Shorter campaigns: Problem or improvement?

[Smooth Operator]

Well the publishers noticed they can sell the same or even more games if they concentrate money on marketing rather then development, so sadly quantity+hype is worth alot more then quality at the moment, and with the new influx of casual gamers that mind-set wont change any time soon.

So pack up your classics boys and girls, we are in for a long harsh winter.

 

[Korten12]

Meh, honestly if the SP is good, I won't mind it being long or short. Sometimes I actually feel a 10+ hour SP for a FPS would just get annoying.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

The sheer cost of producing triple A games nowadays kinda limits their length, so we're unlikely to see many SP campaigns stretching past the 6 hour mark in the near future. Which is a shame, because if I fork over £45 quid I'd quite like more than 5 hours of gameplay.

This explains my fondness for sandbox games.

 

[googleback]

at the 60 dollar price point? BAD.

Indie games that are about 3-6 hours long that cost at the most 15-20? perfectly fine.

The reason games are shorter is because developers spread themselves to thin on getting as much in as possible.

 

[Wondermint13]

Rome wasn't built in a day..

 

[RowdyRodimus]

It's weird how professional reviewers spend virtually no time talking about game length. Movie reviewers will always make specific mention when a film is either too short or too long. Why don't game critics do the same?

Sometimes a game is just pathetically short; 4-6 hours for $60 is plain unacceptable. On the flip side, some games pad their playtimes with obvious filler content that isn't much fun at all. I think that's a pretty big black mark.

In response to the OP: I don't think 3-7 hours is ever worth $60. I expect at least 8+ "meaty" hours (no obvious filler) for that kind of money.

do you remember when 80% of publishers would put the amount of gameplay time that a game had on the box (Over 40+ hours of gameplay or 10+ hours! Unlimited Replay Value!)? Now it seems all they do is give you a five hour game and then tack on the same old online MP they have been using since the days of Unreal, call it a day, spend $25,000,000 on advertising and claiming that the game cost $30,000,000 to produce (neglecting to tell you they figure in advertising in that amount) and slap a $50-$70 price tag on it.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Rome wasn't built in a day..

No but Jim Rome was conceived in 20 seconds in the back of a VW bus amidst four or five empty Jim Beam bottles more than likely. (That has absolutely nothing to do with this thread but I heard someone say it to that quote and thought it was funny)

 

[Technopath]

Shorter campaign, unfortionatly without a point of reference meaning nothing.

If an RPG has a storyline that takes 200 hours for a speedrunner to complete. Yes, you need to make that game shorter.

If a game has a campaign that can be beaten in 4 hours. You need to make that longer or dirt cheap.

Oh and this is going to be a bit off topic.

Someone give more co-op non-fps campaigns. It would be fun to play through a starcraft campaign with a friend. Maybe make the maps bigger and have two bases so there's no conflict of building.

And just to note. No, I do not consider harder difficulty levels to be a "new campaign". I also hate blocking material based on difficulty. I don't want to have to blow 400+ hour on a game, so I can do a no damage run to watch my hero marry the princess in the golden ending, instead of just rescuing her.