What games are you playing now?

Yes, agree with Rithrandil on both counts! But in this sort of thing that isn't so bad. To me Half-Life 2 is one of the worst games in that regard, though I know many forgive it … it just screamed out for interaction of some sort. In this context, it was enough that he did more than grunt in cutscenes.

Yeah, I mean. It's not bad, and I don't play Wolfenstein expecting great dialogue or story. I play it to kill Nazis and weird supernatural things. I enjoyed it, but it was pretty short (I think it took me about 6 or 7 hours).

Something at the end annoyed me too. This is a direct continuation of Return to Castle Wolfenstein, and there were 8 years between these games. So for any sort of resolution I may need to wait, what, another 8 years?

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
Well…he has a voice. His personality consists of glaring at and then shooting at Nazis.

Funny, this makes me think that the movie for the game wasn't done by Uwe Boll but by Quentin Tarantino this time.

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I enjoyed it, but it was pretty short (I think it took me about 6 or 7 hours).

The brief length of first-person shooters seems to be an unfortunate trend these days, they just don't make them like they used to. I'm about 6 hours into my replay of RtCW, and that only puts me at about the half-way point.

Originally Posted by JDR13
The brief length of first-person shooters seems to be an unfortunate trend these days, they just don't make them like they used to. I'm about 6 hours into my replay of RtCW, and that only puts me at about the half-way point.

Yes that is really a pity.

I believe Half Live took me weeks - of course I was not playing 24 Hours a day, but all in all it was surely more about 60 hours than less.

And even my recent replay of Doom took several days to complete (no speedrunning of course, more a search all secrets and clear all levels thing).

I found Dawn of War 2 cheap on Play.com and have played it for a couple of days now. The campaign is fun, its only real weakness is that most missions play very much alike.

Multiplayer is also good, if hectic and HARD. I get my butt kicked repeatedly but think I've finally found a playing style as Eldar that works for me. We'll see over the next couple of days…

Overall a fun game, and a steal at the €13 I got it for!

So I'm currently trying to (re)play:
Doom 3
Two Worlds
F.E.A.R.
Pro Evolution Soccer 2009

And I'm unable to stick or finish any of them,and I'm getting bored after 2 hours of playing.

I've also left my
Gothic 3
Vampire - The Masquerade Bloodlines
replays unfinished and I can't get myself to start playing them seriously.

With a week left on my summer, I decided to join in on Wolfenstein.
Granted, I haven't reached to far, but the new gameplay is welcome to me, even if it doesn't seem to be fully utilized. I am talking about upgradeable weapons, special powers, and the partially non-linear maps/missions.

Having said that, I do not find the story to be interesting at all. Im shooting nazis, the occult themes are pretty much a pop-culture invention and I find it a bit silly, but it feels like a fairly solid FPS and it runs blazingly fast in 2048x1536 on my system.

Performance in Wolfenstein is definitely stellar! As for the Occult stuff, hey, it is a 17 year old Wolfenstein tradition

Can't say I really love the console-ish feel, especially while also playing RtCW. But it is fun. Like the 'hub & mission' feel.

I hate PC games that take the stupid ass autosave/save point mechanic from console games. Why the hell is that still around? Consoles have hard drives now. Let me save my game wherever and whenever I want, please, or I will hit you in the face, developers.

I suspect it makes it easier to test, if you don't have to test saving at any point in time.

It just goes along with all the rest of consolitis dumbdown. Dumbing down saves $$$$.

Which is why I don't own a console…

Originally Posted by Thrasher
I suspect it makes it easier to test, if you don't have to test saving at any point in time.

It just goes along with all the rest of consolitis dumbdown. Dumbing down saves $$$$.

Which is why I don't own a console…

It's more about extending gameplay, actually. It's the easiest and cheapest way of ensuring a longer play experience for all but the most hardcore players.

Typically, developers avoid the scenario of quick saving during boss battles or similar by simply disabling the option whenever it could pose a problem.

With that said, Wolfenstein is one game where it wouldn't have made much difference. It's extremely forgiving and save points are very generously laid out.

I really don't understand why they don't allow quick saves - but as I said, it doesn't matter much in this case.

Thank god Doom 3 allowed saves. I could've never played it without.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
With that said, Wolfenstein is one game where it wouldn't have made much difference. It's extremely forgiving and save points are very generously laid out.

Exactly - it is more a matter of principle … I know a couple of times I wished I could quicksave, but within a couple of minutes I was at another checkpoint.

how is it used to extend game time?

Seems to me it would be the opposite - it forces you to proceed with the game and as a result finish it sooner, as opposed to someone like me who saves and replays certain parts repeatedly either for fun or getting it right.

Unless the save points are spaced out really far apart, then i guess i could see how that would do it. I dont generally die often enough for that to be too big an issue personally, what with most newer games ive played being easy

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
It's more about extending gameplay, actually. It's the easiest and cheapest way of ensuring a longer play experience for all but the most hardcore players.

I doubt that's the reason for checkpoints. That may be the excuse, but the real reason is to save money.

Originally Posted by xSamhainx
how is it used to extend game time?

Seems to me it would be the opposite - it forces you to proceed with the game and as a result finish it sooner, as opposed to someone like me who saves and replays certain parts repeatedly either for fun or getting it right.

Unless the save points are spaced out really far apart, then i guess i could see how that would do it. I dont generally die often enough for that to be too big an issue personally, what with most newer games ive played being easy

Most games that use checkpoints force you to redo sections based on the ancient trial-and-error mindset, which essentially means doing the same content over and over.

Not only is this tedious, it also makes the gameplay sections between points into little separate puzzles instead of a pleasant flowing experience. Because of the checkpoint nature, you will automatically start memorizing patterns, so you can avoid redoing the content because no one likes repetition. It's one of the worst kinds of game design, if you ask me.

Developers know you're used to redoing sections, so they can add much harder trials so you can fail some more - because it's ok to die. To me, it creates a very bad gameplay experience. What they should do instead, is make the challenges solvable by observation and clever thinking. That way, you could avoid dying and redoing stuff by being smart.

They don't have to do this, though, and again - it's because of this "tradition" of trial-and-error.

GTA4 is an excellent recent example, and you can probably count hours of gameplay based on redoing sections.

It's pretty basic, really.

It's also tradition because consoles used to have no harddisk and as such, not a lot of space available for save games.

Finishing sooner because you feel the need to press on has nothing whatsoever to do with the length of the game, so your point is not logical.

—-

The reason this isn't changed is basically because developers today don't understand game design. They're basing their designs on "proven" concepts and the traditions of the past.

They're not interested in evolving genres or taking things to the next level - they just want to go with what works.

For that, they look to others and not within themselves in an effort to progress the various genres.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
I doubt that's the reason for checkpoints. That may be the excuse, but the real reason is to save money.

Two sides of an identical coin.

I don't mean it as an excuse for the developers, because I despise this lazy approach to game design.

I have reached the final level of Wolfenstein, but decided to save that until tomorrow.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Most games that use checkpoints force you to redo sections based on the ancient trial-and-error mindset, which essentially means doing the same content over and over.

I call those checkpoint systems 'Die & Retry' … and I wrote an article a while about it a while back based on a completely idiotic PSP shooter that was based almost entirely on it … it was a 4 hour game made to take ~6-8 hours that way.