Platform Nation’s “A Simple Question”: No End In Sight

Santa was good to me this year.  I managed to get Fable III, Fallout: New Vegas, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Halo: Reach, and Borderlands: Game of the Year Edition.  Couple this with Rock Band 3’s pro instruments that I will be acquiring in the next couple of weeks, and I have enough gaming goodness to last me.. well.. thinking about it, I guess it really could last a lifetime.  Nevermind the multiplayer replayability of games like CoD:BLOPS and Reach; Fallout and Fable will need around 100 hours between them (assuming I don’t multiplayer Fable), and Borderlands could go on forever.  Oh, and I want to learn how to play pro guitar on Rock Band. 

Considering all of this, when will I have time for ANY release in 2011?  It got me thinking:

Is a game with infinite replayability good for gaming? If you spend 100 hours on a game, do you have time for anything else?

The argument becomes even more one sided if you consider MMOs, so leave them out of it.  On the one hand I’m tempted to say that more of a good thing isn’t bad, but if all anyone does is multiplayer team deathmatch of one game, does that stifle growth in other games?  If I play an RPG as a good guy because I don’t like being evil, and miss out on half the game, is that a good thing? responds: “There is nothing found that indicates that.”  True, but that means there’s nothing found that DOESN’T indicate it, either! Ah, Magic 8 ball, your answers are so vague!

A Simple Question (ASQ) is a weekly segment for Platform Nation.  Each week, you’ll be posed a question.   Give a response and let the world know what you think, there is no right or wrong answer here.  I will post my response on Friday. If you have a suggestion for a question, hit me up on twitter @vttym.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • I think replayability is a good thing because there are ALWAYS games that I want to go back to playing. New games are great and it keeps the interest going but to go back to the tried and true is also very cool. It also depends on the individual as to how they spend their time.

    • Fallout NV would have been an absolute pain to go back through and get whatever trophies/achievements i didnt get on the first play through. I managed to go back to a save point far enough back after my first ending that I could change the reputation of my character and align them to other factions and got a 2nd ending, but in no way would I do it again and again and again. I play a lot of RPG/Strategy and play them very thorough (100+hrs on FFXIII and New Vegas each within 4 months) and at last count I have 16 purchased games that are either not opened or only just out of the shrinkwrap. Replayability has become a great thing for gamers but I also think its going to hurt some publishing studios, I plan on being a lot more careful on when I buy games now so that they dont sit on my shelf until they only cost a fraction of the price when I finally get to playing them. I’d rather buy used/rent at a cheaper cost than continue to blow $60 and fall so behind. Throw all the downloadable content and games that are provided now and it’s just a no win situation where a lot of money is being blown all over the place, but as long as the games stay fun and entertaining, i cant think of much better ways to waste my money.

  • I think about this problem all the time. There are too many games released throughout the year to possibly play them all to completion unless you are unemployed and have no family. I prefer my games to be shorter so I can actually complete them. The multiplayer is something I only usually get into on Halo, meaning I miss a lot of the multiplayer on most of my other games. This is one reason I hate paying full price for games. I rarely get even 50% completion/playtime that the dev intended. Sad, but true.

  • Rane, I didn’t even consider the fact that players wouldn’t be getting the full experience from the game that the devs intended. Back in the day, it was hard not to see everything in a game as you played through (and is a reason why I sometimes don’t mind a game on rails like CoD). I read an article yesterday that stated that a study on Xbox Live showed that something like 40% of people actually finish a game to completion. That’s insane!

    Too much of a good thing may explain it. I don’t know what the solution is; shorter games will make hardcore gamers upset, but I don’t know if the average person would even notice.

    I can’t argue with the value of a game like Fallout, where so much can happen, but you can’t possibly see everything the game has to offer in one playthrough. Which means I might have to settle with not seeing everything in a game.