[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   
File: 37 KB, 320x220, mm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
414596 No.414596 [Reply] [Original]

Is it justifiable to complain about the short length of a game after using a walkthrough guide?

>> No.414619

>>414596
No, and if you need a walkthrough for Majora's Mask, you belong on >>>/v/

>> No.414821

>>414619
*Dalek Voice* EXPLAAAAAAAAIN!

Majora's Mask is a 5th Gen game. So /vr/ is the place you're meant to discuss it.

>> No.414841

>>414821
He's calling you a noob casual. Just report his shitposting.

And to be honest, no, it's not. With a guide, you can clear Simon's Quest in about two hours. You can even shave massive chunks of time off just about any dungeon crawler if you map the entire labyrinth before you even start.

>> No.414887

Not with that game, god no. Majora's Mask is a game about taking your time to get to know the world and the characters and immerse yourself in the experience. If you used a walkthrough, you missed out on half the experience.

>> No.414894

>>414596
That is not a justifiable complaint. Learning what to do, exploring, maybe getting lost, and playing at your own pace is part of what makes games fun.

If a game is short using a walkthrough, so what? You hardly played it freely.

>> No.414898

>>414841
I'm not the OP. I was just questioning the assumption that someone who knows zero about MM belongs on /v/ and not /vr/. Maybe he's shitposting, maybe he isn't.

>> No.414923

>>414898
The sooner we stop talking about it the sooner that problem goes away.

Back on topic, using a walkthrough is often antithetical with retro games. Part of the fun of them is discovering what to do, and in a game like Zelda, that's pretty clearly telegraphed to you. It's not Byzantine and confusing like Atlantis no Nazo or something.

Using a guide for a game that would be pretty much impossible without one makes sense. For Zelda? Unless you want 100% completion, you probably should leave it behind, and even if you DO want 100%, it's not hard to get without a guide.

>> No.414928

>>414894

I agree with this one. If you're a stuck in a specific moment or something, it's okay to look it up in the walkthrough. But using it rom start to beginning - that'd be like watching a movie and continuously reading the spoilers for its next five minutes.

>> No.414962
File: 10 KB, 320x180, mqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
414962

I was thinking about this today.
I'm currently playing Goemon's Great Adventure, already beat the game, but I'm still collecting the remaining entry passes. If I looked up some guide, finding dem secrets wouldn't have feel as good as actually finding them myself.

I have 43 entry passes, going for the last one!

44 is a bad luck number in traditional japanese superstition. 4 can be pronounced "yon" or "shi", most people use Yon, because shi can mean also death. Given that this game is mostly about the ghouls and undead/spirits, I found this to be funny.

>> No.414990

>>414923
>antithetical with retro games.

No it's not. Don't come up with these arbitrary rules.

"We" (not literally all of us) used player's guides, magazines, and help lines all the time back in the day.

>> No.415020

Using a guide for a game and then complaining about its short length is idiotic in every way. If you use the guide occasionally then maybe, but even then it is a bit ridiculous to complain.

>> No.415035

No, since most games are very, very short if you know exactly what to do. Your time for your first run through, provided you didn't get hung up for a while on something stupid, is a good judge of a game's length.

Chrono Trigger can be beaten in 2 hours, but the average completion time is 10+.

>> No.415057

>use a map

>Wow this treasure hunt fucking sucked, too easy.

>> No.415150

"Yay it's Easter! Time for the egg hunt!"
"Here is the map to show you exactly where the eggs are!"

5 minutes later

"Wow that Egg Hunt didn't last very long. Try harder next year."

>> No.415151

>>414990
For the vast majority of games, using a guide should be for when you're stuck. Lots of games it doesn't make sense. Who needs a guide for Contra?

>> No.415653

>>415151
A guy who wants to do the perfect speedrun?

By the way, guides ruin the fun for every game.

>> No.416308

Yes, actual content is different than wandering around trying to figure out where to go next.

>> No.416442

No, have you ever played Myst?
You can beat it in <5 minutes regardless of skill (lel).
Yes if it's a strategy guide and not a walk though.

>> No.416480

Sure, if the game is actually short. If some idiot happens to use a guide for some absurdly short game, the use of the game wouldn't invalidate the complaint. You should be able to assess the length of the game for the average unguided player and make judgements based on that.

I'm against following guides in general, though; you might as well watch someone else play. Though I understand you can get stuck and check a guide or something, but following instructions to a T isn't really playing the game.

>> No.416509

>>416442
Using a guide can open your eyes to different ways to playing a game if it's that sort of game.

>> No.416521

>>416509
I replied to that post by mistake

>> No.416527

>>416509
Like obscured things or easter eggs?

>> No.416545

>>416509
Which is something cool to do after you've played it.
Using a guide on the first playthrough is like doing a paint-by-number puzzle.

>> No.416702

>>416509
Morrowind's guide was fantastic in this regard. It had a specific section that pointed out random, mostly inconsequential things you could find or do, like a small island with a waterfall that has nothing special about it aside from looking nice. Or using books as platforms to cross lava.

>> No.416858

>>416509
True, but IMO, you should have beat it by yourself first.

>> No.416916

>>414596
No.
Using a walkthrough is already despicable.

>> No.416934

>>416916
What if it's a stridethrough?

>> No.417084

>>414596
I don't think it's justifiable to bitch about games being short, period.

Most shorter games have more replay value and more organic feeling design, while most longer games are tunnels with almost no replay value at all.

I feel more like I got my money's worth if I can beat a game in 1-3 days, but end up replaying it for years, rather than playing something really long and only ever bothering with it once.

That's why I've given up on newer games and decided to focus entirely on retro games. They're generally shoretr, but can be replayed a million ways.

Final Fantasy 1 for example had like 225 different party combinations (if I remember correctly, I didn't do the math just now, lol) abut it's only 10 hours long. So all around, it's 200 or more hours of gameplay.

FFXIII takes 30 hours to beat and has a 20 hour post game. No replay value in the slightest. So those 50 hours are literally it, that's the game, thanks for paying us anyway, g'bye.
(and that doesn't even get into the fact that FFXIII is a shit game in general...)

That's just insane to me. Resident Evil is another great example of this:

Resident Evil 2 takes most people 5-7 hours to beat the first time, then roughly 2-3 hours less after that. So just to beat the 4 main scenarios, we're talking about 20 hours. Add to that the side areas, unlockable weapons and bonus modes, and you can tack on another 10 hours of gamelay just to do everything there is to do in the game. So we're looking at 30 hours total.

Resident Evil 6 takes 20 hours to beat, but then there's no reason to ever touch it again. Sure, you could replay as another character, but all that changes is what side you shoot from.
There's no optional areas, unlockable weapons and the side modes offer little actual content unless you pay for it. It's also basically a rail shooter.

I don't know, maybe I'm nuts. But I'd rather be crazy than play a bunch of shitty games because "it's long! I got muh moneyz werth!!!"

>> No.417161

>>417084
Maybe I'm nuts, but when I buy a game and beat it in under 30 minutes, I feel a little ripped off. Particularly if those 30 minutes weren't outstanding enough to make me want to replay the game.

>> No.417176

no because it's cheating

>> No.418792 [DELETED] 
File: 18 KB, 500x333, 1358061521866.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
418792

>>414962
goddamn weeaboo

>> No.418805

>>416702
dear god, but don't ever use the UESP with Morrowind or Skyrim. Sucks the life out of them.

>> No.420310
File: 26 KB, 403x437, lanchitavicio.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
420310

>>418792

In my country we don't give a shit about halloween, yet I know about halloween's origins and traditions, and I'm not a westaboo. Get out.

>> No.420345

>>420310
> I know about halloween's origins and traditions
please, enlighten me.

>> No.420359

That's like watching a movie trailer while reading the Wikipedia plot summary then complaining that it was too short.

>> No.420384

I don't think it's justifiable to complain about the short length of a game at all.

Unless the developers or marketing promised a certain length (which is more a problem of false advertising), or it was cut short abruptly because they rushed to release it or something, I don't really see "short" as a criticism. We have short films and novellas, so I don't see a problem with a shorter trip of a game. I think people have just gotten used to a certain type of game, or they cling to a weird concept of quantity meaning value or playability or something. I think we need to be more accepting of more diversity in game genre and form than that.

And I also agree with some people here saying that using a guide hurts the free flow of playing a game and exploring its world. To me, reading a solution to a gameplay challenge is possibly as much a spoiler as reading some revelation in a plot summary for a film or TV show episode you haven't seen yet.

>> No.420393

>>414596
No. You didn't figure anything out yourself, thus your time was shorter than it normally would be.

>> No.420396

>>418805
I don't think I'd be having half as much fun with Morrowind if every last nuance and glitch wasn't so well-documented. There's a lot of stuff in the game that's not well-conveyed though playing it.

I wouldn't recommend anyone playing the game with a guide until they finish their first run, though.

>> No.420449

>>420384
Given that shorter games take less time and resources to develop, I'll start agreeing with you when they stop charging full price for short games.

I certainly wouldn't pay novel prices for a novella, now would I?

>> No.420482

>>420449
Plus, you can easily gauge the length of a novel. Not so with video games.

>> No.420593

>>417084
>>420384
So you don't mind spending $50 on a 20 minute game?

I think you ARE promised some amount of playability when you buy a game, whether due to length of the game or replayability.

>> No.420620

>>420345

Nah, I'd rather you go back to /v/

>> No.420697

>>420593
I never said that. In fact I think part of the problem is the price, which is 1) too uniform for different types of games, and 2) too much anyway. You do get some cheaper, smaller games out there, though they are mostly download titles.

>I think you ARE promised some amount of playability
Yes, but I think of it more in terms of quality of gameplay (enjoyment, or "fun"), than just considering the number of hours you spend alone.By alone I mean "exclusively", not "on your own", damn ambiguous English It's a factor, but not the only one.

>>420449
Of course not. There's also short story collections, which are packaged together and charged for close to the price of a full novel. There's one or two game compilations packaged as a single disc out there if I recall.

It should be more nuanced like that I think. You might only be willing to buy a short film if it was a bonus feature on a regular feature-length movie, but you'd pay (roughly) the same for two new release films, one being 90 minutes and the other being a 2 hour 33 min epic. I consider MM more on the level of a swift 90 minute film than a short film.

>> No.420820

>Is it justifiable to complain about the short length of a game after using a walkthrough guide?

In case of MM it somewhat is, no matter if you used a walkthrough or not.

why? because most Zelda games have at least 8 major dungeons. this one only had pathetic 4 dungeons. most sidequests are short as well. but the real reason why it's short is that MM was made in a year only.

So what gives. I wish it was different but it isn't. I didn't like their decision but it already happened.

>> No.420856

>>417084
>So all around, it's 200 or more hours of gameplay.

I play that game right now. but what you are saying is really retarded. I don't know about extra additional content in the other versions but claiming the game becomes 200 hours just because you replay it with another party setup doesn't mean shit. the whole questline stays the same after all. I like the game a lot and understand why it is short but what you claim is just weird.

>> No.420889

If you're using a walkthrough and the game isn't short, it's probably full of busy-work and tedious.

>> No.420912

>>420889
Well I, for one, am actually playing Majora's Mask right now for the first time (had a PSX growing up), and since I work a full time job, whenever I get stuck for more than 20 minutes (I mean really making no progress at all), I take out a walkthrough. I would never finish it otherwise with the limited time I have for gaming.