That mainstream game that they keep putting out with different titles sure sucks.. But Indie games have been getting better and better every year. I'm really enjoying the trend of people making smaller games that focus on gameplay and fun factor.

It's just like it was back in the day. Some games are great, others suck. People who think all modern games suck haven't been playing the right games.

I've been playing some "new" games recently and thoroughly enjoying them.

New Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong Country Returns, and Kirby's Epic Yarn. All new to me.

I've just caught up to the Wii. Lucky me.

You should give Wario Ware Smooth Moves a try.  It was my favorite Wii game.  Better with a group.

 

Ichinisan wins this one. I love that gif.

This isn't entirely true. Modern games have to appeal to an entirely new kind of gamer, one who needs achievements, online deathmatches, hundreds of hours of content if there's no online play, next to no unlockables because they get in the way of online deathmatches and eye searing HD visuals. Someone like me isn't in that demographic.

If you find a game without all that stuff, then it's an indie game. The problem I have with indie games is they often have no clue about what made old games competently designed. They're all style and no substance.

I could have sworn that a few months ago when this exact topic came up, we established that you didn't ACTUALLY have any practical experience with indie games from the last 10 years, or so.  (i.e. you SAID this is the problem you have with them... but you hadn't actually played them)

 

Yeah I don't think thats true at all.  There are many recent games that stand right alongside the classics in the games I go back to all the time because they are fun.  There is some real quality stuff coming out
super meat boy, teleglitch, tis-100, battlekid, space chem, dark souls, cave blazers, nuclear throne

 

Super Meat Boy is the ultimate indie game. Way more competently designed than most old platformers we had growing up. Hell, I'd say it's the best platformer ever to me, personally. No game controls as well as Super Meat Boy.

I'm partial to Spelunky, though the "platforming" of Spelunky involves fewer mechanics in the first place (none of the wall jumping stuff).

 

Even if someone like Guntz or pegboy played a fantasticly designed modern game, they would hate it. They're just not the right type of people.

Don't think I've ever played Spelunky.

At the time this thread was originally posted, I was a fairly serious modern gamer, though I still played NES regularly. In the past 5 years all of the big names have lost me completely. I am no longer in the 18-35 demographic and new games just aren't made for me, I guess. Not that they suck, I can certainly see the appeal of modern games. They just don't appeal to me. Even the games from 5 - 10 years ago don't hold up for me. Many are just too big and time consuming. I don't have 100+ hours to sink into a game these days.

It's a platforming rogue-like that is loosely inspired by "Spelunker".

The RNG-based elements are extraordinarily well implemented, and the game is pretty much all skill-based to where even an extremely unfavorable RNG is winnable for a good player (just more challenging than a favorable RNG outcome).

The variety is solid.  It has a number of alternate paths and tons of stuff to unlock and find.

There are a few REALLY tough challenges (that involve carrying otherwise useless items for long periods of the game -- thereby forgoing weapons or sometimes even your ability to fight rather than flee/dodge).

 

One thing that is nice recently this way is some of the procedurally generated games play really quickly and are different every play through so they aren't too repetitive.  Others like super meat boy are good that way in that they are cut into small bite size chunks and you can pick up and do a chunk whenever without devoting much time all at once

 

Same situation for me, except I am in the 18-35 demographic, technically.

To me, a really long game is something like Donkey Kong 64, on average that's a 50 hour game. I can't imagine wasting 100+ hours on one game with pre-determined goals. For multiplayer or creative games (level editors and such), that's different.

But you could imagine spending 50 hours, per game, on two different games with pre-determined goals?    


My personal dividing line isn't based on the total time of the game.
It has to do with the time investment required for any given gaming session.

I'm wrapping up loose ends in The Witness, and to find and solve 100% of the puzzles that is a LONG game.
(probably 60-80 hours to fully complete it and find everything, maybe 30 hours if you just do the minimum)
But it autosaves on exit, and the individual puzzles are generally short time commitments on their own, so it is no big deal to put the game down for a week and come back later, or to play through the entire game in 15 - 30 minute bursts.



The issue is when you have a game that is both long, and has long breaks in your ability to save progress.
When you're forced to commit to a 2+ hour game session to make any progress, at all, it becomes a lot less enticing to want to finish a long game.

Probably why I get so much 3DS time nowadays. I can't play Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen because I can't realistically sit in front of a TV for any real uninterrupted session

But I did just beat Persona Q after 80 hours spread across 500 sessions

Good point, for stuff like RPGs, you can't just leave at any time, there could be a long piece of dialog going on or something, where on Mario Galaxy I could pop in grab a couple stars and pop out. I think the big thing for me is, I don't want to have to commit to a game. I want to be able to play for as long or little as I want and still get something out of it. Grabbing some stars in Mario, or few tries at a high score or something like that

Well, I had a great example of that last night but with an old game! No pausing on Atari so you're committed until you're done. This is pretty tough. But I also hate this with modern games. And it sucks that sometimes you can't pause dialog or cutscenes like Bert said. Sometimes you mess around and try your luck by hitting start or something but oh no... you just skipped the whole damn thing. Better go back and replay that section so you can sit through the whole thing. I don't mind modern gaming, but I rarely find a game that sticks and is one of my favorites. Maybe Dead Space for me... can't really think of any others off the top of my head. I like the Arkham games alright...

Realistically I only ever went beyond 50 hours in any one game less than a handful of times and that was at my peak of free time availabilty.  Even then, my preference was around 30 hours.  I just become disinterested after awhile and I was never one that had to complete a game 100%.  

Time per session goes hand in hand with that too.  I can't even begin a game if it's going to take more than a couple hours to get anywhere in any one session.

I am in the same boat as Brock with portable gaming.  It has really opened up the availability of longer games.  Still, I probably can't handle anything much longer than Link to the Past when it comes to attention span and it still takes me a month to play through it.  I occasionaly play my 3DS but it hasn't been getting much love lately.  Plus my Vita has the entire NES library on it which is really all I tend to play on a regular basis.
 

I'll keep an eye out.

I don't think games have to appeal to that customer base, but I'd assume the game would be more successful if it did, so there are a lot of those types out there.

Once you get past those, there are plenty of games that don't follow the mold you've described and that also aren't trying to mirror "retro" games (ie Shovel Knight)

One of my favorites is Catherine. Great story/cutscenes, excellent puzzle-esque gameplay, solid music, perfect length (pause) and Atlus' wonderul art style. Not bogged down with online multiplayer or a bloated length. 

Yeah, I don't see why if someone liked old style games they couldn't also like newer games. It's certainly not a universal truth.

I play Atari 2600 and NES. Some SNES and Genesis. The Playstation/N64 era doesn't appeal to me too much, but that's okay, I know not everything will. And there are a few games from that gen that I do like.

But I also love modern survival/atmospheric horror games (Everything from Amensia to RE, and even some close cousins like Bioshock) and story games. Those are pretty far removed from Super Mario Bros. Sometimes I get a hankering for wandering an abandoned mine full of scares, and sometimes I want to stomp some Goombas.

If you want to focus on one or two certain types of games from certain eras, that's cool, but it certainly isn't a zero sum game in respects to everyone.