No, if you want a short experience then just skip side activities. I want my games as bloated as possible
Why can't we have both? Does every game have to be packed full of 100+ hours worth of gameplay?
No, if you want a short experience then just skip side activities. I want my games as bloated as possible
Oh yeah, I forgot the Yakuza games for some reason. Yeah, I played +80 hours of 0 and maybe about 40 of kiwami. For both the time just went in a blink, even if these games are massive. It's really all about focus, both in the storytelling and in the compact combat gameplay.I really loved AC Origins as well but I never completed it because it just demanded too much of my time.
I recently played Yakuza 0 and have put well over 50 hours into it but it hasn't felt like a slog at all, it doesn't feel like it demands your time, it just feels like a damn good focused experience.
And the thing is, you can just stick to the main story and be done in 15 hours but it's one of those games where you want to actually do the side quests, they don't feel like filler.
Oh yeah, I forgot the Yakuza games for some reason. Yeah, I played +80 hours of 0 and maybe about 40 of kiwami. For both the time just went in a blink, even if these games are massive. It's really all about focus, both in the storytelling and in the compact combat gameplay.
Being short, linear and singleplayer doesn't exclude innovation whatsoever.this is era so the poll is where i'd expect, but i want innovation in gameplay over anything. been gaming since the early 80s, don't need to play the same thing just for a story
Not all games are developed equally, so I feel this poll is a failure from the outset.
Something like DMC5 works for me because its immense combat depth works wonders for replayability.
this is era so the poll is where i'd expect, but i want innovation in gameplay over anything. been gaming since the early 80s, don't need to play the same thing just for a story
I really loved AC Origins as well but I never completed it because it just demanded too much of my time.
I recently played Yakuza 0 and have put well over 50 hours into it but it hasn't felt like a slog at all, it doesn't feel like it demands your time, it just feels like a damn good focused experience.
And the thing is, you can just stick to the main story and be done in 15 hours but it's one of those games where you want to actually do the side quests, they don't feel like filler.
Being short, linear and singleplayer doesn't exclude innovation whatsoever.
Tentative yes. But I don't want something as linear as Bioshock Infinite or FXIII.
Yeah could be, my mind went more on indie and other smaller budget games when thinking about it. But OP does specify AAA, those definitely rely more on spectacle and presentation than innovation.technically no, but recent history says you are wrong (for the most part)
Yeah I wouldn't mind this at all either. Also Hearts of Stone expansion for Witcher 3 was extraordinary, too bad it requires the main game too even if you can play the expansion without finishing the main game (or even starting it). Hearts of Stone in itself is rather linear even if set in a open world.I need more games like Uncharted: Lost Legacy, Far Cry: New Dawn and Dishonored: Death of the Outsider. Extremely well-crafted shorter experiences made largely with recycled assets at a discounted price. I'm surprised games like them aren't more common.
Was this question really needed? I think that the forum opinion on that matter is pretty clear, some people here go so far that sometimes it seems that multiplayer is a bad word.
Yes, but I care more about having finite experiences. A definitive beginning, middle and end.