Games becoming too short?

[Azahiel]

Something that has been bothering me for some time now - game length. That is the time needed to finish a game. I bet you noticed that the main plot in games is becoming shorter and shorter. Take for example Fallout 3, generally if you bypass the side quests it doesn't take much time to finish the game. At least there you have the other quests and plenty exploration.
But take games that take you through the story by hand. The two I played are Call of Duty 4 and Mirror's Edge. They're both roughly 6 hours long, ME shorter if you spend less time admiring the views.
Anyway, what happened to the great story, to the long hours of fun gameplay needed to finish the game? I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy the two games mentioned above, I loved them both, but at the end I was like "is that it?". Especially in Mirror's Edge (chiefly because the main story sucked IMO). CoD4 has multiplayer at least. There's no replay value other than wanting to finish a harder difficulty level.
I personally feel bothered by the decline of lengthy games and the slow disappearance of genres synonymous to "a long game". Too bad the game prices didn't change. You pay the same (or perhaps more) amount for a shorter game now as you payed for a much longer one in the past.
Until some time in some reviews people mentioned that "the game is loads of fun, but too short". Now it disappeared. What happened to the lengthy titles which didn't bore you to death but keep you entertained every minute. Do the developers really have no ideas for a story longer than 8 hours? Or maybe the reason is somewhere else?
What do you think?

 

[Abedeus]

You lost all creditability when you said you loved ME.

But I kinda agree, even portable games last longer. Mmm, Golden Sun...

 

[Milkatron]

Games have become more about added features in-game (side quests, multiplayer, etc.) The times have changed, and the games with them. No one plays Fallout 3 to speed through the quests, or just buys CoD 4 just for the single-player. Also, I realize that I'm getting better as a gamer. Games advertised as 30+ hours I can beat in around 20. This, whether you like it or not, is the evolution of gaming.

 

[Baby Tea]

You're barking at the wrong developers and the wrong genres.
Go look at Bioware, or Square, for RPGs of length.

But FPS games aren't known for length. Never have been, really.
Looking for a long, engrossing story in an FPS is rather futile.
It can be engrossing, but not long (See CoD:4).

FPS games are short with multiplayer.
That's the trade off.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

You can either concentrate on story or pretty-ness. Not both, they have deadlines to rush towards and make short, unfufilling games for.

 

[Clemenstation]

Dunno how much free time you have, but I don't get much. If the average game were longer I'd never finish anything. Right now the standard seems about right for my typical level of interest.

If you want a long game, get a jRPG. Or, like you said, games like Fallout 3 offer plenty to do beyond the main storyline. Most of the side-stories are much more interesting than the primary plot anyway.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

Some games can be too long though

 

[Hungry]

i don't see how they can make money on these shorter games. the shorter games get the more i start thinking gamefly is a good idea

 

[Martymer]

i don't see how they can make money on these shorter games. the shorter games get the more i start thinking gamefly is a good idea

Games are made shorter for two reasons.

1) More time spent on graphics, less time spent on actual content => better looking game that will attract more buyers.

2) Said buyers won't be playing the game for more than a week, which means they'll buy a new game sooner.

Sadly, it works, because gamers (myself included) are too stupid to keep our money in our pockets until a decent game shows up.

 

[Flour]

Game length, especially for shooters, is the reason I've given up on new releases.

I finished CoD4 in about five hours, WaW in six. In comparison, Clive Barker's Undying costs me 10 hours to complete. Tron 2.0 costs 13 hours to complete, the original CoD costs me 15 hours to complete, Painkiller costs me on average 12 hours to complete and Half Life 2 costs about 10 hours.(depending on difficulty setting and luck, these times could be reduced by up to 30%)

The only time I buy a 'new' game is when the price has dropped by at least 50%, which is IMO a good price for the single player.

 

[Monkz.]

The thing is with everyone having access to the online world SP is becomning a less attractive feature of a game and MP is fast over taking. Like some1 said above, players buy Fallout for all those extra bits that come along with the main quest, people buy Cod4, Gears 2 ,etc for the online replayability. Its whats in fashion these days, and if FPS' had time consuming SP wouldn't you get bored of just going through different landscapes facing the same AI over and over again?

 

[taconator]

I agree games are geting shorter. Take Halo for example Halo, Halo 2 takes me a in 10 hours but I finshed Halo 3 in 5

 

[squid5580]

I would much rather have a 5-7 hour game that keeps me going over a 20 hour game that forces backtracking or collecting crap. I have played too many longish games lately that were fun at first but but then becomes tedious after enduring forced artificial lengthening. Let a game run its natural course.

As for Fallout 3 or Mass Effect they allow the player a choice. You can run through the game if you want. Beat it in 7 hours if you want. Or you could spend 30 - 100 hours if you want. The content is there and the player gets to decide. I spent close to 100 hours for my first character in Fallout 3.

 

[Kirosilence]

Game's are getting shorter yes, but that's less because games are evolving that way, and more because you arn't used to an age of short games.

Let me elaborate on my theory. A lot of people came into gaming during the playstation/late SNES eras of gaming. The age of the RPG. This is when JRPGs dominated the console world, and of course your average JRGP has a good 30 hour life without side quests and min/maxing. After that came the age of platformers and collect-a-thons. Again, stereotypically longer games. Collecting 120 stars or 100 jiggys or 3,175 thingerys takes a long time.

And then the age of the FPS came in. FPS have -never- been long games. In fact because of their execution and focus on graphics they have always been very short. Goldeneye was an 8 hour game, DOOM was only a few hours as well. Very few FPS games break that 10 hour point and unfortunatly, thats the gaming age we live in. Should JRPGs make a comback, then we can have our 30-hour shelf life games. Until then, would you seriously want to play as Master Chief for 30 odd hours?

 

[xChevelle24]

Basically, nobody who plays console games has the fucking time to play a game that takes 2 weeks to finish. Maybe PC gamers do, but console gamers generally do not.

Story mode in console games, in my opinion, should just be there to get you achievements or to get you ready for multiplayer. That's all.

 

[SimuLord]

On the one hand, games with a set-piece plot and story are getting shorter (or worse, the amount of substance is shrinking but the amount of time-padding fetch quests and the like is growing). On the other hand, open-world, open-ended games are getting more and more content-rich. Mind you, not all that content is necessarily good ("Nico, ees your couseen") but when they get it right, you've got a game that makes hours pass like minutes.

 

[setsunafseiei]

They are becoming shorter and easier

 

[Shapsters]

Fable 2 to me is the worst game I've played when it comes to replayability. It's supposed to be an RPG, there is really nothing else to do but the main story line, and once you finish, you play for another hour, get enough money to buy all the houses, and you're done! Shortest "RPG" I've ever played.

 

[Inarticulate_Underachiever]

It's because shooters are popular now and shooters are faster paced than RPGs and collecting games.