Why I Rarely Complete Long Games

[ElkinFencer10]

It's funny that you mention Phantasy Star II, because I'm playing that right now. And yes, it's grindy as hell. (The first game is even worse when it comes to grinding.) I finally said "fuck it" one day and decided I'm okay with using throttling/fast-forwarding on emulators in RPGs.

Phantasy Star II was a really good game IMO except for the grinding, and you're right about the first one and how it required more grinding, but for some reason, I didn't mind it as much with the first one, and that's one of those examples that I mentioned where I don't mind it but have no idea why I don't mind it. I loved everything about the original Phantasy Star. Maybe it was nothing more than the fact that it was the underappreciated Master System, but for whatever reason, the grinding didn't bother me in Phantasy Star but totally killed Phantasy Star II for me.

As for emulators, I only use them when it's a game that I can't otherwise play, either because of language or monetary restraints. Then again, I'm a bit of a purist/elitist when it comes to emulation vs original hardware/software, so my view on that with a grain of salt.

[MrPopo]

The first Phantasy Star only feels like it required more grinding because of the overly long attack animations.

[Erik_Twice]

For me there are two issues with lenght:

1) Padding, low quality parts of the game: Basically, what Exhuminator said.
2) Game longer than my interest on it: For example, I want to play a strategy game, but I'm filled after 30 hours. The game lasts 40 so I leave it incompleted.

What strikes me about playing through old games is how short they usually are. Very frequently, they don't have much content. What they do have is difficulty, and the difficulty makes that content last a long time. It's almost a form of artificially adding content to a game.

Like, say a level, if played perfectly, takes 2 minutes to complete. Well, it might take you 30 tries to beat that level. There are only 2 minutes of content, but you got 60 minutes of playtime out of it. Extrapolate that out for the number of levels a game has (and factor in running out of lives/continues), and a really short game can last a really long time.

I think that's wrong way of looking at it.

Let's put it another way. Myst, if played perfectly, takes less than 10 minutes to complete. But it would be absurd to say it only has 10 minutes of content. And a Sudoku takes only a few seconds to fill out if you already know the answer.The same applies to these old games, the actual "content" is not what you do in a perfect play but what you do to get there: The planning and tweaking and skill-improving.

Once you take that into account these older games take 20-30 hours to complete, which is fairly reasonable.

[prfsnl_gmr]

Once you take that into account these older games take 20-30 hours to complete, which is fairly reasonable.

Unless, our course, you're Sarge. In which case, your amazing video game prowess renders even the most difficult and demanding 8- and 16-bit platformers a mere diversion.

[ElkinFencer10]

Once you take that into account these older games take 20-30 hours to complete, which is fairly reasonable.

Unless, our course, you're Sarge. In which case, your amazing video game prowess renders even the most difficult and demanding 8- and 16-bit platformers a mere diversion.

I heard that Sarge beat the Japanese SMB2 in under 10 minutes the first time he played it, and he beat Contra without losing a single life. True story, bro.

[mas]

The other day I tried to play an rpg. After ten minutes of playing I give up. My attention span is not good on those. Instead I ended up playing aero blasters and played thru the major circuit of super punch out. I was happy

[prfsnl_gmr]

Unless, our course, you're Sarge. In which case, your amazing video game prowess renders even the most difficult and demanding 8- and 16-bit platformers a mere diversion.

I heard that Sarge beat the Japanese SMB2 in under 10 minutes the first time he played it, and he beat Contra without losing a single life. True story, bro.[/quote]

This is a true story...just the other day he "accidentally" beat Batman (GB) without losing a single life!

[Xeogred]

Pacing and balance (not playing 5 RPG's at once) is key. I take length into consideration when playing a game or two at the same time, but length is never a deciding factor for or against. It doesn't hold much weight in my mind and I find it to be a lame excuse in most cases when people say they don't have enough time to play a long game or something. Baby steps at a time and before you know it you'll beat it. PACING!

But if you're just not interested enough to care or don't worry about beating games, then no big deal. Just don't feed people silly excuses! (not pointing any fingers in this thread or anything, just saying).

[Sarge]

Unless, our course, you're Sarge. In which case, your amazing video game prowess renders even the most difficult and demanding 8- and 16-bit platformers a mere diversion.

I heard that Sarge beat the Japanese SMB2 in under 10 minutes the first time he played it, and he beat Contra without losing a single life. True story, bro.

This is a true story...just the other day he "accidentally" beat Batman (GB) without losing a single life!

Bahaha! I wish! I think my skills now are only because I put so much time into games over the years, and you just end up having those skills honed. It's kinda like an artist. "Oh, you drew that in only thirty minutes?" "No, it's thirty minutes plus 30+ years of practice. There are little tricks that cross over between games, especially a lot of the 8-bit classics, and you start understanding the designers' logic at points and guessing what they're going to spring. But even then, there are games that kick my butt. Hard. I usually just keep battering away at 'em until they fall.

SMB2 is one that's always been hard for me. I played a lot of Lost Levels many years ago, and I got up to the last stage, I believe (the extra stages that you have to find by not warping), and was stymied there. Since I lost that save, I've not revisited it since.

As for Contra... my best run is a one-death run. Got too cocky in the energy zone, the lame soldier at the very start of the level took me out. Seriously. (I just play through that for fun every few months, I haven't sat down and really practiced for a no-death run. I'm pretty lazy with how I play it now, I usually slip through without continuing, but that's about it.)

The Batman thing kinda surprised me, too, by the way. The NES version still gives me fits at times... I should see if I can't figure out how to consistently take down Joker.

[samsonlonghair]

As soon as a game bores me, I turn it off.