disclaimer, if you don't like randomness, skip to the "in short" part, but I warn you, this thread itself seemed random in creation, so bleh....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as some of you have said, it's like the gaming industry really doesn't care on most games for replay value Or ending sequences (et al)...
Sure, some RPG's are "carrot-controlled" (a la Sim Life....the memories
), but that still leaves the actual dynamics...
until recently, I subscribed to gamepro, and I may be wrong, but didn't they have a gameplay/replay value score?
heh.
if they still do, I'd be hard-pressed to find a game that fit that.
Sure, Oblivion is pretty on the comp, Kingdom Hearts for the PS2 has graphics (go fig), but the Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past for the SNES had Puzzles....what the fjord?
Oblivion may have mini-games such as lock-picking or seeing who can last longer in the arena, but Gal Civ 2 has, as a computer game, dynamic content (i.e., they're seemingly always changing stuff around - to try and see if it will fit better).
I remember my favorite NES game was Mega Man 3.
Anyway, my point is, that yes, as the poster had said, the replay value on most games today are very low, because when you come back to it, you're like...uh....why?....and I admit, sometimes, how?
As someone had said before, sure there are "easy" games that the developers wanted for the average "joe" to play, like Lego Star Wars and stuff, but a lot of information is disseminated along the lines of major corporations pushing their stuff and saying this is great, when, to a few of us...it's like..."where's the beef?"
There are so many ways the poster can put on here what he's trying to say, and this thread itself is rather random, so I feel at home here
...ya know, being a tad "disorganized" myself
So, anyway, I'm a gamer. If you want to dissect that any further, you risk stereotypes and stereo-typing anyone who says that.
If you were to call someone a "weekend warrior" who plays 100 hours a week, less-say, then you'll be like, no...he's a "hardcore" gamer - on the flip side, if you called someone a "hardcore" gamer, and they play like ("officially" - that can be counted) 5 hours per 2 days (time is irrelevant if you haven't guessed), you'd probably wouldn't call them that.
In short:
labeling = bad
games (nowadays) = usually too easy or too boring to continue (just look at the list of games I have on my X-fire profile that have less than 10 hours total associated with them
)
systems = who gives a flying piece of fruit? you like what you like - this should just go with labeling, as with most things
randomness = pwns all! ( lol !)
