding/car driving so you resort to fast travelling instead. If traversing the map is 90% of the game, why not make it fun? Spider-man on the PS4/5 does have the hallmarks of a generic open world with its missions, but swinging about is so much fun that you actually want to go round and check off the objectives on your map.

I think open world is something a lot of developers want to do, but they either don't have the budget to fully realise the world they imagine or they simply don't have the knowledge to make it an interesting world that makes players want to explore it. A happy medium between short/linear and lengthy/massive (heh) can work very well though. Deus Ex manages to make hub worlds feel huge despite them not being that big at all because of how intricately built they are, rewarding you for exploration using the skills you obtain throughout the game. Everything is pretty much there for a reason.

 

[Salt Bailly]

Hard Drop or Soft? 1roll, 4 roll or 7 bag? What variation? console or emulator? What's your top score for each variation. DAS, Hypertap or Roll? When are we going to have our match? Are you on Tetris Effect. I will crush you.

I have seen this guy's YouTube video. He ain't playin'.

 

[SuperiorXI]

Perez likes this thread

 

[SirAnderson]

Same as other posters, it used to be fun back in the day, but just can't seem to do it anymore without feeling drained. Last one I did was The Death Stranding, and while I enjoyed it, it was still very drawn out and tedious experience. I have RDR2 as well as Cyberpunk just sitting on my pc as I haven't the desiring to sit through them for the sake of finishing it. Would love a solid 8-10 hour game that is totally immersive and then done.

 

[VeevaVee]

I'm trying to avoid games like these more. Just no time for them. Especially when they're lazy with it by creating a huge realistic world map filled with copy-pasted objectives (climbing towers to reveal maps is a big one that developers love). It wouldn't be as bad if travelling the map is fun, but more often than not its just walking/horse riding/car driving so you resort to fast travelling instead. If traversing the map is 90% of the game, why not make it fun? Spider-man on the PS4/5 does have the hallmarks of a generic open world with its missions, but swinging about is so much fun that you actually want to go round and check off the objectives on your map.

I think open world is something a lot of developers want to do, but they either don't have the budget to fully realise the world they imagine or they simply don't have the knowledge to make it an interesting world that makes players want to explore it. A happy medium between short/linear and lengthy/massive (heh) can work very well though. Deus Ex manages to make hub worlds feel huge despite them not being that big at all because of how intricately built they are, rewarding you for exploration using the skills you obtain throughout the game. Everything is pretty much there for a reason.

This is why RDR2 was so great. There was so much to stumble across. Finding that house organically with the couple that drug and rob you then leave you for dead was an epic moment for me. Especially finding my bearings, going back and fecking them up.

Plus coming across people being hanged that you've taken to the police..stuff like that. Just insane attention to detail.

 

[Irwin99]

It depends how it's done, regarding open world. Death Stranding was probably the last really great open world game I enjoyed and that was because it placed the emphasis on the journey of traversing a huge map and connecting people rather than anything else.

I would like to see a bit more of a shift to shorter games. I'm replaying Resident Evil 1 remake at the moment and loving it. There's a lot to be said for a 6-7 hour game dripping in atmosphere and intensity rather than a bloated 80 hour long snoozefest. Also that mansion MUST be remade someday in VR

 

[BusbyMalone]

Ubisoft are the absolute worst with their bloated, overly long and tedious open world games. There's just so much junk in there. The map is absolutely cluttered with icons that can take you upwards of 60 hours or so to fully complete, and generally they don't add much of anything to the game. I know people like them which is fair enough, but they're not for me and I'm not sure i like what they've done for open world gaming in general.
There are open world games that do it much better of course, but generally speaking I'm not much of a fan of them anymore.

I've been playing Tetris Effect recently and the game is just perfect. Prime example of a game that's easy to learn but hard to master. But most people can pick it up and just get going. Also been playing my Siwtch more recently and subscribed to Nintendo Online to get the SNES games and to play some of the classics you allude to. Just timeless. Also, Pacman 99 is fantastic. So yeah, I've been taking a break from some of the more demanding games recenlty just becuase I'm a little burnt out on them.

 

[BusbyMalone]

I'm trying to avoid games like these more. Just no time for them. Especially when they're lazy with it by creating a huge realistic world map filled with copy-pasted objectives (climbing towers to reveal maps is a big one that developers love). It wouldn't be as bad if travelling the map is fun, but more often than not its just walking/horse riding/car driving so you resort to fast travelling instead. If traversing the map is 90% of the game, why not make it fun? Spider-man on the PS4/5 does have the hallmarks of a generic open world with its missions, but swinging about is so much fun that you actually want to go round and check off the objectives on your map.

I think open world is something a lot of developers want to do, but they either don't have the budget to fully realise the world they imagine or they simply don't have the knowledge to make it an interesting world that makes players want to explore it. A happy medium between short/linear and lengthy/massive (heh) can work very well though. Deus Ex manages to make hub worlds feel huge despite them not being that big at all because of how intricately built they are, rewarding you for exploration using the skills you obtain throughout the game. Everything is pretty much there for a reason.

Blame Ubisoft for that. Basically summed up their design to open world games.

 

[Raw]

This is why RDR2 was so great. There was so much to stumble across. Finding that house organically with the couple that drug and rob you then leave you for dead was an epic moment for me. Especially finding my bearings, going back and fecking them up.

Plus coming across people being hanged that you've taken to the police..stuff like that. Just insane attention to detail.

Most definitely, I thoroughly enjoyed RDR2. When it comes to open world, Rockstar are kings.

 

[Raw]

Blame Ubisoft for that. Basically summed up their design to open world games.

Don't think I've played a Ubisoft open world game in a long long time. I think since Watch Dogs I've grown tired of the bore. That game was so disappointing, it had promise with an interesting premise in terms of gameplay but it got so bogged down with generic third person open world shit.

 

[Maagge]

There's also something weird about very realistic looking games where things don't behave realistically. In a 2D indie game it's not immersion breaking when you can't enter a building or an NPC isn't going about their business realistically because you aren't expecting them to. When things look too much like the real world and suddenly someone's just stood on a street corner perpetually it gets a bit strange.