In every survival game I've played the difficulty was the hardest at the very beginning and got gradually easier till the end where it was easymode boring. Once you have and can craft all the best items, have the map explored, know exactly where to get all resources easily, etc. there is no longer any challenge. Aside from the occasional content update/DLC, long-term playability just isn't there.
I would say that is true. However, I would also say its likely true for most single players games across the board and for that matter some MMOs.
They need a difficulty slider with loot to match.
however I am suggesting that the same problem exists across the board in all kinds of single player games and even some MMOs.
A single player game having more than 100 hours of play time used to be rather uncommon I would think
Perhaps they could do that on Thursdays?
I think my point is when we talk about things that can be improved in survial games we should reflect on which of those items are specific to survial games and not all games.
I think your observation is a good one as it applies to all games, but not just survial games.
That is what I was getting at
I'm glad you like Thursdays, I like them too.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
In every survival game I've played the difficulty was the hardest at the very beginning and got gradually easier till the end where it was easymode boring. Once you have and can craft all the best items, have the map explored, know exactly where to get all resources easily, etc. there is no longer any challenge. Aside from the occasional content update/DLC, long-term playability just isn't there.
I would say that is true. However, I would also say its likely true for most single players games across the board and for that matter some MMOs.
They need a difficulty slider with loot to match.
however I am suggesting that the same problem exists across the board in all kinds of single player games and even some MMOs.
A single player game having more than 100 hours of play time used to be rather uncommon I would think
Perhaps they could do that on Thursdays?
I think my point is when we talk about things that can be improved in survial games we should reflect on which of those items are specific to survial games and not all games.
I think your observation is a good one as it applies to all games, but not just survial games.
That is what I was getting at
I'm glad you like Thursdays, I like them too.
look I appreciate that so many people here like to respond to my posts in bizzare aggressive manner and I think they are facinated by the fact that it doesnt affect me.
But if you pay attention you will notice, I usually always stay on topic and/or try to get everyone back on topic.
would you care to respond to my obversation instead of going the direction you are going?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
In every survival game I've played the difficulty was the hardest at the very beginning and got gradually easier till the end where it was easymode boring. Once you have and can craft all the best items, have the map explored, know exactly where to get all resources easily, etc. there is no longer any challenge. Aside from the occasional content update/DLC, long-term playability just isn't there.
I would say that is true. However, I would also say its likely true for most single players games across the board and for that matter some MMOs.
They need a difficulty slider with loot to match.
however I am suggesting that the same problem exists across the board in all kinds of single player games and even some MMOs.
A single player game having more than 100 hours of play time used to be rather uncommon I would think
Perhaps they could do that on Thursdays?
I think my point is when we talk about things that can be improved in survial games we should reflect on which of those items are specific to survial games and not all games.
I think your observation is a good one as it applies to all games, but not just survial games.
That is what I was getting at
I'm glad you like Thursdays, I like them too.
look I appreciate that so many people here like to respond to my posts in bizzare aggressive manner and I think they are facinated by the fact that it doesnt affect me.
But if you pay attention you will notice, I usually always stay on topic and/or try to get everyone back on topic.
would you care to respond to my obversation instead of going the direction you are going?
I did. You said you thought my observation about Thursdays was a good one as it applies to all games and not just survival games. My response was I'm glad you liked it.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
In every survival game I've played the difficulty was the hardest at the very beginning and got gradually easier till the end where it was easymode boring. Once you have and can craft all the best items, have the map explored, know exactly where to get all resources easily, etc. there is no longer any challenge. Aside from the occasional content update/DLC, long-term playability just isn't there.
I would say that is true. However, I would also say its likely true for most single players games across the board and for that matter some MMOs.
They need a difficulty slider with loot to match.
however I am suggesting that the same problem exists across the board in all kinds of single player games and even some MMOs.
A single player game having more than 100 hours of play time used to be rather uncommon I would think
Perhaps they could do that on Thursdays?
I think my point is when we talk about things that can be improved in survial games we should reflect on which of those items are specific to survial games and not all games.
I think your observation is a good one as it applies to all games, but not just survial games.
That is what I was getting at
I'm glad you like Thursdays, I like them too.
look I appreciate that so many people here like to respond to my posts in bizzare aggressive manner and I think they are facinated by the fact that it doesnt affect me.
But if you pay attention you will notice, I usually always stay on topic and/or try to get everyone back on topic.
would you care to respond to my obversation instead of going the direction you are going?
I did. You said you thought my observation about Thursdays was a good one as it applies to all games and not just survival games. My response was I'm glad you liked it.
Do you think its unreasonable to suggest that most single player games get dull and boring after less than 100 hours?
Why should survival games be expected to last longer?
I think all single player games could benefit from stronger end game, i dont think its something isolated to survial games, do you?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think a giant, seamless survival game could be improved by having everyone playing together. Spread out by way of world design and various tasks and activities that make sense in the game world. Things that work together and have depth.
In every survival game I've played the difficulty was the hardest at the very beginning and got gradually easier till the end where it was easymode boring. Once you have and can craft all the best items, have the map explored, know exactly where to get all resources easily, etc. there is no longer any challenge. Aside from the occasional content update/DLC, long-term playability just isn't there.
I would say that is true. However, I would also say its likely true for most single players games across the board and for that matter some MMOs.
They need a difficulty slider with loot to match.
however I am suggesting that the same problem exists across the board in all kinds of single player games and even some MMOs.
A single player game having more than 100 hours of play time used to be rather uncommon I would think
Perhaps they could do that on Thursdays?
I think my point is when we talk about things that can be improved in survial games we should reflect on which of those items are specific to survial games and not all games.
I think your observation is a good one as it applies to all games, but not just survial games.
That is what I was getting at
I'm glad you like Thursdays, I like them too.
look I appreciate that so many people here like to respond to my posts in bizzare aggressive manner and I think they are facinated by the fact that it doesnt affect me.
But if you pay attention you will notice, I usually always stay on topic and/or try to get everyone back on topic.
would you care to respond to my obversation instead of going the direction you are going?
I did. You said you thought my observation about Thursdays was a good one as it applies to all games and not just survival games. My response was I'm glad you liked it.
Do you think its unreasonable to suggest that most single player games get dull and boring after less than 100 hours?
Why should survival games be expected to last longer?
I think all single player games could benefit from stronger end game, i dont think its something isolated to survial games, do you?
Well, my recent experience has been Fallout NV, (275 hrs), Pillars of Eternity (175 hrs) and could easy do a few replays on both.
But I'm too busy with Fallout 4, over 100 hrs and rolling hot,....
I did try some free game GOG gave me, Jotun I think, but I didn't care for it so stopped playing after a few hours.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Perhaps the OP can look at a few more survival games and give us an actual review of the genre?
I wasn't clear with my post, I should have said, what are other people thinking who have played other games in the genre. I played one and I wanted to get other people's thoughts about it who have played more than me. I wasn't reviewing the whole genre, more asking what people thought.
But alas, I wasn't clear.
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
You have to eat every 10 minutes or so and while I understand why they do it (they have it pinned to how the days and nights move in the game) it should be more in line with play session.
"We" experience time at our own pace so having to eat/drink pinned to some artificial game time just doesn't seem to work.
lol .. really. Count me out. I don't even want to eat every 10 min in real life .. when the food is actually good.
Do you think its unreasonable to suggest that most single player games get dull and boring after less than 100 hours?
Why should survival games be expected to last longer?
I think all single player games could benefit from stronger end game, i dont think its something isolated to survial games, do you?
Well, my recent experience has been Fallout NV, (275 hrs), Pillars of Eternity (175 hrs) and could easy do a few replays on both.
But I'm too busy with Fallout 4, over 100 hrs and rolling hot,....
I did try some free game GOG gave me, Jotun I think, but I didn't care for it so stopped playing after a few hours.
but do you think its unreasonable to suggest that MOST single player games get boring after less than 100 hours. Not just the games you have played.
The question is not a test, I am not trying to cause a debate and it can be answered as an opinion of yes or no. That said, its rhetorical, I infer from your answer that you opinion is that it is yes that its unreasonable to suggest that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Do you think its unreasonable to suggest that most single player games get dull and boring after less than 100 hours?
Why should survival games be expected to last longer?
I think all single player games could benefit from stronger end game, i dont think its something isolated to survial games, do you?
Well, my recent experience has been Fallout NV, (275 hrs), Pillars of Eternity (175 hrs) and could easy do a few replays on both.
But I'm too busy with Fallout 4, over 100 hrs and rolling hot,....
I did try some free game GOG gave me, Jotun I think, but I didn't care for it so stopped playing after a few hours.
but do you think its unreasonable to suggest that MOST single player games get boring after less than 100 hours. Not just the games you have played.
The question is not a test, I am not trying to cause a debate and it can be answered as an opinion of yes or no. That said, its rhetorical, I infer from your answer that you opinion is that it is yes that its unreasonable to suggest that.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
In a sandbox, there is a different paradigm at work. Developers are not providing you with content, they are instead providing you with the tools to create your own content. Games like Kerbal Space Program, Cities: Skylines etc provide you with very little guided content, but give you a whole host of tools to keep you entertained for a very long time. We accept the lack of guided content in exchange for greatly increased replayability.
The survival genre sits in some odd middle-ground. They are kind of sandboxes - we're not really given quests or taken through any dramatic storylines - but yet we're not really given the tools needed to increase replayability. Some are getting there - some survival games allow you to craft pretty intricate things, build up a homestead etc - but most are still a long way off.
This leaves players like me wondering what the point is. You have a very repetitive standard game loop - scavenge, craft, kill - but you don't have the guided content or the tools to create your own content.
There are obviously exceptions to the paradigm and the genre as a whole seems to be moving in the right direction which is good. It just hasn't gone anywhere near far enough to get me personally interested and I'm not sure the single-player survival games have gone far enough to make it more than just a passing fad.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Do you think its unreasonable to suggest that most single player games get dull and boring after less than 100 hours?
Why should survival games be expected to last longer?
I think all single player games could benefit from stronger end game, i dont think its something isolated to survial games, do you?
Well, my recent experience has been Fallout NV, (275 hrs), Pillars of Eternity (175 hrs) and could easy do a few replays on both.
But I'm too busy with Fallout 4, over 100 hrs and rolling hot,....
I did try some free game GOG gave me, Jotun I think, but I didn't care for it so stopped playing after a few hours.
but do you think its unreasonable to suggest that MOST single player games get boring after less than 100 hours. Not just the games you have played.
The question is not a test, I am not trying to cause a debate and it can be answered as an opinion of yes or no. That said, its rhetorical, I infer from your answer that you opinion is that it is yes that its unreasonable to suggest that.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
In a sandbox, there is a different paradigm at work. Developers are not providing you with content, they are instead providing you with the tools to create your own content. Games like Kerbal Space Program, Cities: Skylines etc provide you with very little guided content, but give you a whole host of tools to keep you entertained for a very long time. We accept the lack of guided content in exchange for greatly increased replayability.
The survival genre sits in some odd middle-ground. They are kind of sandboxes - we're not really given quests or taken through any dramatic storylines - but yet we're not really given the tools needed to increase replayability. Some are getting there - some survival games allow you to craft pretty intricate things, build up a homestead etc - but most are still a long way off.
This leaves players like me wondering what the point is. You have a very repetitive standard game loop - scavenge, craft, kill - but you don't have the guided content or the tools to create your own content.
There are obviously exceptions to the paradigm and the genre as a whole seems to be moving in the right direction which is good. It just hasn't gone anywhere near far enough to get me personally interested and I'm not sure the single-player survival games have gone far enough to make it more than just a passing fad.
I dont mean to be rude but I still havent gotten a straight answer.
If most single player games are short lived then 1. why do we assume this specific genre should have tons of game play without even questioning it and 2. why do we think its completely absurd to point out that most single player games are fairly short.
For reasons I dont understand when it comes to survival games people expect the title to be impeccably perfect before even considering it.
1. cant be a copy despite AAA titles making decades of copies 2. cant be simplistic despite mainstream titles being unbearably simple 3. has to be long with tons of replayably, despite no other genre other than MMOs being the same. 4. The fact that you can build anything anywhere and have a deep crafting system doesnt mean anything, its irrelevant to evaluating the feature list.
The standards for evaluating a survial game by the community is CONSIDERABLY more strick then it is for any other genre
Also we have to be careful in the logic loop. We cant say 'the problem with survial titles is that they are not long enough and they need to be long enough because most of them are'
oops
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
hmm, skyrim doesn't fall into that category, it is for some (myself included) a sandbox game. At least one can "live a life" in it.
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The genre does have some interesting games. They have different end-game goals based on their design.
Conan is very similar to ARK - both games are primarily focused on tribe play and PvP. Playing on a PvE server (which I prefer) does not have endlessly engaging content. ARK has some difficult endgame PvE bosses, but those require a large party. Another thing ARK has is all the different dinosaurs to tame, which gives you informal milestones you play towards (having a squad of raptors or taming a big bronto).
Not all games are like that. Long Dark is very much about the actual survival - you are constantly struggling to find food, heat and stay alive. It's in a frozen environment, so you are endlessly on the move, looking for new areas to explore and salvage.
And then you have story driven games. Here you progress through a storyline and use the survival elements to unlock items that let you move forward. Subnautica is my favorite in this genre by far. You are stranded in a vast ocean, full of unique biomes, and have to basically solve the mystery of the alien planet.
I think there is space for games that link storytelling with the persistent open experience. A game like ARK, where you actually have a purpose and interact with the world and its story, not just with its resources. I suppose not unlike an MMO. Paradoxically, Conan Exiles was supposed to fill this niche. It has storytelling systems in and you can tell this was a substantial part of the initial design. Its buggy launch probably made them focus on polishing the "survival gameplay" more, so the story part never came to full fruition.
We also don't have a survival game with rich social systems. For example a medieval game where it takes 50 people to keep a small castle running. This would focus on large community-centric goals that require cooperation. I'm not sure how feasible this is in the long term, with the way communities are transient these days.
I will explain the time for content question in more detail.
More time or more replayability requires more time to code. If you take a game early in its development you will see it might have a lot of exciting game play for the first few hours, then after that it drops off. As time goes and more money is spend on development that time gets extended but all games at some point come to a point of low content.
So basically..more content and longer living content means more money and more time
Which is WHY many single player games are short lived compared to an MMO. So the question becomes why do we expect a survial game to out spend, out code, out perform, other single player games simply because we think it should last longer?
Dont get me wrong I think long game play is great! I love it! but there is a reason why so called AAA firms make short game play...its cheaper.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Do you think its unreasonable to suggest that most single player games get dull and boring after less than 100 hours?
Why should survival games be expected to last longer?
I think all single player games could benefit from stronger end game, i dont think its something isolated to survial games, do you?
Well, my recent experience has been Fallout NV, (275 hrs), Pillars of Eternity (175 hrs) and could easy do a few replays on both.
But I'm too busy with Fallout 4, over 100 hrs and rolling hot,....
I did try some free game GOG gave me, Jotun I think, but I didn't care for it so stopped playing after a few hours.
but do you think its unreasonable to suggest that MOST single player games get boring after less than 100 hours. Not just the games you have played.
The question is not a test, I am not trying to cause a debate and it can be answered as an opinion of yes or no. That said, its rhetorical, I infer from your answer that you opinion is that it is yes that its unreasonable to suggest that.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
In a sandbox, there is a different paradigm at work. Developers are not providing you with content, they are instead providing you with the tools to create your own content. Games like Kerbal Space Program, Cities: Skylines etc provide you with very little guided content, but give you a whole host of tools to keep you entertained for a very long time. We accept the lack of guided content in exchange for greatly increased replayability.
The survival genre sits in some odd middle-ground. They are kind of sandboxes - we're not really given quests or taken through any dramatic storylines - but yet we're not really given the tools needed to increase replayability. Some are getting there - some survival games allow you to craft pretty intricate things, build up a homestead etc - but most are still a long way off.
This leaves players like me wondering what the point is. You have a very repetitive standard game loop - scavenge, craft, kill - but you don't have the guided content or the tools to create your own content.
There are obviously exceptions to the paradigm and the genre as a whole seems to be moving in the right direction which is good. It just hasn't gone anywhere near far enough to get me personally interested and I'm not sure the single-player survival games have gone far enough to make it more than just a passing fad.
I dont mean to be rude but I still havent gotten a straight answer.
If most single player games are short lived then 1. why do we assume this specific genre should have tons of game play without even questioning it and 2. why do we think its completely absurd to point out that most single player games are fairly short.
For reasons I dont understand when it comes to survival games people expect the title to be impeccably perfect before even considering it.
1. cant be a copy despite AAA titles making decades of copies 2. cant be simplistic despite mainstream titles being unbearably simple 3. has to be long with tons of replayably, despite no other genre other than MMOs being the same. 4. The fact that you can build anything anywhere and have a deep crafting system doesnt mean anything, its irrelevant to evaluating the feature list.
The standards for evaluating a survial game by the community is CONSIDERABLY more strick then it is for any other genre
Also we have to be careful in the logic loop. We cant say 'the problem with survial titles is that they are not long enough and they need to be long enough because most of them are'
oops
I gave you as straight an answer as possible, but I'll dumb it down for you as required:
The expected duration of a game is determined by the type of game.
Pick up call of duty? Expected duration for the single player is 5-10 hours. Pick up a story-driven RPG? Expected duration 30-100 hours Pick up a racing game? Expected career of 20-30 hours Pick up a sandpark (like gta/skyrim)? Expected duration 50-100 hours Pick up a sandbox? Expected duration 100hrs+
There are commonly held expectations for every genre out there and they differ dependant on the genre.
The survival genre is no different. Being a new genre, we do not have many comparisons to make to others, so our comparisons are made to other genres. Even when we do try to make comparisons within the genre, you come across loads of stories of "I spent weeks building this epic house" or "it took me 2 months to tame everything" etc. The common perception, both from the feature lists and the media, is that the survival genre has great replayability.
Survival games have these common features:
Large, open maps
Minimal / no guided content
Crafting
Combat
PvP
Other games with similar feature lists do provide 100+ hours of replayability. Survival games have marketed themselves as a sandbox experience - "create your own adventure" - yet they don't offer the same level of sandbox features as other sandbox games.
So, our standards are not different when judging survival games, they are exactly the same as for every other genre. We look at the features, we compare it to other games on the market, we listen to what the devs say, then we make a judgement.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Do you think its unreasonable to suggest that most single player games get dull and boring after less than 100 hours?
Why should survival games be expected to last longer?
I think all single player games could benefit from stronger end game, i dont think its something isolated to survial games, do you?
Well, my recent experience has been Fallout NV, (275 hrs), Pillars of Eternity (175 hrs) and could easy do a few replays on both.
But I'm too busy with Fallout 4, over 100 hrs and rolling hot,....
I did try some free game GOG gave me, Jotun I think, but I didn't care for it so stopped playing after a few hours.
but do you think its unreasonable to suggest that MOST single player games get boring after less than 100 hours. Not just the games you have played.
The question is not a test, I am not trying to cause a debate and it can be answered as an opinion of yes or no. That said, its rhetorical, I infer from your answer that you opinion is that it is yes that its unreasonable to suggest that.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
In a sandbox, there is a different paradigm at work. Developers are not providing you with content, they are instead providing you with the tools to create your own content. Games like Kerbal Space Program, Cities: Skylines etc provide you with very little guided content, but give you a whole host of tools to keep you entertained for a very long time. We accept the lack of guided content in exchange for greatly increased replayability.
The survival genre sits in some odd middle-ground. They are kind of sandboxes - we're not really given quests or taken through any dramatic storylines - but yet we're not really given the tools needed to increase replayability. Some are getting there - some survival games allow you to craft pretty intricate things, build up a homestead etc - but most are still a long way off.
This leaves players like me wondering what the point is. You have a very repetitive standard game loop - scavenge, craft, kill - but you don't have the guided content or the tools to create your own content.
There are obviously exceptions to the paradigm and the genre as a whole seems to be moving in the right direction which is good. It just hasn't gone anywhere near far enough to get me personally interested and I'm not sure the single-player survival games have gone far enough to make it more than just a passing fad.
I dont mean to be rude but I still havent gotten a straight answer.
If most single player games are short lived then 1. why do we assume this specific genre should have tons of game play without even questioning it and 2. why do we think its completely absurd to point out that most single player games are fairly short.
For reasons I dont understand when it comes to survival games people expect the title to be impeccably perfect before even considering it.
1. cant be a copy despite AAA titles making decades of copies 2. cant be simplistic despite mainstream titles being unbearably simple 3. has to be long with tons of replayably, despite no other genre other than MMOs being the same. 4. The fact that you can build anything anywhere and have a deep crafting system doesnt mean anything, its irrelevant to evaluating the feature list.
The standards for evaluating a survial game by the community is CONSIDERABLY more strick then it is for any other genre
Also we have to be careful in the logic loop. We cant say 'the problem with survial titles is that they are not long enough and they need to be long enough because most of them are'
oops
I gave you as straight an answer as possible, but I'll dumb it down for you as required:
The expected duration of a game is determined by the type of game.
....
yes I got that part but here is the problem but I do suggest to re-read closely what I said just then
how can we say 'survial games are too short, they need to be longer because.....' 'most games in that genre are longer'? no because one just argued that they are not longer but need to be even though they actually are not longer. why? because we feel like it.
so again, there isnt any magical reason why we all have to assume without question that survial titles need to be longer than other genres. and we shouldn't make fun of the question.
if you please, go back and read my post above the one you just responded to and you will see I do understand your point and I put forth a counter to it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. 'Survival games need to be longer' 'why'? 'because most survial games are longer' 'but you just said the problem is that they need to be longer'
logic loop problem
2. less content or rather content that can be gotten thru quicker is cheaper to make which is exactly why most so called AAA games are short lived. Why do we expect indie titles to spend more money than AAA games to make more content?
3. The question itself 'how many single player games have long content' should not be laughed off as ridiculous question.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
hmm, skyrim doesn't fall into that category, it is for some (myself included) a sandbox game. At least one can "live a life" in it.
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.
Skyrim is an interesting one and is great for debating sandbox vs themepark.
I would personally call it a themepark. Assuming you are running an unmodded version of the game, it doesn't really give you the tools to create content. You can choose the order in which you do quests, or visit caves, but once there you are still just along for the ride. It may be a non-linear themepark because you can choose which rides you want to do, but you are still just picking rides and going on them.
For myself, I've probably put in ~250 hours into Skyrim, but that covers about 10 different playthroughs. It doesn't take long at all to work through all the main content - guilds, main story, imperial vs nords etc - so after that you're just left with hunting down side quests and exploring all the map. None of that is sandbox content. You also quite quickly discover that exploring caves is a complete waste of time due to lack of variation and crap loot.
Finally, remember we're talking about averages here. With any game in existence, you can fall in love with it and rack up 1000s of hours replaying it and skyrim is no different. But, the average gamer will be done with it in 50 hours or so, as 50 hours is more than enough to complete all main content, most side content, buy all houses, max out most of your skills and get gear that trivialises all content. After that, all you're left with is hunting down remaining side quests, exploring the odd cave and maybe grinding out your remaining skill trees. Hardly compelling content, which is why most people move on or start again with a different character focus.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
hmm, skyrim doesn't fall into that category, it is for some (myself included) a sandbox game. At least one can "live a life" in it.
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.
Skyrim is an interesting one and is great for debating sandbox vs themepark.
I would personally call it a themepark. Assuming you are running an unmodded version of the game, it doesn't really give you the tools to create content. You can choose the order in which you do quests, or visit caves, but once there you are still just along for the ride. It may be a non-linear themepark because you can choose which rides you want to do, but you are still just picking rides and going on them.
For myself, I've probably put in ~250 hours into Skyrim, but that covers about 10 different playthroughs. It doesn't take long at all to work through all the main content - guilds, main story, imperial vs nords etc - so after that you're just left with hunting down side quests and exploring all the map. None of that is sandbox content. You also quite quickly discover that exploring caves is a complete waste of time due to lack of variation and crap loot.
Finally, remember we're talking about averages here. With any game in existence, you can fall in love with it and rack up 1000s of hours replaying it and skyrim is no different. But, the average gamer will be done with it in 50 hours or so, as 50 hours is more than enough to complete all main content, most side content, buy all houses, max out most of your skills and get gear that trivialises all content. After that, all you're left with is hunting down remaining side quests, exploring the odd cave and maybe grinding out your remaining skill trees. Hardly compelling content, which is why most people move on or start again with a different character focus.
for me the question is direct
not 'do I like single player games that are longer' not 'is it possible for someone to play a single player a long time' but rather
'are most single player games long or short and if short why is it unreasonable to point out'
some claim to have answered my question directly but they havent because the directness of my question is where the point is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
hmm, skyrim doesn't fall into that category, it is for some (myself included) a sandbox game. At least one can "live a life" in it.
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.
Skyrim is an interesting one and is great for debating sandbox vs themepark.
I would personally call it a themepark. Assuming you are running an unmodded version of the game, it doesn't really give you the tools to create content. You can choose the order in which you do quests, or visit caves, but once there you are still just along for the ride. It may be a non-linear themepark because you can choose which rides you want to do, but you are still just picking rides and going on them.
For myself, I've probably put in ~250 hours into Skyrim, but that covers about 10 different playthroughs. It doesn't take long at all to work through all the main content - guilds, main story, imperial vs nords etc - so after that you're just left with hunting down side quests and exploring all the map. None of that is sandbox content. You also quite quickly discover that exploring caves is a complete waste of time due to lack of variation and crap loot.
Finally, remember we're talking about averages here. With any game in existence, you can fall in love with it and rack up 1000s of hours replaying it and skyrim is no different. But, the average gamer will be done with it in 50 hours or so, as 50 hours is more than enough to complete all main content, most side content, buy all houses, max out most of your skills and get gear that trivialises all content. After that, all you're left with is hunting down remaining side quests, exploring the odd cave and maybe grinding out your remaining skill trees. Hardly compelling content, which is why most people move on or start again with a different character focus.
for me the question is direct
not 'do I like single player games that are longer' not 'is it possible for someone to play a single player a long time' but rather
'are most single player games long or short and if short why is it unreasonable to point out'
some claim to have answered my question directly but they havent because the directness of my question is where the point is.
I thought your questions were rhetorical, like your signature states. Or is it like your previous signature where you claimed to have others on your ignore list but kept responding to their posts?
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
hmm, skyrim doesn't fall into that category, it is for some (myself included) a sandbox game. At least one can "live a life" in it.
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.
Skyrim is an interesting one and is great for debating sandbox vs themepark.
I would personally call it a themepark. Assuming you are running an unmodded version of the game, it doesn't really give you the tools to create content. You can choose the order in which you do quests, or visit caves, but once there you are still just along for the ride. It may be a non-linear themepark because you can choose which rides you want to do, but you are still just picking rides and going on them.
For myself, I've probably put in ~250 hours into Skyrim, but that covers about 10 different playthroughs. It doesn't take long at all to work through all the main content - guilds, main story, imperial vs nords etc - so after that you're just left with hunting down side quests and exploring all the map. None of that is sandbox content. You also quite quickly discover that exploring caves is a complete waste of time due to lack of variation and crap loot.
Finally, remember we're talking about averages here. With any game in existence, you can fall in love with it and rack up 1000s of hours replaying it and skyrim is no different. But, the average gamer will be done with it in 50 hours or so, as 50 hours is more than enough to complete all main content, most side content, buy all houses, max out most of your skills and get gear that trivialises all content. After that, all you're left with is hunting down remaining side quests, exploring the odd cave and maybe grinding out your remaining skill trees. Hardly compelling content, which is why most people move on or start again with a different character focus.
for me the question is direct
not 'do I like single player games that are longer' not 'is it possible for someone to play a single player a long time' but rather
'are most single player games long or short and if short why is it unreasonable to point out'
some claim to have answered my question directly but they havent because the directness of my question is where the point is.
I thought your questions were rhetorical, like your signature states. Or is it like your previous signature where you claimed to have others on your ignore list but kept responding to their posts?
You don’t want answers, remember?
a question can be direct and rhetorical at the same time.
do you care to answer the question?
we already established that I am an unreliable, hypocritical scum bag so what are you trying to illustrate exacrtly?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
hmm, skyrim doesn't fall into that category, it is for some (myself included) a sandbox game. At least one can "live a life" in it.
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.
Skyrim is an interesting one and is great for debating sandbox vs themepark.
I would personally call it a themepark. Assuming you are running an unmodded version of the game, it doesn't really give you the tools to create content. You can choose the order in which you do quests, or visit caves, but once there you are still just along for the ride. It may be a non-linear themepark because you can choose which rides you want to do, but you are still just picking rides and going on them.
For myself, I've probably put in ~250 hours into Skyrim, but that covers about 10 different playthroughs. It doesn't take long at all to work through all the main content - guilds, main story, imperial vs nords etc - so after that you're just left with hunting down side quests and exploring all the map. None of that is sandbox content. You also quite quickly discover that exploring caves is a complete waste of time due to lack of variation and crap loot.
Finally, remember we're talking about averages here. With any game in existence, you can fall in love with it and rack up 1000s of hours replaying it and skyrim is no different. But, the average gamer will be done with it in 50 hours or so, as 50 hours is more than enough to complete all main content, most side content, buy all houses, max out most of your skills and get gear that trivialises all content. After that, all you're left with is hunting down remaining side quests, exploring the odd cave and maybe grinding out your remaining skill trees. Hardly compelling content, which is why most people move on or start again with a different character focus.
for me the question is direct
not 'do I like single player games that are longer' not 'is it possible for someone to play a single player a long time' but rather
'are most single player games long or short and if short why is it unreasonable to point out'
some claim to have answered my question directly but they havent because the directness of my question is where the point is.
I thought your questions were rhetorical, like your signature states. Or is it like your previous signature where you claimed to have others on your ignore list but kept responding to their posts?
You don’t want answers, remember?
a question can be direct and rhetorical at the same time.
do you care to answer the question?
we already established that I am an unreliable, hypocritical scum bag so what are you trying to illustrate exacrtly?
The victim routine is less interesting than your last forum persona. Try another.
You have to differentiate between content-driven games and sandboxes.
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
hmm, skyrim doesn't fall into that category, it is for some (myself included) a sandbox game. At least one can "live a life" in it.
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.
Skyrim is an interesting one and is great for debating sandbox vs themepark.
I would personally call it a themepark. Assuming you are running an unmodded version of the game, it doesn't really give you the tools to create content. You can choose the order in which you do quests, or visit caves, but once there you are still just along for the ride. It may be a non-linear themepark because you can choose which rides you want to do, but you are still just picking rides and going on them.
For myself, I've probably put in ~250 hours into Skyrim, but that covers about 10 different playthroughs. It doesn't take long at all to work through all the main content - guilds, main story, imperial vs nords etc - so after that you're just left with hunting down side quests and exploring all the map. None of that is sandbox content. You also quite quickly discover that exploring caves is a complete waste of time due to lack of variation and crap loot.
Finally, remember we're talking about averages here. With any game in existence, you can fall in love with it and rack up 1000s of hours replaying it and skyrim is no different. But, the average gamer will be done with it in 50 hours or so, as 50 hours is more than enough to complete all main content, most side content, buy all houses, max out most of your skills and get gear that trivialises all content. After that, all you're left with is hunting down remaining side quests, exploring the odd cave and maybe grinding out your remaining skill trees. Hardly compelling content, which is why most people move on or start again with a different character focus.
for me the question is direct
not 'do I like single player games that are longer' not 'is it possible for someone to play a single player a long time' but rather
'are most single player games long or short and if short why is it unreasonable to point out'
some claim to have answered my question directly but they havent because the directness of my question is where the point is.
I thought your questions were rhetorical, like your signature states. Or is it like your previous signature where you claimed to have others on your ignore list but kept responding to their posts?
You don’t want answers, remember?
a question can be direct and rhetorical at the same time.
do you care to answer the question?
we already established that I am an unreliable, hypocritical scum bag so what are you trying to illustrate exacrtly?
The victim routine is less interesting than your last forum persona. Try another.
I dont see what that would be a victim but never the less what is your view on survial games? should they have more replyablity than other single player games? if so why?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
But if you pay attention you will notice, I usually always stay on topic and/or try to get everyone back on topic.
would you care to respond to my obversation instead of going the direction you are going?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But I'm too busy with Fallout 4, over 100 hrs and rolling hot,....
I did try some free game GOG gave me, Jotun I think, but I didn't care for it so stopped playing after a few hours.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But alas, I wasn't clear.
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
lol .. really. Count me out. I don't even want to eat every 10 min in real life .. when the food is actually good.
The question is not a test, I am not trying to cause a debate and it can be answered as an opinion of yes or no. That said, its rhetorical, I infer from your answer that you opinion is that it is yes that its unreasonable to suggest that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In a content driven game, I would guess most single player games become boring in under 100 hours. Games like Skyrim, Final Fantasy 7, Grid Autosport or whatever else, you can complete 95% of the content within 50 hours of average gameplay. After that, you're either hunting down rare achievements / bosses or repeating content, both of which the majority of gamers find boring.
In a sandbox, there is a different paradigm at work. Developers are not providing you with content, they are instead providing you with the tools to create your own content. Games like Kerbal Space Program, Cities: Skylines etc provide you with very little guided content, but give you a whole host of tools to keep you entertained for a very long time. We accept the lack of guided content in exchange for greatly increased replayability.
The survival genre sits in some odd middle-ground. They are kind of sandboxes - we're not really given quests or taken through any dramatic storylines - but yet we're not really given the tools needed to increase replayability. Some are getting there - some survival games allow you to craft pretty intricate things, build up a homestead etc - but most are still a long way off.
This leaves players like me wondering what the point is. You have a very repetitive standard game loop - scavenge, craft, kill - but you don't have the guided content or the tools to create your own content.
There are obviously exceptions to the paradigm and the genre as a whole seems to be moving in the right direction which is good. It just hasn't gone anywhere near far enough to get me personally interested and I'm not sure the single-player survival games have gone far enough to make it more than just a passing fad.
If most single player games are short lived then 1. why do we assume this specific genre should have tons of game play without even questioning it and 2. why do we think its completely absurd to point out that most single player games are fairly short.
For reasons I dont understand when it comes to survival games people expect the title to be impeccably perfect before even considering it.
1. cant be a copy despite AAA titles making decades of copies
2. cant be simplistic despite mainstream titles being unbearably simple
3. has to be long with tons of replayably, despite no other genre other than MMOs being the same.
4. The fact that you can build anything anywhere and have a deep crafting system doesnt mean anything, its irrelevant to evaluating the feature list.
The standards for evaluating a survial game by the community is CONSIDERABLY more strick then it is for any other genre
Also we have to be careful in the logic loop. We cant say 'the problem with survial titles is that they are not long enough and they need to be long enough because most of them are'
oops
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you are talking about hunting down rare achievements/bosses then you are only playing it as a "game".
A guy came to the forums years ago and couldn't understand why people were playing 100 hours as "you could beat the game in 5 hours".
I have well into 1500 hours and I know Geezer Gamer has well above 2000 hours.
I suspect that replay-ability might more up to the person playing for some of these games.
But then now we are arguing what a sandbox is as i do agree that a "sandbox" allows for a greater amount of time in game over, say, "Dishonored".
On the weekend I played a bit of the Morrowind Expansion for Elder Scrolls Online. After a few quests I was "done". Then, I got the bug to reinstall the single player game and played for hours exploring, at one point I was in pitch dark trying to figure out how to get out of a sunken boat while drowning.
Was a great gaming session.
As I said, "replay-ability" might be more up to the players with some of these games.
I should add that survival games are "sandbox game" as you are allowed to build what you need to survive/live in the world.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
The genre does have some interesting games. They have different end-game goals based on their design.
Conan is very similar to ARK - both games are primarily focused on tribe play and PvP. Playing on a PvE server (which I prefer) does not have endlessly engaging content. ARK has some difficult endgame PvE bosses, but those require a large party. Another thing ARK has is all the different dinosaurs to tame, which gives you informal milestones you play towards (having a squad of raptors or taming a big bronto).
Not all games are like that. Long Dark is very much about the actual survival - you are constantly struggling to find food, heat and stay alive. It's in a frozen environment, so you are endlessly on the move, looking for new areas to explore and salvage.
And then you have story driven games. Here you progress through a storyline and use the survival elements to unlock items that let you move forward. Subnautica is my favorite in this genre by far. You are stranded in a vast ocean, full of unique biomes, and have to basically solve the mystery of the alien planet.
I think there is space for games that link storytelling with the persistent open experience. A game like ARK, where you actually have a purpose and interact with the world and its story, not just with its resources. I suppose not unlike an MMO. Paradoxically, Conan Exiles was supposed to fill this niche. It has storytelling systems in and you can tell this was a substantial part of the initial design. Its buggy launch probably made them focus on polishing the "survival gameplay" more, so the story part never came to full fruition.
We also don't have a survival game with rich social systems. For example a medieval game where it takes 50 people to keep a small castle running. This would focus on large community-centric goals that require cooperation. I'm not sure how feasible this is in the long term, with the way communities are transient these days.
More time or more replayability requires more time to code. If you take a game early in its development you will see it might have a lot of exciting game play for the first few hours, then after that it drops off. As time goes and more money is spend on development that time gets extended but all games at some point come to a point of low content.
So basically..more content and longer living content means more money and more time
Which is WHY many single player games are short lived compared to an MMO.
So the question becomes why do we expect a survial game to out spend, out code, out perform, other single player games simply because we think it should last longer?
Dont get me wrong I think long game play is great! I love it! but there is a reason why so called AAA firms make short game play...its cheaper.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The expected duration of a game is determined by the type of game.
Pick up call of duty? Expected duration for the single player is 5-10 hours.
Pick up a story-driven RPG? Expected duration 30-100 hours
Pick up a racing game? Expected career of 20-30 hours
Pick up a sandpark (like gta/skyrim)? Expected duration 50-100 hours
Pick up a sandbox? Expected duration 100hrs+
There are commonly held expectations for every genre out there and they differ dependant on the genre.
The survival genre is no different. Being a new genre, we do not have many comparisons to make to others, so our comparisons are made to other genres. Even when we do try to make comparisons within the genre, you come across loads of stories of "I spent weeks building this epic house" or "it took me 2 months to tame everything" etc. The common perception, both from the feature lists and the media, is that the survival genre has great replayability.
Survival games have these common features:
- Large, open maps
- Minimal / no guided content
- Crafting
- Combat
- PvP
Other games with similar feature lists do provide 100+ hours of replayability. Survival games have marketed themselves as a sandbox experience - "create your own adventure" - yet they don't offer the same level of sandbox features as other sandbox games.So, our standards are not different when judging survival games, they are exactly the same as for every other genre. We look at the features, we compare it to other games on the market, we listen to what the devs say, then we make a judgement.
how can we say 'survial games are too short, they need to be longer because.....' 'most games in that genre are longer'?
no because one just argued that they are not longer but need to be even though they actually are not longer. why? because we feel like it.
so again, there isnt any magical reason why we all have to assume without question that survial titles need to be longer than other genres. and we shouldn't make fun of the question.
if you please, go back and read my post above the one you just responded to and you will see I do understand your point and I put forth a counter to it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1.
'Survival games need to be longer'
'why'?
'because most survial games are longer'
'but you just said the problem is that they need to be longer'
logic loop problem
2. less content or rather content that can be gotten thru quicker is cheaper to make which is exactly why most so called AAA games are short lived. Why do we expect indie titles to spend more money than AAA games to make more content?
3. The question itself 'how many single player games have long content' should not be laughed off as ridiculous question.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I would personally call it a themepark. Assuming you are running an unmodded version of the game, it doesn't really give you the tools to create content. You can choose the order in which you do quests, or visit caves, but once there you are still just along for the ride. It may be a non-linear themepark because you can choose which rides you want to do, but you are still just picking rides and going on them.
For myself, I've probably put in ~250 hours into Skyrim, but that covers about 10 different playthroughs. It doesn't take long at all to work through all the main content - guilds, main story, imperial vs nords etc - so after that you're just left with hunting down side quests and exploring all the map. None of that is sandbox content. You also quite quickly discover that exploring caves is a complete waste of time due to lack of variation and crap loot.
Finally, remember we're talking about averages here. With any game in existence, you can fall in love with it and rack up 1000s of hours replaying it and skyrim is no different. But, the average gamer will be done with it in 50 hours or so, as 50 hours is more than enough to complete all main content, most side content, buy all houses, max out most of your skills and get gear that trivialises all content. After that, all you're left with is hunting down remaining side quests, exploring the odd cave and maybe grinding out your remaining skill trees. Hardly compelling content, which is why most people move on or start again with a different character focus.
In most games I've played with survival mechanics I enjoyed, you could actually remove them and it still be an enjoyable game.
not 'do I like single player games that are longer' not 'is it possible for someone to play a single player a long time' but rather
'are most single player games long or short and if short why is it unreasonable to point out'
some claim to have answered my question directly but they havent because the directness of my question is where the point is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You don’t want answers, remember?
~~ postlarval ~~
do you care to answer the question?
we already established that I am an unreliable, hypocritical scum bag so what are you trying to illustrate exacrtly?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
~~ postlarval ~~
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me