Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Karon wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Ya, the article talks about how there are many people who have put 67 hours into CoD and never loaded the single player.

That is so criminal. Call of Duty used to be known for its great story modes, but now all the kiddies just play Zombies and MP.

CoD 1-3, 5, and 6 all had excellent story modes.

Couldn't help notice the glaring omission of 2. That's one of the best ones. MW2 had the worst story imo.

Notice how I put "1-3", not 1, 3.

Read harder BRO

Right-o. My apologies.

I feel more achievement trying break the game and doing things I'm not supposed to.

Like in Thief and Thief II, I collect boxes and other rubbish to climb up onto the tops of buildings and reach the ceiling of the game and explore all sorts. There are bugs to exploit in things like Tomb Raider which let you go all sorts of places.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I feel more achievement trying break the game and doing things I'm not supposed to.

Like in Thief and Thief II, I collect boxes and other rubbish to climb up onto the tops of buildings and reach the ceiling of the game and explore all sorts. There are bugs to exploit in things like Tomb Raider which let you go all sorts of places.

Halo 2 was great for this. The second level had a huge albeit blocky cityscape to explore. The sixth level had about 4 square miles of hills to wander around aimlessy as well lol (Along with a giant lake you could walk around the bottom of. (the seventh level was set in the temple above said giant lake lol)

I have 10 games on PS3 right now, and the only one I haven't finished is BioShock....I don't think it lived up to the hype at all.

Normally, I'll finish the story and I try to complete at least 85% of the game before moving on

Howard A Treesong wrote:I feel more achievement trying break the game and doing things I'm not supposed to.

Like in Thief and Thief II, I collect boxes and other rubbish to climb up onto the tops of buildings and reach the ceiling of the game and explore all sorts. There are bugs to exploit in things like Tomb Raider which let you go all sorts of places.

God those games bring back memories. The Thief series was truly awesome. I'll never forget my reaction the first time I ran into a zombie in the first game.

You don't 'finish' the Elder Scrolls.

It's like trying to finish the Dark Tower. Not happening.

I finished Elder Scrolls.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:I finished Elder Scrolls.

Stop kidding yourself. You can never finish them. You can do literally every quest, explore every inch, and you will not have finished them.

They can not be finished.

And from a technical standpoint, Daggerfall can literally not be completed, even if you started playing it the day it came out and have been playing it since then with no breaks.

Nope, saved the world - finished.

Hmm, I aim to finish every game I own when I purchase one... that being said, if I don't find the game worth playing, I don't finish it, I'm finding that to be increasingly common these days...

I do. i try and beat them. If its on 360 I try to get as many easy Gamerscore points as I can before I stop playing the game.

If I can beat it, Ill beat it. I say this because Im a fan of Mario games, and they seem to have really hard endings, Ive still never beaten a single super mario bros game, Ive gotten to the end, but could never pull it off

And I only want a 50+ hour game when Im playing an RPG of some kind. But on the flip side, I also HATE super short games. It pisses me off when I buy a shooter for example, and in 6 hours its over with. I personally think that article the DEVs are only saying they shouldnt make super long games, because of the assets it takes to make them. The general public, and the general gamer included, are all morons, and so will keep pumping cash into the same franchise or game developer just cause, weather they are getting their money out of it or not. Thats one of the main reasons I really like Bethesda, their games are not only good, but they generally are huge and well worth the money.

Right but you can understand the developers point of view too though. Whether it's Homfront or Oblivion 90% of people are only going to play for 5 hours so you might as well make a Homefront.