Back Catalogue - Can It Ever Be Cleared?

da gamer

I recently had a look through my games and realised that my back catalogue is gone ridiculous. It's gone to the stage that there are games I have that I don't know if I'll ever get to play them. Anyone else keep adding to their collection rather than trying to whittle it down?

Links234

Some say just go through the ones you've not played alphabetically, that that was one of the best ways. I haven't done so, hence I've still not even booted up Alan Wake for the first time yet

murphyebass

No

da gamer

Links234 wrote: »

Some say just go through the ones you've not played alphabetically, that that was one of the best ways. I haven't done so, hence I've still not even booted up Alan Wake for the first time yet

That's not a bad idea. I think my new year's resolution is that I'm only allowed buy a new game once I've cleared 5 games or something like that.

Links234

Yeah, make it a new year's resolution, that way you can indulge yourself on the Steam sale :pac:

dreamers75

Wintereenmas?

ShadowHearth

Short answer: No!

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......

wotzgoingon

Links234 wrote: »

Yeah, make it a new year's resolution, that way you can indulge yourself on the Steam sale :pac:

What's this about steam sale? I'm a new pc gamer and just joined steam and bought Borderlands GOTY for €29.99 thought it was a bit steep for such a old game. It's well worth it though as it's such a good game but could have been a bit cheaper really.

CiDeRmAn

Not a hope.
I am now buying more games per month than I could ever clear in a month.
So, even if I didn't have a decent collection already, and started from scratch, I'd have no hope of finishing them all.
And I'm 42, so I'm not going to live long enough, even if I stop buying now and only play the games I own to completion

mikeruurds

I'm in the same boat. Buying 2-3 games a month and then some whenever there's a Steam sale. My Steam account is now over 600 games. No chance of me clearing that. Well maybe when I'm on pension in 25 years!

Robert ninja

It's possible, I just wouldn't try. I read about a guy who went to clear all of his 400 or so steam games and it ruined his life, quite literally. His GF broke up with him and he felt crap after the whole thing. I'll just stick to playing games that actually interest me and not buying things just because they're on sale.

Jet Black

Last year I thought I'd give it a go. Started off in alphabetical order with Alan Wake as number one. Have to say it was a struggle, I just couldn't get into it and ended up taking over a month to complete. I was glad to have it done. Next game.. Alan Wakes American nightmare. That's when I gave up.

Monotype

"Cleared", no. Tried is possible with some complete.

Look through the list. See which ones you just want to just give a sample and which ones you want to invest some time. Click install on one or two "have a go" ones and when you have a half hour free play one or two of them. Then if you have a weekend free, try and pick one that you'll finish in a few hours. Look at game lengths online. Save the time sink RPGs for Christmas holidays, when you have a broken leg or when you know you'll be doing nothing in evenings for a couple of weeks.

nesf

Time spent clearing your backlog is time wasted not playing shiny new games!

jaffusmax

All the more reason to look forward to living in a retirement home! Imagine the craic to be had!!!


NB Start taking COD liver oils now so when you are old and banjaxed at lest your gaming thumbs and fingers are working!

murphyebass

Robert ninja wrote: »

I'll just stick to playing games that actually interest me and not buying things just because they're on sale.

This is the key.

Since having two kids I pretty much keep to this rule.

I used to buy games just because they were cheap/on sale in the likes of xtravision.

360 in particular in the past 5 years was my main offender because the games got soooooo cheap.

I recently cleared out a huge glut of these that I knew I would never ever play.

Grumpypants

I've come to terms with it, I know I won't play everything in my steam collection mainly due to buying bundles that have 7 extra games I have no interest in because it was 1 dollar more than buying the the one game I wanted on its own.

Any Gen 3 stuff still in its wrapper is going to stay that way as part of my collection. I've gaming stuff going all the way back to the 70's and in various states of wreckage I would love to have had kept some of them wrapped.

So that's my plan, just wait 40 years then boom sealed retro games

Xenji

I doubt it, still have loads of Atlus games still in their plastic and tonnes of games on Steam that I have never even looked at.

Gonzo

had to stop buying steam games for this very reason. I also play games like Final Fantasy 14 and World of Warcraft which does not help the situation at all! Ive managed to complete a few gems on the PS4 this year such as TLOU Remastered and Wolfenstein, aside from those every game ive bought recently is uncompleted with the exception of GTA5 PS4 which I will complete over the next month!

nesf

Gonzo wrote: »

had to stop buying steam games for this very reason. I also play games like Final Fantasy 14 and World of Warcraft which does not help the situation at all! Ive managed to complete a few gems on the PS4 this year such as TLOU Remastered and Wolfenstein, aside from those every game ive bought recently is uncompleted with the exception of GTA5 PS4 which I will complete over the next month!

Yeah I'd be the same, MMOs like WoW eat up so much of my gaming time each year that I just don't get around to finishing far too many games. It doesn't help that the types of games I like tend not be be "20 hours and you're done" type campaign games either.

Skerries

wotzgoingon wrote: »

What's this about steam sale? I'm a new pc gamer and just joined steam and bought Borderlands GOTY for €29.99 thought it was a bit steep for such a old game. It's well worth it though as it's such a good game but could have been a bit cheaper really.

read my post here which will save you a lot of money in the future

jaffusmax

Skerries wrote: »

read my post here which will save you a lot of money in the future

Good man there is no excuse paying top dollar when you can them cheap with a few clicks!

wotzgoingon

Skerries wrote: »

read my post here which will save you a lot of money in the future

Cheers for that just picked up Borderlands 2 GOTY for less than half price than they have on steam. Tbh at first I received my key and I was like where do I download the game from and then they sent me instructions in email to download from steam.

ShadowHearth

jaffusmax wrote: »

All the more reason to look forward to living in a retirement home! Imagine the craic to be had!!!


NB Start taking COD liver oils now so when you are old and banjaxed at lest your gaming thumbs and fingers are working!

I have to admit, I never though of this. Touche, to you, my friend. I am looking forward to my retirement now!

johnny_ultimate

Developers need to start making shorter games, or at least more that are free of the time consuming filler, distractions and general busywork that defines a worrying amount of titles. There'll always be the place for the epics, but the shorter a game is, well then there's an exponential chance of actually finishing it :pac:

Xenji

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Developers need to start making shorter games, or at least more that are free of the time consuming filler, distractions and general busywork that defines a amount of titles. There'll always be the place for the epics, but the shorter a game is, well then there's an exponential chance of actually finishing it :pac:

It all depends on price, if a developer offered me a game that was mesmerising but only lasted 6 hours, while another developer offered me a similar game but lasted 100 hours you know which you would pick if they had similar pricing.

Take Lords Of The Fallen, you can get a platinum in about 25 hours, for the same price and a better game you can get Dragon Age 3 and it will take you 150-200 hours to get a platinum, your money is better spent on the latter as you get more bang for your buck as it were.

Robert ninja

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Developers need to start making shorter games, or at least more that are free of the time consuming filler, distractions and general busywork that defines a worrying amount of titles. There'll always be the place for the epics, but the shorter a game is, well then there's an exponential chance of actually finishing it :pac:

Please don't say that. Games are disgustingly short as it is. it's not about making the entire game shorter, but rather making shorter sessions of gaming still making sense in gameplay and story as well as just feeling like you're actually doing something rather than "Well I got half the money I needed for that upgrade, I'll get the other half next weekend." it should be "I just defeated the boss of this area and liberated the town! Maybe next week I can go for his commander and get another cool weapon from the fight."

Unless you really wanna see the end of the story of a game but if you're using the video game medium as a primary source of story-telling then you're already doing it wrong.

Retr0gamer

Xenji wrote: »

It all depends on price, if a developer offered me a game that was mesmerising but only lasted 6 hours, while another developer offered me a similar game but lasted 100 hours you know which you would pick if they had similar pricing.

Take Lords Of The Fallen, you can get a platinum in about 25 hours, for the same price and a better game you can get Dragon Age 3 and it will take you 150-200 hours to get a platinum, your money is better spent on the latter as you get more bang for your buck as it were.

And how many of those 150 hours are just pointless side missions and fetch quests used to artificially pad out the length. I'd much rather a better game with better pacing. As long as a game is good the price and length isn't a factor. It's sad in this day and age where well paced and constructed 8 hour games are now a rarity and people would much rather play bloat filled collectathons like assassins creed. Give me quality ov bloated filler any day.

johnny_ultimate

Xenji wrote:

It all depends on price, if a developer offered me a game that was mesmerising but only lasted 6 hours, while another developer offered me a similar game but lasted 100 hours you know which you would pick if they had similar pricing.

I would pick the highest quality game, or the one that appealed to me more I feel I have gotten much more bang out of my buck with Bayonetta 2 than I have with equally acclaimed titles many, many times longer. Given how fluid and variable game prices are anyway, I try not to let that factor into my final assessment of a game unless it is an exceptionally rare case where I feel legitimately shortchanged.

Robert ninja wrote: »

Please don't say that. Games are disgustingly short as it is. it's not about making the entire game shorter, but rather making shorter sessions of gaming still making sense in gameplay and story as well as just feeling like you're actually doing something rather than "Well I got half the money I needed for that upgrade, I'll get the other half next weekend." it should be "I just defeated the boss of this area and liberated the town! Maybe next week I can go for his commander and get another cool weapon from the fight."

Unless you really wanna see the end of the story of a game but if you're using the video game medium as a primary source of story-telling then you're already doing it wrong.

Nope, not just story, although as an aside the 'shorter form' storytelling that digital distribution has encouraged is a very positive thing in many respects.

I just feel too many games spend thirty hours stretching out what could easily be covered more convincingly in half that. Open world games are almost always a good example of this. I love the worlds and theoretical freedom of Assassins Creed, but I do not comprehend what benefit I get out of doing the same basic mission time and time again in campaign and optional exploration alike. Sadly, it is far from alone. Destiny is a recent example of a title almost offensively willing to waste the player's time with grinding - I don't ****ing care how good Vault of Glass is if I'm going to have to spend twenty-thirty mindless hours to get there.

It's a cliche to say, but the Mario games are the perfect antithesis. The games almost stubbornly refuse to regurgitate ideas without a damn good reason, and therefore feel fresh and unpredictable for their (not insignificant) duration. Other games - and I'm talking about many acclaimed, basically interesting games - have expended all their ideas barely a quarter in, and the slog sets in.

You're right - it's great when a game's design and mechanics are robust and exciting enough to draw you back again and again. Persona 4 is my favourite example of a game that justified its huge scope and time commitment. Games like Civilisation are complex and compulsive enough to justifiably earn play times stretching into triple figures. But they do so in ways more positive than just having loads of 'stuff', which is a trap so many games fall in to.

CiDeRmAn

Metal Gear Solid is a great example of a great game that combines story with action and doesn't seem to ever overstay it's welcome being quite a short game in the end.
Sadly later titles just ladled on the cutscenes and forgot the gameplay but the PS title seemed to have everything that is being talked about here.
You can suffer through endless grinding and cutscenes or just play the damn game.
But, it can depend on the mood, I like a 60/80 hour games sometimes but there is always room for the 8/10 hour title as well as the bursts of excellence that are arcade titles like Galaga and Tempest, and the best of PSN/Xbla/Steam so the likes of Don't Starve and Geometry Wars 2.

Sarn

I've managed to significantly cut down on my game purchases but there are just so many to get through. Hard not to get distracted every now and then by something shiny and new.

I'm going to try and work my way through the few AAA titles that I have to ease the backlog. Things like Wasteland 2 might have to be put on the backburner in order that I can finish up some of the shorter ones. Made the effort to finish Mass Effect 3 there recently which was great. Quite satisfying crossing one off the list.

The problem is, now that I've picked up a PS4 the clearance has slowed down significantly. Saying that, I have only bought two games for it so far in the two and a half months since I picked it up.

nesf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Games like Civilisation are complex and compulsive enough to justifiably earn play times stretching into triple figures. But they do so in ways more positive than just having loads of 'stuff', which is a trap so many games fall in to.

It's not even that, games like Civiliisation are intended to be replayed and designed with that in mind. These are games that are almost totally made or broken on their mechanics and story is a sideline thing at best. It's not really comparable to games intended for a single narrative focused playthrough as being normal. It's the same with games with a strong multiplayer element, they'll look "long" due to their nature as well.

Pac1Man

I wouldn't waste too much energy worrying about completing a backlog. Just play what feels right at the time and not what you feel you should play. I've started games and felt 2-3 hours in that they weren't for me. I put the disk back in the box and began something new. No big deal.

What bothers me is the fact that I dislike some games that have a serious following and are well received throughout the media. I keep asking myself 'WHY DON'T I LIKE THIS!?'

CiDeRmAn

I wouldn't sweat that.
There are games out there that are well reviewed and with large followings but I just don't like them.
So I won't buy a turn based strategy title or a god game because I just never enjoy them.
No shame in it, you can't like everything, much less complete them all.
Find the good stuff you like and off you go.

Pac1Man

Ocarina of Time though....:o

C14N

wotzgoingon wrote: »

What's this about steam sale?

I'm surprised anyone would get into PC gaming without knowing about these but Steam sales are seasonal sales where practically everything on the store is sold at a reduced price for a week (I think it's a week, maybe it's two weeks). Most things are 10-20% cheaper but in addition to that they run daily deals (typically ~50% off) and 3 flash deals each day (typically 60-80% off).

Xenji wrote: »

It all depends on price, if a developer offered me a game that was mesmerising but only lasted 6 hours, while another developer offered me a similar game but lasted 100 hours you know which you would pick if they had similar pricing.

Yes, no question, I'd take the 6 hour one because I might actually get to finish it ad then play another game at some point.

Xenji wrote: »

Take Lords Of The Fallen, you can get a platinum in about 25 hours, for the same price and a better game you can get Dragon Age 3 and it will take you 150-200 hours to get a platinum, your money is better spent on the latter as you get more bang for your buck as it were.

That's like saying "if you can go to the cinema and see Big Hero 6 which is 1 hour and 40 minutes long or you could see Interstellar which is nearly 3 hours for the same price, clearly Interstellar is a better deal".

A game isn't a car, I'm not buying it based upon how long I can use it for. I don't want to get extra grind just so I can while away more hours on the game.

In response to OP: no, probably not. On Steam alone I have over 140 unfinished games with more on PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, Gamecube, SNES and NES. On top of that I have about 60 unwatched Blu-rays sitting on my shelf competing for spare time. It's a lot quicker to buy games than it is to play them unfortunately and it's hard to get 2-3 hours in a row to sit down and sink into something these days. Only in retirement (which is over 40 years away) could I possibly hope to play all I want to play.

Pac1Man

Is our hobby as much about collecting as it is about playing?

Skerries

Pac1Man wrote: »

Is our hobby as much about collecting as it is about playing?

I would say yes, but I love the bargain hunt aspect of it

murphyebass

Pac1Man wrote: »

Is our hobby as much about collecting as it is about playing?

Mine was about the hobby until kids and time and space to put stuff actually now has a premium where it wouldn't have had in the past.

I don't bother buying games now unless I'll at least I'll get my monies worth out of them. Say a game was a fiver Id want to play at least an hour or two to feel it was a worthwhile purchase whereas in the past id have picked it up cause it was cheap thinking sure it's only a fiver and probably never play it. I had games in their plastic up until my recent clear out. Unless you want a library of games and are a proper collector that's just silly imo.

Also all those fivers build up. I should have a jar for each time I still get the urge! Lol

Korvanica

Links234 wrote: »

Some say just go through the ones you've not played alphabetically, that that was one of the best ways. I haven't done so, hence I've still not even booted up Alan Wake for the first time yet

Great idea. Lets have a look at steam...


A
Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs
Amnesia: The Dark Descent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

elekid

I finally caught up with my backlog this year so it can be done.

I did a big clearout of the games I'd bought, leaving only the ones I was most interested in, and I've become much more picky about what I'll buy. I'm more inclined to give up on something if I'm not enjoying it, and I'm no longer trying to 100% every game like I used to. I see a shorter game with less padding as a good thing.

I basically had to stop and remind myself that I play games for fun and not just to tick titles off a list or bore myself with pointless sidequests. Its nice not to feel pressure to always move onto the next game and I find I can give more time to the games I enjoy the most.

Of course it helps that my laptop isn't great so I don't tend to go crazy in the Steam sales.

murphyebass

elekid wrote: »

I finally caught up with my backlog this year so it can be done.

I did a big clearout of the games I'd bought, leaving only the ones I was most interested in, and I've become much more picky about what I'll buy. I'm more inclined to give up on something if I'm not enjoying it, and I'm no longer trying to 100% every game like I used to. I see a shorter game with less padding as a good thing.

I basically had to stop and remind myself that I play games for fun and not just to tick titles off a list or bore myself with pointless sidequests. Its nice not to feel pressure to always move onto the next game and I find I can give more time to the games I enjoy the most.

Of course it helps that my laptop isn't great so I don't tend to go crazy in the Steam sales.

The fun part is amazingly important and easily forgotten about which such a vast amount of "must play" titles out there.

Play what you enjoy not what others tell you to enjoy.

I enjoyed a bond game on 360 a few months back. People said it was average at best. I loved it. Basic run in shoot bad guys rinse and repeat. Fun!

Sephiroth_dude

Mine will be never be cleared

CiDeRmAn

Pac1Man wrote: »

Is our hobby as much about collecting as it is about playing?

Yup
Come and visit with the lunatics in the Arcade and Retro forum to see this taken to the nth degree!

megaten

Its worse when you're into RPG's
I think I'm on my third year of playing through Persona 3 Portable and Persona 5 is coming out next year.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I'm shocking too.

At the end of a generation it's too easy to pick up the classics you miss at bargain prices, increasing the backlog.

Last year when I got the PS4, I started picking up Dark Souls and Red Dead Redemption for the 360 very cheap. For shame I haven't even booted up either.

It was the same with the PS2. And don't get started if you are a naughty boy and use cards or cracks on something like the DS.

I took out a PlayStation Plus sub when I bought the PS4 last year. That did encouraged me to buy a Vita. More games!

As we get older we become cash rich but time poor relative to when we were children, causing the backlog.

No backlog in my SNES days as a kid! :-)

Sephiroth_dude

megaten wrote: »

Its worse when you're into RPG's
I think I'm on my third year of playing through Persona 3 Portable and Persona 5 is coming out next year.

Amen brother

C14N

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Yup
Come and visit with the lunatics in the Arcade and Retro forum to see this taken to the nth degree!

Oh man, I started a bit of light collecting in summer and it's awful. I'm just adding even more games to the backlog, and they cost more than regular games too

elekid wrote: »

I finally caught up with my backlog this year so it can be done.

I did a big clearout of the games I'd bought, leaving only the ones I was most interested in, and I've become much more picky about what I'll buy. I'm more inclined to give up on something if I'm not enjoying it, and I'm no longer trying to 100% every game like I used to. I see a shorter game with less padding as a good thing.

I basically had to stop and remind myself that I play games for fun and not just to tick titles off a list or bore myself with pointless sidequests. Its nice not to feel pressure to always move onto the next game and I find I can give more time to the games I enjoy the most.

This is a big problem for me. I don't go for 100% most of the time but I do tend to compulsively do sidequests and the like, even if they're incredibly uninspired and uninteresting which was most of them in Assassin's Creed 4.

CiDeRmAn

C14N wrote: »

Oh man, I started a bit of light collecting in summer and it's awful. I'm just adding even more games to the backlog, and they cost more than regular games too

More than regular games?
What were you picking up?
Given that a new console game is going for around 50 to 70 notes I seldom throw down that much on SNES, Megadrive or Famicom games.
That said Chronotrigger cost me that sort of money alright, but then it's a masterpiece, and Ibara on the PS2 cost me considerably more.

ED E

Steam didnt have time counters back in '06 when I started so the that figure is wayyyy off, but regarding this thread you can see what I mean when I say, nope, will never happen.

C14N

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

More than regular games?
What were you picking up?
Given that a new console game is going for around 50 to 70 notes I seldom throw down that much on SNES, Megadrive or Famicom games.
That said Chronotrigger cost me that sort of money alright, but then it's a masterpiece, and Ibara on the PS2 cost me considerably more.

I haven't spent €50 on a console game since The Last of Us on PS3. Most games I buy are on PC for under €10, most retro games seem to be around €20 and the ones that I really want tend to go for a lot more (looking at you Super Metroid!).