Games becoming too short?

[veloper]

I'll take quality over quantity.

It's great when a game with good gameplay has alot of good content. This is rare. BG2 is a fair example.

Add alot of crap to a basicly good game and it only dimishes the game to the point where it isn't fun playing the game anymore.
Empire Earth is an example. Basicly a good RTS in it's time, that allows the player tech all the way from the stone age to nanotech giant robots. The campaigns are unplayable though. Stupid cutscenes, pathetic VOs and silly missions ruined this RTS.

 

[sneak_copter]

Definitley. As long as the mission length is kept reasonable, and the game keeps fresh till the end, then games should be longer.

 

[Wicky_42]

I'll take quality over quantity.

It's great when a game with good gameplay has alot of good content. This is rare. BG2 is a fair example.

Add alot of crap to a basicly good game and it only dimishes the game to the point where it isn't fun playing the game anymore.
Empire Earth is an example. Basicly a good RTS in it's time, that allows the player tech all the way from the stone age to nanotech giant robots. The campaigns are unplayable though. Stupid cutscenes, pathetic VOs and silly missions ruined this RTS.

This is true. And Empire Earth was just shockingly bad.

If you want a long game with substance try the Total War series, not the latest mainstream shooter. The majority of developers like the idea of pumping out fast-paced eye-candy, which the majority of gamers can enjoy, even if it isn't a life-changing experience to play. I'm all up for a game on Halo 3 or Crysis, sure, but if I want a game that'll hold my interest then it's gonna be Space Empires V or Empire:TW. There are games out there for everyone, however developers aren't interested in pandering to what they might see as the minority.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Depends on the game you play. I've almost finished Kingdom Hearts for the first time ever and its nearly taken me 50 hours. Part of that is the fact I put it on expert to start with but hey.

Then again, other games like MGS4 took me 16 hours... so you can win and lose. I think maybe the process of coding for high end graphics might shorten some games considerably... so maybe.

 

[Vlane]

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.

Simply not true (I am referring to the console part of your post). I have the time to play a game for two weeks just to finish it and I know a lot of other console gamers have the time too. Sure it only happens every once in a while that I sit two weeks because I finish most games in 2-3 days but in some cases (most of the time in RPG's) I sit there two or more weeks to finish the game (I own Persona 4 for two weeks and I still haven't finished it. I have finished Persona 3 in 5 days though).

The second part of your post is also not that great because then no game needs a story because you only need the achievements (which mean nothing) and every game has to have multiplayer (which not every game needs because in some cases it doesn't fit the game like in Fallout 3 for example).

 

[fluffy chicken 2]

I think it is because it is the recession game developers need to make games shorter so they can make make more and increase revenue.

 

[Manic Overkill]

Lets have a look at Heavenly Sword. Great game but you can complete it in 8 hours! They said they aimed to make the graphics seem it was like a movie but they also made the length seem like a movie's length as well!

 

[Psypherus]

I used to think games have gotten shorter but then I realised I used to play a lot of RPG's and have since moved on to Shooters. Anyways, I decided go back and play some older FPS's(As there are no Newer RPG's that look interesting to me) and I find that they give me around 10-15 hours of gameplay. About the same amount of time I get out of a Newer Shooter like Halo or GoW

 

[kzap333]

I don't buy new games any more, well that's not interiorly true, I don't buy a game because it is new, if I think I feel like I want to play an RPG I will search for the best RPG I haven't played and buy something that will last me a long time to complete.
I dislike that new games are getting shorter but I think one reason is because some are getting easier, myabe it's because I'm getting better but I remember in the good old days you could get stuck for ages on one level invite some friends round and have a great sense of accomplishment when we completed it.
I also agree that companies are spending more time on graphics then length which isn't bad if the game has a multilayer but if it is single player only I'm not spending £40 (£80) on something that only last 8 hours! That's £10 ($20) an HOUR! I only earn £5 an hour and don't work that often.

 

[AdmiralWolverineLightningbolt]

yeah, i noticed it a few years ago
like, my first games were mario 64 and OoT along with the original rainbow 6, perfect dark and donkey 64 and they all lasted a good long time - like more than 15 hours each

when i got my cube, at first it was the same with games like sonic adventure 2, smash bros melee and star wars bounty hunter (which i never finished, hardest game ever!) but then i got games like nightfire and started to realise that after a weekend of hard playing (you have a dirty mind) that i could finish most games and was truly grateful when a game like wind waker came along

my point is that, yes games are generally getting shorter (probably something to do with much higher development costs) but you also get better at games as you grow older

 

[brighteyesblackenedlungs]

i'd take a short well written game like portal over a repetitive longer game like GTA any day

 

[pirateninj4]

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.

Sooo if you play on a PC you have more time to play? Or are console gamers just too twitchy eye, ADHD, can't focus on one thing for more than 1 minute? I don't understand...if you have time to play games, you have time to play games. It doesn't matter which platform you use.

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.

This is why they're shorter. Only I don't have enough money to spend on short dalliances, so I have to wait till I can see it's 15 hrs plus before I shell out the dosh.

 

[Simalacrum]

I was really quite unpleasantly suprised at how fast the plot was moving in KZ2... i liked the ending admitedly, but i wish it took longer to get to that point.

 

[timmytom1]

i dunno if this was said.... but damn was re5 just too short....

Lets assume you are talking about Resident Evil 5, because you can't waste time typing things out properly.

68 hours in so far, and still enjoying it.

68 HOURS!!!!!?????? what are you doing eternally going round in circles??

 

[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.

Simply not true (I am referring to the console part of your post). I have the time to play a game for two weeks just to finish it and I know a lot of other console gamers have the time too. Sure it only happens every once in a while that I sit two weeks because I finish most games in 2-3 days but in some cases (most of the time in RPG's) I sit there two or more weeks to finish the game (I own Persona 4 for two weeks and I still haven't finished it. I have finished Persona 3 in 5 days though).

The second part of your post is also not that great because then no game needs a story because you only need the achievements (which mean nothing) and every game has to have multiplayer (which not every game needs because in some cases it doesn't fit the game like in Fallout 3 for example).

Well then if you're going to spend all your time worrying about story mode, then why even throw in multiplayer? Games like Fallout or whatever have great story modes; and that's perfectly fine, I'm just saying I am more of a multiplayer kind of gamer and I like to see games with better multiplayer than single player. Again, this is just my opinion, and I appreciate all the people flaming me for it. I just think that great single player games shouldn't even have time to throw in multiplayer because if you spend that much time on single player, the multiplayer is bound to be shit. Same goes with the visa versa of that.

 

[OnlyWonderBoy]

i dunno if this was said.... but damn was re5 just too short....

Lets assume you are talking about Resident Evil 5, because you can't waste time typing things out properly.

68 hours in so far, and still enjoying it.

68 HOURS!!!!!?????? what are you doing eternally going round in circles??

That is quite a lot. Still I myself have managed to make the game last 30 hours. This is due to multiple play troughs and mercenaries mode. Still if done right it shows that it lasts much longer then 6 hours. You just have to be willing to play it over again. Personally I believe that it was fun enough to do so. If you disagree then I guess you're not getting the most out of your money, but I digress.

Length does not dictate quality. The problem that occurs is that people feel that price should dictate length, regardless of quality. A long game is nothing without quality. If the price bothers you, simply wait a month or two after the release of a new game to get it around $20 cheaper.

For me a perfect example of this is I recently purchased Beyond Good & Evil for $12. It's a wonderful game but it only clocked in at 10 hours. Now I would have played up to $25 for it but had I payed the full $50 I might have been a tad disappointed.

 

[Vrex360]

I think co-op has something to do with this. I'll use Halo 3 as an example to get my point across.
In Halo 3 the campain was noticably shorter. Also Halo 3 was the only one to have four player co-op. My theory works like this:
When the developers realised they were designing a game with four player co-op in mind they thought of system link and more importantly Xbox Live. Now I want you to put a picture together for me:
You got three mates around, hooked up two Xboxes ordered some pizza and are going to sit in and play a nice co-op game and have fun.
Would it still be fun after say twenty hours? Would you all even still be concious by the time it's done? No of course not.
Now picture a scene where you set up four player co-op with three other people who's names you don't even know. Would that experiance last twenty hours? No sir it wouldn't.
My theory is that in order to make four player co-op a fun and enjoyable thing, the game had to be shortened so every drunk party or random online matchup could get through the whole game and for the game not to get old.
That's why I think games are getting shorter anyway, or at least games with co-op.

 

[kzap333]

i dunno if this was said.... but damn was re5 just too short....

Lets assume you are talking about Resident Evil 5, because you can't waste time typing things out properly.

68 hours in so far, and still enjoying it.

But that's not just single player right?
This is about the single player story part of the game, because some games the multiplayer can keep you playing for ages COD4 but the actually story is only 6 hours.
But I one play though of RE5 can't take 68 hours unless that is how long since you started playing and you have taken breaks.
I have never played the game all the way though but everyone I know says it's short.

 

[VariableGear]

Long games are the problem, not short games. Padding what should be a 20 hour game with 10+ hours of bullshit doesn't make it any more satisfying to play.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

i get around the problem of shortness in an fps by notching the difficulty to the highest possible value after a short play to get used to controls. Instantly, halo 3 changes from being just an hour or so to 8 or 9 hours. WaW= ages. Ect.
As for rpgs and puzzle games, theyre not shortening im just getting better at em. Pity that few rpgs have half decent online mp or things like map editors ect. Except fable. That was just too short.

Slightly off topic, I often spend more time building maps on H3 than it actually takes me to play the campaign. This is wrong.