Thoughts on the prospects of the survival genre

1356

Comments

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    edited November 14
    SEANMCAD said:
    Sovrath said:

    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?
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 1,647
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Sovrath said:

    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. 
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    edited November 14
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Sovrath said:

    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?
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 1,647
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Sovrath said:

    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?
    Sorry, no can do. You made it very clear you don’t want answers to your questions. 
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Sovrath said:

    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?
    Sorry, no can do. You made it very clear you don’t want answers to your questions. 
    thank you..much better
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,664
    edited November 14
    SEANMCAD said:
    Kyleran said:

    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 misread my reply, I'll clarify. 

    As an exclusively MMORPG gamer for many years I enjoy long playing experiences.

    So upon my return to single player games I intentionally sought out titles which reportedly had longer play times.

    Yes, I do believe there are single player games with under 100 hrs of content.  I just feel survival games which generally are multiplayer should be compared more against long term single player games or better yet, MMORPGs.

    One reason I've held off trying survival games is from many accounts most are lacking in long term content, as they are unfinished or in some other early access state which is why I always tell you I'm waiting to play the final release version.
    Post edited by Kyleran on

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - CCP continues to wander aimlessly

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    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




  • ByrgenarHofenByrgenarHofen Member UncommonPosts: 53
    edited November 14
    Survival games are pretty much all the same.

    First stage: You start out weak, spend most of your time finding food, making shelter.

    Second Stage: You hit the point where you have shelter, still spend a lot of time on food, while getting stronger fighting wise.

    Final stage:You hit the point where you have pretty much maxed out how strong you can get fighting wise, shelter is maxed out, all that is left is finding food.

    The only time it is different, is if you play on a PVP server, where most of the time you do not get past the first stage, as while you are logged off, one or more (so called) PVPers will happen along and destroy your shelter, steal/destroy all your stuff, leaving you with nothing but the clothes on your back when you log in again.

    Very simplistic view of survival games, I know, but pretty accurate nonetheless.
    Post edited by ByrgenarHofen on
    KyleranOctagon7711
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    edited November 14
    Kyleran said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Kyleran said:

    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 misread my reply, I'll clarify. 

    As an exclusively MMORPG gamer for many years I enjoy long playing experiences.

    So upon my return to single player games I intentionally sought out titles which reportedly had longer play times.

    Yes, I do believe there are single player games with under 100 hrs of content.  I just feel survival games which generally are multiplayer should be compared more against long term single player games or better yet, MMORPGs.

    One reason I've held off trying survival games is from many accounts most are lacking in long term content, as they are unfinished or in some other early access state which is why I always tell you I'm waiting to play the final release version.
    Part 1---------------------------------------
    so the contradiction is this

     1. 'I think survial games should have more play time'

    2. 'I got a survival game because they 'reportedly' (not sure exactly who is reporting that information) have more play time.
     so is that a problem of survial games or is that a problem of community getting it wrong.
     They are either (as a whole) long or not, cant be both.

    -------------------------------------------
     Part 2 --------------------------------------
    The contradiction problem above aside for a moment, regardless of if survial games as a whole have longer play time or do not have long play time there really isnt a reason that they SHOULD be as a default.

     Here is my take: Survival games in general have longer play time than other single player games HOWEVER, because of that people expect more from those games and its easy to forget what they used to play. They do not reflect that maybe they are asking these survial indie titles to out perform, outspend, out code, out develop even an MMO. Why? because the top tier survial games actually HAVE done that so the bar of standard expectations has grown upward. There is a word for this but I dont know what it is. Basically its the guy complaining about not being able to make a phone call on a plane 3 months after cell phones come out for the first time ever. (as example) Not a simple concept to wrap ones head around so I do encourage you to look at all aspects of what I am saying, dissect it a bit before coming to a conclusion that I would prefer you didnt reply with anyway :)
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    I think the first part is a main thing one can focus on.

    If ones complaint about survial games in general is that they are not long enough and yet they expect them to be longer because survival games are in general longer.

    then that logic is a non-starter. They are either longer or they are not.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 4,026
                        Its all really very simple folks ..............

                           Dont feed it ,,,

                                     You are giving it what it wants
    TalonsinOctagon7711Cogohi
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    Scorchien said:
                        Its all really very simple folks ..............

                           Dont feed it ,,,

                                     You are giving it what it wants
    so what do you think about Survival Games and do you think wanting to talk about survial games in a topic about survial games is 'feeding' by chance or did I read that wrong?
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • BestinnaBestinna Member UncommonPosts: 145
    edited November 14
    ark was awesome for awhile
    edit: ew conan exiles
    Post edited by Bestinna on
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,664
    SEANMCAD said:
    Kyleran said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Kyleran said:

    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 misread my reply, I'll clarify. 

    As an exclusively MMORPG gamer for many years I enjoy long playing experiences.

    So upon my return to single player games I intentionally sought out titles which reportedly had longer play times.

    Yes, I do believe there are single player games with under 100 hrs of content.  I just feel survival games which generally are multiplayer should be compared more against long term single player games or better yet, MMORPGs.

    One reason I've held off trying survival games is from many accounts most are lacking in long term content, as they are unfinished or in some other early access state which is why I always tell you I'm waiting to play the final release version.
    Part 1---------------------------------------
    so the contradiction is this

     1. 'I think survial games should have more play time'

    2. 'I got a survival game because they 'reportedly' (not sure exactly who is reporting that information) have more play time.
     so is that a problem of survial games or is that a problem of community getting it wrong.
     They are either (as a whole) long or not, cant be both.

    -------------------------------------------
     Part 2 --------------------------------------
    The contradiction problem above aside for a moment, regardless of if survial games as a whole have longer play time or do not have long play time there really isnt a reason that they SHOULD be as a default.

     Here is my take: Survival games in general have longer play time than other single player games HOWEVER, because of that people expect more from those games and its easy to forget what they used to play. They do not reflect that maybe they are asking these survial indie titles to out perform, outspend, out code, out develop even an MMO. Why? because the top tier survial games actually HAVE done that so the bar of standard expectations has grown upward. There is a word for this but I dont know what it is. Basically its the guy complaining about not being able to make a phone call on a plane 3 months after cell phones come out for the first time ever. (as example) Not a simple concept to wrap ones head around so I do encourage you to look at all aspects of what I am saying, dissect it a bit before coming to a conclusion that I would prefer you didnt reply with anyway :)
    Perhaps you overlooked my final paragraph? There is no contradiction other than the imagined one you want to debate.  I said:
    1) I believe survival titles should be compared against RPG games with larger playing times due to inherent similarities. 

    2) Accounts by others have often stated many survival games are short on content, though may have more when completed.

    I don't think many people have mentioned a survival game with tons of content, well except @sidvicious who apparently lost his soul to Exiles.

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - CCP continues to wander aimlessly

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    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




  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,664
    SEANMCAD said:
    I think the first part is a main thing one can focus on.

    If ones complaint about survial games in general is that they are not long enough and yet they expect them to be longer because [games with similar mechanics] are in general longer.

    then that logic is a non-starter. They are either longer or they are not.
    The bracketed change resolves the incorrectly captured contradiction.

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - CCP continues to wander aimlessly

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    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




  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    edited November 14
    Kyleran said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Kyleran said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Kyleran said:

    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 misread my reply, I'll clarify. 

    As an exclusively MMORPG gamer for many years I enjoy long playing experiences.

    So upon my return to single player games I intentionally sought out titles which reportedly had longer play times.

    Yes, I do believe there are single player games with under 100 hrs of content.  I just feel survival games which generally are multiplayer should be compared more against long term single player games or better yet, MMORPGs.

    One reason I've held off trying survival games is from many accounts most are lacking in long term content, as they are unfinished or in some other early access state which is why I always tell you I'm waiting to play the final release version.
    Part 1---------------------------------------
    so the contradiction is this

     1. 'I think survial games should have more play time'

    2. 'I got a survival game because they 'reportedly' (not sure exactly who is reporting that information) have more play time.
     so is that a problem of survial games or is that a problem of community getting it wrong.
     They are either (as a whole) long or not, cant be both.

    -------------------------------------------
     Part 2 --------------------------------------
    The contradiction problem above aside for a moment, regardless of if survial games as a whole have longer play time or do not have long play time there really isnt a reason that they SHOULD be as a default.

     Here is my take: Survival games in general have longer play time than other single player games HOWEVER, because of that people expect more from those games and its easy to forget what they used to play. They do not reflect that maybe they are asking these survial indie titles to out perform, outspend, out code, out develop even an MMO. Why? because the top tier survial games actually HAVE done that so the bar of standard expectations has grown upward. There is a word for this but I dont know what it is. Basically its the guy complaining about not being able to make a phone call on a plane 3 months after cell phones come out for the first time ever. (as example) Not a simple concept to wrap ones head around so I do encourage you to look at all aspects of what I am saying, dissect it a bit before coming to a conclusion that I would prefer you didnt reply with anyway :)
    Perhaps you overlooked my final paragraph? There is no contradiction other than the imagined one you want to debate.  I said:
    1) I believe survival titles should be compared against RPG games with larger playing times due to inherent similarities. 

    2) Accounts by others have often stated many survival games are short on content, though may have more when completed.

    I don't think many people have mentioned a survival game with tons of content, well except @sidvicious who apparently lost his soul to Exiles.
    Help me understand,

     1. your feeling that Survival games need to be long like single player RPGs seems random and arbitrary. Why do you think it should be that way, and arent many single player RPGs rather short anyway? They dont last for hundreds of hours. In fact I would suggest those are the very games I am talking about that have low replay value

     2. Didnt you say (paraphrased) that you looked for survial games on the advice from others that they have long replay value. Well? who are these people, are they just wrong? because you both cant be right, its a contradiction


    here is your quote for my point number 2
    'So upon my return to single player games I intentionally sought out titles which reportedly had longer play times.'
    Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469510/thoughts-on-the-prospects-of-the-survival-genre/p3#Q0WQyOfIGfp31R4B.99

    so how is that genre reportedly having longer play times and yet the genre needs longer play times. which is it?
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    edited November 14
    Maybe this approach will be better

    Why do we expect a game like Empyrion - Galactic Survival  to be longer game play than Bioshock?

    I am glad that it is, but I dont expect it
    if Empyrion - Galactic Survival  had a story could it be just as short?
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,449
    SEANMCAD said:
    Maybe this approach will be better

    Why do we expect a game like Empyrion - Galactic Survival  to be longer game play than Bioshock?

    I am glad that it is, but I dont expect it
    if Empyrion - Galactic Survival  had a story could it be just as short?
    I sure wish I had some of the crack you smoke. 

    Empyrion is a sandbox where you can play as long as you like, you can go the trader route and sell ore or equipment or ships.  You can go the designer route and design ships and bases and make a name for yourself in the steam workshop.  You can also be a pirate and PVP your way to fame on your server.

    Bioshock, while a great game, is on rails, you can only do what you are intended to do.

    I expect a sandbox style game to have enough sand to allow me much more play time than a single player, follow the carrot or story type game. 
    YashaX
    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Maybe this approach will be better

    Why do we expect a game like Empyrion - Galactic Survival  to be longer game play than Bioshock?

    I am glad that it is, but I dont expect it
    if Empyrion - Galactic Survival  had a story could it be just as short?
    I sure wish I had some of the crack you smoke. 

    Empyrion is a sandbox where you can play as long as you like, you can go the trader route and sell ore or equipment or ships.  You can go the designer route and design ships and bases and make a name for yourself in the steam workshop.  You can also be a pirate and PVP your way to fame on your server.

    Bioshock, while a great game, is on rails, you can only do what you are intended to do.

    I expect a sandbox style game to have enough sand to allow me much more play time than a single player, follow the carrot or story type game. 
    thats not really a good answer. 

    Your just explaining that you expect it, not WHY you expect it other than 'because its called sandbox..'

    The reason you feel the way you do is related to how the content is presented to you. If the game had a story and in which at the end of the story you won then guess what? you would not think it needed more content to fill in the gaps.

    Its an illusion your feeling that bioshock is reasonable being short but Empyrion is not 


    postlarvalTalonsin

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Cambridge, MAMember UncommonPosts: 1,032
    Seriously guys,

    Ignore Seanmcad, twas bliss when he was banned.
    I don't read what he writes not what people reply.

    His goal isn't to participate, it is to get his jollies off on argument or just trolling in general.  

    Does the guy even have a job with how much he posts?

    Cryomatrix 
    KyleranByrgenarHofenScorchienpostlarvalTalonsinNildenYashaXCogohi
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    Seriously guys,

    Ignore Seanmcad, twas bliss when he was banned.
    I don't read what he writes not what people reply.

    His goal isn't to participate, it is to get his jollies off on argument or just trolling in general.  

    Does the guy even have a job with how much he posts?

    Cryomatrix 
    So what is your view on survival games? do you like them? think there are too many of them? do you think they should have more playtime then other games?
    postlarval

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • KonfessKonfess Dallas, TXMember RarePosts: 1,614
    edited November 16
    Various militaries have been conducting survival research since the 50's.  That data is used by these survival games, so once again math is y'alls down fall.  There is a segment of society that enjoys wilderness survival, and they partake in survival in real life.  Those who can't, don't.  Then come to a thread like this and complain about just playing at survival.

    The next time one of y'all complain about games being dumbed down, easy, or face roll.  I want you to take a look in the mirror, and point your finger at your own reflection and say, "This is your fault, you idiot."

    Math, making life simple for the rest of us, but standing in the way of the dumb and lazy since the beginning of time.
    Post edited by Konfess on
    ByrgenarHofenKyleran

    Pardon any spelling errors
    Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven
    Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
    Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
    As if it could exist, without being payed for.
    F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
    Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.

  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,449
    SEANMCAD said:
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Maybe this approach will be better

    Why do we expect a game like Empyrion - Galactic Survival  to be longer game play than Bioshock?

    I am glad that it is, but I dont expect it
    if Empyrion - Galactic Survival  had a story could it be just as short?
    I sure wish I had some of the crack you smoke. 

    Empyrion is a sandbox where you can play as long as you like, you can go the trader route and sell ore or equipment or ships.  You can go the designer route and design ships and bases and make a name for yourself in the steam workshop.  You can also be a pirate and PVP your way to fame on your server.

    Bioshock, while a great game, is on rails, you can only do what you are intended to do.

    I expect a sandbox style game to have enough sand to allow me much more play time than a single player, follow the carrot or story type game. 
    thats not really a good answer. 

    Your just explaining that you expect it, not WHY you expect it other than 'because its called sandbox..'

    The reason you feel the way you do is related to how the content is presented to you. If the game had a story and in which at the end of the story you won then guess what? you would not think it needed more content to fill in the gaps.

    Its an illusion your feeling that bioshock is reasonable being short but Empyrion is not 


    Its an illusion that you ask these silly questions only to argue the answers that people give you.  Who are you to tell me what I feel or why I feel it?  Do you have some social science degree that you think means anything?  And where in the heck did I say that Bioshock is reasonably short?  Stop making crap up to fit your silly narrative and please stop smoking crack.

    I dont "FEEL" that Empryion can be a longer game and provide more content, I explained it to you but in your bizzarro brain you dont allow any input that contradicts your preexisting notions.  Can I open a trade shop in Bioshock?  Can I fight other players?  Can I design bases and ships?  NO, I can only follow the story laid out for me by the developers.  The average playtime for the story in Bioshock is 8 to 10 hours.  I already have over 30 hours of playtime in Empryion.  I dont "feel" that sandbox games generally have more content for thinking players with imagination, I live it buddy!

    Now stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it!


    cameltosisYashaX
    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    edited November 15
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Maybe this approach will be better

    Why do we expect a game like Empyrion - Galactic Survival  to be longer game play than Bioshock?

    I am glad that it is, but I dont expect it
    if Empyrion - Galactic Survival  had a story could it be just as short?
    I sure wish I had some of the crack you smoke. 

    Empyrion is a sandbox where you can play as long as you like, you can go the trader route and sell ore or equipment or ships.  You can go the designer route and design ships and bases and make a name for yourself in the steam workshop.  You can also be a pirate and PVP your way to fame on your server.

    Bioshock, while a great game, is on rails, you can only do what you are intended to do.

    I expect a sandbox style game to have enough sand to allow me much more play time than a single player, follow the carrot or story type game. 
    thats not really a good answer. 

    Your just explaining that you expect it, not WHY you expect it other than 'because its called sandbox..'

    The reason you feel the way you do is related to how the content is presented to you. If the game had a story and in which at the end of the story you won then guess what? you would not think it needed more content to fill in the gaps.

    Its an illusion your feeling that bioshock is reasonable being short but Empyrion is not 


    Its an illusion that you ask these silly questions only to argue the answers that people give you.  Who are you to tell me what I feel or why I feel it?  Do you have some social science degree that you think means anything?  And where in the heck did I say that Bioshock is reasonably short?  Stop making crap up to fit your silly narrative and please stop smoking crack.

    I dont "FEEL" that Empryion can be a longer game and provide more content, I explained it to you but in your bizzarro brain you dont allow any input that contradicts your preexisting notions.  Can I open a trade shop in Bioshock?  Can I fight other players?  Can I design bases and ships?  NO, I can only follow the story laid out for me by the developers.  The average playtime for the story in Bioshock is 8 to 10 hours.  I already have over 30 hours of playtime in Empryion.  I dont "feel" that sandbox games generally have more content for thinking players with imagination, I live it buddy!

    Now stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it!


    Let me give you an example of what I am talking about

    If you took Empyrion and removed ship building (but keep hovercrafts) all the planets except for Akua. Then you set a story based objective for each of the POIs at which point once all POIs are conjured then you would consider that game complete and rich in content.

    But because it has other planets to fly to then the default baseline expectation changes, you then expect a lot of content on those planets but there isnt any so now you think the entire game doesnt have content.

    So, ironically, the solution (in this example) is to actually have LESS content which by doing so it will FEEL like it has more.

    This is a fact, not an opinion.

    Its the same idea where a city can feel small or large regardless of if it is or not, simply by changing the 3 mile radius where you are standing

    I encourage you to not respond
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,449
    SEANMCAD said:
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Maybe this approach will be better

    Why do we expect a game like Empyrion - Galactic Survival  to be longer game play than Bioshock?

    I am glad that it is, but I dont expect it
    if Empyrion - Galactic Survival  had a story could it be just as short?
    I sure wish I had some of the crack you smoke. 

    Empyrion is a sandbox where you can play as long as you like, you can go the trader route and sell ore or equipment or ships.  You can go the designer route and design ships and bases and make a name for yourself in the steam workshop.  You can also be a pirate and PVP your way to fame on your server.

    Bioshock, while a great game, is on rails, you can only do what you are intended to do.

    I expect a sandbox style game to have enough sand to allow me much more play time than a single player, follow the carrot or story type game. 
    thats not really a good answer. 

    Your just explaining that you expect it, not WHY you expect it other than 'because its called sandbox..'

    The reason you feel the way you do is related to how the content is presented to you. If the game had a story and in which at the end of the story you won then guess what? you would not think it needed more content to fill in the gaps.

    Its an illusion your feeling that bioshock is reasonable being short but Empyrion is not 


    Its an illusion that you ask these silly questions only to argue the answers that people give you.  Who are you to tell me what I feel or why I feel it?  Do you have some social science degree that you think means anything?  And where in the heck did I say that Bioshock is reasonably short?  Stop making crap up to fit your silly narrative and please stop smoking crack.

    I dont "FEEL" that Empryion can be a longer game and provide more content, I explained it to you but in your bizzarro brain you dont allow any input that contradicts your preexisting notions.  Can I open a trade shop in Bioshock?  Can I fight other players?  Can I design bases and ships?  NO, I can only follow the story laid out for me by the developers.  The average playtime for the story in Bioshock is 8 to 10 hours.  I already have over 30 hours of playtime in Empryion.  I dont "feel" that sandbox games generally have more content for thinking players with imagination, I live it buddy!

    Now stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it!


    Let me give you an example of what I am talking about

    If you took Empyrion and removed ship building (but keep hovercrafts) all the planets except for Akua. Then you set a story based objective for each of the POIs at which point once all POIs are conjured then you would consider that game complete and rich in content.

    But because it has other planets to fly to then the default baseline expectation changes, you then expect a lot of content on those planets but there isnt any so now you think the entire game doesnt have content.

    So, ironically, the solution (in this example) is to actually have LESS content which by doing so it will FEEL like it has more.

    This is a fact, not an opinion.

    Its the same idea where a city can feel small or large regardless of if it is or not, simply by changing the 3 mile radius where you are standing

    I encourage you to not respond
    I encourage you to not smoke crack and yet here you are all whacked out and posting this drivel...

    The same could be said for Bioshock if we change parts of the game.  If you could play Bioshock and take over the environment and build an economy and build shops and have other players interact with it then you would have an expectation of more content.

    You cant take the sand out of the sandbox and then say you would expect less content, that argument is juvenile at best.

    It was so much better around here when you were banned and the forums were free of your baiting tactics.  I have now changed my mind, I now encourage you to smoke more crack and stop posting here.
    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,968
    edited November 15
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Talonsin said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Maybe this approach will be better

    Why do we expect a game like Empyrion - Galactic Survival  to be longer game play than Bioshock?

    I am glad that it is, but I dont expect it
    if Empyrion - Galactic Survival  had a story could it be just as short?
    I sure wish I had some of the crack you smoke. 

    Empyrion is a sandbox where you can play as long as you like, you can go the trader route and sell ore or equipment or ships.  You can go the designer route and design ships and bases and make a name for yourself in the steam workshop.  You can also be a pirate and PVP your way to fame on your server.

    Bioshock, while a great game, is on rails, you can only do what you are intended to do.

    I expect a sandbox style game to have enough sand to allow me much more play time than a single player, follow the carrot or story type game. 
    thats not really a good answer. 

    Your just explaining that you expect it, not WHY you expect it other than 'because its called sandbox..'

    The reason you feel the way you do is related to how the content is presented to you. If the game had a story and in which at the end of the story you won then guess what? you would not think it needed more content to fill in the gaps.

    Its an illusion your feeling that bioshock is reasonable being short but Empyrion is not 


    Its an illusion that you ask these silly questions only to argue the answers that people give you.  Who are you to tell me what I feel or why I feel it?  Do you have some social science degree that you think means anything?  And where in the heck did I say that Bioshock is reasonably short?  Stop making crap up to fit your silly narrative and please stop smoking crack.

    I dont "FEEL" that Empryion can be a longer game and provide more content, I explained it to you but in your bizzarro brain you dont allow any input that contradicts your preexisting notions.  Can I open a trade shop in Bioshock?  Can I fight other players?  Can I design bases and ships?  NO, I can only follow the story laid out for me by the developers.  The average playtime for the story in Bioshock is 8 to 10 hours.  I already have over 30 hours of playtime in Empryion.  I dont "feel" that sandbox games generally have more content for thinking players with imagination, I live it buddy!

    Now stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it!


    Let me give you an example of what I am talking about

    If you took Empyrion and removed ship building (but keep hovercrafts) all the planets except for Akua. Then you set a story based objective for each of the POIs at which point once all POIs are conjured then you would consider that game complete and rich in content.

    But because it has other planets to fly to then the default baseline expectation changes, you then expect a lot of content on those planets but there isnt any so now you think the entire game doesnt have content.

    So, ironically, the solution (in this example) is to actually have LESS content which by doing so it will FEEL like it has more.

    This is a fact, not an opinion.

    Its the same idea where a city can feel small or large regardless of if it is or not, simply by changing the 3 mile radius where you are standing

    I encourage you to not respond
    I encourage you to not smoke crack and yet here you are all whacked out and posting this drivel...

    The same could be said for Bioshock if we change parts of the game.  If you could play Bioshock and take over the environment and build an economy and build shops and have other players interact with it then you would have an expectation of more content.

    You cant take the sand out of the sandbox and then say you would expect less content, that argument is juvenile at best.

    It was so much better around here when you were banned and the forums were free of your baiting tactics.  I have now changed my mind, I now encourage you to smoke more crack and stop posting here.
    Bioshock has less content than Empyrion by a HUGE margin but it feels like it has more because of the reasons I have illustrated. This is true for most survial games most survial games have considerably more content then other games but it FEELS like its less because the landscape is larger.

    You can be in one of the largest cities in the country but if you are standing in some areas it woud feel like you are out in a small town, even though you are not.
    Survival games are a very large town but it feels empty because you vision is not being controlled.

    So when people say 'survial games need more content' in reality survial games DO have more content then the vast majority of other genres, but it FEELS like its less.

    The only type of game that comes remotely close to having as much or more content then a survial game is an MMO at least that I can think of

    I know I am right on this...100% know it.

    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

Sign In or Register to comment.