It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionGames with ridiculously short levels with long loading times(69 posts)(69 posts)
(69 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 21, 2019
The towns in Witcher 1 were a nightmare where you had a loading screen when entering and leaving every building, sometimes even within the building when you went upstairs or to the basement.

Skyrim was annoying, too. Fast-travel to near the quest-giver --> loading --> go to building with the quest-giver and enter building --> loading --> pick-up quest from NPC and leave building --> loading --> fast-travel to the actual quest location --> loading --> do the quest and return via fast-travel to quest-giver for reward --> loading --> go to building with the quest-giver and enter building --> loading --> get reward from NPC and leave building --> loading --> done.
Posted June 21, 2019
avatar
antrad88: I just finished playing Peter Jackson's King Kong video game from 2005 and the game was a lot of fun, a real epic adventure, but what ruins the whole experience (except all the bugs that never got patched) are some ridiculously short levels and insane loading times.

Short levels and long loading screens are nothing uncommon for old games, but usually on new computers these old games load in seconds, sometimes you can't even read the tips that used to be on loading screens. My processor is at least 3 times and SSD at least 5 times faster than anything that was available in 2005 and yet levels can take like 20 seconds to load and some of the levels are so small they can be finished in less time than it takes to load.

For example there was a level that was just a short walk through a cave for less than a minute or one where you just jump of the cliff and go on river for 50 meters and nothing really happens. Usually in games these types of areas are like "buffer" zones that are used to split larger areas and to let the game load the new area in the background, but here it is just long loading screen after another...

So, what are some games that you played where it was cut in really small levels and/or loading times were ridiculous and was really distracting for the experience ? Try avoiding any spoilers.
Many older PS2/Classic XBOX games(Like Deus Ex for PS2 and Thief 3 for xbox) have longish loading times to load in smallish areas due to small memory sizes on the system.

Also some PC games do this as well(Half Life 1 has medium sized areas and many transitions/loading pauses, albeit shorter ones than the console games I listed).

avatar
antrad88:
avatar
Cadaver747: Thief: Deadly Shadows. It was a total disaster to have 3 sections for one level and a few for city hub level. Loading times become a nuisance after the first mission. They killed the game because of growing console market. Since then I never liked anything associated with XBOX (console, ugly xinput gamepad, Live ID/gamertag, TV ;)
avatar
tinyE: It didn't have short levels, but the original Thief was notorious for it's loading times. Even given how large the levels were, it was still ridiculous. You could actually go make a sandwich, come back, and it would still be loading.
avatar
Cadaver747: Only with 16 Mb RAM, should you have more the loading times would be no issue. At least that's how I remembered it.
avatar
jepsen1977: Deus Ex Invisible War had very short level with a pretty lengthy load between. Some areas could be sprinted through in a minute with a 30 second load leading up to it.
avatar
Cadaver747: Yes, it was awful. Thanks to Microsoft and abysmal XBOX console. I hate how Ion Storm f@cked up Thief 3 and Deus Ex 2 because of console constraints.
1 & 3.....some xbox games are good, even with the shortcomings of the system...just my two cents. :)

(Also imo Thief 3 has[so far] a decent story)

2. It loads much faster with the modern PCs, thankfully.
Post edited June 21, 2019 by GameRager
Posted June 21, 2019
Final Fantasy 7's old PC release.

On the computer I was playing, load times were substantial, and would increase the longer you played, sometimes going to infinity, at which point you had to force kill the process and reload your last save.

The game was also unstable, with the game often crashing when loading the next area, making me nervous whenever the game would load a new area, which of course happens pretty often, particularly since the FMV sequences needed to be loaded whenever they would play.

Considering that, like most FF games, FF7 only lets you save on the world map (which you don't have access to for quite a while in this particular FF) or at save points (which are sometimes farther apart that I would have liked), and you can imaging how frustrating those crashes are. It wouldn't be so bad in a game like Morrowind, where you can save anywhere and hence not lose much progress on a crash (or other glitch), but it is a problem in a game like FF7.

(There are other problems I had with FF7 that aren't specific to the PC version, but that's outside the scope of this topic.)
Posted June 21, 2019
avatar
Cadaver747: Yes, it was awful. Thanks to Microsoft and abysmal XBOX console. I hate how Ion Storm f@cked up Thief 3 and Deus Ex 2 because of console constraints.
That reminded me of another game with ridiculously small levels; Lost Planet 2.

Lost Planet 1 had some pretty big levels, so 3 years later when a sequel got released I expected everything will be bigger, especially since it was more of a coop game. Nope. They significantly improved the graphics and amount of detail in the levels, especially the jungle parts, but my guess is the consoles couldn't really handle it so, they split levels into short 100 meter chunks and it felt horrible to play. They also significantly reduced the default FOV. The loading times are actually super fast here, but it takes you out of the game when every 100 meters there is another score screen and loading screen.
Post edited June 21, 2019 by antrad88
Posted June 22, 2019
avatar
dtgreene: Final Fantasy 7's old PC release.

On the computer I was playing, load times were substantial, and would increase the longer you played, sometimes going to infinity, at which point you had to force kill the process and reload your last save.

The game was also unstable, with the game often crashing when loading the next area, making me nervous whenever the game would load a new area, which of course happens pretty often, particularly since the FMV sequences needed to be loaded whenever they would play.

Considering that, like most FF games, FF7 only lets you save on the world map (which you don't have access to for quite a while in this particular FF) or at save points (which are sometimes farther apart that I would have liked), and you can imaging how frustrating those crashes are. It wouldn't be so bad in a game like Morrowind, where you can save anywhere and hence not lose much progress on a crash (or other glitch), but it is a problem in a game like FF7.

(There are other problems I had with FF7 that aren't specific to the PC version, but that's outside the scope of this topic.)
In FF7 you can actually save at save globes/points as well, though they are far apart(also some long cutscenes have saves after them but they are optional).
Posted June 22, 2019
An unpatched Postal 2 was notorious for its up to 5 minutes loading times between areas.
Posted June 22, 2019
avatar
dtgreene: Final Fantasy 7's old PC release.

On the computer I was playing, load times were substantial, and would increase the longer you played, sometimes going to infinity, at which point you had to force kill the process and reload your last save.

The game was also unstable, with the game often crashing when loading the next area, making me nervous whenever the game would load a new area, which of course happens pretty often, particularly since the FMV sequences needed to be loaded whenever they would play.

Considering that, like most FF games, FF7 only lets you save on the world map (which you don't have access to for quite a while in this particular FF) or at save points (which are sometimes farther apart that I would have liked), and you can imaging how frustrating those crashes are. It wouldn't be so bad in a game like Morrowind, where you can save anywhere and hence not lose much progress on a crash (or other glitch), but it is a problem in a game like FF7.

(There are other problems I had with FF7 that aren't specific to the PC version, but that's outside the scope of this topic.)
avatar
GameRager: In FF7 you can actually save at save globes/points as well, though they are far apart(also some long cutscenes have saves after them but they are optional).
Those globes are what I call "save points"; in fact, I am pretty sure the game calls them that.

(Also, one other annoyance is when you accidentally leave the area you entered or vice versa; on earlier FF games this was only a minor inconvenience, but FF7 added load times to the mix, making things far more annoying than before.)
Posted June 22, 2019
Pillars of Eternity has insanely long load times for the kind of game it is, and it discourages hopping back and forth between areas like some quests require. That's on an SSD too, can't imagine it on a HDD. Not sure if the sequel improved this or not.
Posted June 22, 2019
avatar
GameRager: In FF7 you can actually save at save globes/points as well, though they are far apart(also some long cutscenes have saves after them but they are optional).
avatar
dtgreene: Those globes are what I call "save points"; in fact, I am pretty sure the game calls them that.

(Also, one other annoyance is when you accidentally leave the area you entered or vice versa; on earlier FF games this was only a minor inconvenience, but FF7 added load times to the mix, making things far more annoying than before.)
Luckily the PSX version is pretty good with loads between areas. :)
Posted June 22, 2019
avatar
dtgreene: Those globes are what I call "save points"; in fact, I am pretty sure the game calls them that.

(Also, one other annoyance is when you accidentally leave the area you entered or vice versa; on earlier FF games this was only a minor inconvenience, but FF7 added load times to the mix, making things far more annoying than before.)
avatar
GameRager: Luckily the PSX version is pretty good with loads between areas. :)
Is it as good as the SNES version of Final Fantasy 6?

Edit: Referring to the load times, not the quality of the actual game, which is another issue.
Post edited June 22, 2019 by dtgreene
Posted June 22, 2019
Like many, I’m sure, the first two that came to mind were Deus Ex: Invisible War and Thief 3. I like some, however, I did not find this annoyance to be enough to put me off the game. In fact, I personally think that Thief 3 has the best plot of the Thief games, and though the frequent lengthy load times did detract from the game a bit, Thief 3 has some incredible levels.

Invisible War also stands out to me because of the factions system. While hardly unique, the factions added an interesting element to the series that I appreciated.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is another game that comes to mind. This is the only entry in the series that I’ve played on console, and I remember it being tedious going from building to building in cities. I especially hated those moments when I would enter a building only to realize that I had entered the wrong one, and immediately had to leave. That said, the load times didn’t discourage me from investing over one hundred hours in the game, so either I had a lot of patience, or the load times weren’t as bad as I remember them being.
Posted June 23, 2019
avatar
GameRager: Luckily the PSX version is pretty good with loads between areas. :)
avatar
dtgreene: Is it as good as the SNES version of Final Fantasy 6?

Edit: Referring to the load times, not the quality of the actual game, which is another issue.
It's like 5-8 seconds or so when going to new "screens"....maybe even just 5 seconds for some or 4.
Posted June 23, 2019
avatar
dtgreene: Is it as good as the SNES version of Final Fantasy 6?

Edit: Referring to the load times, not the quality of the actual game, which is another issue.
avatar
GameRager: It's like 5-8 seconds or so when going to new "screens"....maybe even just 5 seconds for some or 4.
That's still a long time when it's easy to accidentally enter or leave the area an extra time; that's 8-16 seconds wasted just because the game made it too easy to have to do 2 extra area transitions (remember, you have to go back out).

I just checked a FF6 video, and there the time is only like 1 seconds, except when going to the world map where it's like 2; that's only 3 seconds wasted if you make that mistake (which is still too easy to make).

Edit: Off topic, but 404 Rep not found. (As of this post, I have exactly 404 Rep.)
Post edited June 23, 2019 by dtgreene
Posted June 23, 2019
avatar
GameRager: It's like 5-8 seconds or so when going to new "screens"....maybe even just 5 seconds for some or 4.
avatar
dtgreene: That's still a long time when it's easy to accidentally enter or leave the area an extra time; that's 8-16 seconds wasted just because the game made it too easy to have to do 2 extra area transitions (remember, you have to go back out).

I just checked a FF6 video, and there the time is only like 1 seconds, except when going to the world map where it's like 2; that's only 3 seconds wasted if you make that mistake (which is still too easy to make).

Edit: Off topic, but 404 Rep not found. (As of this post, I have exactly 404 Rep.)
I might be off by a bit/making it too high than it is.....it is very short is what i'm trying to say. Also a few second is much better than Thief 3's 20+ seconds between small areas. :)
Posted June 23, 2019
avatar
dtgreene: That's still a long time when it's easy to accidentally enter or leave the area an extra time; that's 8-16 seconds wasted just because the game made it too easy to have to do 2 extra area transitions (remember, you have to go back out).

I just checked a FF6 video, and there the time is only like 1 seconds, except when going to the world map where it's like 2; that's only 3 seconds wasted if you make that mistake (which is still too easy to make).

Edit: Off topic, but 404 Rep not found. (As of this post, I have exactly 404 Rep.)
avatar
GameRager: I might be off by a bit/making it too high than it is.....it is very short is what i'm trying to say. Also a few second is much better than Thief 3's 20+ seconds between small areas. :)
A few seconds is still worse than the near-instant load times of cartridges.

As for FF7, I haven't found a reliable video for timing things (I need one that's actually being played on a PSX, or perhaps a PS2 *without* fast loading enabled, to make a reliable comparison), but I note that loading the world map is a bit slow (slower than FF6).

FF9 is an example of a game with rather poor load times, particularly when it comes to random encounters (which are very frequent in this style of game, but often aren't that long).

The PSX version of FF6 is particularly poor when it comes to load times, as is Chrono Trigger PSX. FF5 PSX is tolerable (aside from long save times and a bug that can scramble the save screen on a PS2), and FF4 PSX is actually quite good in this respect except when saving.

(Wondering why the world map takes longer to load in FF6 and FF7 than other non-world map areas in those two games.)

(Also, note that I coud the battle transition animation as part of the load times, as the transition effect is often used to try to hide them, and it, like load times, wastes the player's time.)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionGames with ridiculously short levels with long loading times(69 posts)(69 posts)
(69 posts)