Older games are not longer. I love the hell out of SMB3, but it has, at best, maybe 5 hours of gameplay. Of course, when you're a dumb little kid and you suck at it, it will take probably 50 hours of pratice before you finally beat it.

I do agree that older games are more straightforward and often more challenging though. I find myself playing a lot of retro games just because they're easier to pick up and play. No tutorials, no cutscenes, no loading times. And the games only have 2-4 buttons, so the controls are always easy to figure out.

The problem with newer games is that they're too story-driven. A game with an actual story!? How could that possibly be bad?

Pretty easily, actually. First of all, most of these game plots are uninspired recycled B-movie trash with dialogue so cheesy even Steven Seagal would tear up the script in disgust. Secondly, when the game is very plot intensive, it ruins the replayability. When you're playing a game to find out what happens next, it's fun and exciting... the first time. But once you know all the plot twists, the game becomes far less exciting. And you get bored with it. Of course, this is exactly what developers want. They want you to play through a game in a week or two, get bored with it, and buy their newest game. Older games are free from such pretenses and tend to be more replayable because of it. Games like SMB1 and Mega Man 2 are awesome because you just start them up, and go. The rules don't change from level to level. You don't wander around trying to figure out where you're supposed to go. Go forward, and you kill every fucking thing in your way. Simple, effective, and suprirsingly replayable.

And although they are longer than the games of yesteryear, today's games are too short. In the days of 8-bit and 16-bit consoles, the genuine game makers tried to fit as much game as they possibly could on a cartridge; the imitators who were out to make a quick buck off the video game trend threw together crap. Today, game designers rarely push game discs to their maximum capacity, and when they do, it's usually due to hi-res FMV rather than a giant gaming experience. Take the upcoming New Super Mario Bros. Wii. It will probably have 7 or 8 worlds and best case scenario, around 60 levels. And that was fine 20 years ago when they made Super Mario World, but in today's world, that's completely fucking lazy. A console-based 2D Mario game like this should have been WiiWare. But instead, it's going to be a physical game with a likely MSRP of 49.99. And given the game's price and it's style, it should have at least 200 levels. Realistically, it should have closer to 300 levels. But it won't. So if I buy this game, I'll have it beat in about 3 hours. Fan-fucking-tastic.

NSMBW is just the most glaring example of this. BioShock, Ghostbusters, and Force Unleashed were way too fucking short as well.

I find most Mario games to be highly replayable, but NSMB felt incredibly short and uninspired. NSMBW does not look like it will be any different.

And the fact that Nintendo is going to charge $50 what is essentially SMB3 2.0 in this day and age pisses me off. This game should have been $15-20 WiiWare. For $6, I can download Bubble Bobble Plus off of WiiWare and get just as much gameplay as I'd get out of NSMBW. I probably wouldn't though, because Bub and Bob look like ass in BBP.

FF1 isn't really story-driven. There's a lot of "talk to everyone until you figure out where to go next", but not a whole lot of story.

But RPGs in genre are story-driven, so my criticism isn't really of RPGs. It's every other genre.

Andrew Man wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote: So if I buy this game, I'll have it beat in about 3 hours. Fan-fucking-tastic. First off, there is no if about it my friend, just like me, you are a Nintendo fanboy and will end up purchasing it on the sole fact its a canon Mario title.

This is true.

Also, I would like to submit to you guys that the Final Fantasy games are not THAT replayable. A game that has true replayability is something that the second you beat it, you're already excited to play it again. That has rarely been the case for me with turn-based RPGs in general, or Final Fantasy in particular. I don't beat Final Fantasy IV and then think to myself, "Man, I can't fucking wait to grind those dungeons all over again!"

Do I play through my favorite ones every couple years? Absolutely. But if I was stuck in a cabin in the woods with a SNES and nothing but Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI, and Breath of Fire 2, I'd kill myself within four months. No question.

Honestly, out of all the Final Fantasy games, I'd actually say FF1 has the most replayability. Since you get to pick your characters' classes, and since you can't ever change them (aside from the promotion), you can challenge yourself by building different parties.

And on top of that, Chrono Trigger had multiple endings.

And action-oriented RPGs like Crystalis and LTTP always get me to come back for a second time almost immediately.

Maniac Mansion also isn't an RPG.