It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Jesus BioShock is Long...(44 posts)(44 posts)
(44 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 13, 2010
I started replaying this on a whim a week or so ago and have done about a level per day. I'm at Apollo Square now and MAN, I don't remember this game being so long.
Let me make it clear: this is a GOOD thing.
In the days of 4 hour campaigns and minor variations between levels BioShock's 15+ hour campaign and level variation is a miracle. I remember a lot of hullabaloo about the achievement stats on Xbox showing that less than half of the people who played it completed it, but screw them, who cares? That means length was a value to half your audience as well, it doesn't mean it wasn't appreciated.
BioShock 2 was much shorter... actually I can't even think of a shooter since BioShock that would be longer or even the same length, can anyone else?
And I contribute to this as I buy short games like Modern Warfare 2 and Singularity. I feel guilty now.
So what do you guys think about BioShock's length and in general the idea that since achievements stats show most people don't finish games they should be shorter? Looking at the supposedly short and low on content Mafia 2 on Steam's achievement page I see that only 35% of people have completed it so far, 3 weeks from launch.
Posted September 13, 2010
I don't think games should be shorter to cater for people who simply can't be bothered, or never get around to it. I don't think every game should be 40+ hours long, but the current trend towards bite sized gaming is getting irritating in "blockbuster" releases.
As far as BioShock goes, I still haven't finished it (mind you, only recently bought it for the PS3) though I have gotten relatively far and it has been a blast all of the way. I think it has provided enough of an interesting setting, and story to keep you sucked in for however long it will take. A very good combination.
Posted September 13, 2010
Bioshock took me 11 hours the first time through and I missed a good bit underway. Even so I felt it should have been longer. Because it was excellent.
I haven't finished Bioshock 2 yet but if it's significantly shorter than 1 I will be cross.
If Mafia 2 only has a 5-6 hour main campaign then that's also a major disappointment. Developers and publishers should be axed for providing so little content in a $60 release.
Posted September 13, 2010
avatar
StingingVelvet: Looking at the supposedly short and low on content Mafia 2 on Steam's achievement page I see that only 35% of people have completed it so far, 3 weeks from launch.
8.6% of people have apparently not finished chapter 1! How the hell can that happen? Do thousands of people really buy a game and not at least give it a bit of a go? 11% haven't left the house right after the end of chapter 1 and saved vito's sister
I thought the length of Bioshock 1 was about right, certainly a pleasant break from the super short run & gun shooters but then I approached it as more of an adventure game with shooting than as a shooter with the occasional puzzle. I'm finding 2 a bit too long in places hough it may be the 'more of the same' feeling it has
avatar
stonebro: If Mafia 2 only has a 5-6 hour main campaign then that's also a major disappointment. Developers and publishers should be axed for providing so little content in a $60 release.
You can finish Fallout 1 in 20 minutes, its all a matter of how you play the game. If you sprint through the game on easy without stopping you could probably get it done in 6 hours, I've clocked 18 hours and all I've done is finish it (on hard) and go for a few of the slightly odd achievements I didn't get in the campaign, I'd guess about 15hrs on the actual campaign
avatar
Shalgroth: I don't think games should be shorter to cater for people who simply can't be bothered, or never get around to it.
Oddly enough, I do think they need to do that. However I think they need to d it in the form of difficulty settings, when you play on easy you can blaze through the game in a few hours but on hard they make you do more stuff to achieve the same goals.
As an example, think of a splinter cell game. Fisher has to sneak in, hack a server and sneak out again. On easy, thats just what you have to do but on hard, you have to sneak in, disable security, avoid knocking anyone out because it'll alert the guards when they don't check in, disable physical security around the server, open the firewall so he can upload data, hack the server to send the data back to HQ and closing the firewall again before sneaking back out, leaving everything the way you found it so noone knows you were ever there. That way everyone gets the same basic story but playing on hard means a bit more than just "your bullets are weaker"
Post edited September 13, 2010 by Aliasalpha
Posted September 13, 2010
Bioshock ran far too long for its content. It became rote very quickly, and the last few hours were damn near excruciating.
Game length is a delicate science; there are no easy answers or hard rules about it. I will say that 95% of games are either too short or too long, though. And, yes, it's probably true that these days they're more likely to be too short than too long, but I don't consider this a bad thing, since too anything is a waste of the player's time, and at least a too-short game wastes less of it.
I don't really buy the 'value for money' argument, either, since it seems to rely on an inability to distinguish quantity from quality.
It's kind of weird to me; there are no other media where long-windedness is something that's valued and striven for. It's completely unique to videogames. The closest analogue I can think of is a cancelled television show, and even that's quite a different situation.
Post edited September 13, 2010 by frostcircus
Posted September 13, 2010
avatar
StingingVelvet: BioShock 2 was much shorter... actually I can't even think of a shooter since BioShock that would be longer or even the same length, can anyone else?

I don't know how long Bioshock is (I have it but barely played 2 hours with the game) but Borderlands took me around 50 hours to finish (only playthrough 1 and 2 DLCs). Playthrough 2 - which is basicly the same az the 1st but much harder - took around 30 hours without any of the sidequests.
Post edited September 13, 2010 by gyokzoli
Posted September 13, 2010
BioShock 1 I finished under 8 hours (according to my steam "played hours" listing), even padding out my time running around and dying a lot. It did feel far longer than this though, and I would of been fine if it was shorter.
Posted September 13, 2010
I also do agree that Modern Warfare 2's campaign was much too short, and it just seemed so obviously too short as well. I don't know why they thought it was even acceptable: they decided to run with the ridiculous, far-fetched story of a war on American soil, and then only had five levels set during this war, most of which were consecutive.
In fact, let me do a little bit of stats work here:
6 levels set in Russia
5 levels set in Afghanistan
5 levels set in America
2 levels set in Brazil
And this doesn't take into account the fact that the American missions are basically just two scenes (Rangers fight in the suburbs; Rangers fight in DC), divided up. It's just so patently absurd.
Sooooo... I guess the point of this big rant is that the MW2 campaign is stupid, which is something everybody knew anyway. Oh well. At least it still contained plenty of helicopters.
MW1's campaign was absolutely perfect, though, despite being only about the same length as MW2's.
Posted September 13, 2010
avatar
frostcircus: Sooooo... I guess the point of this big rant is that the MW2 campaign is stupid, which is something everybody knew anyway. Oh well. At least it still contained plenty of helicopters.

That's pure, distilled mountain-dew epic. Really makes me reflect on what a fucking horrible game MW2 actually is.
Posted September 13, 2010
avatar
Shalgroth: I don't think games should be shorter to cater for people who simply can't be bothered, or never get around to it.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Oddly enough, I do think they need to do that. However I think they need to d it in the form of difficulty settings, when you play on easy you can blaze through the game in a few hours but on hard they make you do more stuff to achieve the same goals.
As an example, think of a splinter cell game. Fisher has to sneak in, hack a server and sneak out again. On easy, thats just what you have to do but on hard, you have to sneak in, disable security, avoid knocking anyone out because it'll alert the guards when they don't check in, disable physical security around the server, open the firewall so he can upload data, hack the server to send the data back to HQ and closing the firewall again before sneaking back out, leaving everything the way you found it so noone knows you were ever there. That way everyone gets the same basic story but playing on hard means a bit more than just "your bullets are weaker"

Ah, yes. Like the Thief games as well. Harder difficulty means more objectives and conditions. Perhaps there is a point to that, but the question is are the publishers willing to allow the developers time to do something like this again?
When you look at longer games, especially RPGs, they are often rushed out into publication long before things are ironed out properly. Though, I don't think if that will help. I have also noticed in various Steam stats for games, that some people don't even get past training/tutorial missions. When something like that happens, you have to ask yourself, would a shorter and easier game even get that X% past what is essentially the easiest "mission" of all?
Posted September 13, 2010
avatar
frostcircus: Sooooo... I guess the point of this big rant is that the MW2 campaign is stupid, which is something everybody knew anyway. Oh well. At least it still contained plenty of helicopters.
avatar
stonebro: That's pure, distilled mountain-dew epic. Really makes me reflect on what a fucking horrible game MW2 actually is.

I've grown to kind of like it. I really wish they hadn't made the massive tonal switcheroo from the first game, but with the exception of the stupid boat chase the actual gameplay is rock-solid, to the point of possibly being slightly better than its predecessor. SpecOps mode really showcases this.
But yeah, in terms of narrative and story it's one of the worst big-budget games of our time. Absolute fucking nightmare.
Also, DEAR GOD LORD the only thing more staggering than the game's helicopter count is Captain Price's gibberish poetry before the final level. It's just... jaw-dropping. He was such a likeable character in CoD4, and now he's... doing this. That speech is a new low for writing in games.
Posted September 13, 2010
avatar
frostcircus: Sooooo... I guess the point of this big rant is that the MW2 campaign is stupid, which is something everybody knew anyway. Oh well. At least it still contained plenty of helicopters.
avatar
stonebro: That's pure, distilled mountain-dew epic. Really makes me reflect on what a fucking horrible game MW2 actually is.

Lots of helicopters though, you can't say they deprived you of choppers
avatar
frostcircus: Also, DEAR GOD LORD the only thing more staggering than the game's helicopter count is Captain Price's gibberish poetry before the final level. It's just... jaw-dropping. He was such a likeable character in CoD4, and now he's... doing this. That speech is a new low for writing in games.
That must have been so traumatic my mind has blocked it out, I know I finished MW2 but I don't remember poetry
Nor do I wish to, thanks.
Post edited September 13, 2010 by Aliasalpha
Posted September 13, 2010
Seems like a problem of personal taste... I found Bioshock 1 of the EXACT length to be a great game. Shorter, it would have been a pity. Longer, it would certainly have been too long-winded. But its actual length made me enjoy every single second of it.
Bioshock 2 is another matter. It's still very good, but the "magic" works a little less. I couldn't play anything else than Bioshock 1 until I finished it, but Bioshock 2, I play a little, go play something else for a while, then come back on it. Which means I still haven't finished it...
Posted September 13, 2010
avatar
Aliasalpha: As an example, think of a splinter cell game. Fisher has to sneak in, hack a server and sneak out again. On easy, thats just what you have to do but on hard, you have to sneak in, disable security, avoid knocking anyone out because it'll alert the guards when they don't check in, disable physical security around the server, open the firewall so he can upload data, hack the server to send the data back to HQ and closing the firewall again before sneaking back out, leaving everything the way you found it so noone knows you were ever there. That way everyone gets the same basic story but playing on hard means a bit more than just "your bullets are weaker"

That's my favorite kind of difficulty curve too, and one that would fit VERY well with today's accessibility obsession. Make 3 modes, call them standard, advanced and complete, then make standard only require the basics and add more objectives and conditions for the other two. Enemy health stays the same across all of them, I hate shooting some dude 20 times to kill him.
Unfortunately developers do not do this because it takes more effort.
avatar
frostcircus: Sooooo... I guess the point of this big rant is that the MW2 campaign is stupid, which is something everybody knew anyway. Oh well. At least it still contained plenty of helicopters.

It's pretty bat-shit insane how monumentally stupid the story is in MW2, even down to the little moments that make no sense. Price nuked the US to save it, hur dee dur! I was consistently amazed at how they took the immersive military feel of Modern Warfare and threw it in the trash to make the worst Michael Bay move ever.
The gameplay was good though, if you like that sort of game.
Post edited September 13, 2010 by StingingVelvet
Posted September 13, 2010
avatar
StingingVelvet: Looking at the supposedly short and low on content Mafia 2 on Steam's achievement page I see that only 35% of people have completed it so far, 3 weeks from launch.
avatar
Aliasalpha: 8.6% of people have apparently not finished chapter 1! How the hell can that happen? Do thousands of people really buy a game and not at least give it a bit of a go? 11% haven't left the house right after the end of chapter 1 and saved vito's sister
I thought the length of Bioshock 1 was about right, certainly a pleasant break from the super short run & gun shooters but then I approached it as more of an adventure game with shooting than as a shooter with the occasional puzzle. I'm finding 2 a bit too long in places hough it may be the 'more of the same' feeling it has
avatar
stonebro: If Mafia 2 only has a 5-6 hour main campaign then that's also a major disappointment. Developers and publishers should be axed for providing so little content in a $60 release.
You can finish Fallout 1 in 20 minutes, its all a matter of how you play the game. If you sprint through the game on easy without stopping you could probably get it done in 6 hours, I've clocked 18 hours and all I've done is finish it (on hard) and go for a few of the slightly odd achievements I didn't get in the campaign, I'd guess about 15hrs on the actual campaign
avatar
Shalgroth: I don't think games should be shorter to cater for people who simply can't be bothered, or never get around to it.
Oddly enough, I do think they need to do that. However I think they need to d it in the form of difficulty settings, when you play on easy you can blaze through the game in a few hours but on hard they make you do more stuff to achieve the same goals.
As an example, think of a splinter cell game. Fisher has to sneak in, hack a server and sneak out again. On easy, thats just what you have to do but on hard, you have to sneak in, disable security, avoid knocking anyone out because it'll alert the guards when they don't check in, disable physical security around the server, open the firewall so he can upload data, hack the server to send the data back to HQ and closing the firewall again before sneaking back out, leaving everything the way you found it so noone knows you were ever there. That way everyone gets the same basic story but playing on hard means a bit more than just "your bullets are weaker"

that reminded me of a nintendo 64 game, loosely based on the first Mission Impossible Movie. There were two difficulties "Possible" and "Impossible". and the differences bewteen those were like you desribed and you having less heatlh.
too bad the last part of the last level was about shooting and explosions. kinda frustrating.
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Jesus BioShock is Long...(44 posts)(44 posts)
(44 posts)