The dirty secret of old SNES RPGs is that a lot of the time spent invested in them was slowly walking from place to place. Play Final Fantasy II (The American easytype version), then play Final Fantasy IV Complete. The former will take twice as long as the latter. The addition of a run button instantly cuts the duration of any JRPG in half, and they are things you are expected to have because this is 2011 goddamnit.
I did a run on FFIV Complete recently... and yeah, I know the game extremely well, but I was finished with all sidequests/extra content and at the last boss in 12 hours played.
That's not quite fair, you're spending a less time in battle as well in FFIV Complete because the difficulty has been toned way down. Also, even FF2 on SNES was around 14 hours the first time through for me. Unless you mean that you completed both FFIV and the Afterstory in 12 hours, because that WOULD be impressive.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Am I the only one who reads flavour text or is it just that you burn through them because you're so used to games like it. (I just don't play RPGs, so when I do, I try to enjoy them.)
I burn through them so fast because I am very savvy with RPGs in general (Been DMing tabletop games for just over 15 years) and because I am inherently a power gamer. I find the path of least resistance almost naturally in most RPGs and just go down it (which is why I like optional difficulty settings). Fallout 3 took me a mere 20 hours the first time. I hit the level cap in just over 15 hours because I put the difficulty onto very hard (which I didn't pick up on the fact it gave you oodles more XP) and took XP leveling perks (stupidly). The result? Max level before I even finished half the sidequests, so I rushed the end of the game and started over. I definitely played Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas for over 100 hours each in saying that - but a lot of it is multiple playthroughs.
I usually read everything and talk to everyone I can while playing as well. It's just I like to build very optimal characters and power through everything. For example in KotoR I used the dual baragwain assault blade build instead of a lightsaber, even if it wasn't as thematic because the Baragwains upgraded simply murdered everything more efficiently.
So when I think about game length, I think about how I finished X game compared to Y game myself. Everyone finds certain things easier/harder, so overall comparisons of game length are pretty meaningless. I find I get the same value out of RPGs now that I did before: Maybe not as much replayability, but do I regret the money I spend on them? Nope.
So what does 'every major wRPG in the last couple years, except Borderlands' mean? What makes such a comment significant to your point?
I'm not even sure what your point about cherry picking meant. Heck, I'm not even sure what you think my point is.
Well, you offer games like ME2 and FalloutNV as proof that RPGs are short. For ME2, you say it's only 25 hours doing everything. FalloutNV is 20 sticking only to the main quest. You kind of have to use the same basis for both. (And sticking only to the main quest in an RPG and then complaining about length is not a problem with the game.)
Also, both were 'open world' RPGs and don't fit your claim that story based (read: non-open world) RPGs are all short.
Alpha Protocol was an 'open' world game but I'll grant that getting to choose where the next missions take place or which specific one isn't really the same thing. It was still pretty linear and somewhat short. Even if you weren't locked into a specific location. (And again, can't say about the other two.)
It's just difficult to see what you're trying to get at by comparing them to BG2 (Balders Gate?) and Planescape. Was every story based (read: non-open world) RPG some kind of incalculable epic time sink? Is there anything in the two examples you seemingly liked that might have made them a bit different than any other example you mention? Were there side quests there that you could ignore to speed up gameplay?
AP is the one of the few RPGs this gen that I'd call short.
3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
BG2 after you get over the initial shock of needing to raise a fuckton of gold, is actually pretty short and can be completed within 30 hours quite easily. It's just nobody does that because there is so much lovingly created world to explore!
How old were you guys when you first placed the NES/SNES RPGs? I remember playing FF2 and FF3 (aka FFIV and FFVI) as a kid (12-15). I think it took me 40+ hours to finish those games each, often due to repetitive level grinding, secret-seeking, etc. As a kid, I did not mind one bit at all, because I had all the time in the world and not that many games to play. I agree that padding/grinding was core to their gameplay, but that was just fine and dandy in those days. Nowadays, I can't really stomach playing them (and I've tried playing the DS versions), but still look back fondly on them for what they did at the time.
Anyway, yeah I don't really think "play times" have changed all that much these days with RPGs, and it's a bit apples to oranges anyway, due to the dramatic changes in gameplay. Furthermore, we as gamers all value different things depending on what we're looking for these days. If I were still a kid in school with all the time in the world but only had a few games to play, I'd hate "short games". As an adult with an expendable income, I'm picking up games left and right and am perfectly happy with a short game, as long as it's an excellent experience.
Am I the only one who reads flavour text or is it just that you burn through them because you're so used to games like it. (I just don't play RPGs, so when I do, I try to enjoy them.)
I burn through them so fast because I am very savvy with RPGs in general (Been DMing tabletop games for just over 15 years) and because I am inherently a power gamer. I find the path of least resistance almost naturally in most RPGs and just go down it (which is why I like optional difficulty settings). Fallout 3 took me a mere 20 hours the first time. I hit the level cap in just over 15 hours because I put the difficulty onto very hard (which I didn't pick up on the fact it gave you oodles more XP) and took XP leveling perks (stupidly). The result? Max level before I even finished half the sidequests, so I rushed the end of the game and started over. I definitely played Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas for over 100 hours each in saying that - but a lot of it is multiple playthroughs.
I usually read everything and talk to everyone I can while playing as well. It's just I like to build very optimal characters and power through everything. For example in KotoR I used the dual baragwain assault blade build instead of a lightsaber, even if it wasn't as thematic because the Baragwains upgraded simply murdered everything more efficiently.
So when I think about game length, I think about how I finished X game compared to Y game myself. Everyone finds certain things easier/harder, so overall comparisons of game length are pretty meaningless. I find I get the same value out of RPGs now that I did before: Maybe not as much replayability, but do I regret the money I spend on them? Nope.
Well, powerleveling in any game makes it terribly short. I personally only do that on subsequent playthroughs.
But I'm not usually an RPG player. Part of why I didn't like DA:O was that it just wasn't friendly enough to me. Oh, I've read plenty about optimal builds later and even used them when finishing off the rest of the achievements. But it just wasn't a game I should've played. I know better now and will listen to my gut more the next time. (Hence, no DA2.)
As long as you enjoy how you play is all that matters. But man, speeding through a game like that on the first playthrough? That can skew expectations if you're not aware of it.
That's completely untrue, dude. The weapons would be unique if shots traveled at different speeds and had different element associations and different effects on enemies. But the bottom line is enemies die from weapons. Shots travel at the same speed. All that changes between most weapons used is time it takes to kill enemies with them. And obviously explosives are on a different mechanic, but that's the only variation.
Do you really want me to go through each weapon, step by step, and explain why it's unique and offers options that the other weapons do not? I've had shitty day, so don't think I'm above doing something that horribly nerdy and stupid!
And saying all the weapons aren't unique because they all just kill enemies is like saying all the enemies aren't unique because they attempt to kill you.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I only really sped through Fallout 3 because it was boring to play it without any levels or fun things to look forward to. I also realized the games difficulty was a joke and just having hilariously easy enemies (albeit bags of HP) + oodles of XP didn't help. So I rushed the ending to finish it so I could play it again more normally (and vastly more enjoyed it).
Where I save time is that I crush nearly all fights instantly and so don't spend a lot of time prancing about in combat. If you can go through most combats easier, especially without dying, the amount of time you can save on any RPG is amazing.
I coulda sworn Final Fantasy II (SNES) had a run button as well.
There I was, 3DS: 2621-2671-9899 (Ekera), Wii U: LostCrescendo
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I have to admit, I've rather lost what you're trying to say Spoit. Because Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3/NV are definitely all in the same boat for what they try to do.
Speed Runs or "To complete time if you skip shit" are completely besides the point.
If you want to talk about "Game Length" what you really mean is "Game Content" and that includes all the side quests and whatever.
You can race straight to the end of Fallout, but you miss 99% of the game, so it's no real indicator of game content.
Anyway, people already brought up the obvious examples I was thinking of.
Deus Ex vs Deus Ex: HR (fill out those TPS reports!)
Half-Life vs Half-Life 2 (Or better yet, Half-Life vs any modern FPS. That's a long fucking game)
BG2 vs DA:O
It's not a DLC problem though, it's more a graphics or voice-over or the like problem. Shit just takes longer and more money to make these days and that generally means stuff is shorter.
I don't know if it applies to all genres, but there's definitely plenty where the amount of game content has become more compressed. There's been a move towards shorter, more cinematic experiences.
Speed Runs or "To complete time if you skip shit" are completely besides the point.
If you want to talk about "Game Length" what you really mean is "Game Content" and that includes all the side quests and whatever.
You can race straight to the end of Fallout, but you miss 99% of the game, so it's no real indicator of game content.
Anyway, people already brought up the obvious examples I was thinking of.
Deus Ex vs Deus Ex: HR (fill out those TPS reports!)
Half-Life vs Half-Life 2 (Or better yet, Half-Life vs any modern FPS. That's a long fucking game)
BG2 vs DA:O
It's not a DLC problem though, it's more a graphics or voice-over or the like problem. Shit just takes longer and more money to make these days and that generally means stuff is shorter.
I don't know if it applies to all genres, but there's definitely plenty where the amount of game content has become more compressed. There's been a move towards shorter, more cinematic experiences.
I've lost my point too. It was originally something like this though.
Though HL2 excepted, those are more like like counter examples?
It's not a DLC problem though, it's more a graphics or voice-over or the like problem. Shit just takes longer and more money to make these days and that generally means stuff is shorter.
Yeah, in retrospect, that's probably the most accurate take on things.
I only really sped through Fallout 3 because it was boring to play it without any levels or fun things to look forward to. I also realized the games difficulty was a joke and just having hilariously easy enemies (albeit bags of HP) + oodles of XP didn't help. So I rushed the ending to finish it so I could play it again more normally (and vastly more enjoyed it).
Where I save time is that I crush nearly all fights instantly and so don't spend a lot of time prancing about in combat. If you can go through most combats easier, especially without dying, the amount of time you can save on any RPG is amazing.
I'm not judging. Personally, I only powerlevel on subsequent playthroughs because it makes it faster. As you suggest. But by then, the fun of the 'wonder' of it all has been wholly removed. By then I'm playing for achievement points or something.
For Fallout 3, I liked it but I don't know if I'll ever care to play it again. It's good and I'd recommend it, but when I was done, I was done. Come to think of it, I was using tips about character builds when I was playing it. But I still took 100 to play it (and the DLC). Frankly though, I still don't think the game is compelling enough to play again. Even from the perspective of 'seeing how the other half lives' by going with opposite Karma.
Jade Empire was kind of the same. It was okay (though I wouldn't recommend Jade Empire), but I just didn't give a shit to playthrough it again.
I think what strikes me when people claim RPGs are too short is that it sometimes feels like they're saying it half accusatory and half boasting. Like they hated that it didn't last long enough for them but they're proud that they powered through the game so quickly. It really just kind of sounds like it's their own fault for having such a short game.
It's not a DLC problem though, it's more a graphics or voice-over or the like problem. Shit just takes longer and more money to make these days and that generally means stuff is shorter.
Yeah, in retrospect, that's probably the most accurate take on things.
Which is why the nostalgia filter is so damaging. Things were better in the old days, but they were also different. There's no leeway for it.
It's not a DLC problem though, it's more a graphics or voice-over or the like problem. Shit just takes longer and more money to make these days and that generally means stuff is shorter.
Yeah, in retrospect, that's probably the most accurate take on things.
Which is why the nostalgia filter is so damaging. Things were better in the old days, but they were also different. There's no leeway for it.
Maybe it's the age I was and the fact that I was a PC gamer who played alot of shooters and RPGs, but for me it's been more a hump then a straight line.
Games got better and better and longer and longer and then like ... 10 or a bit less years ago, the trend sort of reversed and games kept looking nicer and mostly getting better, but they also started getting shorter and shorter.
I have to admit, I've rather lost what you're trying to say Spoit. Because Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3/NV are definitely all in the same boat for what they try to do.
Basically, one of the main things I look for in an RPG is choice and consequence, which usually comes mostly through extensive conversations. Which was something that Fallout 1 was one of the first games to really do right. And while FO3 was a huge step forward in that field for Bethesda, most of the gameplay still was about dungeon crawling and finding better gear.
But yeah, RPG definitions are right up there with tipping as the worst internet arguments, so I'll just admit that I'm way niche in this view and concede whatever
It's not a DLC problem though, it's more a graphics or voice-over or the like problem. Shit just takes longer and more money to make these days and that generally means stuff is shorter.
Yeah, in retrospect, that's probably the most accurate take on things.
Which is why the nostalgia filter is so damaging. Things were better in the old days, but they were also different. There's no leeway for it.
Maybe it's the age I was and the fact that I was a PC gamer who played alot of shooters and RPGs, but for me it's been more a hump then a straight line.
Games got better and better and longer and longer and then like ... 10 or a bit less years ago, the trend sort of reversed and games kept looking nicer and mostly getting better, but they also started getting shorter and shorter.
But the filter makes them imply that the newer games are somehow worse for being shorter (or 'missing' content) or some other thing that separates this era of gaming from before.
For reasons that aren't important, I wasn't huge into games during the NES era, but I still had my share of fun. And through the years that continued. Now we're playing more powerful games on more powerful systems and people just aren't happy.
Think of the 2D vs 3D fighter divide. It isn't enough that the 3D could present more challenges and options, it was that the old way was slowly receding. Clearly the new games couldn't ever be as good. People thought talkies would ruin motion pictures. New may not be better, but different doesn't mean worse.
So apparently Amazon is not a good vendor for digital game downloads.
I got a gift card today and tried to get Heroes 6. Amazon told me I have to wait 4 hours or so for them to verify my purchase.
...
Man, I worked 12+ hours at work today. I don't have 4 hours before I fall over.
Peculiar. I have bought DD games from Amazon and was always able to start downloading as soon as I payed. I don't know if I ever used a gift card though.
So apparently Amazon is not a good vendor for digital game downloads.
I got a gift card today and tried to get Heroes 6. Amazon told me I have to wait 4 hours or so for them to verify my purchase.
...
Man, I worked 12+ hours at work today. I don't have 4 hours before I fall over.
Peculiar. I have bought DD games from Amazon and was always able to start downloading as soon as I payed. I don't know if I ever used a gift card though.
It's probably that I haven't used my Amazon account in a long time. My lady has a premium account so I just order on her account when I want something.
Still, kinda lame. I mean, you have to give your credit card info anyway so I'm not sure what exactly takes 4 hours to verify.
Fallout 1 and 2 are almost certainly open world games.
The core gameplay is going to town and getting hand made quests, not fighting random mobs to get random loot
So you're saying Titan Quest & Torchlight are open world games? Because that's definitely not right.
He's mistaking open world for hack 'n slash.
No, hack and slash Diablo-esques and bethesda style RPGs are 2 completely different things. And both are completely different from bioware/black isle style story based RPGs.
That's completely untrue, dude. The weapons would be unique if shots traveled at different speeds and had different element associations and different effects on enemies. But the bottom line is enemies die from weapons. Shots travel at the same speed. All that changes between most weapons used is time it takes to kill enemies with them. And obviously explosives are on a different mechanic, but that's the only variation.
Do you really want me to go through each weapon, step by step, and explain why it's unique and offers options that the other weapons do not? I've had shitty day, so don't think I'm above doing something that horribly nerdy and stupid!
And saying all the weapons aren't unique because they all just kill enemies is like saying all the enemies aren't unique because they attempt to kill you.
The enemies have different patterns and shit, at least. Seriously, the difference between weapons in that game is two shotgun blasts for this enemy, half a clip of machinegun for the same enemy. derp a derp, it's not special at all.
And I had a bad day too, a bad week really, so MAKE MY DAY SCOTTSMAN.
... hurry though I'm about to puke and go to bed. <_<
0
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Oh God, did that chart just say one of the leading reasons people don't buy DLC is because there is more than enough free DLC out there? See.. to me, that's justification for big companies getting rid of free DLC, which would -suck-. I'm all for paying the content creators, but I assume publishers are just out there to squeeze blood from turnips.
Fallout 1 and 2 are almost certainly open world games.
The core gameplay is going to town and getting hand made quests, not fighting random mobs to get random loot
So you're saying Titan Quest & Torchlight are open world games? Because that's definitely not right.
He's mistaking open world for hack 'n slash.
No, hack and slash Diablo-esques and bethesda style RPGs are 2 completely different things. And both are completely different from bioware/black isle style story based RPGs.
The way you wrote your first response, it makes it sound like you think open world games mean an emphasis on fighting mobs for loot.
Posts
That's not quite fair, you're spending a less time in battle as well in FFIV Complete because the difficulty has been toned way down. Also, even FF2 on SNES was around 14 hours the first time through for me. Unless you mean that you completed both FFIV and the Afterstory in 12 hours, because that WOULD be impressive.
I burn through them so fast because I am very savvy with RPGs in general (Been DMing tabletop games for just over 15 years) and because I am inherently a power gamer. I find the path of least resistance almost naturally in most RPGs and just go down it (which is why I like optional difficulty settings). Fallout 3 took me a mere 20 hours the first time. I hit the level cap in just over 15 hours because I put the difficulty onto very hard (which I didn't pick up on the fact it gave you oodles more XP) and took XP leveling perks (stupidly). The result? Max level before I even finished half the sidequests, so I rushed the end of the game and started over. I definitely played Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas for over 100 hours each in saying that - but a lot of it is multiple playthroughs.
I usually read everything and talk to everyone I can while playing as well. It's just I like to build very optimal characters and power through everything. For example in KotoR I used the dual baragwain assault blade build instead of a lightsaber, even if it wasn't as thematic because the Baragwains upgraded simply murdered everything more efficiently.
So when I think about game length, I think about how I finished X game compared to Y game myself. Everyone finds certain things easier/harder, so overall comparisons of game length are pretty meaningless. I find I get the same value out of RPGs now that I did before: Maybe not as much replayability, but do I regret the money I spend on them? Nope.
Well, you offer games like ME2 and FalloutNV as proof that RPGs are short. For ME2, you say it's only 25 hours doing everything. FalloutNV is 20 sticking only to the main quest. You kind of have to use the same basis for both. (And sticking only to the main quest in an RPG and then complaining about length is not a problem with the game.)
Also, both were 'open world' RPGs and don't fit your claim that story based (read: non-open world) RPGs are all short.
Alpha Protocol was an 'open' world game but I'll grant that getting to choose where the next missions take place or which specific one isn't really the same thing. It was still pretty linear and somewhat short. Even if you weren't locked into a specific location. (And again, can't say about the other two.)
It's just difficult to see what you're trying to get at by comparing them to BG2 (Balders Gate?) and Planescape. Was every story based (read: non-open world) RPG some kind of incalculable epic time sink? Is there anything in the two examples you seemingly liked that might have made them a bit different than any other example you mention? Were there side quests there that you could ignore to speed up gameplay?
And ME2 and AP are hardly open world games. Think Mafia 2 compared to GTA.
Anyway, yeah I don't really think "play times" have changed all that much these days with RPGs, and it's a bit apples to oranges anyway, due to the dramatic changes in gameplay. Furthermore, we as gamers all value different things depending on what we're looking for these days. If I were still a kid in school with all the time in the world but only had a few games to play, I'd hate "short games". As an adult with an expendable income, I'm picking up games left and right and am perfectly happy with a short game, as long as it's an excellent experience.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Well, powerleveling in any game makes it terribly short. I personally only do that on subsequent playthroughs.
But I'm not usually an RPG player. Part of why I didn't like DA:O was that it just wasn't friendly enough to me. Oh, I've read plenty about optimal builds later and even used them when finishing off the rest of the achievements. But it just wasn't a game I should've played. I know better now and will listen to my gut more the next time. (Hence, no DA2.)
As long as you enjoy how you play is all that matters. But man, speeding through a game like that on the first playthrough? That can skew expectations if you're not aware of it.
The core gameplay is going to town and getting hand made quests, not fighting random mobs to get random loot
And saying all the weapons aren't unique because they all just kill enemies is like saying all the enemies aren't unique because they attempt to kill you.
Where I save time is that I crush nearly all fights instantly and so don't spend a lot of time prancing about in combat. If you can go through most combats easier, especially without dying, the amount of time you can save on any RPG is amazing.
So you're saying Titan Quest & Torchlight are open world games? Because that's definitely not right.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
If you want to talk about "Game Length" what you really mean is "Game Content" and that includes all the side quests and whatever.
You can race straight to the end of Fallout, but you miss 99% of the game, so it's no real indicator of game content.
Anyway, people already brought up the obvious examples I was thinking of.
Deus Ex vs Deus Ex: HR (fill out those TPS reports!)
Half-Life vs Half-Life 2 (Or better yet, Half-Life vs any modern FPS. That's a long fucking game)
BG2 vs DA:O
It's not a DLC problem though, it's more a graphics or voice-over or the like problem. Shit just takes longer and more money to make these days and that generally means stuff is shorter.
I don't know if it applies to all genres, but there's definitely plenty where the amount of game content has become more compressed. There's been a move towards shorter, more cinematic experiences.
FF V has a run ability on thieves, FF VI has a run relic. Every TOSE port has a dash button.
Though HL2 excepted, those are more like like counter examples?
Yeah, in retrospect, that's probably the most accurate take on things.
I'm not judging. Personally, I only powerlevel on subsequent playthroughs because it makes it faster. As you suggest. But by then, the fun of the 'wonder' of it all has been wholly removed. By then I'm playing for achievement points or something.
For Fallout 3, I liked it but I don't know if I'll ever care to play it again. It's good and I'd recommend it, but when I was done, I was done. Come to think of it, I was using tips about character builds when I was playing it. But I still took 100 to play it (and the DLC). Frankly though, I still don't think the game is compelling enough to play again. Even from the perspective of 'seeing how the other half lives' by going with opposite Karma.
Jade Empire was kind of the same. It was okay (though I wouldn't recommend Jade Empire), but I just didn't give a shit to playthrough it again.
I think what strikes me when people claim RPGs are too short is that it sometimes feels like they're saying it half accusatory and half boasting. Like they hated that it didn't last long enough for them but they're proud that they powered through the game so quickly. It really just kind of sounds like it's their own fault for having such a short game.
Which is why the nostalgia filter is so damaging. Things were better in the old days, but they were also different. There's no leeway for it.
Maybe it's the age I was and the fact that I was a PC gamer who played alot of shooters and RPGs, but for me it's been more a hump then a straight line.
Games got better and better and longer and longer and then like ... 10 or a bit less years ago, the trend sort of reversed and games kept looking nicer and mostly getting better, but they also started getting shorter and shorter.
Companies are making money on DLC.
But yeah, RPG definitions are right up there with tipping as the worst internet arguments, so I'll just admit that I'm way niche in this view and concede whatever
It's all about how you do it.
I just wish they'd make it less of a pain in the ass sometimes and maybe discount the shit as the original game's price goes down.
I got a gift card today and tried to get Heroes 6. Amazon told me I have to wait 4 hours or so for them to verify my purchase.
...
Man, I worked 12+ hours at work today. I don't have 4 hours before I fall over.
But the filter makes them imply that the newer games are somehow worse for being shorter (or 'missing' content) or some other thing that separates this era of gaming from before.
For reasons that aren't important, I wasn't huge into games during the NES era, but I still had my share of fun. And through the years that continued. Now we're playing more powerful games on more powerful systems and people just aren't happy.
Think of the 2D vs 3D fighter divide. It isn't enough that the 3D could present more challenges and options, it was that the old way was slowly receding. Clearly the new games couldn't ever be as good. People thought talkies would ruin motion pictures. New may not be better, but different doesn't mean worse.
Peculiar. I have bought DD games from Amazon and was always able to start downloading as soon as I payed. I don't know if I ever used a gift card though.
It's probably that I haven't used my Amazon account in a long time. My lady has a premium account so I just order on her account when I want something.
Still, kinda lame. I mean, you have to give your credit card info anyway so I'm not sure what exactly takes 4 hours to verify.
Also the World of Darkness MMO staff were let go and the project put on hold.
He's mistaking open world for hack 'n slash.
The enemies have different patterns and shit, at least. Seriously, the difference between weapons in that game is two shotgun blasts for this enemy, half a clip of machinegun for the same enemy. derp a derp, it's not special at all.
And I had a bad day too, a bad week really, so MAKE MY DAY SCOTTSMAN.
... hurry though I'm about to puke and go to bed. <_<
The way you wrote your first response, it makes it sound like you think open world games mean an emphasis on fighting mobs for loot.