Are games alienating casual gamers?

[Stuckey]

I'm a very casual gamer and not a big fan of FPS, but Rainbow Six Vegas looked pretty so I borrowed my buddy's copy. Once I realized there was no autolock I realized this game was going to be too much. So I go online to get an invincibility cheat so that I can get somewhere in the game only to discover there isn't one. That got me to thinking, I can't remember the last time I played a game (other than GTA series) where there was a God mode or something similar.

Is there a reason developers seem to be including less cheats? How about difficulty levels other than Normal/Hard/Insane? And most importantly why is autolock going away? I get that some people don't like it, but why not just make the game with autolock as a toggleable option?

[Gokou Ruri]

Nintendo seems to be focused on appealing to strictly casual gamers ever since the Wii came out, so you might try that.

[Mynd Hed]

I'd say there's a pretty good balance right now between easier and harder games coming out. FPS games tend to be on the harder end of the spectrum, because they're traditionally a more hardcore genre dating back to the days when you had to be a Voodoo-buying PC-gaming ubergeek to enjoy them, but in general you shouldn't have any trouble finding some easier games for your enjoyment.

Bioshock, to name just one example, is an absolutely stellar FPS that's insanely easy, especially if you play on the lowest difficulty and don't mind abusing the resurrection system a little.

[Charlie]

People like challenges some more than others. But not all games can cater to those who want or don't want much of a challenged. Development time and costs can force developers to decide what will be included in a game, and ultimately who they're targeting the sale of said game too. Chances are the person who wants to buy a tactile squad based FPS is going to want a challenge.

I am surprised there is no auto-lock option. With every FPS I have thats option is standard.

[Joe]

I'm a very casual gamer and not a big fan of FPS, but Rainbow Six Vegas looked pretty so I borrowed my buddy's copy. Once I realized there was no autolock I realized this game was going to be too much. So I go online to get an invincibility cheat so that I can get somewhere in the game only to discover there isn't one. That got me to thinking, I can't remember the last time I played a game (other than GTA series) where there was a God mode or something similar.


Perhaps theyre helping the Pro Action Replay market?

I sorta see where you're getting at, since most ingame cheats these days are unlocked by accomplishing a very time consuming or difficult task.

Though about difficulty settings, some games still have "easy" settings, such as the Metal Gear Solid series.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Hardcore games can't help but alienate casual gamers if they're done right, but there are plenty of games for the casual crowd, more than ever. I don't think anyone has set out to alienate them, and I like that there is so much variety available.

If you want cheats and a game doesn't have them, you should probably buy a cheating device. I think one reason less developers include cheats now is that because games have gotten easier so most people don't need God mode to see the end. Auto lock just doesn't happen that much in console FPS anymore now that they've got control schemes better worked out, although other games do have a more subtle aiming assist.

By the way, I consider myself a pretty serious gamer but the Rainbow Six games have always been too confusing and tough for me. Pretty graphics aside, I think that was the wrong choice for a casual pick up and play. You might like Bioshock, though.

[sdp]

I see the term hardcore and casual gamer be thrown around a lot both by fans and companies alike.

This creates a problem as I think most people have different views on what is what. What do I think? In high school all the people I know who I'd consider "casual" gamers they were the ones buying GTA, Halo, MGS, Tony Hawk. Who many would consider games for the "hardcore". Yet its the casual people who buy them that is why they sell so much.

[Stuckey]

I don't think companies are setting out to alienate anybody intentionally. It just seems, at least to me, that when you say "casual gamer" you end up with stuff like Mario Party or something with little cartoon characters bouncing around the screen. I'm a casual gamer and I have no real interest in party games outside of Wii Sports.

But, yeah, this was more me venting and wondering if I was alone. And Mynd Hed's comment about FPS being harder because the genre is older/more hardcore is kinda what I'm getting at. I can definatley respect that, but how does that help to expand or replenish your target audience? If everything coming out is geared towards people who have been playing these games for years where does a newcomer go to get into the genre without feeling completely overwhelmed? I don't know, maybe I'm just not meant to enjoy FPS. Oh well.

[HG Revolution]

Hardcore games can't help but alienate casual gamers if they're done right

Are you implying that something like Wind Waker isn't done right because I found it easily accessible without being a hardcore gamer at the time?

[Jay]

People play games to be challenged and for replay value,why would companies put stuff like autolock and massive cheats in there game it just makes the value of the game go down.Why can all thank nintendo for the "casual gamer" movement which really is a money cow tactic.

[Tanooki]

People play games to be challenged and for replay value,why would companies put stuff like autolock and massive cheats in there game it just makes the value of the game go down.Why can all thank nintendo for the "casual gamer" movement which really is a money cow tactic.
because they make quality, affordable systems that everyone can play. their bad!

[Gokou Ruri]

because they make quality, affordable systems that everyone can play. their bad!I think he means the casual games which are nothing more than minigame compilations (WiiPlay/Sport/Fit) and "games" that aren't really "games" (Brain Age). Compared to stuff other systems offer like Oblivion, Dead Rising, and Gears of War.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Are you implying that something like Wind Waker isn't done right because I found it easily accessible without being a hardcore gamer at the time?

No. Partly because Wind Waker isn't a hardcore game. It's very accessible. But also because I'm talking about things like Carnage Heart or Unreal Tournament, or a strategy RPG. If they made them too easy and simple they would take away the compexity and challenge that is their very appeal.

[HG Revolution]

I think he means the casual games which are nothing more than minigame compilations (WiiPlay/Sport/Fit) and "games" that aren't really "games" (Brain Age). Compared to stuff other systems offer like Oblivion, Dead Rising, and Gears of War.

Minigames and nongames are still better than most generic WWII shooter sequels and licensed games. Compare those to stuff Wii has like Twilight Princess, Resident Evil Wii Edition, and Metroid Prime 3.

[Gokou Ruri]

Minigames and nongames are still better than most generic WWII shooter sequels and licensed games. Compare those to stuff Wii has like Twilight Princess, Resident Evil Wii Edition, and Metroid Prime 3. Two ports and a sequel (thirdquel?) isn't that much, to be honest.

[HG Revolution]

Two ports and a sequel (thirdquel?) isn't that much, to be honest.

The 360 has been out longer and had more times to make great games. How many great games were there 10 months into the 360's run? Probably not more than 4 or 5. The Wii has plenty of A-grade titles coming soon (Brawl, Mario Galaxy, Zack and Wiki, No More Heroes, Manhunt 2, NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams, etc.).

I'm simply trying to make the point that the stuff people complain about on the Wii so much (casual games) isn't as big a problem as some of the generic titles that plague the other systems.

[Shawn Hopkins]

But the Wii has generic licensed titles, too, a lot of them. It has the same high ratio of kiddy licensed Krap TM that plagued the Gamecube. The good titles you mention are like diamonds in a pile of dog crap.

[Tanooki]

But the Wii has generic licensed titles, too, a lot of them. It has the same high ratio of kiddy licensed Krap TM that plagued the Gamecube. The good titles you mention are like diamonds in a pile of dog crap.
which is why i only have 4 wii titles right now. lol. just went to my wal-mart. they actually had 2 wiis and like 30 different spongebob games

[HG Revolution]

But the Wii has generic licensed titles, too, a lot of them. It has the same high ratio of kiddy licensed Krap TM that plagued the Gamecube. The good titles you mention are like diamonds in a pile of dog crap.

So are Oblivion, Gears of War, and Dead Rising, at least they were in the early run of the 360.

[Stuckey]

People play games to be challenged and for replay value,why would companies put stuff like autolock and massive cheats in there game it just makes the value of the game go down.Why can all thank nintendo for the "casual gamer" movement which really is a money cow tactic.


How does it make the value of the game go down to include autolock or cheats? Nobody is forcing you to use either option. GTA had autolock on their games (starting with GTA3 at least) and that series is, for the most part, adored by hardcore gamers and non-hardcore gamers alike.

Again, when I said casual gamer I didn't mean it in the traditional sense. I meant someone who isn't hardcore. Not someone who wants to play Wario Ware and Mario Party all the time. I think I'll start saying non-hardcore.

Edit: Awesome turn this thread has taken by the way.

[Shawn Hopkins]

So are Oblivion, Gears of War, and Dead Rising, at least they were in the early run of the 360.

Eh, not to the extent the Wii has suffered. Of course the 360 had its share of not so great games early on, but there just wasn't the overload of things that only exist to promote a movie, cartoon or other children's product. Wii shelves are crammed with the stuff.

[Mynd Hed]

Eh, not to the extent the Wii has suffered. Of course the 360 had its share of not so great games early on, but there just wasn't the overload of things that only exist to promote a movie, cartoon or other children's product. Wii shelves are crammed with the stuff.

LIFE is crammed with that stuff. You've either got to learn to ignore it or go utterly mad.

The talking walnut constantly tells me to do the latter, but he'll get his. UWAAA-haa-haaa!!!

...Seriously, though, there's an easy solution to bad games: don't play them. Video game systems are defined by their GOOD games, not their shovelware.

[Undrave]

LIFE is crammed with that stuff. You've either got to learn to ignore it or go utterly mad.

The talking walnut constantly tells me to do the latter, but he'll get his. UWAAA-haa-haaa!!!

...Seriously, though, there's an easy solution to bad games: don't play them. Video game systems are defined by their GOOD games, not their shovelware.

The only reason the Wii shelves are crammed with the stuff is because it's the system with the better penetration within families. In other words the number of shovelware is actually a sign of a healthy popular system because companies see a profit opportunity.

And some (rare) shovelare can turn out to be good.

Anyway I don't see how minigames games are any less valid than other games. God forbid we play games where you don't shoot somebody. As long as there's a challenge there's a game.

[Master Moron]

As a casual gamer, one thing that deters me from playing more games is the length. I just can't afford to waste 100 hours playing a game. I miss the days when I could beat a game in a few hours.

[KuwabaraTheMan]

As a casual gamer, one thing that deters me from playing more games is the length. I just can't afford to waste 100 hours playing a game. I miss the days when I could beat a game in a few hours.

Although long games can be time consuming, there's no real enjoyment from beating a game in a few hours, unless it's something with massive replay value, which gets most of it's enjoyment from multiplayer.

I don't want to spend good money on something I can beat in one sitting. Part of the joy of a video game is the time you invest in beating it. Even when I was a kid, I always enjoyed investing real time into beating a game.

And what games are taking you 100 hours to beat? Even the most hardcore of RPGs usually don't take near that long unless you're trying to clear every sidequest.

[mookie75]

Although long games can be time consuming, there's no real enjoyment from beating a game in a few hours, unless it's something with massive replay value, which gets most of it's enjoyment from multiplayer.

I don't want to spend good money on something I can beat in one sitting. Part of the joy of a video game is the time you invest in beating it. Even when I was a kid, I always enjoyed investing real time into beating a game.

And what games are taking you 100 hours to beat? Even the most hardcore of RPGs usually don't take near that long unless you're trying to clear every sidequest.

And yet, back in the olden days we all spent good money on something we could beat in a few hours. I remember buying Excitebike for something like $50 bucks (back when it was a new game) and you can experience that entire game in LESS than an hour. :sweat:

We've clearly become spoiled in these later years. I remember when our household first got the original NES and for the longest time all we had was Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt. Practially every day for months on end I went down into our basement to play -- and beat -- that game; after all, it was pretty much a given that you were going to play it to the end if you bothered to play it at all. I'm sure we all know that there isn't much to discover after the first few runs through that game, but yet there was a time when it was more than enough entertainment. We clearly have it better now, but sometimes when I think back to those days I'm amazed that video games have made it this far.

Who here would pay the original retail price for an NES game now? Imagine if those NES Virtual Console games were 5,000 to 6,000 points instead of 500. It's hard to believe, but that's the equivalent of what we used to spend on them. :eek:

[KuwabaraTheMan]

I would never dedicate that much money to a game you could beat in one sitting.

I was certainly never going to beat Super Mario Bros in one sitting. Hell, I still can't beat that game in one sitting, and it does have tons of replay value.

I guess my point was just 'why ask for shorter games?'. If it takes you awhile to beat a game, so what? It makes it more enjoyable. I've got games I've literally been trying to beat for years, and I know that when I do, it will be amazing.

[mookie75]

I would never dedicate that much money to a game you could beat in one sitting.

I was certainly never going to beat Super Mario Bros in one sitting. Hell, I still can't beat that game in one sitting, and it does have tons of replay value.

I guess my point was just 'why ask for shorter games?'. If it takes you awhile to beat a game, so what? It makes it more enjoyable. I've got games I've literally been trying to beat for years, and I know that when I do, it will be amazing.

No arguments here. I have plenty of time that I could dedicate to playing video games if I so desired. I suppose I was just commenting on the changes that I've seen in video games over the years.

[Master Moron]

Although long games can be time consuming, there's no real enjoyment from beating a game in a few hours, unless it's something with massive replay value, which gets most of it's enjoyment from multiplayer.

I don't want to spend good money on something I can beat in one sitting. Part of the joy of a video game is the time you invest in beating it. Even when I was a kid, I always enjoyed investing real time into beating a game.

And what games are taking you 100 hours to beat? Even the most hardcore of RPGs usually don't take near that long unless you're trying to clear every sidequest.

I've heard the argument about getting more for your money before, and I just don't buy it. Adding 50 hours to the game doesn't make the game any better. If they really want to add replay value to the game, they should add more multiplayer features.


I would never dedicate that much money to a game you could beat in one sitting.

I was certainly never going to beat Super Mario Bros in one sitting. Hell, I still can't beat that game in one sitting, and it does have tons of replay value.

Ummm...well, originally you HAD to beat Super Mario Bros. in one sitting, as there was no save game feature on the NES cart.


I guess my point was just 'why ask for shorter games?'. If it takes you awhile to beat a game, so what? It makes it more enjoyable. I've got games I've literally been trying to beat for years, and I know that when I do, it will be amazing.

The problem is there's other things I'd like to do besides play games. I'd like to watch movies, watch TV, read books, or maybe even possibly have a social life. Putting 100 hours into one game is just a little ridiculous and just seems like a waste of time. And yes, some games do take more than 100 hours to beat, such as Grand Theft Auto or Gran Turismo.

[Jave]

I would never dedicate that much money to a game you could beat in one sitting.

I was certainly never going to beat Super Mario Bros in one sitting. Hell, I still can't beat that game in one sitting, and it does have tons of replay value.

I guess my point was just 'why ask for shorter games?'. If it takes you awhile to beat a game, so what? It makes it more enjoyable. I've got games I've literally been trying to beat for years, and I know that when I do, it will be amazing.The original Prince of Persia was a major hit back when it was originally released, and you had only one hour of real time to beat it.

[Mynd Hed]

Why does this have to be something that divides people into two camps? I loves me a long, epic game that takes dozens of hours to beat, an Oblivion or Zelda or Dragon Quest VIII. I also love the sort of game that you can play for an hour or two and then put away for a couple weeks, like Guitar Hero or Soul Calibur or Wii Sports or Excite Truck. Which I play at any given moment just depends on how much free time I have in my schedule, or what mood I'm in.

What's the point of limiting yourself when there are so many great games out there of many different lengths?

[DarthGonzo]

Anyway I don't see how minigames games are any less valid than other games. God forbid we play games where you don't shoot somebody.

THANK YOU (TM)

That's why I'd rather have a Wii than a PS3 or a 360. I actually do enjoy the mini games in addition to everything else the system offers. I'm not a fan of FPS. At all. I feel like that's all that's available on the other systems.

[Dr. Daedalus]

For the most part, I don't really have a problem with the length of games nowadays. On average, I usually end up beating a game in about a week (on again/off again). That's about right; you don't feel like you wasted $50 by being able to beat something in one sitting, but it doesn't drag on unnecessarily long either. And in that week, I never play nonstop; it's just an hour or two here and there. That's a good balance.

In my experience, I've found that the games which take a LONG time to "beat" are the ones where you want (or feel obligated) to collect every single unlockable. Some examples which come to mind:
-Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball: There are a LOT of swimsuits to collect, and it can be tedious to earn enough money to buy just one.
-Gran Turismo 3: If you want to beef up your garage and up your percentage completion, this takes a LOOOOOONG time.
-Grand Theft Auto series: Tons of side quests.
-Mortal Kombat Deception/Armageddon: There are a truckload of items to unlock from the Krypt, and it can take a lot of gameplay to earn enough money to unlock them.
-SSX 3: This one was especially irritating. You have to work up the stats for every single player, and doing it for just ONE character takes a long time. And that's not even counting all the stuff you can buy from the store!

[Conan-san]

Are you implying that something like Wind Waker isn't done right because I found it easily accessible without being a hardcore gamer at the time?If you could a call the Fetch the triforce whilst having dirty things done untowrd your wallet by a self=confessed "fairy" in a gimp suit done right, then sure, what the hell.

[Tommy Lawson]

THANK YOU (TM)

That's why I'd rather have a Wii than a PS3 or a 360. I actually do enjoy the mini games in addition to everything else the system offers. I'm not a fan of FPS. At all. I feel like that's all that's available on the other systems.


And thus, here we have a prime example of why a game like Viva Piñata failed to catch on - a prevailing attitude that the 360 only has FPS and sports games + Nintendo's reputation among consumers = very low game sales for genres outside FPS and sports games on the 360. And of course, if there's a belief among consumers that the 360 is best for FPS and sports games, guess what is going to be released for it? Nintendo has a well established family-friendly image among consumers that leads to large sales of its portable systems and now its Wii console as well. It is very hard to go against that type of consumer mentality once it's established. It's like how in the early to mid 1990s, Disney was the undisputed king of animated movies and nobody could compete with them.

As for me personally, I really look forward to the challenge of a game more than anything else. Whether it's making it to the end of a storyline or trying to defeat a powerful boss, I feel a great sense of accomplishment once I've completed either a specific goal within a game, or finishing the game itself. If the game has a hard more, I want to see if it's possible for me to compete at that level. I guess it comes from relentlessly trying to beat the early Mega Man games on the NES.

[Shawn Hopkins]

The first Megaman had to be beaten in one sitting, too. Thank goodness for unlimited continues and that trick to frying the Golem boss, or I never would have gotten it done in one weekend rental.

I agree with some of the other posters, though. It's good that there's a mix of long and short games. I like both, although I hate when a game is dragged out artificially with backtracking or other methods. And length is by no means an indicator of quality. There are bunch of horrible long games and great short ones out there.

[Jave]

And length is by no means an indicator of quality.Anyone who played The Tick for the SNES knows how truthful this statement is.

[tb4000]

I'm 29, so I grew up on pretty much every game system out there. I do feel that games today have gotten way too complex. One button to jump, one to crouch, one to stand up, one to sit down, one to peek around corners, etc. It's getting so you have to have freaking photographic memory genes in order to play a lot of this crap.

[DarthGonzo]

I'm 29, so I grew up on pretty much every game system out there. I do feel that games today have gotten way too complex. One button to jump, one to crouch, one to stand up, one to sit down, one to peek around corners, etc. It's getting so you have to have freaking photographic memory genes in order to play a lot of this crap.

BINGO! I feel that way too.

Now...bring on the inevitable rebuttals...

[MattThomasM2B]

Before the Wii came out, "casual gamer" was a term generally decided as describing those who would play Halo, Madden, GTA and not much of anything else. The 12-40 male demographic that played games but didn't care about that random obscure japanese game with the wierd name.

The type of people who flock to Wii are closer to the kind who should be playing Bejewled instead of picking up a game controller.

I have no clue why people want to spend $50-60 on a game that can be finished in a few sittings. Any game that takes below eight hours or cannot facilitate eight hours of entertainment at the minmum is not worth its asking price.

[DarthGonzo]

I have no clue why people want to spend $50-60 on a game that can be finished in a few sittings. Any game that takes below eight hours or cannot facilitate eight hours of entertainment at the minmum is not worth its asking price.

Just out of curiosity, how old are you? I'm 28 and waaaaay back in the day I was paying prices like that for games I could easily beat in well under 5 hours. Heck, we were still in the NES days when I was able to beat Super Mario 2 in a half hour and later I was able to blow through all 96 goals of Super Mario World in 4 hours. And I did it over and over again. Why? Because they were short enough that I could and it was just fun. I like Wii Play. It's a neat concept and it's really fun to break it out when I have people over. Even my non-gamer friends have gotten a kick out of it.

Length does not equal quality. Maybe my generation just thinks differently, I dunno.

[Mynd Hed]

I have no clue why people want to spend $50-60 on a game that can be finished in a few sittings. Any game that takes below eight hours or cannot facilitate eight hours of entertainment at the minmum is not worth its asking price.

It all depends on what you mean by "finished." I can sit down and beat the one-player mode of Smash Brothers in about twenty minutes, but that's a game that gets MUCH replay value from multiplayer. Ditto just about every other fighting game you can think of.

Or what about something like Tetris? You never really "finish," and a play session is often relatively short, but you can get LOTS of play value out of it.

What about Guitar Hero? I can blow through all the songs on Medium in a couple sittings. Do I then say to myself, "Well, I 'finished' the game!" and put it away for good? Hell, no! I pick it back up and set about beating my high scores, or try it on a harder difficulty level.

There are plenty of games out there that are ostensibly "shorter" that I've gotten a lot more play time out of than that 40-hour epic that I play through once and then never touch again (see: the vast majority of RPGs I've played).

[Shawn Hopkins]

Before the Wii came out, "casual gamer" was a term generally decided as describing those who would play Halo, Madden, GTA and not much of anything else. The 12-40 male demographic that played games but didn't care about that random obscure japanese game with the wierd name.

The type of people who flock to Wii are closer to the kind who should be playing Bejewled instead of picking up a game controller.

I have no clue why people want to spend $50-60 on a game that can be finished in a few sittings. Any game that takes below eight hours or cannot facilitate eight hours of entertainment at the minmum is not worth its asking price.

You have to remember, though, just because you beat a game once doesn't mean you have to throw it away.

Games that can be completed in less than eight hours:

Street Fighter II
Megaman series
Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario Bros. II
Sonic the Hedgehog
Legend of Zelda (if you don't get stuck)
Gunstar Heroes

[DarthGonzo]

There are plenty of games out there that are ostensibly "shorter" that I've gotten a lot more play time out of than that 40-hour epic that I play through once and then never touch again (see: the vast majority of RPGs I've played).


Exactly. For me it was stuff like the Mario Kart series, or Tetris, or Yoshi, or ....

[MattThomasM2B]

Guys...

There's a reason most of these games from the "good ol' days" have to be sold either as part of compliations, or for $5-$10 off of XBLA, PSN or the VC. Standards have risen and people expect more bang for their buck.

That said, yes there are exceptions like puzzle games and fighting games. If you spend loads of time on games like Guitar Hero and EBA (just got the highest rank!) it's essentially no different than playing one long game.

I just think as a rule of thumb that if a game does not emphasize multiplayer, it better be able to have at least a work/school day's worth of entertainment time. That can be done with fresh content, or a concept that is entertaining enough to play multiple times. Anything I get bored with under that time might as well be rented or ignored.

[tb4000]

I think that has more to do with ADD than anything else.:sweat:

Me, I will play a Gears of War or whatever sometimes, but I ain't playing night and day trying to finish because well...i have grad school and a full time office job, so the weekend mornings and nights is when I get a little game time in. I just don't have the free time I did as a kid. I'm into stuff like Mario Strikers or even a Mario Party. I have had grown ass men that you would never think w0uld be into those coming over on weekends to just chill and play. The Wii's purpose is not to cater to the hardcore "gotta focus all my strengths into it" gamers, but the people that may have casual get-togethers and want something for a bunch of partygoers to do. When Smash Bros. comes out and is released with online play, it's going to be over. Wii will dominate even moreso.

[Dr. Daedalus]

A big part of games (and entertainment in general) for me is replay value. If I buy a game, play through it once, and never again, what's the point? That's why I generally buy arcade-style games, ones which I can go back and play a favorite level or course to keep improving my skills and to just have fun.

Racing games seem to fall into this category really easily, as they're pretty much designed FOR replay. Yes, you may spend a week unlocking everything, but after that you can go back and enjoy what you've earned, and face off against other players. The same is true for fighting games; you may spend a bit of time unlocking extra options and outfits, but it's meant for quick, fun play.

[Mynd Hed]

What bugs me is when racers and fighters make their unlockables ridiculously difficult and/or time-consuming to acquire. Soul Calibur III fell into this category IMO. The amount of grinding against the A.I. to try and get all the items unlocked was ridiculous. If you get the core gameplay right, players will keep coming back even without having a carrot dangled in front of their faces. Also can't stand multiplayer-centric games that force you to play the (usually lame) single-player mode to unlock items for use in multiplayer. Super Monkey Ball 2, I'm looking at you. I don't give a crap about your neo-Marble Madness 1P mode, just give me the damn multiplayer modes before my friends get here.

[mookie75]

Guys...

There's a reason most of these games from the "good ol' days" have to be sold either as part of compliations, or for $5-$10 off of XBLA, PSN or the VC. Standards have risen and people expect more bang for their buck.

Yeah, and you can thank us later. If it weren't for all of us suckers out there that were willing to pay $60 for all those 2 hour games 20 years ago, you would probably be reading a book today instead of playing on your Wii, PS3 or 360. ;)


Elite Beat Agents is another good example of a "short" game with great replay value. You can cruise through all those songs pretty quickly, but then you have the other difficulty levels to master. And after that, you can go back and try to get "S" grades on as many as you can. I loved that game, I hope they make another one someday.