Too Short?!

[ThaBenMan]

I'm kind of sick of people complaining these days about games being too short.

You need to realize, today the production value of most games is a lot higher than it used to be, and therefore more expensive. It's just not financially possible to make a game longer in most cases.

And aside from that, what are you guys doing, just blindly rushing through these games? Don't you like to admire the setting and explore and stuff like that? I've put in at least 20 hours playing Bioshock, and I haven't even met up with Andrew Ryan yet. And don't get me started on the time I've sunk into the RPGs I've played (and I'm not in the habit of grinding, either).

So am I making sense, or am I just talking out my ass?

(and sorry if this is already a thread, but I couldn't seem to find a similar one)

 

[ElephantGuts]

That's exactly how I play games. It took me about a whole month to complete GTA4. And I was one of the serious fanatics about it, so it didn't take me long because I didn't play it, I played it constantly. All the time my friends were bragging about beating it, not realizing that mine was the real accomplishment. I could spend (real) days playing the game without doing a single story mission, just exploring and going out with friends and everything.

I did the same with Mercs2, my friend beat it the day it came out, I took a week or two. I love savoring the game, exploring all the little parts of it. It's more fun and makes you appreciate the game more (and the Jew in me wants to point out that it's getting more for your money). And even if the game itself is really short, that's fine with me if it's really high quality. If I'm gonna play it again and again because it's so good, the length doesn't really matter.

 

[ironthing]

I'm with you, dude. You don't know how frustrated I get watching someone rush through any without soaking in the scenery or messing with the physics engine.

 

[partyguy]

Too short games allow for replay. Fable is a great example of this due to the good/evil choices and the varied skills. I could replay it 3-4 times and use literally every item and skill in the game and all the different endings.

As far as bioshock goes, I agree completely. But then I also couldn't put down the Crysis DEMO due to its graphics. However when i look at my play time, i can honestly say...I don't want to go through the whole thing again even if it means rescuing the girls instead of harvesting.

I also admit to my first couple of games being Might and Magic 6 and civ3. These games could easily result in 100+ hour games that i have replayed DOZENS of times.

I think you are making sense. But i would say the same thing to someone who says current games are too long.

 

[OverlordSteve]

I did something like that with Assassin's Creed. I ran around the city doing all the little missions first before even considering going after the main baddie. It's also the reason I love God of War: Chains of Olympus. It's short, but it's pure portable God of War action!

 

[Aardvark]

I miss those games that promised 100 hours of gameplay. Even though that hundred hours was trudging through the same segment of dungeon, slaughtering slightly tougher versions of the same monster.

I think it's high time I returned to the Drakalor Chain

 

[meatloaf231]

Assassin's Creed is the best example of a game that is much worse if you play it all in a few days. The missions get really tedious and repetitive. If you play it over the course of months, every time you do an assassination, it's fun, instead of being a chore.

 

[nobodysoldier25]

Sometimes when people call a game too short, they are only saying that because they are the king of person to rush through a game in about a week. You really have to stop for a second, or at least slow down, to enjoy the game itself and really enjoy it.

But in some cases, games really can be too short, like a game that is genuinely 5-6 hours long is too short.

Games don't have to be like final fantasy in length, but every game needs actual length for you to enjoy the actual game.

 

[titus_barca]

I'm the same, my two favorite games for just running around in are Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. I've spent hours riding the horse to each corner of the map, to that hidden beach, etc. I enjoyed making that 20 minute run along the bridge too.
Just don't pay attention to those people who rush through it. If they can't enjoy all the aspects of a game it's their fault; people like us absorb more from games on a different level.

 

[mark_n_b]

"60+ hours of game play" used to be a huge feature in games. I a all about exploration of the game-play environment, so That always turned into at least 80 for me. The problem with that being that I am not able to finish a lot of games, never mind replay.

And given that most of the gamer population has things like master degrees to earn, Multinational corporations to run, children to raise, and sex to have, 40 hours is just not something they can dump into a game (I mean who wants to be spending 3 months on one game?). This is why companies have shifted to a shorter game model.

But I disagree with the whole cost assessment. I don't think that the cost of development is an adequate excuse for shortening game-play. Fact is there are millions of tools for managing new technology, and correct management of reusable art and game-play assets should ultimately mean that a good ten hour game costs as much as a good thirty hour game to develop.

Given that as games shrink in length, the cost does not decrease, especially when the costs of game inevitably increases with game-play length, I can also understand a lot of frustration for having to doll out $50.00 for fifteen hours of game-play, especially when in order to get another 5 hours out of it you have to sneak through vents and explore poorly lit corners to get secret keys (or something) which may not be your play style.

 

[Good morning blues]

You know, it's true that games cost a lot more to make now, but you have to ask yourself, has quality really increased at the same time? I'd argue that the vast majority of games these days are just repetitive carbon copies of each other.

 

[ThaBenMan]

You know, it's true that games cost a lot more to make now, but you have to ask yourself, has quality really increased at the same time? I'd argue that the vast majority of games these days are just repetitive carbon copies of each other.

Well, I didn't really mean that games as a whole got better necessarily, it's just that it takes a lot more time and effort to render things in modern graphics engines than it used to.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Hmmm... Ya know, I've always been really good at games, so when I was young I would just rush through games. However, now that I'm older...I do what you do and many others just to lengthen games. I look all around, whether it be scenery or secret items. After I feel that I've spent enough time doing this, I play through the game at whatever pace I feel necessary to complete the game within a reasonable time.

But yes, people need to quit complaining about how "short" these games are. Most aren't that short, its just that you've A)Gotten better B)Rushed through it C)You need to crank up the difficulty or D)Need better time management

Personally, sucks for those guys and gals that think games are short nowadays. I don't find any problems with games nowadays.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I miss those games that promised 100 hours of gameplay. Even though that hundred hours was trudging through the same segment of dungeon, slaughtering slightly tougher versions of the same monster.

I think it's high time I returned to the Drakalor Chain

Give it up for ADOM. I only beat that game once, with a drakling paladin.

Game length seemed to peak during the PS1 era. That was when it was still relatively easy to make game content, and the CD storage medium allowed for tons of it. Before that SNES games and whatnot were pretty short; even the SNES RPGs could be beaten in 30 hours or less, and those were the longest games available.

With the PS2 and Xbox game length seemed to get shorter and games had less content. The first generation of games for those consoles where gloriously brief. Over the lifespan of the system they got longer and more developed. Now the cycle has repeated itself again; the first 360 and PS3 games were short affairs without much replay value. Now we are getting 80 hour epics like Tales of Vesperia and games you can theoretically play forever like Oblivion and GTA4.

So I think the waxing and waning of game length and content is a factor of a console's lifespan and market forces; if you like long games there are options for you, if you like short games you can play Crysis Warhead. And feel ripped off. And be a douche.

 

[PersianLlama]

I'm kind of sick of people complaining these days about games being too short.

You need to realize, today the production value of most games is a lot higher than it used to be, and therefore more expensive. It's just not financially possible to make a game longer in most cases.

And aside from that, what are you guys doing, just blindly rushing through these games? Don't you like to admire the setting and explore and stuff like that? I've put in at least 20 hours playing Bioshock, and I haven't even met up with Andrew Ryan yet. And don't get me started on the time I've sunk into the RPGs I've played (and I'm not in the habit of grinding, either).

So am I making sense, or am I just talking out my ass?

(and sorry if this is already a thread, but I couldn't seem to find a similar one)

I don't mind short games, but I DO MIND HALF-ASSED SHORT GAMES.

I'm a single player gamer, so when I buy a game I expect a good single player. Which is why I find games like Halo, CoD4 (CoD 4 wasn't absolutely terrible like Halo's, but I didn't like it too much), and Gears of War (Only enjoyable part was chainsawing, got old after one time though). Neither of the stories in the game intrigued me, nor was their anything else that I particularly enjoyed.

For games like Bioshock and Portal (Well Orange Box is probably the best deal in video games. Ever.) which are fairly short, but have an excellent story and are filled with fun. Definitely I don't care too much that it's short, because it made that small period of time worth every penny I paid for the game. I'm a RPG gamer so I get lots of bang for my dollar because of the length of RPGs.

So shooters aren't my thing, though anything created by Valve (Especially Half Life and TF2) is awesome IMO. I also have a fondness for Insomniac's Resistance. However, a good single player shooter will always grab me in. (System shock 2, Half Life, Bioshock, Deus Ex, etc...) Additionally, MGS4 can be beaten in <5 hours (Big Boss Emblem), but I'm pretty sure there were 5 hours+ worth of cut scenes in that game and it was still a great and fun game with replay value (IMO). So yeah, a lot of time, effort and a lot more cost than it used to go into games now, but with all that money, if the game is short, I expect a good game, not a mediocre piece of shit.

 

[Gahars]

I agree, though sometimes you just want the game to keep on going, like Assassin's Creed (for me) and CoD4, so when it ends, you can't help but feel a little dissapointed.

 

[Acaroid]

Im not the sort of person to rush a game, My main goal is never to finnish it, but to enjoy it!

But some games are 2 short, you can spend all the time you want playing with the game, but when it is over with and you feel unfulfilled (in story line and plot develpoment...if it has one)... that is when a game is 2 short...

Savour a game all you like, just because the time you sepnt on the game may have been in fact days, it does not mean the game is any longer or fulfilling!

 

[SmugFrog]

I don't mind a game that can be finished in 12-14 hours (any less than than that, it better have a LOT of replay value). I think I finished Fable in about 14-16, and then I created an evil character and spent about the same time. Not bad for 30 hours of gaming - a lot shorter than I hoped it would be, but it was a decent game.

My problem with a "short" game, is if it has no replay, no options, no multiplayer - What is the point of spending $49 (or $60 God help if you if you're playing on a console), for a few hours of fun? Such a waste to me. Give me an incentive to play through your game a few times. Give me some cheat codes to use after I beat it. At least the 360 has achievements to help with replay - I don't know why they are so addictive to some people (myself included).

 

[Raven28256]

Personally, I prefer games that are only about 10-16 hours. I'm in college now, I don't exactly have tons of time to throw away on games anymore. Generally, the most I want to put into a game is about 45 hours or so. I thought Mass Effect was the perfect length for an RPG based on my schedule now. It took me about 40 hours, and I did all the side quests and stuff. Oh, I know many of the more hardcore RPG fans are now probably sitting outside my house and plotting when they will tar and feather me for saying such a thing, but really, I don't have the time to sink 75-100 hours into a single game anymore for just one play through, and likely will NEVER have that time until I retire.

I'm a supporter of "quality over quantity," and always have been. Even when I did have the time to spend 80 hours on an RPG, I MUCH rather have a really good short game than a really long game that drags on aimlessly. Some games really ARE too short, but I don't mind as much if the experience is great. The key issue I have with a lot of very lengthy RPGs is the fact that they cram them full of random bullshit to artificially lengthen them. I don't care if the game offers 80 hours if only 20 of those hours are any good, and all the rest is mindless muck just there to push the length, which is ultimately what a lot of the long RPGs are.

One other thing I want to note. A lot of the people who gripe about games being too short are the gamers who, to be blunt, have no lives. You know who I'm talking about. The guys who already had 35 hours logged into Call of Duty 4's online mode when the game hadn't even been out for a full three days yet. I saw people like that. Or the people that have put 80 hours into gaming on their Steam account in one week. I've seen people like that too. My point is, if you are one of THOSE gamers and are bitching about a game being too short because you beat it in one 15 hour session...Just shut up.

 

[KTC]

There are some games that are short that don't allow for people to savour the environments and such.

Force Unleashed is a good example of that, at times the scenery is horrid to look at and poorly designed and there's not much area to explore.

I miss games with loads of replay value, where i can play it the whole weekend and pick it up and play for a couple of hours during the week like i use to do with San Andreas and Theme Hospital and Gran Turismo.

I respect that production costs are alot higher nowadays than they have been in the past, but surely developers should take that into account before they make a game that doesn't give people what they expected.