Short games

KdjaCL

Whatever happened to the 40 hour purchase? ie €40 for 40 hours

I "not" playing games to make them last longer.

MOHA 6 hours if i really count my playtime not playing it for 3 days to make it last longer doesnt count.

Metroid same again i waltzing tru it so going with the if i dont play it will last longer thing.


Zelda DS next time i pick it up its cleared.

COD4 its running in another window i want to play it but i know if i play anymore i will clear it. By not playing it i got 3 days from my €40 50 60 70 purchase whatever format you got it on.


All games played on the highest available difficulty, im not great at games but latley im a bit pissed off that im paying for 5 hours of entertainment.

Anyone else finding a games hype lasting longer than the game.


kdjac

ironictoaster

I agree. Games are getting shorter and shorter. Especially If you like a game a lot, time flies by.

These days it's all about the online play...

KdjaCL

creggy wrote: »

I agree. Games are getting shorter and shorter. Especially If you like a game a lot, time flies by.

These days it's all about the online play...

But on ps3 or 360 that doesnt count, your not joining a dedicated server released and paid for purely for the game your joining "some dudes" internet connection and thats not good enough for your € 40 50 60 70 purchase.

I know i will play Cod4 for a while yet (ETQW is free to anyone who wants it its terrible online) but thats on proper servers, a short game setup with "some dudes" internet connection isnt enough to justify me buying any console game ever.

There are other games i have that im not playing to make them last longer online play isnt justification for them as they have none Bioshock and more than likley Mass effect.


kdjac

CiDeRmAn

I don't know, at least I get to finish games these days, Halo 3 was a breeze on normal so I stuck it on Heroic and got a decent workout from it, ok, it didn't last long but it was perfect, just like MGS on the PS2 was short and sweet, and I played it in Japanese!
I don't think every game has to be KOTOR, a game that keeps you up til all hours for weeks on end, sure there's a place for them, so we have Oblivion, Forza2 and Half Life 2, games with plenty of meat, on the flip side you've got the likes of Doom3, Fable and even Outrun 2 and Geometry Wars Evolved, games that you can dip in and out of, some providing a couple of hours of high quality intense adventure, others blasting you with lights, colours and arcade thrills, just to tide you over til Mass Effect gets here.

As for the COD series, I'm playing COD2 again on Hard and reckon I'll do the same with COD3, they are like a good book, put a bit of time between each playthrough and you'll enjoy them all over again, but this time work for your victories.

Tusky

It depends. There are very few 40 hour games that are good throughout. If its going to be 15 good hours & 25 hours of filler, I would rather they keep it short. I dont have the time to play games for 40 hours anyway so I prefer shorter gamers in general.

Dont be at yourself

Shorter games are better. I dont want padding, back-tracking, repetition or drawn out stories.

Ciaran500

KdjaCL wrote: »

But on ps3 or 360 that doesnt count, your not joining a dedicated server released and paid for purely for the game your joining "some dudes" internet connection and thats not good enough for your € 40 50 60 70 purchase.

Not having dedicated servers means multiplayer doesn't count o_O

I spent a few hours with CoD4 online and it was fantastic, I will definitely be getting hours from it.

leninbenjamin

i see this happening for a number of reasons, firstly as games become more sophisticated and difficult to develop it just takes a lot more man hours to have a 40 hour game rather than a 10 hour. secondly, there seems to be a lack of inspiration in the gaming industry at the moment. every major title seems to be a remake of old... i dont think they'd be able to keep people entertained for more than 10 hours if they tried, everything is becoming quite generic. and lastly, and probably the strongest reason, is the pressure from the publishers to just churn them out as fast as possible. less playing time also suits the publishers more as it would undoubtedly be easier to come up with material for a sequel...

i can see a time when your average game wont last much longer than your average film.

steviec

leninbenjamin wrote: »

i can see a time when your average game wont last much longer than your average film.

I hope that happens, personally. As long as prices shift accordingly.

Portal is the best game I've played this year. It's also the shortest, and I think that was probably one of its strengths because there was no filler. The next best game I've played was Heavenly Sword and that was the next shortest too, I'm wondering whether or not that's just a coincidence.

There's no reason for story driven games to be ridiculously long because you end up with 90% filler. I love Japanese RPGs but these days I'm just too busy - I really want to play Rogue Galaxy and Valkyrie Profile but I know I won't have enough time to complete them so I haven't bought them. On the other hand I completed games like Portal, Heavenly Sword and Ghost Recon in a weekend and I'm currently working through Ratchet & Clank and expect to have it complete by the time Assassin's Creed comes out next week.

Meanwhile there's games like FIFA and Team Fortress which aren't story driven and I can come back to again and again in between, and I'm expecting Assassin's Creed to have some legs because it's a sandbox that you can play around in, but at the same time the core campaign is meant to be comparitavely short and tight so you're not forced to spend dozens of hours trying to find out how it ends.

eggplantman

bioshock is a great game but it was to short.i finished it in 3 days

mcgovern

People have been calling for shorter games for ages.
As average age of gamers gets higher, they tend to have less time to spend on games but still want to be able to finish them.
Hence, apart from RPGs, most games can be finished in 12hrs max.

humanji

It also depends on what type of game you're thinking about. FPS's are really getting shorter now. I just finished COD4 lastnight but at least it has a little replayability (finding intelligence items and the arcade mode). I'm not one for multiplayer, so I've no interest in it.

But other styles of games do tend to be longer. RPG's can alkways be long, since there's so many side quests etc, and replayability is a factor, since you usually have the ability to choose different character classes or moral choices. Then you have RTS's who are generally dynamic in nature. There's other types I could go into, but there's no real need.

So really, it's only the FPS genre that really seems to be a joke in terms of length. And Personally, I don't mind as long as it's worth it. COD4 had a great story and was like playing through a film. MOH:Airbourne on the other hand was a complete joke.

awhir

i would say the reason why fps are getting so short is that they are hard to produce and that with most games allout more of the work is going into multiplayer

KdjaCL

But the price is actually higher.

MOHA and COd4 single player only is about 6 or 7 hours each. Thats a tenner an hour if you got it on console.

Development is easier when using other peoples engines Id Ut Crytek so thats not really an excuse.


kdjac

DarthWraak

I like my single player games short, so then I can spend most of my gaming time online

KdjaCL

Finished Cod 4 enjoyable game, suppose its the way now its a story all linked in together, very good game in single player but would have liked an extra level or so.


kdjac

Pyr0

there's an Epilogue also ! short little aircraft hostage rescue.

BlitzKrieg

as much as I encourage length in all games there are times though you just swear unholy murder at a game for *fabricating* length with idiotic side quests or challanges you have no interest in repeating.


While overall a crap game (but I am a sucker for Sonic games) the 360 Sonic the Hedgehog if a f*cking nightmare for padding its length with stupid little town challanges between levels (if the levels were not so infuriating I might be more pissed) which have no purpose other then to add an extra 20 minutes onto the game via the excessive loading times between every level and boss.

Retr0gamer

There are very few games that really need to be over 20 hours of gameplay. 8 hours of short put oh so sweet gameplay is perfect for me. Even lenghty RPGs don't need to be 40+ hours that they are. When you look at them they are mostly just full sidequests that don't further the story at all (FFXII being an extremely example). Panzer Dragoon Saga on the saturn took me 17 hours to beat yet told it's truly epic story and didn't require any pointless levelling up in that time. If only companies like Square would take it's example.

I like me games short now since I don't have as much time to play games as I used to.

CiDeRmAn

This is it, not enough time to play games and too many games to play anyway.
Back in the day when cash was tight I could play Super Mario World, Starwing and little else for weeks and weeks, renting the occasional other title out for a couple of nights, and I was quite content.
Now I have nearly every console imaginable, certainly everything current, bar the PSP.
I have the latest games on each one of those as well, not counting all the unfinished stuff on the Xbox, PS2, PSone and the rest.
The last thing I need right now is a sprawling epic that will demand weeks of attention.
Prey on the 360 was case and point, an excellent little FPS, just the right length, packing in just the right amount of thrills, nice.
I would have liked Halo3 to go on and on, I'm not a multiplayer gamer but for Halo3, I might just learn.

Retr0gamer

When I was younger and couldn't afford my own games I used to play every game to 100% completion with all the secrets and finish all my arcade and shmup games on every difficulty level. Now I only have time to finish a game and put it away usually never to be played again. When I play RPGs I usually get to the end of them and if the last boss is too tough I'd get a walkthrough to see what sidequests are worth doing. Don't have the time to aimlessly level up or look for secrets anymore. I really like my saturn because of all the shmups on it which are perfect for 15-30 minute gaming sessions and have almost infinite replayability but don't demand a huge investment in time.

mewso

I take the point that people don't have enough time to play long games but come on they are getting far too short imo. There is a good balance and I for one have little time on my hands these days but I'll happily play a game for a couple of hours over a series of evenings. I don't think the "I haven't time" excuse justifies buying a 3 hour game no matter how good the experience is. Online play is the thing I don't have the time for anymore. Far more so than SP which you can if willing take your time with. Online you might pop in to a game one evening 2 months after release and find yourself completely lost and without the hours available to get up to speed on it.
I think theres a balance maybe 8-10 hours but as a PC gamer I as always blame consoles for the rapidly reducing game lengths. I'm wary of throwing 50 quid at the new COD game even though I was looking forward to it. Just find it hard to piss cash away on something that will only grant me a few short hours of entertainment. Games are such a far cry from movies I think the suggestion that you should spend 20 quid for a 1.5 hour game is ridiculous.
Anyway I'm going to go through all those games I stupidly never completed. Plenty to keep me going.

Fanny Cradock

It depends what type of game you are playing and in what medium.
Some games - FM series springs to mind - are open ended, whereas others have a predictable set-up - a start middle and an end - and don't have any real longevity. Games like World In Conflict have a single player and multi player options, but I find that the multiplayer only extends the game's life a short amount of time.

johnny_ultimate

As said by many: quality > length
Look at Okami - a terrific game to be sure, but also one I considered TOO long. There's 40 hours of gameplay in there, but the game seems to end after 20 hours, but there are a number of false endings followed by another six hours of gameplay after that time. I hate to say this about a game as good as Okami, but it did seem to drag at parts, and could perhaps have done with a bit of editing. However, Twilight Princess which was approximately the same length was far more even and worthy of the hefty time investment, with more variety and excitement.

Shooters again don't really lend themselves to hours and hours of single player commitment. BioShock at 15 or so hours is probably as long as you can go before descending into repetition (and I know there are many critics of even the last few hours of that game). I even thought HL: Episode 2 was a good length - I would prefer that five hours of utter gaming joy to a 20 hour run of the mill shooter.

Probably depends on a genre. If I buy an RPG that ends after 15 hours, I'll be pissed. If I buy a shooter that lasts 30 hours, I'll probably lose interest. Some games I could play for 100 hours (Oblivion, FF, Dragon Quest), others 10. It's all about the quality.

(But just think about it - if it took the developers of COD4 2 or more years to make it, how long would it take to develop a 20 hour one? I think as games become more complex, the resources just won't be there for never-ending titles. Efficiency triumphs, and so does the player IMO as they get better, more focused experiences).

eggplantman

i could pla oblivion for a hundred hours to,but i wouldnt mind a very long fps game because most of mine are short.i would usually finish them in less than a week.

CiDeRmAn

Anyway, I reckon we could have got this topic all wrong, I thing the original poster has issue with too many games based on Dwarfs, like "Snow White goes to Castle Wolfenstein", or "Gimli takes a holiday on DOA Xtreme Vollyball Island".