How long would you WoW players estimate it'd take to get from L1 to L70? 
  I'm not talking about what's the shortest time humanly possible, but 
how many hours as a sort of average ballpark figure would you be looking at?

-- 
[ste]
gamertag: stefcha

In article , imaginey@hotmail.com 
says...
> How long would you WoW players estimate it'd take to get from L1 to L70? 
>   I'm not talking about what's the shortest time humanly possible, but 
> how many hours as a sort of average ballpark figure would you be looking at?
> 
> 

If you have done it before, roughly 240 hours, if this is your first run 
through then possibly closer to 360.

T.

On 2008-07-23 15:21:46 +0100, Trooper  said:

> In article , imaginey@hotmail.com says...
>> How long would you WoW players estimate it'd take to get from L1 to 
>> L70? I'm not talking about what's the shortest time humanly possible, 
>> but how many hours as a sort of average ballpark figure would you be 
>> looking at?
>> 
>> 
> 
> If you have done it before, roughly 240 hours, if this is your first 
> run through then possibly closer to 360.
> 
> T.

Fucking hell! How and/or why do people play MMOs?

-- 

Zo

"Zomoniac"  wrote in message 
news:6ep8csF848qcU2@mid.individual.net...
> On 2008-07-23 15:21:46 +0100, Trooper  
> said:
>
>> In article , imaginey@hotmail.com 
>> says...
>>> How long would you WoW players estimate it'd take to get from L1 to L70? 
>>> I'm not talking about what's the shortest time humanly possible, but how 
>>> many hours as a sort of average ballpark figure would you be looking at?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you have done it before, roughly 240 hours, if this is your first run 
>> through then possibly closer to 360.
>>
>> T.
>
> Fucking hell! How and/or why do people play MMOs?
>

I say the exact same thing abou tanyone who plays a game for more than 15 
hours. It's all relative innit?

Shak

Zomoniac  wrote in news:6ep8csF848qcU2
@mid.individual.net:

> Fucking hell! How and/or why do people play MMOs?

Because they're cleverly designed so that wherever you are in the game, 
there's always the promise of getting a Really Great New Thing if you just 
play a bit longer. The trick, of course, is that when you get the Really 
Great New Thing, it actually turns out to be a bit crap, but by then 
there's a new Really Great New Thing just a few levels away.

On 2008-07-23 18:48:32 +0100, James Sutherland 
 said:

> Zomoniac  wrote in news:6ep8csF848qcU2
> @mid.individual.net:
> 
>> Fucking hell! How and/or why do people play MMOs?
> 
> Because they're cleverly designed so that wherever you are in the game, 
> there's always the promise of getting a Really Great New Thing if you 
> just play a bit longer. The trick, of course, is that when you get the 
> Really Great New Thing, it actually turns out to be a bit crap, but by 
> then there's a new Really Great New Thing just a few levels away.

I've never, ever played one (I've played PSO offline, that's as close 
as I've got), and they don't appeal to me since, try as I might to work 
out why anyone finds RPGs appealing. But it perplexes me beyond all 
belief that people, knowing how deep, long and addictive they are, 
despite there being more brilliant games out at the moment than any 
normal person has time to play, would pay a tenner a month to spend 
every waking non-working minute aiming towards a goal that's all but 
impossible to achieve.


-- 

Zo

On 2008-07-23 18:36:12 +0100, "Shak"  said:

> "Zomoniac"  wrote in message 
> news:6ep8csF848qcU2@mid.individual.net...
>> On 2008-07-23 15:21:46 +0100, Trooper  said:
>> 
>>> In article , imaginey@hotmail.com says...
>>>> How long would you WoW players estimate it'd take to get from L1 to 
>>>> L70? I'm not talking about what's the shortest time humanly possible, 
>>>> but how many hours as a sort of average ballpark figure would you be 
>>>> looking at?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you have done it before, roughly 240 hours, if this is your first 
>>> run through then possibly closer to 360.
>>> 
>>> T.
>> 
>> Fucking hell! How and/or why do people play MMOs?
>> 
> 
> I say the exact same thing abou tanyone who plays a game for more than 
> 15 hours. It's all relative innit?
> 
> Shak

I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum, unless it is an 
exceptionally special game. I played GTA4 for 29 hours to completion, 
and will play it for about that again over the next year or two 
accumulating the other achievements, but I consider it to be the second 
best game ever and it's a very rare exception. The 70+ hours required 
to finish a JRPG is one of the big reasons (that and the fact that I 
think they're shite) that I don't play them.


-- 

Zo

In article , 
the_proper_one@hotmail.com says...
> On 2008-07-23 18:36:12 +0100, "Shak"  said:
> 
> > "Zomoniac"  wrote in message 
> > news:6ep8csF848qcU2@mid.individual.net...
> >> On 2008-07-23 15:21:46 +0100, Trooper  said:
> >> 
> >>> In article , imaginey@hotmail.com says...
> >>>> How long would you WoW players estimate it'd take to get from L1 to 
> >>>> L70? I'm not talking about what's the shortest time humanly possible, 
> >>>> but how many hours as a sort of average ballpark figure would you be 
> >>>> looking at?
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> If you have done it before, roughly 240 hours, if this is your first 
> >>> run through then possibly closer to 360.
> >>> 
> >>> T.
> >> 
> >> Fucking hell! How and/or why do people play MMOs?
> >> 
> > 
> > I say the exact same thing abou tanyone who plays a game for more than 
> > 15 hours. It's all relative innit?
> > 
> > Shak
> 
> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum, unless it is an 
> exceptionally special game. I played GTA4 for 29 hours to completion, 
> and will play it for about that again over the next year or two 
> accumulating the other achievements, but I consider it to be the second 
> best game ever and it's a very rare exception. The 70+ hours required 
> to finish a JRPG is one of the big reasons (that and the fact that I 
> think they're shite) that I don't play them.
> 

Hmmmm... how to put MMO's into terms that Zo will understand?

Imagine a game that has an unlimited number of achievements available 
and everything you do in that game gets you a little bit closer to 
unlocking more of them...

MMOs are certainly pokemon like, there is always new gear to get, new 
skills to unlock, new places to explore, new instances to run, new 
quests to do, more gold to get, more levels to earn, more mobs to kill, 
more skills to learn and teach your pet, more pets to collect, more 
people to group with, more guilds to try out etc....  and if you get 
bored with all that you can try a new profession, or play the market in 
the AH, or play PvP in battlegrounds, or setup an arena team for a bit 
of gladatorial combat... and if you do all that then the next patch is 
only a few weeks away and more will be added, then there is the new 
expansion to get...

You of all people with your achievement whoredom should be able to at 
least see the appeal ;)

T.

On 2008-07-23 19:36:49 +0100, Trooper  said:

> In article , 
> the_proper_one@hotmail.com says...
>> On 2008-07-23 18:36:12 +0100, "Shak"  said:
>> 
>>> "Zomoniac"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6ep8csF848qcU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 2008-07-23 15:21:46 +0100, Trooper  said:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article , imaginey@hotmail.com says...
>>>>>> How long would you WoW players estimate it'd take to get from L1 to 
>>>>>> L70? I'm not talking about what's the shortest time humanly possible, 
>>>>>> but how many hours as a sort of average ballpark figure would you be 
>>>>>> looking at?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you have done it before, roughly 240 hours, if this is your first 
>>>>> run through then possibly closer to 360.
>>>>> 
>>>>> T.
>>>> 
>>>> Fucking hell! How and/or why do people play MMOs?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I say the exact same thing abou tanyone who plays a game for more than 
>>> 15 hours. It's all relative innit?
>>> 
>>> Shak
>> 
>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum, unless it is an 
>> exceptionally special game. I played GTA4 for 29 hours to completion, 
>> and will play it for about that again over the next year or two 
>> accumulating the other achievements, but I consider it to be the second 
>> best game ever and it's a very rare exception. The 70+ hours required 
>> to finish a JRPG is one of the big reasons (that and the fact that I 
>> think they're shite) that I don't play them.
>> 
> 
> Hmmmm... how to put MMO's into terms that Zo will understand?
> 
> Imagine a game that has an unlimited number of achievements available 
> and everything you do in that game gets you a little bit closer to 
> unlocking more of them...
> 
> MMOs are certainly pokemon like, there is always new gear to get, new 
> skills to unlock, new places to explore, new instances to run, new 
> quests to do, more gold to get, more levels to earn, more mobs to kill, 
> more skills to learn and teach your pet, more pets to collect, more 
> people to group with, more guilds to try out etc....  and if you get 
> bored with all that you can try a new profession, or play the market in 
> the AH, or play PvP in battlegrounds, or setup an arena team for a bit 
> of gladatorial combat... and if you do all that then the next patch is 
> only a few weeks away and more will be added, then there is the new 
> expansion to get...
> 
> You of all people with your achievement whoredom should be able to at 
> least see the appeal ;)
> 
> T.

Nope, not at all. Replace 'unlimited' with 'very big' and maybe, but a 
game with no goal just doesn't seem to have a point to me. Even with 
Football Manager, once I've won the Champions League and World Cup I 
start over with a weaker team, and that's the only game I play that 
doesn't have an end, so I invent one to make it seem like there's a 
point.

And I don't do Pokemon either. The whole concept of turn-based warfare 
baffles me. Chess works because of its incredible simplicity. If 
whether or not you could take a piece depended on how much exp or magic 
or whatever you had then it would end up being ludicrous. If I'm going 
to have a fight with a guy I want to hit him repeatedly, not hit him, 
and then stand still and cross my fingers he doesn't hit me harder!

-- 

Zo

Zomoniac wrote:
> 
> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum, unless it is an 
> exceptionally special game. I played GTA4 for 29 hours to completion, 
> and will play it for about that again over the next year or two 
> accumulating the other achievements, but I consider it to be the second 
> best game ever and it's a very rare exception. The 70+ hours required to 
> finish a JRPG is one of the big reasons (that and the fact that I think 
> they're shite) that I don't play them.
> 

I don't think I've /ever/ played a JRPG that took 70+ hours to complete, 
and I've played my fair share.  Longest I ever played will have been 
Xenogears, although I did stop at about 35-40 hours which was fairly 
close to the end by all accounts.

-- 
[ste]

Zomoniac wrote:
> 
> I've never, ever played one (I've played PSO offline, that's as close as 
> I've got), and they don't appeal to me since, try as I might to work out 
> why anyone finds RPGs appealing. But it perplexes me beyond all belief 
> that people, knowing how deep, long and addictive they are, despite 
> there being more brilliant games out at the moment than any normal 
> person has time to play, would pay a tenner a month to spend every 
> waking non-working minute aiming towards a goal that's all but 
> impossible to achieve.
> 

Playing PSO offline only is just plain mental.  The most fun thing about 
the game was playing with people, it's like saying "well, I played 
football on my own for a bit and didn't enjoy it" and then disregarding 
the entire sport as a result.

-- 
[ste]

[ste parker] wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>>
>> I've never, ever played one (I've played PSO offline, that's as close 
>> as I've got), and they don't appeal to me since, try as I might to 
>> work out why anyone finds RPGs appealing. But it perplexes me beyond 
>> all belief that people, knowing how deep, long and addictive they are, 
>> despite there being more brilliant games out at the moment than any 
>> normal person has time to play, would pay a tenner a month to spend 
>> every waking non-working minute aiming towards a goal that's all but 
>> impossible to achieve.
>>
> 
> Playing PSO offline only is just plain mental.  The most fun thing about 
> the game was playing with people, it's like saying "well, I played 
> football on my own for a bit and didn't enjoy it" and then disregarding 
> the entire sport as a result.

I don't count it as one, I'd just call that an RPG, rather than an MMO, 
as it's all I experienced. I've never played an MMO, as there are two 
possible outcomes from doing so:

1. I pay a tenner a month, find it pointless and very, very dull.
2. I pay a tenner a month, get completely hooked and spend my life on it 
and never play any of the million other great games I want to play.

Neither of those scenarios is at all appealing and, since the whole 
premise doesn't appeal anyway and my opinion from experience of offline 
RPGs is that I don't like them, I don't see much point in trying it.


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

In article , 
the_proper_one@hotmail.com says...
> [ste parker] wrote:

> > Playing PSO offline only is just plain mental.  The most fun thing about 
> > the game was playing with people, it's like saying "well, I played 
> > football on my own for a bit and didn't enjoy it" and then disregarding 
> > the entire sport as a result.
> 
> I don't count it as one, I'd just call that an RPG, rather than an MMO, 
> as it's all I experienced. I've never played an MMO, as there are two 
> possible outcomes from doing so:
> 
> 1. I pay a tenner a month, find it pointless and very, very dull.

Quite possibly, many do :)

> 2. I pay a tenner a month, get completely hooked and spend my life on it 
> and never play any of the million other great games I want to play.
> 

Errr.... <shuffles feet>


> Neither of those scenarios is at all appealing and, since the whole 
> premise doesn't appeal anyway and my opinion from experience of offline 
> RPGs is that I don't like them, I don't see much point in trying it.
> 

Fair enough.  I did actually spend a good 3 hours on other games last, 
one of which was Monopoly on my phone (which rocks, it's the full 
monopoly game, on a phone!).  The other was Fairway Solitaire, which is 
stupidly addictive! ;)

<puts gamer hat and badge into cupboard and closes the door>

T.

Zomoniac wrote:

> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,

That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? If 
it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're fed up 
or you've completed it.


deKay
-- 
  Lofi Gaming - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk
  Gaming Diary - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary
  Blog - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/blog
  My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that

deKay wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>
>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>
> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time?
> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're
> fed up or you've completed it.
>
>
> deKay

Isn't it just as daft as your 25 quid thing?  If the game is ace you spend 
more than 25 quid.  If it's not ace you wait till its a tenner.

And yes I fully expect you to come back with something like 'but how do I 
know if its ace until I buy it'.  Thats wot demos, reviews and peers are 
for.

-- 

WCZ

deKay wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
> 
>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
> 
> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? If 
> it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're fed up 
> or you've completed it.

Because I have a finite amount of time. If I had a single 50-hour RPG 
that I would rate 9/10, and a pile of 5 other games about 10 hours long 
that I would rate 9/10, it seems to me to make more sense to play the 
pile of five. GTA4 was an 11/10 game and so was exempt.


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

On Jul 23, 9:13 pm, "[ste parker]"  wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>
> > I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum, unless it is an
> > exceptionally special game. I played GTA4 for 29 hours to completion,
> > and will play it for about that again over the next year or two
> > accumulating the other achievements, but I consider it to be the second
> > best game ever and it's a very rare exception. The 70 hours required to
> > finish a JRPG is one of the big reasons (that and the fact that I think
> > they're shite) that I don't play them.
>
> I don't think I've /ever/ played a JRPG that took 70 hours to complete,
> and I've played my fair share.  Longest I ever played will have been
> Xenogears, although I did stop at about 35-40 hours which was fairly
> close to the end by all accounts.

I spent 100 hours playing FF12, and I didn't even finish all the
sidequests in that, LOL.  And as for Disgaea... #_#

[ste parker] wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>>
>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum, unless it is an 
>> exceptionally special game. I played GTA4 for 29 hours to completion, 
>> and will play it for about that again over the next year or two 
>> accumulating the other achievements, but I consider it to be the 
>> second best game ever and it's a very rare exception. The 70+ hours 
>> required to finish a JRPG is one of the big reasons (that and the fact 
>> that I think they're shite) that I don't play them.
>>
> 
> I don't think I've /ever/ played a JRPG that took 70+ hours to complete, 
> and I've played my fair share.  Longest I ever played will have been 
> Xenogears, although I did stop at about 35-40 hours which was fairly 
> close to the end by all accounts.
> 
I was under the impression a fair few of the FF games (7-12 at least) 
were around that time, along with the DQ games?


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

Zomoniac wrote:
> [ste parker] wrote:
>>
>> I don't think I've /ever/ played a JRPG that took 70+ hours to 
>> complete, and I've played my fair share.  Longest I ever played will 
>> have been Xenogears, although I did stop at about 35-40 hours which 
>> was fairly close to the end by all accounts.
>>
> I was under the impression a fair few of the FF games (7-12 at least) 
> were around that time, along with the DQ games?
> 

I suppose they /can/ be that long, if you spend endless hours pissing 
around with side quests.  Looking at RPGamer.com reviews, 7 is marked as 
lasting anywhere from 20-60 hours, 9 is 10-70 hours.  So, there's 
evidently a lot of stuff you don't really have to do if you don't want. 
Whilst I didn't rip through either (or finish either to be honest, but 
again I wasn't that far off based on FAQs I read), I was a lot nearer 
the lower end of the playtime rather than the high end.

-- 
[ste]
gamertag: stefcha

gg@nabudis.com wrote:
> 
> I spent 100+ hours playing FF12, and I didn't even finish all the
> sidequests in that, LOL.  

Wish I had the time/guts to do that.
My second attempt at FFXII will hopefully end better than the first, 
which I stopped at about 40% into the game, for now apparent reason. Or 
was it because I became bored?
The most time I've ever spent on a JRPG is probably FFX, around 80-90 
hours I think. Time well spent though.


qt

Zomoniac wrote:
> deKay wrote:
>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>
>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? 
>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're 
>> fed up or you've completed it.
> 
> Because I have a finite amount of time. If I had a single 50-hour RPG 
> that I would rate 9/10, and a pile of 5 other games about 10 hours long 
> that I would rate 9/10, it seems to me to make more sense to play the 
> pile of five. GTA4 was an 11/10 game and so was exempt.
> 

Your mind seems to work in digital finites. Life is a more analogue
experience.

  -Kevin.

Gunther Gloop wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>> deKay wrote:
>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>>
>>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? 
>>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're 
>>> fed up or you've completed it.
>>
>> Because I have a finite amount of time. If I had a single 50-hour RPG 
>> that I would rate 9/10, and a pile of 5 other games about 10 hours 
>> long that I would rate 9/10, it seems to me to make more sense to play 
>> the pile of five. GTA4 was an 11/10 game and so was exempt.
>>
> 
> Your mind seems to work in digital finites. Life is a more analogue
> experience.

I'm just trying to be efficient. My time is finite.



-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

WCZ wrote:
> deKay wrote:
>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time?
>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're
>> fed up or you've completed it.
>>
>>
>> deKay
> 
> Isn't it just as daft as your 25 quid thing?  If the game is ace you spend 
> more than 25 quid.  If it's not ace you wait till its a tenner.

It is nothing like it. My £25 limit is to reduce the number of games I 
buy and don't play, to reduce the amount of money I spend on games, and 
to (in a very small way, yes) tell companies that no game is worth more 
than £25.

> And yes I fully expect you to come back with something like 'but how do I 
> know if its ace until I buy it'.  Thats wot demos, reviews and peers are 
> for.

If a game is ace, I spend less than £25. That is all.

What Zo is doing, is buying games then deciding "I will only allow 
myself *this* much pleasure". What I am doing is allowing myself as much 
pleasure as the games will provide - I just might have to wait a month 
before they can provide it (although usually, it's a couple of days or a 
week at most).

deKay
-- 
  Lofi Gaming - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk
  Gaming Diary - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary
  Blog - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/blog
  My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:55:02 +0100, "[ste parker]"
 wrote:

>Zomoniac wrote:
>> [ste parker] wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think I've /ever/ played a JRPG that took 70+ hours to 
>>> complete, and I've played my fair share.  Longest I ever played will 
>>> have been Xenogears, although I did stop at about 35-40 hours which 
>>> was fairly close to the end by all accounts.
>>>
>> I was under the impression a fair few of the FF games (7-12 at least) 
>> were around that time, along with the DQ games?
>> 
>
>I suppose they /can/ be that long, if you spend endless hours pissing 
>around with side quests.  Looking at RPGamer.com reviews, 7 is marked as 
>lasting anywhere from 20-60 hours, 9 is 10-70 hours.  So, there's 
>evidently a lot of stuff you don't really have to do if you don't want. 
>Whilst I didn't rip through either (or finish either to be honest, but 
>again I wasn't that far off based on FAQs I read), I was a lot nearer 
>the lower end of the playtime rather than the high end.

i dunno how anyone could finish 7 in 20 hours.

i'm playing through it on PSP and have clocked up about 15/16 hours
and am still only on disc 1 of 3!
-- 

http://bykerblog.wordpress.com/ - My thrilling new blog
XBL Tag: Chrisflynnuk

deKay wrote:

> no game is worth more than £25.

That is clearly a lie.

>> And yes I fully expect you to come back with something like 'but how 
>> do I know if its ace until I buy it'.  Thats wot demos, reviews and 
>> peers are for.
> 
> If a game is ace, I spend less than £25. That is all.
> 
> What Zo is doing, is buying games then deciding "I will only allow 
> myself *this* much pleasure". What I am doing is allowing myself as much 
> pleasure as the games will provide - I just might have to wait a month 
> before they can provide it (although usually, it's a couple of days or a 
> week at most).

No, Zo likes to experience lots of great games of varying types, and if 
one game is going to stop me playing all the other equally good game 
releases for the next 3 months I can't justify the time spent at the 
expense of the more varied but equally good enjoyment I would get from 
playing a greater selection of other games. Plus I rent, so it's better 
that way.



-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

Zomoniac wrote:
> Plus I rent, so it's better that way.

It took me a while of wondering what your accommodation arrangements had 
to do with things before it clicked.

-- 
Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

Zomoniac wrote:
> Gunther Gloop wrote:
>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>> deKay wrote:
>>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>>>
>>>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game 
>>>> time? If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until 
>>>> you're fed up or you've completed it.
>>>
>>> Because I have a finite amount of time. If I had a single 50-hour RPG 
>>> that I would rate 9/10, and a pile of 5 other games about 10 hours 
>>> long that I would rate 9/10, it seems to me to make more sense to 
>>> play the pile of five. GTA4 was an 11/10 game and so was exempt.
>>>
>>
>> Your mind seems to work in digital finites. Life is a more analogue
>> experience.
> 
> I'm just trying to be efficient. My time is finite.
> 

I'm not one for RPGs much myself, much for that reason, but still, there 
can be a far greater, deeper emotional impact when something finishes 
that you have a bigger/ longer investment in.

I don't think any videogame (that I've heard of at least) has had the 
depth, insight and impact of a truly great book, but still I recognise 
that if it's gonna happen it will surely come from an RPG or similar.

So while I see your point and agree with it in practice, I can't 
subscribe to the fixed ideology.


The main thing that bothers me about RPGs and similar, is that you can't 
leave them alone for 2 - 4 weeks and expect to plonk yourself back into 
it. I do like the idea of long games, but I don't like the idea of long 
games that must be played continuously for a number of consecutive 
weeks/months. A lot of them now have reminders so you don't get lost, 
but still I would often find myself wondering "why _do_ I need to bring 
a bottle to the guy in the village over the mountain?" or "didn't that 
statue used to be a woman?" or even after leaving it for weeks, do I 
actually still _care_ that the fish people are stuck in ice and why 
should I bother re-learning the 5 steps I've already made and 
discovering the next 6 in order to rescue them? ...Ah yes, in the hope 
they might give me a bottle to bring to the next village, which will 
first have to be... etc..

  -Kevin.

Zomoniac wrote:
> 
> No, Zo likes to experience lots of great games of varying types, and if 
> one game is going to stop me playing all the other equally good game 
> releases for the next 3 months I can't justify the time spent at the 
> expense of the more varied but equally good enjoyment I would get from 
> playing a greater selection of other games. Plus I rent, so it's better 
> that way.
> 

If it's equally good enjoyment then it shouldn't matter what you play. 
It seems that what you're suggesting is that because it's not as varied 
the enjoyment /isn't/ equal.

-- 
[ste]
gamertag: stefcha

In article <004c64b4$0$4168$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Gunther Gloop   wrote:
>
>The main thing that bothers me about RPGs and similar, is that you can't 
>leave them alone for 2 - 4 weeks and expect to plonk yourself back into 
>it. I do like the idea of long games, but I don't like the idea of long 
>games that must be played continuously for a number of consecutive 
>weeks/months. 

Episodic content eases this burden quite a bit. The reason I'm willing to 
pay for a Phantasy Star Universe subscription is because the story 
fascinates me. Also, each three-hour session must logically wrap up a 
number of loose ends and be a complete story in and of itself. You can't 
really save or pause in the middle of an episode, so you're always left at 
the end of it hungering for the next one, but not confused about where you 
left off or why. Interestingly, the two offline games also followed this 
structure and benefitted from those strengths.

-KKC, who is staying out of the whole game length debate, if only to avoid 
making jokes about how everyone likes them long except for Zo. 
-- 
-- Home of the amphibious hybrids! Buy your next car from  | kendrick
 Innsmouth Auto, on Highway 128 just before the old pier.  | @ io.com
 Where our goal is to sell you a 'Dagon' good automobile!  |

[ste parker] wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>>
>> No, Zo likes to experience lots of great games of varying types, and 
>> if one game is going to stop me playing all the other equally good 
>> game releases for the next 3 months I can't justify the time spent at 
>> the expense of the more varied but equally good enjoyment I would get 
>> from playing a greater selection of other games. Plus I rent, so it's 
>> better that way.
>>
> 
> If it's equally good enjoyment then it shouldn't matter what you play. 
> It seems that what you're suggesting is that because it's not as varied 
> the enjoyment /isn't/ equal.

Maybe it's the gamerscore then.


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

Gunther Gloop wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>> Gunther Gloop wrote:
>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>> deKay wrote:
>>>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game 
>>>>> time? If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until 
>>>>> you're fed up or you've completed it.
>>>>
>>>> Because I have a finite amount of time. If I had a single 50-hour 
>>>> RPG that I would rate 9/10, and a pile of 5 other games about 10 
>>>> hours long that I would rate 9/10, it seems to me to make more sense 
>>>> to play the pile of five. GTA4 was an 11/10 game and so was exempt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your mind seems to work in digital finites. Life is a more analogue
>>> experience.
>>
>> I'm just trying to be efficient. My time is finite.
>>
> 
> I'm not one for RPGs much myself, much for that reason, but still, there 
> can be a far greater, deeper emotional impact when something finishes 
> that you have a bigger/ longer investment in.
> 
> I don't think any videogame (that I've heard of at least) has had the 
> depth, insight and impact of a truly great book, but still I recognise 
> that if it's gonna happen it will surely come from an RPG or similar.

I absolutely do not think that will be the case. Because the moment I'm 
walking down a street and I'm teleported by nothing to take it in turns 
with a dragon that wasn't even there five seconds ago to take numbers 
off each other completely ruins any attempt at all to tell a serious 
story. Potentially with something like Oblivion or Mass Effect, that's 
basically an action-adventure with real-time combat that just happens to 
have levelling up, but the whole mechanic of JRPGs is just so ludicrous 
that it surely that must remove any sense of serious storytelling?

I'm still of the opinion that cut-scenes are the way to go, at least at 
the moment, but they ultimately detract from immersion and are flawed. 
The Half-Life technique is interesting and has potential but I don't 
think they're quite good enough yet. But most games, even supposedly 
strong story-driven games (so I'm told) don't appear to have a story. 
Mass Effect looked like it might've had potential but I only played a 
few hours before getting bored.


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

"deKay" <andyk@deleteme.lofi-gaming.nospam.org.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:puqll5-389.ln1@dekay.sytes.net...
> Zomoniac wrote:
>
>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>
> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? If 
> it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're fed up or 
> you've completed it.
>

I'm sure its not hard and fast. I certainly played MGS4 for over 15 hours. 
And you missed the bit where Zo played GTA4 for over 12 too.

Perhaps it's an average guess as to when you'll get fed up - ie if you're 
not enjoying it by then then you won't at all.

Shak

"deKay" <andyk@deleteme.lofi-gaming.nospam.org.uk.invalid> wrote in message 
news:bi1ml5-pr9.ln1@dekay.sytes.net...
> WCZ wrote:
>> deKay wrote:
>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time?
>>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're
>>> fed up or you've completed it.
>>>
>>>
>>> deKay
>>
>> Isn't it just as daft as your 25 quid thing?  If the game is ace you 
>> spend more than 25 quid.  If it's not ace you wait till its a tenner.
>
> It is nothing like it. My £25 limit is to reduce the number of games I buy 
> and don't play, to reduce the amount of money I spend on games, and to (in 
> a very small way, yes) tell companies that no game is worth more than £25.
>

Not sure why time can't be as much a resource as money. All your arguments 
hold using hours instead of money.

Shak

Zomoniac wrote:
> [ste parker] wrote:
>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>
>>> No, Zo likes to experience lots of great games of varying types, and 
>>> if one game is going to stop me playing all the other equally good 
>>> game releases for the next 3 months I can't justify the time spent at 
>>> the expense of the more varied but equally good enjoyment I would get 
>>> from playing a greater selection of other games. Plus I rent, so it's 
>>> better that way.
>>>
>>
>> If it's equally good enjoyment then it shouldn't matter what you play. 
>> It seems that what you're suggesting is that because it's not as 
>> varied the enjoyment /isn't/ equal.
> 
> Maybe it's the gamerscore then.
> 
> 
I think, in your defence Zo, you're using a number of hours to complete 
metric to explain away the fact that you simply don't really like RPGs. 
The amount of time they take to play may be an offputting factor, but 
the fact that you don't really like them is the clincher surely?

I bet you put that length of time into the likes of Guitar Hero or Rock 
Band without thinking about it because you like the gameplay mechanic, 
but that may be considered an equally simple, repetitive gameplay style 
to what people absorbed with the likes of WOW deal with.

Shak wrote:
> "deKay" <andyk@deleteme.lofi-gaming.nospam.org.uk.invalid> wrote in 
> message news:puqll5-389.ln1@dekay.sytes.net...
>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>
>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? 
>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're 
>> fed up or you've completed it.
>>
> 
> I'm sure its not hard and fast. I certainly played MGS4 for over 15 
> hours. And you missed the bit where Zo played GTA4 for over 12 too.
> 
> Perhaps it's an average guess as to when you'll get fed up - ie if 
> you're not enjoying it by then then you won't at all.
> 
Or, to put it another way, if the game isn't interesting after 12 hours 
it's broken. Subjective yes, but then you're playing the game, no-one else.

However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite 
succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things in 
his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one 
instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an 
arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all sitting 
here going "no, that can't be right"

He just doesn't like RPGs and JRPGs in particular. That's fine with me, 
I don't like very much for broadly similar reasons. :)

DBSnappa wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>> [ste parker] wrote:
>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, Zo likes to experience lots of great games of varying types, and 
>>>> if one game is going to stop me playing all the other equally good 
>>>> game releases for the next 3 months I can't justify the time spent 
>>>> at the expense of the more varied but equally good enjoyment I would 
>>>> get from playing a greater selection of other games. Plus I rent, so 
>>>> it's better that way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it's equally good enjoyment then it shouldn't matter what you 
>>> play. It seems that what you're suggesting is that because it's not 
>>> as varied the enjoyment /isn't/ equal.
>>
>> Maybe it's the gamerscore then.
>>
>>
> I think, in your defence Zo, you're using a number of hours to complete 
> metric to explain away the fact that you simply don't really like RPGs. 
> The amount of time they take to play may be an offputting factor, but 
> the fact that you don't really like them is the clincher surely?
> 
> I bet you put that length of time into the likes of Guitar Hero or Rock 
> Band without thinking about it because you like the gameplay mechanic, 
> but that may be considered an equally simple, repetitive gameplay style 
> to what people absorbed with the likes of WOW deal with.

All of this is probably true. Certainly in comparison with a standard 
RPG. Not so much with MMOs, as I wouldn't play GH/RB in single-player 
anywhere near as much if I didn't know it would end. When I've finished 
it, it will rarely be played alone. A game should, for me, have a goal. 
To most people WoW seems to be Second Life with orc killing. And I can't 
see the point in Second Life. Or orc killing.


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

DBSnappa wrote:
> Shak wrote:
>> "deKay" <andyk@deleteme.lofi-gaming.nospam.org.uk.invalid> wrote in 
>> message news:puqll5-389.ln1@dekay.sytes.net...
>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>>
>>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? 
>>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're 
>>> fed up or you've completed it.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure its not hard and fast. I certainly played MGS4 for over 15 
>> hours. And you missed the bit where Zo played GTA4 for over 12 too.
>>
>> Perhaps it's an average guess as to when you'll get fed up - ie if 
>> you're not enjoying it by then then you won't at all.
>>
> Or, to put it another way, if the game isn't interesting after 12 hours 
> it's broken. Subjective yes, but then you're playing the game, no-one else.
> 
> However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite 
> succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things in 
> his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one 
> instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an 
> arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all sitting 
> here going "no, that can't be right"
> 
> He just doesn't like RPGs and JRPGs in particular. That's fine with me, 
> I don't like very much for broadly similar reasons. :)

When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if 
you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the 
other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy, 
Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in 
another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great 
games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing 
through 2 and missing out on 8?

And please nobody (meaning deKay) turn up to say "x isn't a great game", 
it's irrelevant to the point.


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>
>>> I've never, ever played one (I've played PSO offline, that's as close 
>>> as I've got), and they don't appeal to me since, try as I might to 
>>> work out why anyone finds RPGs appealing. But it perplexes me beyond 
>>> all belief that people, knowing how deep, long and addictive they are, 
>>> despite there being more brilliant games out at the moment than any 
>>> normal person has time to play, would pay a tenner a month to spend 
>>> every waking non-working minute aiming towards a goal that's all but 
>>> impossible to achieve.

I played WoW last night. Why? Well no-one else was online so it wasn't
the social aspect.

The reason I played was because I'd spent all day working hard (job), and
then when I got home spent all evening working hard again (nursery).
By 21:30 I finally stopped and decided I wanted to play a game to
unwind.

I was so knackered that the last thing I wanted to do was defend a
Mars base from demon attack. I wasn't keen on the idea of driving a
car at over 100 miles per hour through a gruelling course. Blasting
off to defeat the Bydo empire seemed like far too much work.

WoW lets me operate in a videogame world where I can adjust the
difficulty to my preferred level as and when I choose.

-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

In article ,
Zomoniac   wrote:
>DBSnappa wrote:
>> 
>> However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite 
>> succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things in 
>> his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one 
>> instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an 
>> arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all sitting 
>> here going "no, that can't be right"
>
>When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
>much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
>possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
>know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if 
>you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the 
>other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy, 
>Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in 
>another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great 
>games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing 
>through 2 and missing out on 8?

Your maths assume that all games are equal and that each single game is an 
indivisible unit of measurement. To work in your theoretical situation 
here, to me Oblivion is ten times the game that Bioshock is and exceeds 
all those other games by a similar proportion. Choosing to play that other 
pile and leaving Oblivion behind means you've missed out on more; the 
tragedy of the Grey Prince, the continuing saga of the secret order of the 
Blades, the subtle and clever allusions to the coterminal story unfolding 
in Morrowind, and so on. 

Where you value unique experience, I value narrative. I prefer to have 
missed out on those other games and feel I'm ahead of the curve as a 
result. In fact, looking at the actual list there I see that I've only 
played Mario Galaxy of the eight of them.

-KKC, who is cheerfully deferring discussion of thematic repetition in 
long-running game series.
-- 
-- Home of the amphibious hybrids! Buy your next car from  | kendrick
 Innsmouth Auto, on Highway 128 just before the old pier.  | @ io.com
 Where our goal is to sell you a 'Dagon' good automobile!  |

Zomoniac wrote:
> 
> When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
> much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
> possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
> know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if 
> you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the 
> other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy, 
> Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in 
> another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great 
> games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing 
> through 2 and missing out on 8?
> 
> And please nobody (meaning deKay) turn up to say "x isn't a great game", 
> it's irrelevant to the point.
> 

But then how do you define exactly how much time you put into something 
to say "right, tried that great game, next!".  It just all seems a bit 
conveyor belt, and doesn't take into account that some games just are 
longer than others.  You can't say for sure that every game /will/ take 
10 hours to complete, but at the same time if you're only going to give 
a game x hours then was it really good enough in the first place?  And 
if you're measuring it on enjoyment, then if you really are enjoying it 
then it's not a bad thing to stick it out for longer on one game.

And as for the schedule being full of releases, again, there are so many 
great releases that it's simply not possible to play them all (the 
amount of DC and GC games I still have virtually unplayed lay testament 
to that, and I pretty much skipped the PS2 entirely), unless you're 
going to give them a brief try - but what's the point of doing that? 
I'd rather put more time into less games, invariably that hasn't 
happened in the past but I'm getting more "completion" from 360 than 
ever before and I'm well behind the loop as a result.  But, that doesn't 
really bother me and I don't think it should either.  For example, I'm 
only a small way into Gears, but should I drop it just because Gears 2 
comes out?  I'm certainly not going to, I'm coming to think that the 
sheer amount of superb releases is almost a bad thing as there's just no 
way you can do them all justice.

-- 
[ste]
gamertag: stefcha

In article , 
the_proper_one@hotmail.com says...
> DBSnappa wrote:
> > Shak wrote:
> >> "deKay" <andyk@deleteme.lofi-gaming.nospam.org.uk.invalid> wrote in 
> >> message news:puqll5-389.ln1@dekay.sytes.net...
> >>> Zomoniac wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
> >>>
> >>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? 
> >>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're 
> >>> fed up or you've completed it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm sure its not hard and fast. I certainly played MGS4 for over 15 
> >> hours. And you missed the bit where Zo played GTA4 for over 12 too.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it's an average guess as to when you'll get fed up - ie if 
> >> you're not enjoying it by then then you won't at all.
> >>
> > Or, to put it another way, if the game isn't interesting after 12 hours 
> > it's broken. Subjective yes, but then you're playing the game, no-one else.
> > 
> > However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite 
> > succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things in 
> > his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one 
> > instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an 
> > arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all sitting 
> > here going "no, that can't be right"
> > 
> > He just doesn't like RPGs and JRPGs in particular. That's fine with me, 
> > I don't like very much for broadly similar reasons. :)
> 
> When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
> much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
> possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
> know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time.

And that is where we completely differ, I never even consider how long a 
game takes to play, or whether I will complete it when I start.  All I 
consider is whether I fancy playing it or not. :)

T.

[ste parker] wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>>
>> When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
>> much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
>> possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
>> know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if 
>> you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over 
>> the other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario 
>> Galaxy, Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 
>> and COD4 in another, does it not make sense to play through the pile 
>> of 8 great games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than 
>> playing through 2 and missing out on 8?
>>
>> And please nobody (meaning deKay) turn up to say "x isn't a great 
>> game", it's irrelevant to the point.
>>
> 
> But then how do you define exactly how much time you put into something 
> to say "right, tried that great game, next!".  It just all seems a bit 
> conveyor belt, and doesn't take into account that some games just are 
> longer than others.  You can't say for sure that every game /will/ take 
> 10 hours to complete, but at the same time if you're only going to give 
> a game x hours then was it really good enough in the first place?  And 
> if you're measuring it on enjoyment, then if you really are enjoying it 
> then it's not a bad thing to stick it out for longer on one game.

No, I don't do that. If I'm enjoying a game I thought would take 10 and 
it takes 15 then so be it, I'll still finish it. But I'll read reviews 
before purchasing stuff, and if I know prior to buying that getting one 
game is going to prevent me from playing three other games out at the 
same time that I'm equally keen on, then that's the one that will make way.



-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

Zomoniac wrote:
> DBSnappa wrote:
>> Shak wrote:
>>> "deKay" <andyk@deleteme.lofi-gaming.nospam.org.uk.invalid> wrote in 
>>> message news:puqll5-389.ln1@dekay.sytes.net...
>>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>>>
>>>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game 
>>>> time? If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until 
>>>> you're fed up or you've completed it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure its not hard and fast. I certainly played MGS4 for over 15 
>>> hours. And you missed the bit where Zo played GTA4 for over 12 too.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's an average guess as to when you'll get fed up - ie if 
>>> you're not enjoying it by then then you won't at all.
>>>
>> Or, to put it another way, if the game isn't interesting after 12 
>> hours it's broken. Subjective yes, but then you're playing the game, 
>> no-one else.
>>
>> However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite 
>> succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things 
>> in his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one 
>> instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an 
>> arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all 
>> sitting here going "no, that can't be right"
>>
>> He just doesn't like RPGs and JRPGs in particular. That's fine with 
>> me, I don't like very much for broadly similar reasons. :)
> 
> When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
> much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
> possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
> know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if 
> you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the 
> other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy, 
> Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in 
> another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great 
> games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing 
> through 2 and missing out on 8?
> 
It makes sense to me, but I'm not arguing with you over that. In fact I 
don't think I'm arguing with you at all. Choices, eh!

If we were all free of real life commitments I still wouldn't play JRPGs 
or many RPGs as I don't really like them - my point was that you used 
the time metric as hard and fast rule for game choices and I don't 
necessarily agree that is a hard and fast rule for me or you. As I said, 
I think you would gladly play a game for 30+ hours if you liked it, I 
just think you don't like RPGs.

Kendrick Kerwin Chua wrote:
> In article ,
> Zomoniac   wrote:
>> DBSnappa wrote:
>>> However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite 
>>> succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things in 
>>> his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one 
>>> instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an 
>>> arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all sitting 
>>> here going "no, that can't be right"
>> When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
>> much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
>> possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
>> know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if 
>> you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the 
>> other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy, 
>> Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in 
>> another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great 
>> games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing 
>> through 2 and missing out on 8?
> 
> Your maths assume that all games are equal and that each single game is an 
> indivisible unit of measurement. To work in your theoretical situation 
> here, to me Oblivion is ten times the game that Bioshock is and exceeds 
> all those other games by a similar proportion. Choosing to play that other 
> pile and leaving Oblivion behind means you've missed out on more; the 
> tragedy of the Grey Prince, the continuing saga of the secret order of the 
> Blades, the subtle and clever allusions to the coterminal story unfolding 
> in Morrowind, and so on. 
> 
> Where you value unique experience, I value narrative. I prefer to have 
> missed out on those other games and feel I'm ahead of the curve as a 
> result. In fact, looking at the actual list there I see that I've only 
> played Mario Galaxy of the eight of them.

I also value narrative, but I think Halo, Bioshock and Heavenly Sword do 
a better job of telling a better story in <8 hours each than Oblivion 
does in 100. But that's not really relevant.

Yes, there are ultimately exceptions, and I'm not saying all things are 
equal, I'm merely hypothesising. GTA4 was my exception, although it 
fortunately came during a release lull. FIFA 08 would be a better 
example, which occupied vast amounts of my time between October of last 
year and April of this year. But unlike an RPG or any other kind of 50+ 
hour story-driven game, it's very easy to put to the side for a few 
weeks when a new game comes out and resume without having forgotten 
where I am or what I'm doing.

I'm not saying I don't enjoy them or appreciate them, I'm just trying to 
explain why I don't think that when most epic games turn up, 
particularly in the September-January window, I can justify missing out 
on everything else for one game.


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

Toby Newman wrote:
>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>> I've never, ever played one (I've played PSO offline, that's as close 
>>>> as I've got), and they don't appeal to me since, try as I might to 
>>>> work out why anyone finds RPGs appealing. But it perplexes me beyond 
>>>> all belief that people, knowing how deep, long and addictive they are, 
>>>> despite there being more brilliant games out at the moment than any 
>>>> normal person has time to play, would pay a tenner a month to spend 
>>>> every waking non-working minute aiming towards a goal that's all but 
>>>> impossible to achieve.
> 
> I played WoW last night. Why? Well no-one else was online so it wasn't
> the social aspect.
> 
> The reason I played was because I'd spent all day working hard (job), and
> then when I got home spent all evening working hard again (nursery).
> By 21:30 I finally stopped and decided I wanted to play a game to
> unwind.
> 
> I was so knackered that the last thing I wanted to do was defend a
> Mars base from demon attack. I wasn't keen on the idea of driving a
> car at over 100 miles per hour through a gruelling course. Blasting
> off to defeat the Bydo empire seemed like far too much work.
> 
> WoW lets me operate in a videogame world where I can adjust the
> difficulty to my preferred level as and when I choose.
> 

Fair enough. I use Endless Ocean for that purpose and it doesn't charge 
me a monthly sub :)


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

Zomoniac wrote:
> 
> No, I don't do that. If I'm enjoying a game I thought would take 10 and 
> it takes 15 then so be it, I'll still finish it. But I'll read reviews 
> before purchasing stuff, and if I know prior to buying that getting one 
> game is going to prevent me from playing three other games out at the 
> same time that I'm equally keen on, then that's the one that will make way.
> 

That's the point, you're /not/ equally keen on them then, for that 
reason.  If you did enjoy them all equally then it wouldn't be an issue, 
but the fact that you're concerned playing one game eats up too much 
time is making it less enjoyable, and so disposable.

-- 
[ste]
gamertag: stefcha

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:51:48 +0100, Zomoniac
 wrote:

>DBSnappa wrote:
>> Shak wrote:
>>> "deKay" <andyk@deleteme.lofi-gaming.nospam.org.uk.invalid> wrote in 
>>> message news:puqll5-389.ln1@dekay.sytes.net...
>>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>>>
>>>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? 
>>>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're 
>>>> fed up or you've completed it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure its not hard and fast. I certainly played MGS4 for over 15 
>>> hours. And you missed the bit where Zo played GTA4 for over 12 too.
>>>
>>> Perhaps it's an average guess as to when you'll get fed up - ie if 
>>> you're not enjoying it by then then you won't at all.
>>>
>> Or, to put it another way, if the game isn't interesting after 12 hours 
>> it's broken. Subjective yes, but then you're playing the game, no-one else.
>> 
>> However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite 
>> succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things in 
>> his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one 
>> instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an 
>> arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all sitting 
>> here going "no, that can't be right"
>> 
>> He just doesn't like RPGs and JRPGs in particular. That's fine with me, 
>> I don't like very much for broadly similar reasons. :)
>
>When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
>much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
>possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
>know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if 
>you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the 
>other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy, 
>Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in 
>another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great 
>games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing 
>through 2 and missing out on 8?
>
>And please nobody (meaning deKay) turn up to say "x isn't a great game", 
>it's irrelevant to the point.

i don't see why you feel the need to play them now though, i mean just
cos a great game may be released tomorrow, you don't have to rush out
and buy it just because it's there on the shelf!
-- 

http://bykerblog.wordpress.com/ - My thrilling new blog
XBL Tag: Chrisflynnuk

"Kendrick Kerwin Chua"  wrote in message 
news:RIOdnX7CRpQe4BXVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In article ,
> Zomoniac   wrote:
>>DBSnappa wrote:
>>>
>>> However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite
>>> succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things in
>>> his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one
>>> instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an
>>> arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all sitting
>>> here going "no, that can't be right"
>>
>>When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so
>>much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as
>>possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I
>>know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if
>>you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the
>>other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy,
>>Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in
>>another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great
>>games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing
>>through 2 and missing out on 8?
>
> Your maths assume that all games are equal and that each single game is an
> indivisible unit of measurement. To work in your theoretical situation
> here, to me Oblivion is ten times the game that Bioshock is and exceeds
> all those other games by a similar proportion. Choosing to play that other
> pile and leaving Oblivion behind means you've missed out on more; the
> tragedy of the Grey Prince, the continuing saga of the secret order of the
> Blades, the subtle and clever allusions to the coterminal story unfolding
> in Morrowind, and so on.
>

But what's wrong with that? Let's go back to deKay's money (which I share 
myself) thing, which everyone seems to understand. If a game is super great 
unmissable, then surely 26 quid is a fair price to pay for it?

If we had an infinite amount of money, we wouldn't set these arbitrary 
limits. Similarly I don't see the harm in setting ballpark time limits 
either - the assumption here is that there's other just as important things 
to spend your time (or money) on.

It's not like we'd stop playing games once its time is up and then just 
twiddle our thumbs.

Shak

In article <g6a6u5$p88$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
Shak  wrote:
>"Kendrick Kerwin Chua"  wrote in message 
>news:RIOdnX7CRpQe4BXVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> Your maths assume that all games are equal and that each single game is an
>> indivisible unit of measurement. To work in your theoretical situation
>> here, to me Oblivion is ten times the game that Bioshock is and exceeds
>> all those other games by a similar proportion. Choosing to play that other
>> pile and leaving Oblivion behind means you've missed out on more; the
>> tragedy of the Grey Prince, the continuing saga of the secret order of the
>> Blades, the subtle and clever allusions to the coterminal story unfolding
>> in Morrowind, and so on.
>
>But what's wrong with that? Let's go back to deKay's money (which I share 
>myself) thing, which everyone seems to understand. If a game is super great 
>unmissable, then surely 26 quid is a fair price to pay for it?
>
>If we had an infinite amount of money, we wouldn't set these arbitrary 
>limits. Similarly I don't see the harm in setting ballpark time limits 
>either - the assumption here is that there's other just as important things 
>to spend your time (or money) on.

I was attempting to argue that an hour spent with Oblivion is worth eight 
hours with all those other games, but I was also attempting to couch the 
statement in the usual qualitative disclaimer. My problem is that I don't 
actually believe that point. :)

The problem with equating time and money is that they're not equally 
fungible. I can choose not to spend money on things and just bank it all 
up. You can't do the same with time, which is expended no matter what you 
do (and is subject to pesky limitations of physics and biology). The 
passage of time is immutable and not subject to arbitration, which 
unfortunately lends credence to Zo's view that an open-ended commitment to 
an unending RPG or MMO is not appealing.

>It's not like we'd stop playing games once its time is up and then just 
>twiddle our thumbs.

I think DBSnappa has correctly observed that we're all reacting to one of 
Zo's uniquely sweeping generalisations, and not to something Zo actually 
believes is true. That renders the entire conversation an exercise in 
pedantry. :)

-KKC, misusing search-and-replace functions.
-- 
-- Home of the amphibious hybrids! Buy your next car from  | kendrick
 Innsmouth Auto, on Highway 128 just before the old pier.  | @ io.com
 Where our goal is to sell you a 'Dagon' good automobile!  |

On 2008-07-24, Zomoniac  wrote:
> Toby Newman wrote:
>>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>>> I've never, ever played one (I've played PSO offline, that's as close 
>>>>> as I've got), and they don't appeal to me since, try as I might to 
>>>>> work out why anyone finds RPGs appealing. But it perplexes me beyond 
>>>>> all belief that people, knowing how deep, long and addictive they are, 
>>>>> despite there being more brilliant games out at the moment than any 
>>>>> normal person has time to play, would pay a tenner a month to spend 
>>>>> every waking non-working minute aiming towards a goal that's all but 
>>>>> impossible to achieve.
>> 
>> I played WoW last night. Why? Well no-one else was online so it wasn't
>> the social aspect.
>> 
>> The reason I played was because I'd spent all day working hard (job), and
>> then when I got home spent all evening working hard again (nursery).
>> By 21:30 I finally stopped and decided I wanted to play a game to
>> unwind.
>> 
>> I was so knackered that the last thing I wanted to do was defend a
>> Mars base from demon attack. I wasn't keen on the idea of driving a
>> car at over 100 miles per hour through a gruelling course. Blasting
>> off to defeat the Bydo empire seemed like far too much work.
>> 
>> WoW lets me operate in a videogame world where I can adjust the
>> difficulty to my preferred level as and when I choose.
>> 
>
> Fair enough. I use Endless Ocean for that purpose and it doesn't charge 
> me a monthly sub :)

I share my account with others which brings the cost down to a more
manageable amount.

-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

On 2008-07-24, Zomoniac  wrote:
> I absolutely do not think that will be the case. Because the moment I'm 
> walking down a street and I'm teleported by nothing to take it in turns 
> with a dragon that wasn't even there five seconds ago to take numbers 
> off each other completely ruins any attempt at all to tell a serious 
> story. 

I enjoy two aspects of RPGs in this style.
1) The story.
2) The mechanics of turn-based combat. I particularly recall enjoying
the challenge of the airborne ship battles in Skies of Arcadia. You
had to plan a few attacks in advance and economise on your resources.
It was enjoyable to do.
Likewise in Fallout: You would have to choose whether to move or fire,
which weapon to use, and which part of the enemy to target, for each
member of your party. There were millions of combinations, and only a
few of them worked. It was satisfying finding those combinations.

-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

On 2008-07-24, Chris F  wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:55:02 +0100, "[ste parker]"
> wrote:
>
>>Zomoniac wrote:
>>> [ste parker] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I've /ever/ played a JRPG that took 70+ hours to 
>>>> complete, and I've played my fair share.  Longest I ever played will 
>>>> have been Xenogears, although I did stop at about 35-40 hours which 
>>>> was fairly close to the end by all accounts.
>>>>
>>> I was under the impression a fair few of the FF games (7-12 at least) 
>>> were around that time, along with the DQ games?
>>> 
>>
>>I suppose they /can/ be that long, if you spend endless hours pissing 
>>around with side quests.  Looking at RPGamer.com reviews, 7 is marked as 
>>lasting anywhere from 20-60 hours, 9 is 10-70 hours.  So, there's 
>>evidently a lot of stuff you don't really have to do if you don't want. 
>>Whilst I didn't rip through either (or finish either to be honest, but 
>>again I wasn't that far off based on FAQs I read), I was a lot nearer 
>>the lower end of the playtime rather than the high end.
>
> i dunno how anyone could finish 7 in 20 hours.
>
> i'm playing through it on PSP and have clocked up about 15/16 hours
> and am still only on disc 1 of 3!

I know someone who finished 7 in one sitting of around 24 hours.

-- 
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

On 2008-07-24 17:37:08 +0100, Kendrick Kerwin Chua  said:

> In article <g6a6u5$p88$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> Shak  wrote:
>> "Kendrick Kerwin Chua"  wrote in message 
>> news:RIOdnX7CRpQe4BXVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> 
>>> Your maths assume that all games are equal and that each single game is an
>>> indivisible unit of measurement. To work in your theoretical situation
>>> here, to me Oblivion is ten times the game that Bioshock is and exceeds
>>> all those other games by a similar proportion. Choosing to play that other
>>> pile and leaving Oblivion behind means you've missed out on more; the
>>> tragedy of the Grey Prince, the continuing saga of the secret order of the
>>> Blades, the subtle and clever allusions to the coterminal story unfolding
>>> in Morrowind, and so on.
>> 
>> But what's wrong with that? Let's go back to deKay's money (which I 
>> share myself) thing, which everyone seems to understand. If a game is 
>> super great unmissable, then surely 26 quid is a fair price to pay for 
>> it?
>> 
>> If we had an infinite amount of money, we wouldn't set these arbitrary 
>> limits. Similarly I don't see the harm in setting ballpark time limits 
>> either - the assumption here is that there's other just as important 
>> things to spend your time (or money) on.
> 
> I was attempting to argue that an hour spent with Oblivion is worth 
> eight hours with all those other games, but I was also attempting to 
> couch the statement in the usual qualitative disclaimer. My problem is 
> that I don't actually believe that point. :)

And that's entirely valid. And if I find to be the case then I play the 
game regardless (like GTA and FIFA). But if I consider an hour of 
Oblivion to be worth an hour of Halo, and one takes five times longer 
than the other, I'll go for the shorter game. 'tis all.

-- 

Zo

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:00:01 +0100, Toby Newman 
wrote:

>On 2008-07-24, Chris F  wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:55:02 +0100, "[ste parker]"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Zomoniac wrote:
>>>> [ste parker] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think I've /ever/ played a JRPG that took 70+ hours to 
>>>>> complete, and I've played my fair share.  Longest I ever played will 
>>>>> have been Xenogears, although I did stop at about 35-40 hours which 
>>>>> was fairly close to the end by all accounts.
>>>>>
>>>> I was under the impression a fair few of the FF games (7-12 at least) 
>>>> were around that time, along with the DQ games?
>>>> 
>>>
>>>I suppose they /can/ be that long, if you spend endless hours pissing 
>>>around with side quests.  Looking at RPGamer.com reviews, 7 is marked as 
>>>lasting anywhere from 20-60 hours, 9 is 10-70 hours.  So, there's 
>>>evidently a lot of stuff you don't really have to do if you don't want. 
>>>Whilst I didn't rip through either (or finish either to be honest, but 
>>>again I wasn't that far off based on FAQs I read), I was a lot nearer 
>>>the lower end of the playtime rather than the high end.
>>
>> i dunno how anyone could finish 7 in 20 hours.
>>
>> i'm playing through it on PSP and have clocked up about 15/16 hours
>> and am still only on disc 1 of 3!
>
>I know someone who finished 7 in one sitting of around 24 hours.

one sitting?

dear me.
-- 

http://bykerblog.wordpress.com/ - My thrilling new blog
XBL Tag: Chrisflynnuk

Chris F wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:00:01 +0100, Toby Newman 
> wrote:
>>
>>> i'm playing through it on PSP and have clocked up about 15/16 hours
>>> and am still only on disc 1 of 3!
>> I know someone who finished 7 in one sitting of around 24 hours.
> 
> one sitting?
> 
> dear me.

He probably had too many other games ready to play once finished.

-- 
[ste]

"[ste parker]"  wrote in message
news:6eos4tF86ic8U1@mid.individual.net...
> How long would you WoW players estimate it'd take to get from L1 to L70?
>   I'm not talking about what's the shortest time humanly possible, but
> how many hours as a sort of average ballpark figure would you be looking
at?

Level 56 in about 8-9 days playing so that's about 192 hours so far.  Got 13
levels to go as I'm nearly at 57 anyways.

--
Skipai

Chris F wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:51:48 +0100, Zomoniac
>  wrote:
> 
>> DBSnappa wrote:
>>> Shak wrote:
>>>> "deKay" <andyk@deleteme.lofi-gaming.nospam.org.uk.invalid> wrote in 
>>>> message news:puqll5-389.ln1@dekay.sytes.net...
>>>>> Zomoniac wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose so. My upper limit is 12 hours maximum,
>>>>> That's just stupid. Why must you put a restriction on your game time? 
>>>>> If it's crap, you stop playing. If it's good, you play until you're 
>>>>> fed up or you've completed it.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm sure its not hard and fast. I certainly played MGS4 for over 15 
>>>> hours. And you missed the bit where Zo played GTA4 for over 12 too.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's an average guess as to when you'll get fed up - ie if 
>>>> you're not enjoying it by then then you won't at all.
>>>>
>>> Or, to put it another way, if the game isn't interesting after 12 hours 
>>> it's broken. Subjective yes, but then you're playing the game, no-one else.
>>>
>>> However, I keep reminding myself that this is Zo, and as you quite 
>>> succinctly pointed out, it's just Zo applying binary logic to things in 
>>> his life which he feels passionate about. I don't believe for one 
>>> instant that he has a 12 hour maximum for playing games - it's an 
>>> arbitrary figure he has applied his usual zeal to and we're all sitting 
>>> here going "no, that can't be right"
>>>
>>> He just doesn't like RPGs and JRPGs in particular. That's fine with me, 
>>> I don't like very much for broadly similar reasons. :)
>> When the schedule is rammed full of great releases and I only have so 
>> much time, is it not normal to want to experience as much of it as 
>> possible? I don't see the point in starting an epic, 50 hour game if I 
>> know I'm going to ditch it soon due to lack of gaming time. Surely if 
>> you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the 
>> other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy, 
>> Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in 
>> another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great 
>> games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing 
>> through 2 and missing out on 8?
>>
>> And please nobody (meaning deKay) turn up to say "x isn't a great game", 
>> it's irrelevant to the point.
> 
> i don't see why you feel the need to play them now though, i mean just
> cos a great game may be released tomorrow, you don't have to rush out
> and buy it just because it's there on the shelf!

But even if I wait there's still never a gap. I haven't had a 
single-figure backlog in years.


-- 

Zo
Gamerscore whore and proud (and not very good at it)

Zomoniac wrote:
> Surely if
> you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over the 
> other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario Galaxy, 
> Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Portal, PGR4 and COD4 in 
> another, does it not make sense to play through the pile of 8 great 
> games knowing you missed out on 2 great games, rather than playing 
> through 2 and missing out on 8?

Not when Oblivion is one of the games you're missing out on, no.

deKay
-- 
  Lofi Gaming - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk
  Gaming Diary - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary
  Blog - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/blog
  My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that

Zomoniac wrote:

> I also value narrative, but I think Halo, Bioshock and Heavenly Sword do 
> a better job of telling a better story in <8 hours each than Oblivion 
> does in 100. But that's not really relevant.

But in that 100 hours, Oblivion will have told 20 stories, not one. The 
main story in the game is pretty good, but some of the side-quest 
stories are quite amazing.


deKay
-- 
  Lofi Gaming - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk
  Gaming Diary - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/diary
  Blog - http://lofi-gaming.org.uk/blog
  My computer runs at 3.5MHz and I'm proud of that

deKay wrote:
> Zomoniac wrote:
>> Surely if
>> you considered all the games equal and didn't favour one genre over 
>> the other, and had Oblivion and Lost Oddysey in one pile, and Mario 
>> Galaxy, Bioshock, Halo 3, Uncharted