Why are games these days so short?

Recommended Videos

Dragoon

New member
Jan 19, 2010
889
0
0
Im mainly looking at FPS's here but why have games gotten shorter compared to past games? and why are we being charged more now than we were 10 years ago? I know that making games costs alot more now thanks to more advanced technology but why do they have to be so short? Is it because of a shift towards multiplayer? Gamers attention spans have shortened? or is it just that most game companies want to make as much money for as little effort as possible?
 

Soxafloppin

Coxa no longer floppin'
Jun 22, 2009
7,918
0
0
I noticed this recently, I picked up POP: Forgotten Sands and beat it really quickly :| it just seemed to end rather suddenly.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
I find that it's hard for a game to maintain a sharp narrative past about six hours. Longer campaigns are filled with rather pointless complications so you'll have the same main objective for three or four level (reach the ship for example) but constantly taking detours. Games like Half-Life and Bioshock are famous for this sort of thing, presenting us with what looks like an easily achieved objective.... which takes a couple of hours thank to something blowing up as you approach.
 

Angry Camel

New member
Mar 21, 2011
354
0
0
The multiplayer focus certainly isn't giving many game producers incentive to produce longer games anymore. Unfortunately, since there's so much money to be had here, it's unlikely to change. It may also be more of a focus on replayability, like having 2 alternate endings or just for the sake of achievements.

In some ways, this may be good. A padded out game filled with half baked mush for storyline does not leave a good taste, and being stuffed with unneeded gameplay is very irritating. However, a game that just seems to end like the disc was partly erased is even worse. This, unfortunately, seems to be becoming the popular alternative.
 

Elamdri

New member
Nov 19, 2009
1,481
0
0
Well lets compare two FPS games: Call of Duty and Half-Life.

In Call of Duty, the game pretty much consists of moving from fire-fight to fire-fight, and none of the enemies really differ in terms of difficulty presented. Apart from the occasional enemy wielding a rocket launcher, you're never going to experience variety. Now, they can create great, cinematic set pieces, but the only thing that sets your PACE through the levels is the difficulty settings.

Now compare that with Half-Life:

First, in the Half-Life series, you have sections of the game where the combat is broken up by physics puzzles. I think the best example here is the level Sandtraps where you have to create a path along the sand using planks and crates or be set upon by the antlions. Not only does this slow you down, but it also adds dramatic tension; you really DON'T want to touch that sand and it makes you anxious.

Second, the Half-Life series has a number of set pieces in the game that change up your playstyle. The game shifts constantly from urban firefights, to frantic running through zombie infested zones, to moving from cover to cover to avoid snipers, to driving along the coast in a buggy, to parts where you need to bunker down with a rocket launcher to take down striders and gunships. All of these parts play very differently from each other, which keeps combat fresh. All you get in Call of Duty is the same routine of "Take cover, pop out and shoot, take cover to let the jelly fall off." Also, Valve has excellent atmosphere in their levels; it can be really scary when you walk into a room only to hear the rattle of the black headcrab to your left.

Third, the Half-Life game, unlike Call of Duty, forces you to seriously manage your resources. In Call of Duty, as long as you don't die, you can hide behind a corner and generate to full life. Meanwhile, the enemies generally don't work TOO hard to flush you out. Wheras, in Half-Life, you have to carefully manage your health and shields. If you accidentally eat a grenade and wind up with 30 HP, you might be in a LOT of trouble, so it forces players to play smart. Furthermore, unlike CoD, enemies are quite durable, so the possibility of running out of ammo is a real thing. Often the game will give you means to defeat your opponents to save bullets (Crush them with a shipping crate, flip a car on them, chuck something at them with the gravity gun, Let Alyx kill them, use a trap) and these solutions force the player to think about how to solve the problem.

Finally, the Half-Life enemies, unlike CoD, present a number of different enemies with unique mechanics to challenge the player. In CoD, your basic enemy is going to stay at medium range with an automatic weapon. Occasionally you will run into a shotgun. Rarely there are snipers and RPG enemies. Combat is generally the same. In Half-Life, you have a number of different enemies. The Combine Soliders present a number of challenges, especially the elite soldiers with their charge shots and the Shotgun soldiers. Headcrab zombies force you to multi-task between the lumbering but powerful normal zombies, the sucidal Combine Zombies, the speedy fast zombies, and the durable Black Headcrab Zombies. God help you if you get bitten by a black headcrab during a scuffle like that. Antlions are highly mobile and try to swarm you and will endlessly spawn unless you either get off the sand or close up their burrows. Striders and Gunships force you to take cover and nuke them with RPG fire. Hunters can be used to mix up the combat by getting in the players face while they try to take cover from other enemies like Striders and Soldiers.
 

loodmoney

New member
Apr 25, 2011
179
0
0
First and foremost it is production costs.

I wish it could be otherwise, as there are plenty of reasons why games should be short. Padding out the game so it occupies more time will often strain the narrative, as others have mentioned. Also, there is no reason why games must be long in order to be enjoyable. I think it was the team behind Ico that said that players should be able to enjoy a game, even when they're not playing it. I appreciate this sentiment; no-one would criticise a book because it was not as long as War and Peace.

So there is no reason why short games should be a bad thing, it's just that most developers are not using the length they have as best they could.
 

darth.pixie

New member
Jan 20, 2011
1,449
0
0
Well consider the money involved...models, scripters, writers, VO...it all stacks up. Compare Baldur's Gate where there were pretty much sprites to say, I don't know...Crysis or Witcher 2. Remember how Baldur was quite long and had a lot of exploration. Imagine having to do all the models and scripts and animations for that on the detailed level of a modern game. It would take too long and cost so much more. Every company would have their own Valve time and imagine the bugs...

It's also the fact that games have slowly turned more to the casual side, meaning that for one geek that really wanted to do that hard dungeon and puzzles, there are 10 or more people who are too busy or get too annoyed with them. So they reduced them.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,519
5,335
118
Games these days aren't necessarily shorter, they just tend to hold your hand a lot more which makes finishing the game a lot easier. When you look at the most popular games of today, they're mainly events-driven than actually gameplay-driven. I love the Uncharted games, but they're a perfect example of this trend. Those games are more about wowing the player with spectacular events than they are about figuring out how to overcome obstacles with a set of well-designed gameplay mechanics.

Games used to be about figuring out how to make it to the end, but now they're all about seeing amazing sights on your way to the end.

But they're not really shorter. I can remember playing through Resident Evil 2 in 3 hours to unlock a cheat.
 

Jessta

New member
Feb 8, 2011
382
0
0
Production costs says most of it, the other is how smooth they run, I used to spend about a quarter of the time I spent playing games roaming around in circles clicking a or walking back and forth figuring out where I was in a world where everything looked exactly the same, new games smoothly guide you to the final destination. Wait are you saying Fps's are shorter than ten years ago? What fps's did we have ten years ago? and if you think rpgs FFXIII and dragon age with a hundred times longer than chrono trigger and the original final fantasy.
 

pyrokitsune777

New member
Apr 4, 2009
35
0
0
I'm curious as to your references of comparison op. Also how are you justifying the length of the game. The length of an FPS is really dependent upon the person playing it and how the development team designed it. If you're comparing half-life to Call of Duty. Then the narrative experience begins to become harder to judge. In half-life you're playing through each cutscene whereas in Call of Duty the scenes in between each mission are a vital setup that are avoidable narrative elements to justify the military action you're going to participate in shortly. Most FPSs are simplistic in their basic mechanic (Kill the enemies in this area then move on) some of the better games will mix this up to a degree with variations on it, such as get out of here there numbers be to great (unwinnable fight). Most games put some major long term goal at the end of everything and push you toward it and they can only delay, twist, and expand the plot so much before it's over. Look at Half-Life. You have to escape black mesa at some point.

Concerning Multiplayer: I agree that a multiplayer mode can cause an FPS's development team focus less on the single player campaign, but I'd hardly count that as a root cause in narrative . Multiplayer as a focus will definitely hurt it to a degree unless the developers have designed the FPS with a zero-sum focus. In fact multiplayer can help ensure a balance within the game's weaponry and mechanics.

I don't buy the idea that improved hardware and software have caused games to become shorter. And production costs really sounds like an overly simplified answer. As technology improved so do the development tools. Look at how many developers use predesigned systems (such as Havok and euphoria) in their games. The opportunity costs of doing that are spending months creating that from scratch and maybe getting a good result. And while they may have to build a number of things and the end cost of the whole project is quite high, I'd argue the limited narrative is due to a lack of the developer's understanding of their scope.

But, I'm hardly an expert. Without knowing the initial comparison reference, it's difficult to know exactly what specifically the complaint is registered against.

Oh and the increased cost of the games is due to inflation and the devaluation of currency overtime mixed with the increased production costs and desire to turn a profit and increase the producer's stock value. Although some FPSs are just a grab at clone profit.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,538
4,128
118
Well, nowdays there's alot of extra content you can get via updates and expansion packs, you don't need it to be long off the get go.
 

Danceofmasks

New member
Jul 16, 2010
1,512
0
0
That's why most of my hours logged are either in those sandboxy things or multiplayer games.

The only reason for me to play games like Batman: Arkham Asylum a lot is doing dumb stuff like zero death runs.
 

Curlythelock

New member
Jan 6, 2010
99
0
0
I think part of it is how easy games are nowadays, what seems like a shorter game now would have taken you twice as long 10-15 years ago just because you would have to repeat every section of the game 10 times.
Also there seems to be a general disregard for making a decent single player campaign as there is such a massive focus on multiplayer. I almost get the feeling that developers only put the single player campaign in so that the game doesn't get marketed as a multiplayer only game.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Because we ask for cinematic experiences. And what certain developers take that to mean is railroading, constantly taking control from the player, and very short game lengths.

I'll always advocate quality over quantity, but the amount of games that are shit and short (and sell) is ridiculous.

I've been playing Deus Ex again recently, and frankly, its a disgrace its design never caught on.
 

squid5580

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
41
They aren't shorter. Not by a long shot. I bought Goonies 2 back in the day for 59.99 plus tax. It was 2 hours long.
 

GiantRaven

New member
Dec 5, 2010
2,423
0
0
This wave of unnaturally short games has completely passed me by. Looking at all the games I've bought in 2010 and 2011 I can't see anything I would classify as 'short'.
 

Fetzenfisch

New member
Sep 11, 2009
2,460
0
0
compared to most NES Games (except FF, Swords and Serpents and Pirates!) they are quite long.
But modern shooters are focussing on blant multiplayer instead of a massive athmospheric campaign, which i would prefer all the way, every time.