20-hour games are "short"?

[xshadowscreamx]

10 hourish games are perfect for renting. so i will rent that sniper elite V2,, i think i got that name wrong.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

With games I enjoy, the longer the better. 20 hours would seem too short in that case.
Games I don't enjoy, I'd just pray for them to end quickly, so I can move on to the next one.

 

[Monster_user]

People who complain about linearity don't know what linearity is.

Anything is acceptable as long as it fits.
-Game length is irrelevant. If the experience is best portrayed in 10 minutes, it should be told in 10 minutes... Time is a tool to be used, not a judgment of worthiness.

-Linearity is a design choice as well.
...the player controls specific actions that could otherwise be told through narrative.

The story is fine and dandy. If a story couldn't last more than 10 minutes, it shouldn't. The game does need to be priced according to its length however. I do not consider the story to be the only quantifier of length. The time spent replaying the title, or multiplayer, etc, does count. I'm not playing $60 for a 10 minute, linear story, with no replayability.

The more linear the gameplay is, the longer the game should be. The shorter the narrative, the more you need to depend on non-narrative elements that allow for greater replayability. Some elements of a game are only satisfying the first time they are ecountered, other elements are fun no matter how many times they are encountered.

A game with less than a 10 hour narrative, with no multiplayer, no open world, no multiple paths, no easter eggs, is not just short, it is painfully short. The gameplay of such a title has to be of the sort that is fun every play through. Fighting games come to mind, but they are really multiplayer games. Platformers, or other retro style titles seem to be champions of the 10-minute narrative, with 200+ hours of replayability.

 

[CityofTreez]

So either way you slice it, today is a very sad time for single player content in the Triple-A market. If you want a good single player game, stick to the indie market, or play yesterday's Triple-A games.

Sleeping Dogs, Dishonored, Borderlands 2, Hitman, Far-Cry 3, The Walking Dead, Mass Effect 3...

What more do you want?

So you have to list... (Edit: In no particular order, mind)

a GTA clone that's barely deserved mention before this moment
a game that was designed for multiplayer and just lets you play alone if you want
a game that made headlines for disappointing its fanbase
a game that's barely been out for more than a couple weeks
and a game that's so new I honestly had to look it up because I didn't even know if it was out yet (it's been out for a few days, apparently)
Oh, and a game that, while not quite indie, isn't a Triple-A title...

... That's how desperate you were for games to try and disprove that statement about the state of single player games in the Triple-A market today. Just saying.

As for Dishonored, it's called the exception that proves the rule [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule]. So yeah, great. You got one non-multiplayer-based game that's generally considered to be a great game for this entire year, and a couple newer titles that may or may not stand up to the test of time after the initial release hype dies down. So to answer your question about what more I want... how about more than a few good games per year that I don't need a group of people to enjoy?

But I guess that's what the indie market is for.

Desperate? I just counted the large games off the top of my head. I could go back another year and count Skyrim, Batman: AC, Dead Space 2, Portal 2, Dark Souls.

I listed 7 quality single player games (plus 5 from 2011) that should fit anyone's taste and most people would agree that those are quality games. I feel that you want a a dozen 30+ hour RPG's every year and want things to go back to how they were because you don't like the games made in 2012.

This sad state of the single player AAA market? Not seeing it.

 

[TheFinalFantasyWolf]

It's a case of quality over quantity for me.
Regardless of whether a game is only 2 to 20 hours long, as long as it has some replay value, (which, all of my purchases do) then the length of the game shouldn't matter.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

I don't give a lot of thought to length, but rather, quality. I love pouring time into FO:NV, but I also...eh...okay, so Spec Ops: The Line isn't something you have fun with or enjoy in the same thing as an ice cream sandwich or a puppy, but it was short and extremely well put together. Hell, I enjoyed MW 2's absolutely batshit insane snow-mobile chasm jumping exploso-orgasm of a singleplayer mode.

What I can understand, though, is people getting rightly pissed that a 6-7 hour game can still cost 50-60 dollah. Actually, since I've already rolled out my comparisons, let's have a look at Dead Space 2.
I beat it in 9 hours flat (albeit I had a ton of cheap deaths and several more due to individual ham-handedness). It was grossly unsatisfying, and I would have raged if I'd bought it at full launch price.
And games are expensive, even when priced down.
Actually, a game that does this brilliantly is Binding of Isaac. Cheap cost, solid gameplay, lots of replayability, simple and funny story that's a decent setup.

 

[Bocaj2000]

People who complain about linearity don't know what linearity is.

Anything is acceptable as long as it fits.
-Game length is irrelevant. If the experience is best portrayed in 10 minutes, it should be told in 10 minutes... Time is a tool to be used, not a judgment of worthiness.

-Linearity is a design choice as well.
...the player controls specific actions that could otherwise be told through narrative.

The story is fine and dandy. If a story couldn't last more than 10 minutes, it shouldn't. The game does need to be priced according to its length however. I do not consider the story to be the only quantifier of length. The time spent replaying the title, or multiplayer, etc, does count. I'm not playing $60 for a 10 minute, linear story, with no replayability.

The more linear the gameplay is, the longer the game should be. The shorter the narrative, the more you need to depend on non-narrative elements that allow for greater replayability. Some elements of a game are only satisfying the first time they are ecountered, other elements are fun no matter how many times they are encountered.

A game with less than a 10 hour narrative, with no multiplayer, no open world, no multiple paths, no easter eggs, is not just short, it is painfully short. The gameplay of such a title has to be of the sort that is fun every play through. Fighting games come to mind, but they are really multiplayer games. Platformers, or other retro style titles seem to be champions of the 10-minute narrative, with 200+ hours of replayability.

I'd rather pay for quality than quantity. If those 10 minutes are the most gripping, emotional, beautiful, and personal 10 minutes of my life, you are damn straight I'd pay a high price for that piece of art.

Also, what you're demanding with length can be very dangerous. If the game is less than 10 hours long but the quota is 30 hours, then game devs are encouraged to insert the illusion of time such as the need for grinding, retracking, and other delaying elements. This will make people want to put the game down before finishing.

Lastly, you keep bringing up "replayability." What gives replayability? I think that you are throwing that word around without knowing how it is achieved. Replayability is generally a matter of opinion or in other cases a matter of manipulation. The opinion portion is due to elements that draw specific people based on subjective interests in such as customization, character classes, weapon variety, perfection, etc. I say this because I don't give a shit about Mario speedruns, but I have played through every single Mass Effect class. You might be thinking of manipulative tactics such as unlockable-through-gameplay items; this includes characters, costumes, best weapons, etc.

I would go as far as to argue that the longer a game is, the less repayable it is. If I love the ending to Lost Odyssey, I'd have to get through four DVDs worth of gameplay to see it. Same goes for Mass Effect 2. Compare to the highly praised Spec Ops: The Line. This game is 6 hours long. Alan Wake: American Nightmare takes 4 hours. Not everything has to be The Witcher or Dragon Age.

 

[Monster_user]

The game does need to be priced according to its length however. I do not consider the story to be the only quantifier of length. The time spent replaying the title, or multiplayer, etc, does count.

I'd rather pay for quality than quantity. If those 10 minutes are the most gripping, emotional, beautiful, and personal 10 minutes of my life, you are damn straight I'd pay a high price for that piece of art.

Maybe you will, but I will not. For me to consider a game quality, it has to meet both your quality metric, and be long enough to waste enough of my time to be worth investing my money in.

How gripping, emotional, beautiful, and personal can this work be once you already know the ending? 10 minutes is short enough to memorize the entire game, what kind of replayability could a 10 minute game possibly have?

I find it hard to imagine a 10 minute piece being that great, it takes time to connect with characters, and build an engrossing world. Usually I don't even remember the first 10 minutes of a game, if I don't have to restart from the beginning every time I die. Setting all that aside, even if it was possible, I still wouldn't pay all that for only ten minutes of enjoyment.

I'm not demanding length, I'm demanding that games are priced according to length. If they can't get at least 10 hours of gameplay, then they need to lower the price of the game from $60, $20 sounds about right (I'll wait til it drops to $5 on Steam). Mass Effect can be said to have been priced at what $105 - $240 ($60 * Trilogy + DLC)? It was planned to be a trilogy from the get go, even though the first two games hold up well on their own.

Also, what you're demanding with length can be very dangerous. If the game is less than 10 hours long but the quota is 30 hours, then game devs are encouraged to insert the illusion of time such as the need for grinding, retracking, and other delaying elements. This will make people want to put the game down before finishing.

Like you, I value quality. I don't enjoy grinding, or several other padding methods. I don't want to outright declare them as not adding length, but I wouldn't include them.

Retracking is subjective, and a little bit of grinding may be subjective as well. In games like Skyrim, or Zelda, or Mass Effect, I actually enjoy revisiting old locations.

Lastly, you keep bringing up "replayability." What gives replayability? I think that you are throwing that word around without knowing how it is achieved. Replayability is generally a matter of opinion or in other cases a matter of manipulation. The opinion portion is due to elements that draw specific people based on subjective interests in such as customization, character classes, weapon variety, perfection, etc. I say this because I don't give a shit about Mario speedruns, but I have played through every single Mass Effect class. You might be thinking of manipulative tactics such as unlockable-through-gameplay items; this includes characters, costumes, best weapons, etc.

Manipulative tactics: Unlockable characters are not necessarily "manipulative", in most games you choose your character from the beginning, and half to play through as that character through to the end. Making a character unlockable merely means choosing the order for you. If you were referring to the fighter/brawler tactic of requiring x number of plays/hours to unlock a character, then that is subjective. If the game is fun then you would likely put in x number anyway.

Manipulative tactics: Costumes, and weapons should not require playing the game through to 100% completion to unlock. I will allow for a requirement to complete the main quest, unlocking the items for use in other modes/quests. Sometimes unlockables are fun. The Millenium Falcon and Tie Fighter in Rogue Squadron were unlockables, the main story did not allow for either ship to be part of the main progression. However, once the level was completed, these ships were unlocked.

Opinion Portion Tactics: I rarely play a game through to 100% completion. I can't remember any RPG where I played every character class through to even 20% completion. I choose my class, for better or worse, and stick with it through to the end.

Opinion Portion Tactics: Customization and variety are traits I value, and depending on the game, may or may not add replayability. In RPGs, I do not replay the game to experience different customizations, or weapon varieties. If I cannot try those weapons during my initial play through, then either I need to re-roll before I finish, or I don't care about those weapons anyway. Mostly I just enjoy being able to customize my character's gear during the game.

I would go as far as to argue that the longer a game is, the less repayable it is. If I love the ending to Lost Odyssey, I'd have to get through four DVDs worth of gameplay to see it. Same goes for Mass Effect 2. Compare to the highly praised Spec Ops: The Line. This game is 6 hours long. Alan Wake: American Nightmare takes 4 hours. Not everything has to be The Witcher or Dragon Age.

I don't expect everything to be The Witcher, or Dragon Age, just have it priced accordingly.

With Alan Wake being 4 hours long, what does it offer for replayability?

There is no way I am paying $60 for a four hour game, that is plot oriented. I don't rewatch movies anymore because I remember them so well after a single viewing, a four hour game would be no different. If the game is heavily story oriented, say a linear single player title, I cannot play it through more than once. Same goes if it is an adventure game (The Longest Journey, Broken Sword, Sam & Max etc). I'm very picky about first person shooters gameplay also,...

If I wanted that, I would spend $4 on an iTunes rental, heck I would get two and have four hours of entertainment. $8 is a far cry from $60.

However, RPGs like Mass Effect, Dragon age Origins, etc, are replayable. If it is long enough for me to forget the first four hours, then it is easy to get back into the game. I'm not worried about finishing the game, just enjoying the gameplay and scenery (skipping through most of the dialog). If I never finish the game a second time, that's fine, probably will though.

If the gameplay is fun, and relies less heavily on story, then I am more likely to replay it.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

let's pretend this is the first post instead of another one I grabbed and then snipped

I would say my personal limit for when I consider a game to be short is around the 24 hour mark. Not that that's a bad thing depending on the game and how much I paid for it, but that's my limit.

First off I think "long" is incredibly subjective and depends very much on how you measure it and how you play, but usually I prefer a game that I can sink a whole lot of time into, not because longer is necessarily better, but because they're so good I keep coming back to them. Looking at my Steam library, I've sunk 176 hours into Skyrim, and I know back home I've put over 300 hours into Super Smash Brothers Melee, just cause over the years I always come back to it. Maybe not for very long, but that game is pretty old.

But if I'm getting bored of a game by the ten hour mark (and it's not indie) then that's a bad sign.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

15 to 20 hours is pathetically short for an RPG.

Fixed that for you.

Not every genre can slow burn with content for hundreds of hours ¬_¬

 

[Daystar Clarion]

15 to 20 hours is pathetically short for an RPG.

Fixed that for you.

Not every genre can slow burn with content for hundreds of hours ¬_¬

15 to 20 hours is pathetically short.

But I also play RPGs.

A pointless fix is pointless...
Or did you not read the whole post Daystar?

Those two points aren't exactly joined in any way

From where I sitting, it looked like you were just making two separate points.

1: 15-20 is pathetically short
2: You like RPGs

You didn't join them! Why?!

 

[StupidNincompoop]

Honestly, i think that the problem is how much replayability the games have, in relation to the price.


I mean you can have a game with 50+ hours of gameplay, but it probably will be just more of the same stuff repeated over and over again.

Games such as spyro and crash bandicoot had many hours of gametime, not because the campaigns were particularly long, but If i remember right, it wasn't really just "more of the same" type gameplay that we see today with games such as skyrim, but because of how much there was to do on it. Secrets to find, 100% score to get on each level and so on.

I think it's usually a waste of money to buy a game for like £20 or $40 or $50, if it only has maybe 10 hours of gameplay which you can't repeat, unless it's an exceptionally amazing game- in which case you'd get more than 10 hours of gameplay by replaying it anyway.

I think it's exceptionally bad when you take into consideration that a lot of free to play games actually have more gameplay time (which is more fun) than some games that you pay quite a large amount for.

For example, most of the games that i've spent the most hours on (according to xfire) are all free to play games. War Rock, Gunz... and so on.


Although it works both ways of course. A game which gets stale and boring very quickly (not mentioning any names) will of course not be a good investment anyway, although if the game gets boring then it probably wasn't fantastic to begin with.