Wasting time0 Likes/3 Replies/92 ViewsOriginal poster dangermouse555 30 posts
So, here we are, game developers have taken the bold and daring risk of deciding that wasting a players time is actually better than putting in the work to entertain and challenge the player. At one point Rockstar games were my favourite developers, unfortunately they have gone way above and beyond to waste a players time. An example of this, is in gta those silly little quests that let you spend 10-15 mins travelling from one side of the map to another to start a main quest, only for it to have some random stranger stop you and ask for a lift to basically where you just came from, forcing you to do that travel, twice. They have upped their antics in the latest RDR2 where they insist on certain chores are done around camp but then force your player yo mover so slow. One thing I used to love about ubisoft, is, yeah there were these time wasting quests but not really important or even necessary to do. Now though, its like ubisoft have gone, "well, sod it, Rockstar seem to be able to create a 30hr game and claim it to be 100+ hours, we should do the same." It is morally wrong not to mention lazy and shows a shear lack of creativity. I have already stopped playing and got rid of all rockstar games and Bethesda games. If ubisoft continues down this path, unfortunately I will simply do the same. And will you please stop creating all these 2 and 3rd or moor floor buildings with a barricaded ground floor door with zero way to actually do that. Like, there is one building, climb up, gain entry from the outside, get in, have to slide a shelving unit that has been place over a big hole to then climb down that hole. Who on earth is going to do that? In any sort of reality? It does not make sense at all, you try to be proud of the amount of true historic facts are there but then loose all sense of logic.
Oh and by the way, the game is still extremely buggy/glitchy and stop trying to over actionise everything. The camera looks and feels like it is being controlled by someone who has downed a bottle of whiskey then tried to balance the camera on the end of a stick while trying to play friggin hop skotch. I have been killed a few times now just because the camera has gone on some joy ride. Also, far too often am I having to press a button 3 or 4 times before it is registered. Sorry guys, 10 out of 10 for idea and theory and 10 out of 10 for screwing it up as much as you could, genuinely do not think it could be any worse, well, it could not work full stop but thats about it. As we all pray and hope for a better year, I pray and hope for a better game
ThoughtTwenty 70 posts
@dangermouse555 Sounds like you're better off playing the CoD games - there's no real wasted time there; just travel down a narrow route, killing the bad guys until you get to the final cut scene that invariably involves a raggedy but noble Stars and Stripes. At about 10 hours of gameplay, it won't take up much of your valuable time.
Personally, I prefer games that have 100s of hours of gameplay before I exhaust what they have to offer as I feel that gives me better value for money. I didn't complain once during my 700+ hours playing RDR2.
Original poster dangermouse555 30 posts
@thoughttwenty I play them every now and then for a change of pace, but I prefer large open world games. RDR2 I played through 3 times, I wasn't saying it is a bad game, im saying that developers are now more focused on wasting time and stretching things out to be much longer than needed. In RDR2 why would they force you to walk at an unbelievably slow pace. When I'm in work I don't walk around that slow, got to pick the pace up and quick quick quick. Fine, some people might like that slow pace of life, I have worked with many that drag their feet around and would take 5 to 10 times longer to walk from one end of the workshop to the other. I'm not one of those, I need quick and efficient so what Rockstar should have done, is to let the player decide if they want to walk slowly like they have a case of nitroglycerin balanced on their head of if they want to run around like their [censored] is on fire. Unfortunately they do it with the sole purpose of dragging the game time out and then proudly boasting the storyline is 100+ hours. Not because of the amount of things to do, but purely because they slow it down on purpose. Ubisoft has for the most part, stayed away from those kind of tactics, yes some things can be considered to be there purely to waste time but for the most part at least you could still move at your own pace. For you to have put 700 hours into RDR2 I can only assume you play it online. I dont play online so only stick to the story. The story in RDR2 can be complete, quite comfortably in around 35 hours. Assassin's creed odyssey on the other hand is a minimum of 100 hours and quite easily 200 without wasting too much time.