224: So Many Games, So Little Time

[Negatempest]

To me the problem never was about how long or how short a game is. Great games that existed in the past were pretty damn short. (Beat-em ups, side scrolling, fighting games just to name a few) The problem I saw was the amount of content in the game did not equal the price of the game. Whether its game industry corruption or not was not the problem. If a game comes in at 10 hours of main story than your looking at maybe $20-$30. If it has multiplayer online than possibly $40 would be pushing it. If the game lasts over 20+ hours than $50+ would suffice. It is unexcusable at the moment to shove short games on us with a price tag of $60 and say that you get your moneys worth, you don't. Increased graphics are not a good enough reason for such a high price of a game. Nor is it logical to compare DvD's/movies to a video game.

Comparing the two medias is like comparing chapter books to comics. What do I mean by this? I'll try to make it short. Chapter books and video games require ALOT more imagination and interaction than a Comic book and a movie, even though books and comics are both reading material. Though if you notice, if a book or some comics is shorter than the average book the price reflects this. There are exceptions, but the price is rarely the same for most books.

In short, we are getting ripped off, we just have not admitted it yet.

P.S. Price is not justified with games considering that now we either have to pay for connection, items, quests, clothing, etc.

 

[Royas]

I have a family, a job and a life. I have several hobbies outside of gaming (candle making, target shooting, archery, tabletop RPG's). I do play some casual games just because they are fun, but I still think that if I've paid 50 or 60 dollars for a game, it had better damned well deliver more than 10 hours of gameplay to me. If it doesn't, I consider myself to have been robbed.

The only thing I want changed in games to accommodate the reality of many gamers having less time is for games to get rid of check point saving altogether, in all games. As long as I can save anywhere I want, what does it matter if I can only play this 60 hour epic for 2 hours a day? I can pick it up where I left off.

If a publisher wants to give me a 10 hour game, they need to give me a 30 dollar price point as well. I don't go to the movies because I hate paying 6 or more dollars an hour for my entertainment, I'm sure as hell not going to pay that much for a game. My money is way to valuable to me for that.

 

[VanityGirl]

Game times are relative. For me, I'd rather play a 6 hours game that's well polished than a 10 hour long mess of a game.
I'm in college and in between studying and other things, I'm finding myself being less able to sit in front of my boobtube and play video games for hours on end. Why? Because I want to enjoy my college life.
That doesn't mean I won't enjoy games like Borderlands (which I played all weekend), but it means that I might buy less games like Oblivion or others that take supreme dedication.

 

[Awexsome]

Keep on preachin' man.

I too am among the college kids who found out that, "Oh crap I actually need to work hard now." Back in High School it became regular to me to play 3 or more hours of games every night after school, half the time all day with friends on weekends. I can't wait for FFXIII but now that I think about it I'm not sure I'll have the time to keep at it all the way. I guess I'll have to wait until Christmas break to get some serious game time in. Just in time for a heck of a lotta games too.

But I still have no doubt that I am not a 'casual' gamer. Even though I don't play them as much as I'd like those that I do I love and pick them apart down to their bones. If you ask me that's the difference to a casual and hardcore gamer. Casual takes games like a little amusing thing not much different than DVD's or daytime TV. Hardcore is playing the games because we love them and because we think they're some of the best things ever.

 

[oshin]

Im a bit tired of this rhetoric from people asking for less content for the same money, although I guess shorter games tend to be more polished. There is no reason you cant complete a 30 hour game by simply slugging through it slowly, I did so with FF7 on psp recently, what a fantastic game it is. The fact I slowly digested it instead of racing through it in a week like I may have done in my youth makes it even better, you think a bit more about the plot and what is coming up next. The whole jealously of gamers with more time is also quite amusing, as even they are unlikely to sit down and try and blow through a serious rpg in a weekend.

its no different to books, people happily take a few months to get through 500 page books, you dont see people demanding 50 page books they can read in two hours.

With all that though, I think there is a place for both long games and more cinematic short games.

 

[Kajt]

Yes, of course those people should have their short games, but that doesn't mean that almost every single freaking game has to be like that.

 

[sneak_copter]

I love short games, if they have good replay value and I feel I'm getting my money's worth.
It means I can complete, trade, and play another one in a short period, meaning I never get too much of the same thing.

Although I do keep the games I "really" like.

 

[Tiamat666]

I don't play games to finish them as quickly as possible. I play games to enjoy the experience.

When playing for 2hrs a day, where's the difference in finishing a game a week to spending weeks playing the same game? Why not take months to finish a game, if its any good?

Also, noone forces you to play a game from beginning to end in one clean streak. I'm 60 hours into Oblivion, been playing it for months. I take breaks from it now and then, but always get back to it.

 

[TPiddy]

I would definitely say I have less time for games now, but all that's done is make me more selective with the games I do play. I won't go out on a limb to try a game that could be shitty because since I have less time that time is more valuable and I want to make sure I have a good experience.

This is why I stopped buying the NHL series. I used to love the games, but I don't have the time to invest in playing a full season, playoffs, getting very good at the game, etc. I also find I don't like it when a game is too tough now either. I don't have the time to try and sit through impossibly difficult levels, figuring out every nuance.

I want the experience, but sometimes that experience involves the time you put in it. Fallout 3 was very rewarding when I finally beat it because I had put so much time into my character and exploring the world.

 

[SinisterDeath]

Those '8-10 hour games' are more like 4-6 hour games. They onlybecome '8-10' if you go for 100% completion. And really, if your doing a 100% completion, your not going to be bitching about a game thats to long.

And just to be fair.
A 6 hour game = $10 per game hour. A movie ticket costs about $8. (matanee about $6.50)
8 hour game? $7.50.

Disgaea 3? 400 hours? $0.15
Demon's Souls? 80+ hours? $0.75
Uncharted 1&2 12 hours? $5.00
Half-life 2 15 hours? $3.33 (PC version is the only way to go, and thats $50 at release.)
Orange Box HL2+ep1+e2 25 hours? Portal 2 Hours, TF2 oo Hours. $30. (now)

 

[Lord Beautiful]

I must agree with this. People complained that Batman: Arkham Asylum was really short, but considering my daily schedule (18 year-old very studious college student), that game felt pretty long. I appreciate an 8-hour game's length, more so if it's replayable.

 

[GoldenShadow]

I must agree with this. People complained that Batman: Arkham Asylum was really short, but considering my daily schedule (18 year-old very studious college student), that game felt pretty long. I appreciate an 8-hour game's length, more so if it's replayable.

Yes, this game didn't feel short to me, it took me over a week of on and off playing to finish it

 

[Rect Pola]

I understand not having time to play.

I have a 9-5 too, so I don't mind a short game at my pace. I also appreciate games are expensive to make so the pricepoint is generally within reason. If a game really reaches me I don't care about the length so long as I feel satisfied when I've taken it to the end.

Operative word being satisfied. And therein lies the problem; Return. Of. Investment.
That is a measure even the most spectacular gameplay cannot help, because it boils down to one of two things: accomplishment and/or tell a story.

 

[Bubblechucker]

Great article. As a father of 4 with a full-time on-call job with a long commute my gaming time is really a luxury now. I'm lucky if I can squeeze in an hour at night. That's probably why I still haven't finished Oblivion

 

[hansari]

After all, doesn't a 10-hour game still offer more entertainment for the dollar than your average movie or DVD release?

Movie tickets = $6.00 for 2 hours

Video game = $59.99 for 10 hours

comparatively...you could spend $30.00 on 10 hours worth or movies...even if you did worse case scenario for prime time $11 for 2 hours...it still comes to $55.00 (assuming all those five movies are watched during prime time...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The complaint for video games is that they cost too much for too little entertainment value. My purchase of CoD is justified given the extensive amount of time I played multiplayer on it...but had I spent $60.00 on a 4-5 hour campaign...oh yeah, I would be pissed...

 

[badgersprite]

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I'm in the middle of my final exams, in my last year of school, so, because I care about my future, and I'm aiming to get into law, I've had almost no time to play video games this year. Also, since I've sacrificed my old tutoring job to make time for studying, I don't have enough money to spend on new games when they come out. That makes the decision to buy a new game crucially important, as I know it's the only game I'm going to get.

I haven't been able to buy a new game for myself essentially this whole year. I put gaming aside so I could study. So, when I get the opportunity to spend money on a game...that's an investment. I knew, at the beginning of the year, that it would be the only new game I'm going to have for the next couple of months - a game that I expect to keep playing, chipping away at, bit by bit, for the better part of that time, just the way I used to slip in tiny bits of Final Fantasy games in between all the extra-curricular activities I was pushed into as a kid.

So, imagine my disappointment when a game I spent $100 of my dwindling savings on (games are expensive as hell in Australia), only keeps me company for a few sessions of play. I buy games expecting them to be kind of like my favourite TV shows - even if you can only get a bit of them, you look forward to knowing that the story is going to keep unfolding over the next twelve weeks. Instead, games are slowly becoming mini-series that seem to cut out most of the substance from the original story.

Personally, I'm starting to think of these 8-10 hour video games more like friends who crash at your place for a while, only to randomly jet off and never speak to you again, leaving you with only a sense of disappointment. Then again, maybe those are just my trust issues speaking. =P But that wasn't what they used to be. Video games used to be like a loyal pet who was excitedly waiting for you at the door, day after day. Maybe you couldn't always play with it, but at least you'd know it was there, and that it would make time for you when you needed to unwind. And, at least you knew you were getting your money's worth.

At least there are still games that offer that, though. Even though I've had it for quite a while now, (I like to say it's aging gracefully), Fallout 3 has stood strong. When I just want to de-stress for half an hour, I can pick it up and go somewhere and see something I probably haven't seen before, especially with all the DLC. As opposed to say, Assassin's Creed, which offers no incentive for exploration beyond an achievement score and a feeling of successfully capturing the flag. oO

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I think ten hours for full price is a rip off. But I use Gamefly, so all is forgiven.

 

[Furism]

The problem is not so much "sort games" than "short games are sold the same price as longer games". Case in point: Call of Duty 4 will last 8 hours TOPS (multi-player notwithstanding), and is sold $60 on PC; whereas Dragon Age: Origins has been reported as lasting as long as 80 hours. For the same price. That's a ten times factor.

When I see that for the same price I can buy a game that lasts ten times longer, I don't know, I just think it's better. Sell me CoD4 ten times cheaper than DA:O and I won't complain.