Games that have gripped you ...

[SharkAttack]

I don't let games grip me as I haven't got as much time for them as when I was a kid. Wind Waker came closest I think. Whenever I knew I had some time to play, i'd play it. But I wouldn't put other things in my life on hold for any game these days! I try to balance my jobs/plans/hobbies.

[MartyG]

Disgaea - a game I've put well over 160 hours into. Tactical RPGs don't get much better than this. Roll on Phantom Brave.

Regards
Marty

[Londonner]

WARNING - only read this post if you are interested in the area of game design, or whether you ponder why you don't like gaming as much as you used to.

back in the days, games had you held you you couldnt leave them alone..now there are very few like that, or perhaps there are too many. Ahh to be poor once again!

I was about to post my thoughts subsequent to starting this thread, and your quote above is exactly where I was going to start. I alluded to it in my first post:

It's a shame there aren't more games like them in the era of multi-million dollar gaming 'epics'.

Before I rant, let me reiterate two points. First, that I am making a distinction between long term (a game that you return to regularly to either just enjoy, or to explore further) and short-term (a game that you cannot get up from until you're finished). Zelda WW is an example of the former (takes days to get into, weeks to explore, and months to complete) and Splinter Cell is an example of the latter (takes 10 minutes to pick up, several hours to deduce, and a day or two to complete). Second, that the "average gamer" only intendsto play a game for an hour or two a day, or every other day - whether a game compels them to spend more time playing, is in effect what I mean by 'gripping'.

One could argue that the distinction between long-term 'addictive' and short-term 'gripping' actually correlates with the size of a game. For example, Zelda WW is so big you can only finish it over a couple of days anyway, whilst you can feasibly complete all of Splinter Cell in one sitting.

One could also argue that it's about 'gaming genre' e.g. RPG Adventure vs Stealth Action. That is, you cannot compare Zelda WW with Splinter Cell because they are created with different gaming experiences in mind.

I think the 'size' argument would be a weak one. A massive game should not mean a less 'gripping' experience. I think regardless of the number of levels, or the size of each game world, a game should aim to glue you to your seat. In this sense, I think many games, which are absolutely stunning in the long-term, fail miserably in the short-term: why does the suspense disappear as I spend hours of game time travelling by sea back and forth, and around in circles, in Zelda WW? Why does the element of suprise vanish as I re-trace my path dozens of times across Metroid Prime? With these games, and with many games of late, I find myself switching off and only returning when I practically have the time to play. Simply because 'playing the game' is just something to do - like watching TV or browsing a magazine. The sense of 'I need to find out what happens' next is not as great.

So then, is it a question of genre? That a heart-pounding stealth action game is bound to provide the 'what happens next' factor, whereas a slower paced RPG Adventure will not. I think this is a stronger argument. By definition, an Adventure RPG is designed to span a player's progress over time and space, whereas an action game aims to deliver a satisfying punch. Yet, I would counter that even so, an RPG Adventure does not have to be less gripping than say Stealth Action.

So the question remains, why is it some games more compelling to play continuously in the short-term than others?

In my first post, I mentioned momentum: the pace at which the game develops, dynamics are introduced, and the player is engaged. I would also add the following:

Losing: I haven't played many games of late (apart from Ikaruga ) where you are punished for making mistakes. I had a big break from gaming, having jumped from the Super Famicom to Gamecube (and playing friends' systems, such as PS, PC or N64, in the intervening years) but it just seems to me that in today's gaming environment it's much harder to 'die'. Games appear to be 'softer'. I don't mean that games are easier to complete, but that they are just easier on the player's psyche. Why is it that I care passionately about losing an energy bar in one game, but not in another. Is it because in the former, I know I'm going to die quickly, and that in the latter just re-spawn where my corpse last lay. Where has the torment gone?

Suspense: this is largely related to the game's dynamics and plot development. Why do most games linger pointlessly? The player is left in barren areas of a game's framework, repeating tasks, re-tracing steps or going around in circles. Simply because of the designer's failure to think hard enough about how the framework affects the player's imagination and desire to to continue playing.

Progress: a 'gripping' game knows just when to let you save or where to let you start once you die. Never far enough as you wanted but not further back to test your frustration threshold. So each time you play, you are teased into playing some more. You nearly made it to the next progress point, one more go and you'll get to the next one. Before you know it, hours have passed.

Access: depending on the genre, some games do not, and should not, let you just pick up a joypad and engage quickly (quite rightly, and if you are seeking it, they want the experience to develop over time and space). However, this is not the same as a game that just takes too damn long to get going. Why do some games take longer to get into than they should? This problem is compounded by other issues. First, the fact that with better technology, developers are pressured into delivering a bigger gaming experience (which inevitably means a 3D environment or lots of cut-scenes) and it takes time to move around these environments, unless they have been mapped out brilliantly. Second, more buttons automatically means more moves (and more time to get 'into character'), and some games take just too long within the game to teach you (by which time, the momentum has been thorougly lost).

With games that 'grip', you aren't given any thinking space to even contemplate doing something else. The games engage very quickly, they compell you to see the next level; they don't abandon you in barren space; they don't tolerate foolishness; and they allow fluid progress.

So fluid and compelling is the experience that you lose that weekend without even realising.

Out of all the systems I've played recently (and as some people have already suggested) the GBA SP has provided the most compelling experiences. It's not so much that it can be played anywhere, and is therefore more physically playable, but that you just switch it on, figure out two main buttons and play games that have very simple, but extremely 'gripping', dynamics.

Am I re-hashing the retro vs modern gaming debate on different terms? Possibly. But then again, I am making a direct leap from 16bit to 128bit - and the differences are striking precisely because my experience of games has not evolved through 32 or 64 bit gaming. I'm also not advocating that 'simple is better' argument:

With books and film, the 'user' is directed firmly through a pre-determined narrative - emotions are largely preset, given the audience's shared cultural values. With an interactive medium like video games, the audience is able to improvise their own emotional reaction as they shape their experience using their own skill and response to the options available. Yet, I find that in many of my games I am given far too much freedom, space and time.

There is no direction. In the 16 bit era, restricted by technology, developers had to impose linear game worlds. Whilst too linnear is undesireable, because it implies predictability, I can't help but think strong sense of 'this is what I need to do, let me just do it' within a game helps it become more gripping.

What I advocate therefore is more direction in games making using these high technologies. Direction, both in terms of design (where you progress through a game), but also game dynamics (how you do so). It seems, somewhere along the line, as development teams have grown from a dozen to several hundred, the creative process is lost in the project management process.

Whereas with most 16 bit games (ie. GBA games) you know what you have to do, you know how to do it, the game let's you play and there is a strong sense of challenge, with many of today's games, you are thrown into a muddle of a complex story, ill-thought maps and little sense of danger.

There is no compulsion to play the game continuously at the outset. For this reason, I think some people above have missed the point: I wasn't talking about games that you've experienced over months, but those you just picked up, and just couldn't put down.

Some caveats: First, granted, different games are capable of hitting different spots, as we all have different tastes. Each to their own. Second, by 'bits' I am referring to gaming eras, not graphical capability as such (although I do believe that graphical power has had a lot to do with the sscope and game dynamics that define each era).

Lastly, if you're wandering why I've typed out so much it is because I have a personal interest in the topic from a game design perspective

[Sketcz]

From a future games designer, well said!

Read it all, made some good points. Covered much ground. Cant say I agree with it all, but youve highlghted many of the problems with the current market.
For some reason some developers seem obsessed with maintaining and increasing these problems.

[Londonner]

I don't let games grip me as I haven't got as much time for them as when I was a kid. Wind Waker came closest I think. Whenever I knew I had some time to play, i'd play it. But I wouldn't put other things in my life on hold for any game these days! I try to balance my jobs/plans/hobbies.

This is true only to some extent. I have wondered whether my current reaction to games is down to age and imagination; my experience of 16 bit games during my mid-teens, versus my experience in 128 bit gaming mid-20s.

However, my point wasn't whether you "let games grip" you or not. Most of us, who have responsibilities, control game play time just as one would other 'leisure' activities. However, my point was with games that "grip" you whether you like it or not.

As with some books, for example, you just cannot put them down - whilst others, you may read on the way to work, or before bed, because it's on your list of books to read.

I didn't find Zelda WW gripping, in this sense, and play it for an hour or two every few weeks.

However, with Splinter Cell, for reasons I've tried to figure out, I was "gripped" - I couldn't put it down. Wondering why this game, more than any other I have in my collection, managed induce this response (lose self-control, if you like, which you refer to above) is the reason I started the thread.

My penultimate post is an attempt to define the factors which contribute to some games inducing such a response (no matter what self-control threshold or mechanism you adopt) and some don't. And yeah, I'm interested in media theory

[bangaio]

Spot on sir!

I feel like otaku that developers just keep on churnning out the same old over developed, over long (in development terms) experiences, the word experience being key. They seem too caught up in creating some experience that they are happy with rather than tinking about what makes a good game.

Take board games, "developers" dont get lost in storiesm, plots, character development, desgning the prettiest board, they want to make a captivating game, same with films, authors, journailksts, etc. Some are good at it others arent yet with videogames those who dont manage to truly captivate the audience seems so dissproportiantlky high.

[112]

- Completed shadow run on the snes about 20 times. i just luved the setting and atmosphere.

- Biohazard on the jap Sega saturn, this game got rinsed so many time i jus dont know where to start! I luv the cheese!

- Shenmue 1, i jus kept playing it and playing it!

- Gta 3 double pack. It has not left me xbox since release!

- SF2 on the snes. Oh my word this was the pinacle of geekism for me. I would complete this at least three times daily!

- Mario Kart on the snes again, i would complete this twice a day!

- Metropolis street racer on the DC kept me goin for a while till it filled me with frustration at the crapness that is the kudos system!

- Silent hill 2 I completed again, and again! my first silent hill and still my fave! id never played anything like it so i just wanted to see everything and anything i aint seen in the game!

- Metal gear 2 on the jap ps2. I payed a ridiculous ?75 for this and rinsed it to death even though i did not know what the hell was going on at certain points!

- ISS on the snes wow, my first experience at such an amazing play system. 2 player was a god send.

Thats it for now, im sure there are morebut i jus cant remember. Im hoping GTA 3 & VC will keep me entertained for a while! I jus luv fernando martinez!

112

[bangaio]

Thought of more good gripping games that like a great book i couldnt have put down

Mario 64
Pilot Wings
Rez
SFII
Mario Cart
Grand Turismo

even better:

microsoft flight simulator
a demo of a fps terminator 2 game a long time ago
sensible soccer
Sonic on the game gear

Like has been said, I may not have played all of these for years, didnt even complete many (any?) of them but loved them and could not put them down

If you look at the negative side of things, gaves that have failed to grip me recently (the last 6 months):

Pikmin
Zelda TWW
Mario Sunshine
Shenmue 1+2
Skies of arcadia
Garou MOTW
Space chanel 5
MSR
Baldurs Gate - any of them
Secret Weapons over Normandy
Initial D
Ikaruga
Radiant SIlvergun

That is a lot of games, lots highly rated that have completely failed to grip me. I may still have a go from time to time but still they fail.

Time to do some selling I think.

[JamieOilyFcker]

Gotta be Final Fantasy 7, this is the only RPG that has really had an effect on me, I've never been into RPG's until FF7 came along and just open the light and lead me all the way to gaming heaven - the story, the depth of characters, and the dang emotions, it's never been the same! FF8 and others that followed just never had that magic associated with FF7, I really am looking forward to the movie this summer! Oh, also they should make a remake of FF7 or prequel or something to it! Even the Zelda games in my opinion aren't as dramatic/immersive as FF7, it's sheer class!

[MartyG]

Not really that surprising if all you can list are Zelda and FF RPGs.

Regards
Marty

[JRMacumber]

Lately, the only game that has really gotten inside me was Knights Of The Old Republic. I thought about it for most of my days early on, wishing I was playing it when I wasn't. Such a fantasic game.

[Kieran76]

Resident Evil Code Veronica on the DC totally hooked me, as did Cannon Fodder, Super Mario Kart, Goldeneye, Strider and Halo. I wouldn't normally be so into something like Code Veronica, it's just that my brother was there at the time an the whole game became more of an "event". We had to finish it over 48 hours before he went home.

[Ady]

Shenmue 2 : The first one was great, but the second was VAST. I felt as though I really was lost in a strange country. There was just so much to do and see and so many different people to meet.

Xenogears : Simply the best RPG I've ever played, and one whose story and characters grabbed me from the start and never let go.

Zelda LTTP : The first Zelda game I played. I was still a student and had recently been dumped by a girl I was seing at the time. My response was to mope around indoors for a few weeks. During that time, I became acquainted with this classic for the first time ever (via my housemate's SNES). Having never played a Zelda game before that, everything was so fresh and unique. I remember being genuinely amazed at how everything just slotted together. I soon forgot about Sian...

Silent Hill : The Resident Evil series never did it for me, but with SH, it was love at first sight. The environments, the music, the characterisation and the psychological scares. "THIS is survival horror", thought I. I always knew sound could be just as importanat (if not mroe so) that visuals. This game proved it.

[tokyochojin]

Gotta be Final Fantasy 7, this is the only RPG that has really had an effect on me, I've never been into RPG's until FF7 came along and just open the light and lead me all the way to gaming heaven - the story, the depth of characters, and the dang emotions, it's never been the same! FF8 and others that followed just never had that magic associated with FF7, I really am looking forward to the movie this summer! Oh, also they should make a remake of FF7 or prequel or something to it! Even the Zelda games in my opinion aren't as dramatic/immersive as FF7, it's sheer class!

Spot on to that guy! I don't care if people call it an interactive story it probably includes the greatest story, setting , characters ever made in a western released game!

Anyway other games that gripped me...

Super Mario Bro's Classic, i dont know wether it was because it was the only game i had when i was 8 with 50p a week pocket money! or wether it was really that good! And once i managed to jump over, one of the level flags!(though no one believes it ft: )

metal gear solid Short but sweet,bandana's, stealth costumes, big boss high scores..this game makes you replay!

Shenmue 1 Father noooooooooooooooooooooo!
Shenmue 2

MGS2Yes Raidens at twat but still an addictive weekend!

[JU!]

Shenmue is one of the few games to make me feel all funny inside. Did not put down the Japanese vers until it ws finished, i got so intrigued to what wud happen to Ryo next. Zelda: No Kaze takuto kept me gripped til the end as well.

MGS: Feel the emotion.