Adventure Gamers - Forums

Iznogood - 01 August 2013 12:32 PM

Whoa - I can’t imagine playing an adventure game in sessions as short as 1-2 hours, I mean just reading your notes from where you left and getting into the right gaming mood, can easily take half of that time. Also in at least some games (like Keepsake), there are complicated puzzles that can easily take you an hour or more to solve. How do you manage to cut a puzzle in half, and just continue it another day?

When I play I usually play in 4-6 hours session, and if I haven’t got at least 3 hours I can spend, then I will rather do something else, and postpone the AG until I have more time. But this is nothing compare to ye old days, when I was younger I would often play in 10-16 hours session, and my record is a 32 hour long session playing Civilization, starting Friday evening and not stopping before early Sunday morning.

This also raises an interesting question, how does our playing habits influence our game preferences?
I mean there are some games that are better enjoyed in longer session, and can’t that easily be split into smaller sessions without loosing something, whereas other games are better suited for small sessions, and might even be more enjoyable if consumed in small bits instead of in one large chunk.

I used to have some long night sessions with Civilization.

I think you can play most games in 1-2 hour sessions, you just have to be disciplined and quit playing at a certain point. It can be hard to quit once you’re immersed into a game though.

It really depends on the kind of game. I like adventure games to last me at least a week so I typically give them 1-2 hours per day, usually spending part of that time with a lunch break. From what I have read though, some may think that is not enough but I always keep paper and pencil at hand to record anything I deem necessary to get me right back on the path again. On the other hand are the games such as Witcher, DAO, Skyrim, Kingdoms of Amalur, etc. which tend to induce more addictive tendencies and thus it is true that I have had sessions lasting in the 4-6 hour range though that is tending to be more of a rarity these days. 

I am quite impressed by some of the marathon sessions that have been described. I just hope no one ends up like this guy.

Zifnab - 01 August 2013 05:27 AM

I was just reading in another thread that TimMovieman said he played a 6-hour burst of Obsidian. Wow. To me, that’s insane! Not the amount of spare time (which I could probably arrange for myself if I wanted to) but the ability to engage with a game for that long. Games are like movies to me, and I don’t think I could watch more than one movie a day, or maybe two short ones.

1. It was actually a 9-hour burst with one interruption for eating, and a few for email and foruming (mostly when stuck on a puzzle and in need of a distraction).
2. I didn’t have to “arrange” that amount of spare time this time, it just happened. Basically, the missus went to bed early because she was really tired (not an uncommon situation this far in in the pregnancy) and I stayed up WAY past my bedtime.
3. The ability to engage with a game for that long is an easy feat for me. I’m no stranger to marathon sessions of gaming or movie watching (especially during vacations where staying up all night doesn’t have such dire consequences). I once held a 42-hour marathon movie session where I watched 20 movies back-to-back without sleep. I watched the final two seasons of Battlestar Galactica (that’s 40 episodes of 50 minutes each, so over 33 hours worth) in less than a week (and a workweek no less). Heck, back in the earlier days of Championship Manager (before that game became Football Manager), there were periods of time during the summer vacation where I could play it for over 100 hours per week. Of course, having enough spare time wasn’t an issue then…
Basically, if it’s something I enjoy doing, then I’m a machine…
But I fully realize this is not for everyone, so if you can’t watch two movies in a row, or can’t focus on a game for more than two hours, then I totally get that.

Disclaimer: No offense or ill will is intended toward Timmovieman by this thread.

No disclaimer needed. I know I’m weird sometimes.

He knows we all love him and this is more to ride home the fact that he’s a superhuman adventuregamer

Hah! I wish.

whose only shortcoming is a slight overfondness for DS games.

Actually, that’s overstated. It’s just that most of the “recent” (2006 and newer) games that I’ve played have been DS games, so I can never recommend a lot of recent non-DS games. Plus there’s too few DS gamers here, and I’m the most active amongst them, which make me seem more of a DS-nut than I actually am.
Besides, I can’t help it that the DS has produced some of the best games of all time now, can I?



Anyway, to answer the thread’s question:
I prefer to play games in longer sessions, especially adventure games.
Usually, if I have less than an hour to play, I won’t start an adventure game. More casual games (like the Professor Layton games) are of course the exception.
I often try to arrange sessions of two-to-four hours for adventure gaming (which hasn’t been that easy with real life constantly getting in the way). If the sessions last longer than I thought they would, then it’s because I cut into my sleeping time (most of the time that’s unknowingly - “holy crap, it’s 3am and I have work tomorrow!” - but sometimes… not so much ).

Iznogood - 01 August 2013 12:32 PM

This also raises an interesting question, how does our playing habits influence our game preferences?
I mean there are some games that are better enjoyed in longer session, and can’t that easily be split into smaller sessions without loosing something, whereas other games are better suited for small sessions, and might even be more enjoyable if consumed in small bits instead of in one large chunk.

This is exactly why I play several games at once. That allows me to switch between those that need long sessions and those that can take shorter sessions.
I then play the appropriate game based on the amount of time I have available.

For short (30 mins max) session games I prefer casual games (like the Bejeweled clone on my cell phone), sports games, and less story-driven adventure games.
For medium (30 mins - 2 hours) session games I prefer intense games that I can’t take in larger doses (like action-heavy shooters, non-turn-based RPGs and scary games (*)) or moderately story-driven games in general.
For long (2+ hours) session games I prefer everything else: story-driven adventure games, (semi-)turn-based RPGs and turn-based strategy games (Civilization mostly). Basically everything that requires immersion in the story, or that is too complex to constantly have to pause.

(*) The exception being Doom³ which I couldn’t take in sessions longer than about 30 seconds before crapping myself. Hence why I don’t like scary games. I usually play in the dark. With headphones.

Tim,
I think you may find that your nearly-new family member will have a big say about your gaming/movie time.

I don’t like to play more than one adventure game at a time.  Casual, arcade, card, board, or word games are a different story.  If I don’t have time to get into an adventure or if I need a break from being stuck, I’ll often play a couple levels of Zuma or a few rounds of Hoyle’s backgammon.

Lady Kestrel - 01 August 2013 10:04 PM

Casual…

Casuals are the easiest for short sessions. Simply go to a HO scene or an inventory puzzle and Menu/Exit. You can play that way in 15 to 20-minute increments.

Some might question the brevity of the sessions. But if you are in charge of the meal making and the dog walking et al, sometimes you only can play a game in those abbreviated increments. It’s why I am partial to casual games.

Wake up at 6:30. Take the dog for a walk. Return and make coffee. Wake wife. Have something for breakfast. Shower, shave, dress and hit the road for work at 7:45. Have a post-work drink with co-worker. Get home around 6:30. Make dinner. Sit down to eat around 8:00. Watch some news on TV.

Is there any way there will be time left for a marathon session before I go to bed and have to get up and start all over again? Not only no, but F**K NO!

And to the other Tim…start aquainting yourself with casual games. Once baby arrives, that is about all you will have time for. In small increments.

for the Main thread’s title Q, it depends on when this Adventure gonna turn me off and that is usually due to some unwell crafted puzzle that i am stuck within for a while and the solution was just stupid .. i always Quit on it , ,,,start later of course ..
some never turned me off but i just get tired, and call it a day.

but generally i had a full days of Adventuring through time (not recentaly and that too bad when i think of) only stopped by nature calls from time to time

I wouldn’t want to play 30+ hours without sleeping, I’m like a corpse then. I’ve had TV marathons that probably passed the 24 hour mark - with some small pauses for food etc. in between of course - but I’d rather be more awake than asleep when enjoying my entertainment.

I definitely enjoy watching tv series as a marathon though, like 3-10 episodes a day. You get immersed like nothing else. Emotional connection the characters is amazing and the story itself becomes more whole.

Getting kids does make gaming harder but one can still make it work if they do it right. Small babies sleep quite a lot so there’s still time to play many games - one just has to interrupt it more often. When they are toddlers - that’s the hardest part. Seems like you don’t have time to poo. But if you take turns with taking care of the kids, the other parent can have small windows for playing or reading and such. And if you have great parents, the kids can stay at grandma’s now and then leaving the weekend free for a marathon.

It’s significantly harder though if the other parent doesn’t play. Normal people usually want to have that alone time together also. It’s not uncommon that one of the couple doesn’t really have solo hobbies and they might not like the other one escaping to his/her solitude all the time.