Modern 360 games that are good in short bursts

[Atarifever]

Okay, so I think Mass Effect is the best modern game I have played that is good for 20 minutes at a time or four hours in a row.

 

The save system is great in that it lets you save pretty much anywhere (except mid firefight, where the fights are usually no more than 5 minutes long anyway). You can skip dialog if you want, or skip individual parts of a conversation, or try to rush up a conversation by choosing not to explore anything deeper. I don't have to worry about back-tracking to pick up ammo, as there isn't any such thing. If I forget what I was doing after a month away, the Journal and map let you know where you have to be, and even what stage of a mission you are at. It's perfect. When I'm on the road for work and have lots of spare time I can play for hours, but when I'm home and the baby takes a nap, I can play for a half hour before he wakes up.

 

Are there any other games like this on the 360? I'm not looking for Live Arcade titles, as I'm not online.

 

I have Alone in the Dark, PGR3, and Kameo in the queue (read:beside the TV) for right now, but am looking to add one to the Christmas list. Also, are any of the three I just mentioned (all absurdly cheap at EB by the way) good for this? My 360 has basically been a dedicated Mass Effect machine for months now, so those other games are still unopened.

[moycon]

Try Fallout 3 if you haven't.

[+Random Terrain]

Mass Effect wasn't so bad after I found out you could fight, save, fight, save . . . You have to know when to save or you'll think you can't save at all when you're fighting on a planet. You'd think with all of the planets that they could have stuffed some replayability in there, but it seems they were going for a toilet paper game and nothing but a toilet paper game.

 

If you want to play a game that you can save any time you want and not have to remember much, Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution is good. Replayable fun you can have for a few minutes or a few hours.

 

I can't wait to get Fallout 3 one of these days so I have a new game to pull me away from Civilization Revolution. I play that game too much.

[16-bit]

Ditto on Fallout 3 and CivRev.

 

Though personally I find it hard to save and continue later in Civ, only because it's so hard to put down.

 

The PGR3 that you have is another good choice. You can't save the middle of a race, but none of them are that long anyway. You can squeeze in a race here and there when you have time when you work through career mode or just work through the arcade challenges.

 

GTA 4 might be one to consider getting. Plenty of save opportunities and it's just fun to play, even if you're not working on jobs for the main story. It's going for around $20 now on eBay.

 

 

Also Orange Box (if you like shooters) and Viva Piñata (if you want something a little more casual). Both are cheap these days on eBay

[JamesD]

PGR3 and Mass Effect.

[Lord Helmet]

The PGR games, Civ Rev, any of the music games (guitar hero etc)

 

You should really get online

[Atarifever]

You should really get online

Yep. Next gen I guess, when the next Xbox comes with wifi like a real videogame system.

 

[rant]In all seriousness, the 360 is my favorite system since the Genesis, but not having Wifi really bugs me. My N-Gage had Blutooth connection (because people hate wires forever) and play over cell signals, and that was made in 2003. The DS had wifi in 2004. The PSP had wifi and it too predates the 360. The Wii and PS3 both have wifi. I know it costs a little bit, but it's hardly as expensive as a Blu-Ray drive, and unlike a Blu-Ray drive, wifi is actually useful for something.

 

I'm not running extra wires through my walls like some kind of dinosaur man who just clawed his way into the future through a wormhole or something. [/rant]

Edited July 15, 2009 by Atarifever

[Atarifever]

You'd think with all of the planets that they could have stuffed some replayability in there, but it seems they were going for a toilet paper game and nothing but a toilet paper game.

I will still never understand your point here. It made sense to want replayability with games like Adventure or E.T., as they were short games, so replayability meant more value for the money. However, after 30-40 hours in Mass Effect, why would it matter to you? It's time to move on to another game by then anyway. I mean, you think a game is boring if it can't be constantly revisited all the time for new stuff all the time. I think playing the same game for 80 hours of my life sounds pretty darn boring.

 

You're essentially doing the same thing as asking for McDonalds to give you an unlimited number of Big Mac sauces so you can eat a Big Mac for every meal. Might I suggest visiting another restaurant from time to time, or at least moving through the menu?

[Ryanw]

Fallout 3 is a must have. I'm not sure how good it is in short bursts but it also has a quest journal and map markers to let you know where you need to go assuming you left the game for a while.

[NE146]

I dunno man.. I can't stand Fallout 3. And I've given it several chances

 

But yeah I'd say that's what you're looking for.

Edited July 15, 2009 by NE146

[+Random Terrain]

You'd think with all of the planets that they could have stuffed some replayability in there, but it seems they were going for a toilet paper game and nothing but a toilet paper game.

I will still never understand your point here. It made sense to want replayability with games like Adventure or E.T., as they were short games, so replayability meant more value for the money. However, after 30-40 hours in Mass Effect, why would it matter to you? It's time to move on to another game by then anyway. I mean, you think a game is boring if it can't be constantly revisited all the time for new stuff all the time. I think playing the same game for 80 hours of my life sounds pretty darn boring.

 

You're essentially doing the same thing as asking for McDonalds to give you an unlimited number of Big Mac sauces so you can eat a Big Mac for every meal. Might I suggest visiting another restaurant from time to time, or at least moving through the menu?

Not really. It's more like expecting you to eat at a restaurant chain only once, never to return, no matter how much you like their food. Don't allow yourself to be brainwashed. Maybe this will bring you back from the dark side:

 

In principle, any game should be replayable. If you went down to the toy store, bought a board game in a box for twenty or thirty dollars, and then came home to discover that you could only play it once, you would be rightfully wrathful. Yet, this happens fairly frequently with computer games, and our customers are more or less resigned to it. Replayability, however, is no accident: it's something we as designers can build in on purpose … if we want to.

~Ernest Adams from the article Replayability, Part One: Narrative

 

If nothing else, they could have made non-mission planets respawn enemies, cool items to find, and so on. Then you could go back to that game world when you're in the mood and have some fresh fun.

[Video]

I'd have to agree to Fallout 3, and if you like that, Oblivion and Morrowind (eh, is morrowind 360 compat, looks ugly in comparison, but equaly as fun, I'll have to try later and see) Be sure to get GOTY versions of each one if you do get them (though Fallout GOTY comes out a couple of months from now so, don't expect to9 find it just yet )

 

PGR series, all four are great games IMO, save after each race, most are 2-5 minutes, depending on settings. For a little more Depth, Need for Speed Mostwanted is open world racing, and you can save after any race.

 

If you like Shooters, Look at Halo, with the exception of Legendary, it's pretty much save anywhere and ammo's not much a problem. Plus, if you got someone to play with, it's got CoOp, which I think should be a required feature in all FPS myself (and nice for most games in general)

[Atariboy]

Your description of what you like completely applies to Oblivion (And I presume, Fallout 3 as has been mentioned).

 

Very flexible save system that lets you save anywhere. Very short fights that rarely last more than a couple of minutes. You can skip dialog if you want or skip individual parts of a conversation, and can rush it rather than waiting for it to be spoken. You don't have to worry about back tracking to pick up items, though the option exists if you want to. The journal and map instantly gets you back up to speed on where you are, what you've done, what's available to do, and where you are in each point on those available quest. If your bored with a quest, just make another one active and return to it some other time.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Atariboy

[Atarifever]

Not really. It's more like expecting you to eat at a restaurant chain only once, never to return, no matter how much you like their food.

Your (and obviously other people's) insistence on replayability is leading to the dreadful terrible sandbox games we have seen, that assume a sandbox means a place you steal cars to run over hookers. Wow, I can run over any hooker I want, whenever I want!

 

To continue the food metaphor, it is as if everyone did decide to keep going back to that restaurant until all the other restaurants just copied the menu, and you were left with the same shitty burger everywhere you went. I like not having respawning enemies on those planets. I fucking killed them dead. Why in the world should they be up dancing around again? They're dead. Why should the Geth I just exterminated be back in the base I just shot holes in? Time travel? It's the same with all the shitty sandbox games. Oh look, that hooker I ran over is back. Now I can try running over her and the guy next to her! Awesome. What an amazing sandbox.

 

A Superman for All Seasons is a great Superman comic, and I love Superman comics. However, I wouldn't want the narrative getting all screwed up by them always printing it with a different page inserted in each copy. I want to follow the story to the end, enjoy what I've read, and then pick up another book. I may re-read it again because it's good, but it being the same the next reading is hardly going to destroy it for me. If the games you played had good enough stories tied to them, or in lieu of that had good enough mechanics, you wouldn't care how many hookers you could kill in how many places. You'd be too busy enjoying good games to care. Like I always say, sandboxes were okay, but I spent a lot more time on the slide and the swings.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Atarifever

[moycon]

I'll admit I played through Mass Effect twice, and still plan on playing through again (To snag more achievements) Awesome game with an awesome story (The foundation of any decent RPG) and I agree one that should not have respawning enemies.

[+Random Terrain]

Not really. It's more like expecting you to eat at a restaurant chain only once, never to return, no matter how much you like their food.

Your (and obviously other people's) insistence on replayability is leading to the dreadful terrible sandbox games we have seen, that assume a sandbox means a place you steal cars to run over hookers. Wow, I can run over any hooker I want, whenever I want!

 

To continue the food metaphor, it is as if everyone did decide to keep going back to that restaurant until all the other restaurants just copied the menu, and you were left with the same shitty burger everywhere you went. I like not having respawning enemies on those planets. I fucking killed them dead. Why in the world should they be up dancing around again? They're dead. Why should the Geth I just exterminated be back in the base I just shot holes in? Time travel? It's the same with all the shitty sandbox games. Oh look, that hooker I ran over is back. Now I can try running over her and the guy next to her! Awesome. What an amazing sandbox.

That's constipated thinking. Sandbox games are not the only way you can have replayability and if the only thing you're doing is running over hookers, that says a lot more about you than it does about the game. For example, in GTA: SA, there are many nonviolent fun things you can do if you don't play the main missions. Just because they give you the freedom to do evil doesn't mean you have to be evil. Do you drive a taxi, fly an airplane, or kill a hooker today? It's you're choice, similar to real life. God doesn't put you on rails. You're free to be as angelic or demonic as you want to be. What will you choose? As sandbox games become even more advanced, there will be more things you can do from building your own dream house to fishing in a lake. But that's just one style of game. Replayability doesn't need a sandbox. You can make any type of game replayable with a bit of thought.

 

And about the non-main-mission planets in Mass Effect: other people are free to fly around in their own spaceships. Why wouldn't a planet eventually have new people, items, creatures (and new resources brought up to the surface on them)? And in a game like Oblivion, if you clear out a deep cave, it wouldn't make sense for it to always be cleared out. New creatures and people will eventually move in, bringing along new items, gold, and treasure with them.

[Atarifever]

Not really. It's more like expecting you to eat at a restaurant chain only once, never to return, no matter how much you like their food.

Your (and obviously other people's) insistence on replayability is leading to the dreadful terrible sandbox games we have seen, that assume a sandbox means a place you steal cars to run over hookers. Wow, I can run over any hooker I want, whenever I want!

 

To continue the food metaphor, it is as if everyone did decide to keep going back to that restaurant until all the other restaurants just copied the menu, and you were left with the same shitty burger everywhere you went. I like not having respawning enemies on those planets. I fucking killed them dead. Why in the world should they be up dancing around again? They're dead. Why should the Geth I just exterminated be back in the base I just shot holes in? Time travel? It's the same with all the shitty sandbox games. Oh look, that hooker I ran over is back. Now I can try running over her and the guy next to her! Awesome. What an amazing sandbox.

That's constipated thinking. Sandbox games are not the only way you can have replayability and if the only thing you're doing is running over hookers, that says a lot more about you than it does about the game. For example, in GTA: SA, there are many nonviolent fun things you can do if you don't play the main missions. Just because they give you the freedom to do evil doesn't mean you have to be evil. Do you drive a taxi, fly an airplane, or kill a hooker today? It's you're choice, similar to real life. God doesn't put you on rails. You're free to be as angelic or demonic as you want to be. What will you choose? As sandbox games become even more advanced, there will be more things you can do from building your own dream house to fishing in a lake. But that's just one style of game. Replayability doesn't need a sandbox. You can make any type of game replayable with a bit of thought.

 

And about the non-main-mission planets in Mass Effect: other people are free to fly around in their own spaceships. Why wouldn't a planet eventually have new people, items, creatures (and new resources brought up to the surface on them)? And in a game like Oblivion, if you clear out a deep cave, it wouldn't make sense for it to always be cleared out. New creatures and people will eventually move in, bringing along new items, gold, and treasure with them.

Well then you're left with two options in your hypothtical Mass Effect.

 

1)The new people everytime you go back are things you can kill. You'd be a real dick if you killed whatever new thing was on the planet once your enemies were dead. You're exterminating the Geth and pirates, what are you doing blowing up things that aren't Geth or pirates? Unless of course the Geth and pirates are supposedly so dumb they keep going back to the same places their friends have been murdered by you.

 

2) The new items and things can be gotten without violence. This sounds okay, but in order to have replayability from just checking out each and every planet and opening chests or whatever, you're going to get a lot of repeating dialog and items, and I can't say as it sounds like a lot of fun to walk around opening different chests all day long once there's nothing around to kill or avoid.

[+Random Terrain]

Well then you're left with two options in your hypothtical Mass Effect.

 

1)The new people everytime you go back are things you can kill. You'd be a real dick if you killed whatever new thing was on the planet once your enemies were dead. You're exterminating the Geth and pirates, what are you doing blowing up things that aren't Geth or pirates? Unless of course the Geth and pirates are supposedly so dumb they keep going back to the same places their friends have been murdered by you.

 

2) The new items and things can be gotten without violence. This sounds okay, but in order to have replayability from just checking out each and every planet and opening chests or whatever, you're going to get a lot of repeating dialog and items, and I can't say as it sounds like a lot of fun to walk around opening different chests all day long once there's nothing around to kill or avoid.

I think you are confused. The first part of my post was about GTA style games where you have more freedom than you have in Mass Effect. The second paragraph was about Mass Effect and partly about Oblivion.

 

If you land on a planet in Mass Effect and some random nasty bad guys have decided to make that their new hideout or place to mine for resources or whatever reason they have for being there, they'd start shooting at you on sight. There would be no dialog. Some planets would have no new bad guys on them. The planets would just cough up more resources to the surface over time and some bloodthirsty alien creatures could have hatched since the last time you were there.

 

You can go out of you way to think up reasons why replayability can't work or you can find ways to make it work. This reminds me of sending someone into another room to get something when they don't really want to get up and do it. There's a good chance they'll look right at the object and not even see it. They'll come stomping back and say it isn't there with that whiny, "I knew it wouldn't be there" type of pissed off sounding voice. If you go into the other room with them, you'll grab it, hold it up and say "it's right here in the middle of the table! Are you blind?" The answer is yes. If people don't want to see something, they can create a blind spot when it comes to that object. A similar thing can happen with concepts. Some people would rather fight to the death than clear away a mental blind spot.

 

So replayability is bad. Card/dice/board games that have always been replayable are evil. Replayability must be stamped out because it leads to killing hookers. I'm convinced. No more of that demonic replayability for me.

 

Let's just drop it so your thread can get back on track. And to avoid any further problems, you might want to ignore my Civilization Revolution endorsement. Although you can save whenever you want, you'll probably hate that game with a passion since it's packed full of replayability. I'm sure there are tiny little hookers in those cities somewhere and I wouldn't want you to develop a desire to kill them.

[Atarifever]

So replayability is bad. Card/dice/board games that have always been replayable are evil. Replayability must be stamped out because it leads to killing hookers. I'm convinced. No more of that demonic replayability for me.

 

Let's just drop it so your thread can get back on track. And to avoid any further problems, you might want to ignore my Civilization Revolution endorsement. Although you can save whenever you want, you'll probably hate that game with a passion since it's packed full of replayability. I'm sure there are tiny little hookers in those cities somewhere and I wouldn't want you to develop a desire to kill them.

So Galaga is unplayable then? Super Mario 3? Q-Bert? Just getting the logic you're using here.

 

Anyway, yeah, back on track. Is Civilization Revolution more to the Star Craft (which I hate) side of the strategy genre or more to the Age of Empires side? I only like a strategy game if it actually gives me time to create and build something before people come attacking me. If it's too fast paced, all I end up doing is arguing with the cursor.

[16-bit]

If anything I would say Civ Rev is more on the AoE side. It really only gets fast (often too fast) on the higher difficulty settings like Deity. Sometimes certain races will declare war on you early in the game, but you usually have plenty of time to prepare before their forces arrive.

 

Also, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed just dropped to $20 new, so I'm sure it's pretty cheap used now. That's another good one.

[Video]

I was going to mention that too, Replayability has little to do with anything more than "do you want to play it again" or "do you want to try new stuff"

 

I don't like a lot of sandbox games honestly, but one thing that is cool about them is you can drive cars/planes, buy (or steal) new guns and suits, or kill hookers, but you don't have to do any of that shit.

 

On tiny area where Oblivion is better than Morrowind (beyond graphics) is that you can clear out a cave, and a few weeks later, new stuff will move in. Randome stuff, maybe just stuff, or maybe bad guys, sure, it's not tied to anything quest related, butit's nice that when you do wipe everything out, youcan go back later.

 

But that's not necessarily necessary I mean, I like some games, don't like some, but the ones I rate the highest, are the ones I spend the most time playing. How about Super Mario Bros? I mean, I love and still play that game, there's literally nothing new to it, but it has just enough options to make it interesting (like alternate paths, warpzones, secret areas) but even if it didn't have that, it'd still be hella fun.

 

What about Galega? Tetris? Star Fox? Halo? All these games are pretty linear and there's not much to it onc you beat it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have replayability. Replayability is what you make of it, but honestly, to me, it's mostly a case of "is the game good enough to justify more time put into it?" Not necessarily how many different subgames there are, or how many branching paths there are, or what respawns.

[+Random Terrain]

What about Galega? Tetris? . . .

Are you on drugs? Galaga? Games like Galaga are replayable. And Tetris? Tetris? How many times do I have to post this before some of you geniuses finally get it:

 

http://www.randomterrain.com/game-design-r...layability.html

I'm glad Tetris wasn't created like so many other games because the blocks would always fall in the same order and you wouldn't be able to turn them. There would be only one way you could finish a level and you'd have to play it over and over again until you got it right.

~Duane Alan Hahn

In case you still don't get it, Tetris is replayable too. I say video games would be better by being more replayable like games have always been from card games to dice games to chess to all kinds of board games people used to play before so many toilet paper and static action puzzle games took over people's lives and warped their minds. As I said before to Atarifever, let's just drop it and let the thread get back on target. You barely even understand what you are talking about, so it would be pointless to continue.

[Atarifever]

What about Galega? Tetris? . . .

Are you on drugs? Galaga? Games like Galaga are replayable. And Tetris? Tetris? How many times do I have to post this before some of you geniuses finally get it:

 

http://www.randomterrain.com/game-design-r...layability.html

I'm glad Tetris wasn't created like so many other games because the blocks would always fall in the same order and you wouldn't be able to turn them. There would be only one way you could finish a level and you'd have to play it over and over again until you got it right.

~Duane Alan Hahn

In case you still don't get it, Tetris is replayable too. I say video games would be better by being more replayable like games have always been from card games to dice games to chess to all kinds of board games people used to play before so many toilet paper and static action puzzle games took over people's lives and warped their minds. As I said before to Atarifever, let's just drop it and let the thread get back on target. You barely even understand what you are talking about, so it would be pointless to continue.

Geez Susan, don't get your panties in a bunch. For future reference, people who say "let it drop" and then put in another dig every time right after they say it generally have vaginas. You've done it twice now. Just so you know where you stand.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Atarifever

[+Random Terrain]

Geez Susan, don't get your panties in a bunch. For future reference, people who say "let it drop" and then put in another dig every time right after they say it generally have vaginas. You've done it twice now. Just so you know where you stand.

Talk about panties in a bunch. Would it really matter if the 'dig' came before the 'let it drop'? It's still there in the post. I can rearrange it if the new placement would make your vagina feel less itchy. Hardly anyone drops it after someone says 'let it drop.' All it does is tell the other person that you're done talking to them about that subject at this time. They can post their goofy reply, go back and read the 'dig' and think of that as the reply to whatever they just posted. It's kind of like a pre-post post from the past to be applied in the future. Amazing isn't it?

[Atarifever]

All it does is tell the other person that you're done talking to them about that subject at this time.

But if you were done, then you'd have stopped right after you said it. It's like you said "well I'm finished all my work for today, better get that report typed up for work." Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and the delightful side conversation they came with.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Atarifever