Are bloated sandbox games wasting our time with fetch quests and where does the line fall between value for money and pointless filler?
Massive, hundred hour games are pitched as being great value for gamers, but ironically they don't value our time. While a few games legitimately do require an large investment of time, far too many pad out their content with pointless cookie cutter collectables. Why have I got to run around collecting 100 donkey scrotums? For a trophy? Screw that! Give me a leaner, more focused game and concentrate on creating interesting content that lasts 10 hours, rather than bland repetitive stuff that lasts 100. That's real value.
Agreed. Open world games (especially Ubisoft's) have become so bland and formulaic in recent years that it's hard to even care about them at this point. Unless your idea of fun is grinding through collection quests and climbing watch towers, that is.
Which is why Fallout is the only open world series I enjoy besides Red Dead. More interested in story driven material such as The Last of Us, BioShock, Life is Strange.. ect.. Ironically, I loved Dragon Age: Inquisition.. Despite some light padding and fetch quests, it was still heavily story driven..
Fall out , Witcher 3, and the list goes on. Are all repetitive . Anything open world is repetitive. "I" flat out can not stand open world games.
I got to admit I hated collecting those donkey scrotum's grand theft donkey return of the scrotum snatcher.
I crafted them into a lovely scarf.
repetitive games are here to stay because gamers speak with their wallets and every publisher/developer/investor has seen how well destiny did The division is just the latest to do the whole repetitive game stuff and i am sure many more to come SADLY
Eh, it's just what's 'in' now. Short, mostly multiplayer shooters were all the rage for a while . . . Now it's repetitive open world games. As we get into the next gen people will move onto something else.
Really depends on the gamer. Some don't mind and some games by nature or sorta like that. I do like games that have a whole mess of variety, but I do like games that have a steady concept even if its repetitive, if its fun....I'm down to play it. Many, many games might fall into this category but I still play and like them. I do like variety yes, but I'm also fine with games that have a steady concept that could be seen as repetitive. As strange as it sounds, some are fine with that concept. Some titles I want the variety, some I'm fine with being the way it is. Consider Fallout you do many of the same things, loot, kill, sell, survive, repeat. Sure...that could be seen as repetitive.......I actually don't care LOL! Its not saying variety is bad, merely that I'm fine with what certain titles are, even if someone sees it differently as what more are you really asking of such games? Simulations? Real life? At some point I think many of you forget what the concept of some of those games are. Yes, you go on many quest in Fallout or Witcher were you kill, heal, loot repeat etc, but to many.....that cycle is fun. For me, I like that cycle and I don't really ask much of the team to focus on other concepts that don't really fit the game. When someone is saying titles like Bioshock, Fallout, Witcher, Dragon Age are um "all repetitive", might as well stop gaming as this game they are seeking likely will never exist. To hear someone say Red Dead is "all repetitive" is just enough for me to ignore a whole lot of you lolz. The GTA series and Red Dead 2 is as variety as it gets in gaming. Racing, Mini games, side quest etc, to want more, imho is just an unrealistic want. I'm content to like certain games, even if others legit feel they are um "all repetitive". So what if I like to kill, loot, search, craft and repeat in Fallout? Buddies...I'll do that for the next Fallouts and still not care. New features are nice, but I'm in it to do the cycle, no matter what other folks think.
How are we going to do that when an obvious repetitive game comes out and people defend it and praise it only for them to snap out of it a month or so later and go "Oh god...why did I buy this day 1, the naysayers were right...WHAT HAVE I DONE"...but never learn their lesson the following year with another game. Developers won't change unless we do...and since some of us can't learn from past mistakes, become realists and actual prepare for the worse despite the industry these days not being sunshine and roses it used to be I don't think it will. Lets see what happens with Ghost Recon Wild Lands. Looks very impressive so far, like most Ubisoft games when they are first announced but lets actually see what happens. I bet if it ends up having the same old "find a region on the map, locate a tower/radio beacon, climb/destroy it and unlock it" like Assassins Creed, Watch Dogs and Far Cry people will still defend it until release, after they buy it and over a month until it sinks in. By then the damage is done, they have your money. http://www.cheapiesrecords.... The good old days.
But i like rocket league :(
Is Rocket League on the 4th-5th game or a copy and pasted model from another game with hardly any big changes to make them both feel differen't? Nope. I think Rocket League gets a pass, it's not like it was a huge retail AAA game.
A broken clock is right twice a day, and people who complain about everything are right to complain every once in awhile. That's about sums up the track record of the chronic naysayers.
You can't really demand an end to repetitive games. Some people love repetitive games. Some people would prefer a lot of things to be padded with busywork while others want a quick thing. People grind MMOs, Ubisoft titles, Mahjong, Minecraft for 100s, 1000s of hours. I quite like the fact you can rush through stories largely but there's a bunch of extra stuff if you want it there too. There's place in the market for both styles.
Exactly! I do not understand when people say any style of game needs to end, people enjoy it otherwise they wouldn't buy it. If you don't enjoy them don't buy them, no reason to "end" them.
Agreed. This doesn't need to be an either or.
The only way this can be done is by not buying those games in the first place
You could always not buy those games, and instead spend your money on something else.
No people would rather spend there time complaining about it. That's too logical.
For me the issue is that there isn't much else being released these days. Seems like every AAA title is open world or online fps & every formerly linear franchise has went open world. I am definitely spending my money only on games I enjoy, which is saving me money for sure, but it ain't strengthening my library much.
I don't understand. So you want a linear experience over open world? Open world isn't the problem . the problem is the people making open world games aren't pushing open world experiences forward. not many are being creative anymore.
There's nothing wrong with an open world. How it's implemented is the problem. Make an open world game that offers many side quests and optional content, but make it also possible to simply follow the story through the world like you would do in a linear game. Both types of gamers would have their share then.
"every formerly linear franchise has went open world" like?
The problem for many gamers is that they don't have any imagination, they don't remember their childhood where they just pretended and played. They have to have their hand held so the games become only what the developer tells them to do and only the story. I remember playing GTA 4, it took me over 3 years to finish the story because I just enjoyed the environment, exploring and starting shit with the cops.
Yes your imagination can definitely run wild in gta but idk, I just don't feel like I've played a game that made me say"now this is the reason I bought my ps4"I feel like I'm playing the same gameplay experiences from last gen with minor graphical upgrades, from a naked eye perspective of course. maybe I'm just getting tired of gaming
I love it when a good developer holds my hand, my best gaming memories come from those experiences. My imagination for games is based on what themes I wanna see use to build a compelling cinematic story. We both have different preferences on what's a enjoyable game, thankfully there's enough developers who give us games we both can like. I completed the GTA4 story in like 2 or 3 weeks, fun times. It's kind of funny, I never played any of the GTA games just doing random mayham killing. I jump right into the story until it's over.
That does play a part in it. It can also be attributed to this ADHD/borderline personality generation of gamers as well. They lack patience. They can't be bothered to research what they are getting. They complain about "short" and "linear" and "single-player only" games. That being said, these games can be fun for long periods of time. (Hell, I could play some of the old Playstation Underground demos for hours...just repeating whatever was given.) It's up to the devs to diversify the gaming experience. Traditional "fetch quests" can be fun if they don't feel like a chore and are made to feel like organic parts of the game. Same with other mechanics that have become archetypes of these open-world experiences. At the end of the day, generally, games are repetitive by nature. It's up to the devs to make us feel like the repetition is rewarding in some aspect. Even larger, though, is the need to people to know (to the best of their ability) what they are getting in a game.
This is where my interest in No Man's Sky comes from. I'm interested in seeing just how immersive a game can be when it's a completely randomly generated experience. Hopefully, there's enough to do to offset the lack of any real story.
Same here jyndal.I feel like randomly generated content is a next gen feature. Could definitely go a long way with helping repetitiveness
Are you sure about that? Procedural generation seems to have a negative connotation nowadays.
If it's done right, it can definitely extend the life of a game. However, the mechanics MUST hold up over the time that the game is being played. I'm excited to see if that's the case with NMS.
Gimme a warhawk game with seamless singleplayer and multiplayer capabilities with randomly generated content and I'd be satisfied.
All games in essence are repetitive. It's how fun the repetition is that makes it good.
Agreed. Many don't seem to realize that.
Repetitive games aren't the problem. Repetitive N4G clickbait opinion articles about said games are the problem. EQ and WoW existed just fine without much drama for over a decade before the current comment section culture ruined gaming.
Sounds like you're demanding an end to games. They're all repetitive.
Assassins Creed 1 was repetitive but had a good story. Far Cry 4 on the other hand had too much to do but none of it was really fun. Bioshock 1 and 2, Half Life, and Deus Ex were long games and I enjoyed every minute. It seems like newer games try to increase the length by giving you a ton of useless side missions that only serve as roadblocks to getting a platinum trophy instead of actually adding to the story or experience.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.