[PCGamesN] Time sinks like AC Valhalla are ruining games, not microtransactions

[Deepwater]

The article only mentions Valhalla because AC is an easy patsy. They half mention Ghost Recon, but only to mention NFTs.

So to me, the issue is not time sinks, but time sinks that you dont find fun. Tons of people find AC Valhalla time sink fun. The real crux of the issue is, why would you play 150 hours of AC Valhalla if the gameplay loop doesn't hook you in the first 20-30? You mention MMOs as if they are dead (go ask FFXIV players how they feel about their time sinks). Is Destiny bad because its a time sink?

Not only that, most people buy and play these games without spending anything more than the entry fee. They dont buy any mtx in game items, and they dont buy the DLC.

How many more Assassins Creeds need to release before people realize its not their franchise of choice?

 

[Sidebuster]

This is simply not what GaaS means. Continued support comes in many different flavours.

Click to shrink...

Games as a Service means games are built in a way to continually receive money by means of MTX and ongoing support as opposed to the old way of making the game maybe patching a few times and releasing some expansions and moving on.

That's the super simplified version. The issues come in how it's implemented and it's been shown that these top AAA publishers are willing to do things like exploit gambling addictions and create gameplay loops that maximize people getting the same feeling they do while playing slots. Games as a service COULD have been something like how MMORPG's used to be, but that's not profitable enough for these publishers. But this is capitalism we're talking about here.

Just look at how disgusting Roblox is with how they exploit children. You know the UBIsoft's and EA's sit there and salivate over how they can do the same. You're lying to yourself if you think GaaS from AAA is going to be anything other than massive exploitation for the sake of getting the stockholders more money.

 

[Earthboundstarman]

I don't mind long games if they have something to tell during those 100 hours.

Ubisoft games don't.

Click to shrink...

Exactly, if it's padded with nonmeaningful content then it's a collectathon that doesn't respect the player's time.

 

[JigglesBunny]

Both. The answer is both.

 

[t67443]

Personally I may be done with AC games that want to take place in an entire country.

I like the feel of exploring some of the areas and seeing a fantasized way that these ancient countries were organized but riding a horse for 3 minutes, spend 15 seconds to hear some throwaway dialogue and then 5 seconds of combat just to clear something off a map got beyond tedious. Especially when even from fast travel points you're sending as much if not more time traveling to and from missions as actually taking part in them.

 

[RetroRunner]

If you can't consider something like Valhalla to be bloated, then bloat doesn't exist.

Click to shrink...

You don't have to engage with any of Valhalla's side content, which is much better than forum darling Persona 5 taking 20 something mandatory hours teaching you how to play a menu based RPG.

 

[NewDust]

Games as a Service means games are built in a way to continually receive money by means of MTX and ongoing support as opposed to the old way of making the game maybe patching a few times and releasing some expansions and moving on.

That's the super simplified version. The issues come in how it's implemented and it's been shown that these top AAA publishers are willing to do things like exploit gambling addictions and create gameplay loops that maximize people getting the same feeling they do while playing slots. Games as a service COULD have been something like how MMORPG's used to be, but that's not profitable enough for these publishers. But this is capitalism we're talking about here.

Click to shrink...

Granted a lot of GaaS games do fit your description, but I simply disagree that all GaaS are that. You simply can't say GaaS equals brain dead, because a majority of games implement it that way. The initial releases of Hitman 1 and 2, Dreams, Driveclub and even Burnout Paradise come to mind as examples that not all GaaS are this evil you speak of.

 

[dglavimans]

Since when is putting optional content in a game something that is ruining games.. You don't need to finish all the games 100 precent

 

[Khasim]

I'd say they are both equally shitty. A million copy-pasted bandit camps, boring sidequests and chests scattered across the map are definitely putting me off the last 2 games, but the coolest looking outfits being locked behind MT is also shit. I loved how in the older games you'd get a cool outfit for completing all the special tomb levels, now you can look like a fire demon by the time you finish the tutorial zone where you're supposed to be dressed in rags. This is why I liked Origins and not Odyssey and Valhalla - in Origins you could get some really cool outfits for doing special sidequests and what not, Odyssey's and Valhalla's 'special outfits' were very lacking when compared to things like the outfit you get for defeating all the Phylakes in Origins

 

[LossAversion]

You don't have to engage with any of Valhalla's side content, which is much better than forum darling Persona 5 taking 20 something mandatory hours teaching you how to play a menu based RPG.

Click to shrink...

Okay? Both can be criticised.

 

[bes.gen]

Personally I may be done with AC games that want to take place in an entire country.

I like the feel of exploring some of the areas and seeing a fantasized way that these ancient countries were organized but riding a horse for 3 minutes, spend 15 seconds to hear some throwaway dialogue and then 5 seconds of combat just to clear something off a map got beyond tedious. Especially when even from fast travel points you're sending as much if not more time traveling to and from missions as actually taking part in them.

Click to shrink...

yeah, this i my main issue with "don't play it then" mentality,
there might be thousand other games to choose from,
but not many of them are using interesting historical, geographical settings like ac does.
its pretty unique beast in that actually.

so for me, their uninspired, bloated design is actually ruining a franchise i was interested in before.

thing is, their other big bloated games seemed to review not too hot this year.
even if ac sells better than ever, im optimistic
they'll take note, when it also turns yellow on metacritic.

 

[Sky87]

I can't fathom anyone NOT calling Valhalla repetitive. 50% of the game feels like it can be easily cut without losing anything of value.

Click to shrink...

Focus on the main story quests and ignore the side stuff and it's no more repetitive than any other AC game.

 

[senj]

The design of Assassin's Creed Valhalla already has changed. Valhalla has daily quests, community challenges, and seasonal events. It has a giant skill tree that can be respecced at any time so you can try out the three new skills added in every major patch, rather than one that provides a satisfying power curve.

Click to shrink...

You don't have to do any of that stuff? The story had a definite beginning, middle, and end, and I never touched any of those things. The skill tree felt fine to me, never went back for whatever new skills were added? You can just not do things that you don't find fun and stop when you've had enough, that more content exists for those who want it doesn't harm you?

Valhalla had flaws but this article ain't it.

 

[KingJ2002]

I spoke about this in another thread, but what Ubisoft did with AC Odyssey was a symptom of this, players never received the real ending to the game unless you bought the season pass.

The natural fix to this would be to evolve yearly titles like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, etc... into a service-based model. If AC Infinity becomes this where there is a persistent online multiplayer world, with regular expansions, and seasonal content that expands the storyline. Then it comes down to what gamers sign up for to eat their time.

 

[Gestault]

This is a game design issue, not so much an "industry problem", but when an otherwise interesting-to-explore open world environment is stuffed with too much content (side-content or otherwise), it breaks the pacing of actual exploration that's a major rationale for having that game space in the first place. Arbitrarily filling an otherwise open game can make the experience feel (ironically) claustrophobic, and the result is all the work of traversing an open world, without the benefits scope can give. Whether it's writing, combat, items, or conversation, there needs to be a cadence behind it all that keeps each element feeling novel enough to continue. This is why "just don't engage with it" isn't a catch-all counterpoint to criticism of open-world bloat that some assume it is.

 

[Darkmaigle]

Imagine building a massive interactive world and then being told you are ruining games

lol

 

[canderous]

Neither long games with time sinks nor MTX are ruining gaming (except the gambling kind, fuck those). They've both been a part of games forever and yet we still continue to get great and amazing games year after year, most of which do not fall into either category. There's so many of them I can't possibly hope to have the time to play all the ones that interest me.

Whenever I see stuff like this it just reads like people trying to rationalize their own waning interest in gaming or something. How the hell can a subset of games that you don't like ruin the entire hobby?

 

[RetroRunner]

I understand it completely that you enjoy it. It's just how I see that kind of gameplay hook and how I observed people playing those types of games (like Destiny). The article writer is the one that can't come to terms with it.

Click to shrink...

What games do you enjoy so I can mock them and take about how they're garbage?

 

[Cloud-Hidden]

This is what I was getting at. I notice this with a lot of games media, where there's almost an anxiety to get it done because they have to move on and cover the next thing.

Click to shrink...

I covered and reviewed games professionally for about 4 years, and this is definitely a thing. Getting lots of free games is awesome... until the deadlines start piling up. When embargo is up in 3 days, and you're only 25 hours into a 60 hour game, it starts to become grating and annoying, even if it's a great game. Do this all year long, multiple years in a row, and you'll start to feel like long games are ruining your life too.

Now that I'm no longer paid to write about games, I can actually enjoy them again. I almost completely ruined my favorite hobby by literally turning it into a job. Others may deal with deadlines more efficiently, but I was always stretched way too thin.

 

[Afrikan]

But I bet you would play that 8-12 hour game repeatedly if you enjoyed the content. What's the difference in playing a game with 80 hours of repetitive content vs playing linear experience 10 times?

Click to shrink...

Then you're stuck in the matrix maaaaaan.

I am as well with my sports game online head to head. I spend SO MUCH time playing Madden... I play it because it's fun and I'm great at it... same as the UFC game...and previous Fifas as well.

But even I know I'm wasting my time, stuck in this loop.

It doesn't matter if it's fulfilling a need to have fun with my free time. I plan to get out of this loop and start my backlog of single player games.

So the reason I would prefer a single player game that is 8-12+ hrs (or just less that 30).. is because when I finish it (no I won't play it again right after, even if I loved it), I can start on a different game and finish that one....and forward. Experience something new and different.

So to me that's the difference between 80hrs (of repetitive good content) vs 8,12, <30hrs game (good content that you'd want to play again).

But I'm not trying to knock on someone's enjoyment of a 80hrs game.. if you love that game world you're in... exploring it and just everything about. That's great. Enjoy away.

But for myself, there are SO MANY games out there, not enough time. That's why for games like the AC series, I plan to get it just for the tourist mode and enjoy the scenery.

 

[RetroRunner]

The article only mentions Valhalla because AC is an easy patsy. They half mention Ghost Recon, but only to mention NFTs.

So to me, the issue is not time sinks, but time sinks that you dont find fun. Tons of people find AC Valhalla time sink fun. The real crux of the issue is, why would you play 150 hours of AC Valhalla if the gameplay loop doesn't hook you in the first 20-30? You mention MMOs as if they are dead (go ask FFXIV players how they feel about their time sinks). Is Destiny bad because its a time sink?

Not only that, most people buy and play these games without spending anything more than the entry fee. They dont buy any mtx in game items, and they dont buy the DLC.

How many more Assassins Creeds need to release before people realize its not their franchise of choice?

Click to shrink...

Exactly this if you don't like modern Assassin's Creed stop playing it, while those of us who like it continue to do so.

 

[Sidebuster]

What games do you enjoy so I can mock them and take about how they're garbage?

Click to shrink...

Oh don't worry, I've kicked my fair share of rocks back in the day over people hating games I liked. I'll never forget you Brink :( You deserved better!

Edit: There are GaaS games I do like still. Warframe is one, although truth be told, I think I make more attempts at trying to like it more than I actually do. Oh and you can shit all over me for liking Star Citizen which ironically is also a GaaS (aNd a sCaM).

 

[z1ggy]

Whats "ruining" gaming is cost skyrocketing every gen and its only getting worse.

 

[AustinJ]

I just don't have the time for long, bloated games. More power to those who do, but games like the last couple AC games just aren't made for me.

 

[JasonV]

I covered and reviewed games professionally for about 4 years, and this is definitely a thing. Getting lots of free games is awesome... until the deadlines start piling up. When embargo is up in 3 days, and you're only 25 hours into a 60 hour game, it starts to become grating and annoying, even if it's a great game. Do this all year long, multiple years in a row, and you'll start to feel like long games are ruining your life too.

Now that I'm no longer paid to write about games, I can actually enjoy them again. I almost completely ruined my favorite hobby by literally turning it into a job. Others may deal with deadlines more efficiently, but I was always stretched way too thin.

Click to shrink...

While I've got you here, I was wondering about this. Do you think the pressure of a deadline skews game coverage away from certain genres or games with higher learning curves?

 

[Soap]

With games like these, I think you are really going to struggle if you are a completionist. Ever since the Witcher 3 question marks, I just play the parts of the game ai want and move on.

 

[Cloud-Hidden]

While I've got you here, I was wondering about this. Do you think the pressure of a deadline skews game coverage away from certain genres or games with higher learning curves?

Click to shrink...

Nah, probably not. But depending on the outlet, it may mean the difference in a more or less nuanced or insightful review. If you're a small outlet and none of your staff writers specialize in fighting games, for example, a SoulCalibur review may not deliver to a hardcore fighting game fan what they need to make their purchasing decision.

But IMO the answer to your question is "no." Worst case scenario, if a writer absolutely needed more time, reviews in progress are now more common and acceptable than they've ever been.

 

[JasonV]

Nah, probably not. But depending on the outlet, it may mean the difference in a more or less nuanced or insightful review. If you're a small outlet and none of your staff writers specialize in fighting games, for example, a SoulCalibur review may not deliver to a hardcore fighting game fan what they need to make their purchasing decision.

But IMO the answer to your question is "no." Worst case scenario, if a writer absolutely needed more time, reviews in progress are now more common and acceptable than they've ever been.

Click to shrink...

Cool, thanks for answering.

 

[riotous]

I think the media I consume makes me smarter than others: the thread.

 

[Gestault]

But I bet you would play that 8-12 hour game repeatedly if you enjoyed the content. What's the difference in playing a game with 80 hours of repetitive content vs playing linear experience 10 times?

Click to shrink...

Speaking for myself: I'll re-read a book I loved but won't bother finishing one I'm not enjoying. That seems like a meaningful parallel.

To your question, a large "volume" of repetitive content vs something enjoyable moment-to-moment that can be replayed is a pretty easy choice. People will obviously have different takes on how much enjoyment they get from a given game, but your question itself highlights the nature of the problem some feel re: bloated design; It turns something they would normally enjoy into something they don't.

 

[Lashley]

Nah, there's loads of timesink games that aren't shit.

They aren't ruining gaming.

 

[anf]

I think the issue I have with modern AC games is that by trying to make the games 80h long they killed the interesting stories. Most of the cast in AC Odyssey was boring. I've heard that AC Valhalla was the same.

 

[Muji]

I've always felt so intimidated to start a AC game after like… AC: Brotherhood. Just too much time and game design revolving that time around repetitive similar stuff. Or that's the impression that i get because I haven't played any since brotherhood. Is it generally not like that?

 

[Scottoest]

Assassin's Creed is a series that could be amazing if it had half as much "stuff" to do, but that stuff had far more meaning and craft put into it.

But of course that's the catch - copy-paste bandit camps and "find all the feathers" pads out run time, but is comparatively trivial to create.

 

[Rumenapp]

Maybe people play AC because the gameplay loop is fun, time sink or not.

Odyssey and Valhalla both are among the top sellers in the series too.

The Assassin’s Creed franchise just had its best sales year ever | VGC

Annual revenue was up 50% compared with the prior record set in 2012-13…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[Carian Knight]

Sinking time isn't the problem, quality is. I spent 70 hrs during RDR2's campaign and another 30hrs AFTER I completed the Epilogue just to wander around in that gorgeous world. Valhalla doesn't respect my time with that obnoxiously long story and not so interesting side quests and world activities.

 

[elenarie]

Imagine building a massive interactive world and then being told you are ruining games

lol

Click to shrink...

That's basically the experience of working on video games. It is best to not really take anything seriously that people are posting online.

Everyone and their mother are quick to tell you how to do your job better, how easy something is to make, how you are wrong about so many things, sometimes to kill yourself, other times that they will kill you, how you're ruining the world, and similar crap.

Never take anything to heart. Think of it as entertainment. :) Be that coming from a random bot on Twitter or someone with a website.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

If you mainline the AC games I think you can get it done in 20 hours.

Click to shrink...

It's longer than that bc you need to level up your character. Should be closer to 50hrs if you want to roll the credits as quick as possible.

Click to shrink...

Odyssey main story took me around 33 hours so I never got the overly long complaints for that, Valhalla was 48.5 and longer than I would have liked but neither of those games had me pointlessly grinding.

 

[Atom]

I've always felt so intimidated to start a AC game after like… AC: Brotherhood. Just too much time and game design revolving that time around repetitive similar stuff. Or that's the impression that i get because I haven't played any since brotherhood. Is it generally not like that?

Click to shrink...

The most recent ones have the worst of it, except maybe origins which incidentally might be the most interesting setting of all of them. Odyssey and Valhalla at 50 - 60ish hours a piece for the main story, and odyssey at least I think had the true ending behind another long dlc (and three main storylines in the base game). The main stories of them also devolve into doing the same stuff over and over again and the gameplay isn't exactly good.

I'd recommend checking out one of the older titles. Everything before origins is like 20-30 hours each or so for main story and I feel they do a better job of keeping things varied, though there always is a some degree of repetition, there was a better sense of narrative focus I feel in some of the older titles.

Though personally I think the series is at it's best when it features distinctive cities with their own social and stealth systems, and then forms smaller arcs around those that feel unique to the cities and tie together into a grander historical narrative. In this sense I still view AC2 as the peak of the series with its 5 or so city states that all looked very different and had stories that felt unique to them.

Games more in that vein are AC3, and maybe rogue. Haven't played the latter but quite enjoyed parts of the former --- though there is some tonal whiplash going from the Ezio trilogy. AC4 is also secretly maybe the best because it's just a big pirate simulator and feels very distinct from the other games. The caribbean is a fun region too with a fair amount of sea activities.

Unity is also a game I think people have come around on. It is a gorgeous, detailed version of Paris with a lot of social and stealth systems, the best parkour, and some of the best assassinations. Plot isn't spectacular but leaves enough hooks to make you want to see what happens next, and has a really darn good mid game boss fight. It's usually very cheap and I'd recommend looking into it. Syndicate is a poor man's Unity in many ways in comparison but some people like it too. The austin wintory ost is great and the combat feels distinctly Arkham-ish. It's a bit over the top and feels more like a campy adventure than anything really serious but it's pretty decent and keeps some of the assassination playground approaches that unity started.

 

[DeliciousSunnyD!]

It's because so many people value "ratio of money to amount of time spent" far more than the actual "quality(ies) of time spent". So naturally businesses provide content/services that the consumers "demand".

How many consumers will outright avoid paying for or even playing shorter games because "there's not enough content"? A ton of them. ($70 USD FOR A "10" HOUR VIDEO GAME? I'M NOT PAYING THAT. I WILL WAIT FOR A DEEP (see: 75%+ off) SALE!)

I mean, the landscape is dominated by "free to play" profit designs now because of this exact reason. People want as much time extracted for as little cash spent as possible, while not really realizing that "time spent" actually is money/value/quality.

And I'd argue most consumers, on the whole and even regardless of the video game biz itself, value quantity over quality for the most part. On average.

It's a people/values problem.

 

[AntiMacro]

I loved how in the older games you'd get a cool outfit for completing all the special tomb levels, now you can look like a fire demon by the time you finish the tutorial zone where you're supposed to be dressed in rags.

Click to shrink...

The Thor's and Thegn's outfits were pretty awesome, but took a while to get. Which brings to mind - what does it matter to you if someone else chooses - in their single player game - to spend some money and look cool before the end of the tutorial instead of wearing outfits they don't like until they get that Thor's/Thegn's armor?

 

[Mindfreak191]

I'm torn on this topic, on one hand I used to love longer games, on the other hand the last three AC games are really burning me out…I'm yet to finish the first DLC of Valhalla even though I enjoyed the base game, but it was just too long and there's a third one around the corner, jeeez…

 

[KillLaCam]

Why not both. Micro transactions definitely are making less interested in many multiplayer games

but yeah I couldn't even finish Valhalla. I like big games but so much of it is uninteresting

 

[TooBusyLookinGud]

That's basically the experience of working on video games. It is best to not really take anything seriously that people are posting online.

Everyone and their mother are quick to tell you how to do your job better, how easy something is to make, how you are wrong about so many things, sometimes to kill yourself, other times that they will kill you, how you're ruining the world, and similar crap.

Never take anything to heart. Think of it as entertainment. :) Be that coming from a random bot on Twitter or someone with a website.

Click to shrink...

You are correct, but it's still irritating to read these complaints zoned in on the game you love to hate. What about the others our there? The article is strangely using AC, when there are games that literally take over 80hrs to complete the main story.

 

[Polyh3dron]

I give up on games quickly when I start getting the vibe that they don't respect my time. Also when I notice some kind of overly predatory DLC scheme.

 

[Shroki]

I don't see why any game should be interested in respecting YOUR time if they have an audience who enjoys lots of content. There are tons of games and not all of them are like this (or even most).

Not everything is for you. Move along.

 

[ClamBuster]

i'd rather play 20x 5hr games, then 1x 100hr game

the gaming landscape is diverse and eclectic... experience it people

(disclaimer; i do probably experience 1x 100hr game a year (yakuza 7 this year))

my most recent completion was 7hrs with The Gunk... my kind of gaming experience

 

[Sanctuary]

It's kind of both, but PCGamesN is a bit slow on the uptake with this, because it's been pretty apparent for years now that (at least in the AAA space) the Ubiformula is what everyone wants to copy, and it absolutely doesn't make games better. The overall quality plummets just to extend the running time.

I give up on games quickly when I start getting the vibe that they don't respect my time.

Click to shrink...

Same, although it's not a specifically a respect issue for me, it's an "This is so fucking boring" issue after 10+ hours of rote gameplay.

I don't see why any game should be interested in respecting YOUR time if they have an audience who enjoys lots of content. There are tons of games and not all of them are like this (or even most).

Not everything is for you. Move along.

Click to shrink...

I think we all know that, but this isn't like a "Souls games need a difficulty mode" issue at all. Unless you're saying that people that do not like these kinds of games should just duck out of AAA gaming in general, because the majority of them are using the Ubitemplate in some fashion. For the most part, this is absolutely why I barely play any AAA games anymore. Doesn't matter how interesting the setting or story might be to me, when you've played one Assassin's Creed, you've played another Horizon Zero Dawn.

It's like "Oh boy, nothing but indies for me that can run on toasters!". Besides that, there's a major difference between lots of content, and lots of absolute garbage filler that many people end up doing just because they chase trophies.

Neither are really right or wrong, it's just a split happening that I don't think people are understanding it's happening and aren't coping. The rest of us who don't like this are like, "welp, that's that for AAA. I guess I'll keep my eyes out for indie games from now on."

Click to shrink...

Starting with last gen, I'd say 90% of the game's I've actually played through the majority of, if not outright finished were indies, but you know it's nice to actually play games that have a large budget that happen to be fun as well. The only bigger budget games that I can actually look forward to anymore are from either FromSoftware or Capcom, and that's like a single game every 1-2 years on average.

 

[Fisty]

It's funny when they try to sell timesaver MTX, which implies that microtransactions are a symptom of bloat when in reality its the other way around

 

[Mendrox]

I think the issue I have with modern AC games is that by trying to make the games 80h long they killed the interesting stories. Most of the cast in AC Odyssey was boring. I've heard that AC Valhalla was the same.

Click to shrink...

This. Which is why I quit AC games after Origins. I loved the series, but it's way too much now and not as focused as before.