Coll Regan Fewer Addictive Games
http://kotaku.com/5988752/id-like-fewer-addictive-games-thanks
Video games do not need to be less addicting, in my opinion it is all up to the person playing whether they want to continue playing or not. If I manage to find a game that I can constantly play and it doesn't end I would be very happy as I then wouldn't have to continue to buy games and try to find others. The idea that a game is addicting is a little ridiculous anyways, I don't believe that I'm addicted to Fallout, just because I have been playing the game for a few years, it just means it's an enjoyable game that has lasting qualities. If that's what an addicting game is, then we need many more of them, games that need you to keep playing just to achieve anything, where a little time put in is like a drop in the vast ocean of content that keeps me coming back for more. I find games where only through time and perseverance something is achieved to be the most rewarding of all as many games can be jumped into and beaten in a few short hours as opposed to hundreds.
The thing is there is a difference between a good game that is addicting and a game that is made to be existing, games such as Farmville are an example of that as there is not really much gameplay at all, it's just the addiction to come back and manage your farm ten minutes from now. In that aspect I agree that those addicting games maybe don't need you to check back as much or offer less to buy, but in respect to actual full games, I completely disagree. For full games we need longer single player if possible, these days a normal single player length is about ten hours, which in my opinion is a little short for something I'm spending $60 on. I can understand a short campaign if your game is based around multiplayer such as Battlefield, but if you don't have multiplayer or a big focus on it then the single player should be long enough to justify someone spending that much money on it. Even if it is a short campaign it can still be good, but It should at least have some sort of replay value to build up some addiction for people to replay the game. For example the new Metal Gear game was really short, but they constantly release free side mission that when completed unlock new gear and that is a great way to build addiction and I completely agree with it.
http://kotaku.com/5988752/id-like-fewer-addictive-games-thanks
Video games do not need to be less addicting, in my opinion it is all up to the person playing whether they want to continue playing or not. If I manage to find a game that I can constantly play and it doesn't end I would be very happy as I then wouldn't have to continue to buy games and try to find others. The idea that a game is addicting is a little ridiculous anyways, I don't believe that I'm addicted to Fallout, just because I have been playing the game for a few years, it just means it's an enjoyable game that has lasting qualities. If that's what an addicting game is, then we need many more of them, games that need you to keep playing just to achieve anything, where a little time put in is like a drop in the vast ocean of content that keeps me coming back for more. I find games where only through time and perseverance something is achieved to be the most rewarding of all as many games can be jumped into and beaten in a few short hours as opposed to hundreds.
The thing is there is a difference between a good game that is addicting and a game that is made to be existing, games such as Farmville are an example of that as there is not really much gameplay at all, it's just the addiction to come back and manage your farm ten minutes from now. In that aspect I agree that those addicting games maybe don't need you to check back as much or offer less to buy, but in respect to actual full games, I completely disagree. For full games we need longer single player if possible, these days a normal single player length is about ten hours, which in my opinion is a little short for something I'm spending $60 on. I can understand a short campaign if your game is based around multiplayer such as Battlefield, but if you don't have multiplayer or a big focus on it then the single player should be long enough to justify someone spending that much money on it. Even if it is a short campaign it can still be good, but It should at least have some sort of replay value to build up some addiction for people to replay the game. For example the new Metal Gear game was really short, but they constantly release free side mission that when completed unlock new gear and that is a great way to build addiction and I completely agree with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.