Are next gen games getting shorter?

[ccesarano]

Please. A few months ago, there were less lot people here, and discussions were much more solid and behaved.
Seems that the Yahtzee videos dragged a whole lot of whiners.
There's no reason to suggest and entertain an idea of Us vs. Them.

It does not help.

I'm just saying, for a place that's supposed to argue intelligently, I see so many people trying to slander consoles at the slightest second. Maybe these were folks brought in primarily by Zero Punctuation, but it exists and, honestly, it's an incredibly idiotic perspective to have. I've found more open minded people on Wii60.com than a lot of supposedly intelligent people here, and that's a self-admitted fanboy site.

So in a real firefight you never have to change locations?

No, but when you do you are either running your ass off and not shooting at all or you are merely spraying and praying. There is no precise aiming, which is what the crosshair represents. Even without the crosshair, you can guess that whatever is at the center of the screen is where your spray of bullets goes, which is basically following the same mentality it would in real life. If you had to quickly change locations in real life, you're going to quickly point in the general direction of the enemy, pull the trigger, and let loose before turning and running. You're not going to take the time to carefully aim down the sites of your weapon.

So, why take the time precisely focusing the crosshair exactly where you want it to shoot when bullets are going to land in the area you want anyway and cause the enemy to duck down and buy you some time?

I don't care about your whole left-handed argument, as that is another design point entirely. I'm just saying you're not truly thinking through what it is you don't like. In the end, the moments you don't have a crosshair don't matter because you're not trying to accurately aim anyway. And if you are, you simply don't understand the game at all. That, or just don't know how to play it properly, in which case, such as any game you wouldn't understand, you die. Also, in case you want to start arguing about "having to play a game properly" think of it like going after the ghosts in Pac-Man from the get go instead of avoiding them until you have the power pellet. You die because you're doing it wrong. That simple. Games are meant to be played a specific way, and that is a fact.


I'm thinking I'm done with this thread with the exception of actual discussions on game length.

 

[shadow skill]

Funny because in my own experience reticles have only ever been good for judging the general direction of rounds, rather than some form of pinpoint acuracy as you suggest now. I also think it is rather comical to suggest that someone is playing a g.ame wrong for trying to lay down suppresive fire in order for one to havw a better chance of getting from cover point A to cover point B. This is something you can do in just about every shooter that there is whether they have a cover mechanic or not. So let's recap first you say that I am nitpicking, and now you say the crosshair is for pinpoint accuracy (That is what steady aim/zoom is for in pretty much every shooter that there is.) which is of course not true, and now I am just not playing the game correctly even though the same constraints on aiming apply in games that do have crosshairs and steady aim is your bread and butter.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Flionk - Welcome to the forums buddy. Be prepared for a lot of slander against us console gamers.

What I don't get is how this was even relevant in the first place? I went and re-read Flionk's post searching for some reference to consoles OR PCs, and couldn't find any. Were they edited away? Did I miss some side conversation?

Either way, whether the comment was even called for or not, I agree with Arbre: making it an "Us Console Gamers v Them PC Gamers" thing doesn't help.

Though, I'm all for an Us [level-headed gamers aware of the pros and cons of both platforms who enjoy both immensely] v Them [people that associate themselves on either side of the console v PC battle]. We will fight them on the beach! We will fight them in the trenches! We will pwn them in the forums (though given the nature of forum warfare, the likely outcome is a stalemate where we have won, but are unable to penetrate the thick armor protecting their feeble intellects to notify them of our victory)! We will lay waste to their silly little fiefdoms! And in the end, on that glorious day of righteous victory, we will bask in the glory of the one true kingdom: PCs and Consoles (and Cards and Boards and Miniatures) side by side, hooked up to giant screens, entertaining into eternity.

Sort of sounds like PAX. Which has its own pleasant sort of irony/symbolism.

 

[sergeantz]

I have a dream! A dream where PC gamers and console gamers can sit side-by-side at the table of brotherhood!

Couldn't resist.

 

[Ranzel]

I didn't care to read whats going on in the thread past page one, so heres my response to the original topic (A quick glance revealed how off topic things are now)

I look at games like Bioshock and Portal, and I'm pleased, nay, ecstatic about the direction games are headed. Particularly in the case of Portal. That game is "story" driven genius. Is there really a story? Eh, kind of. Have I ever liked puzzle games in my life? No. Was it the shortest game I've ever enjoyed? Without a doubt. Portal was a gem of what "next-gen" means to me. Games that are HIGHLY enjoyable on a single play through, driven by a heavy story(ala Bioshock) or some similar uncontrollable factor(Portals hilarity). I don't want, or need better graphics. I doubt people are going to come up with a way to reinvent FPS's, RPG's, or RTS's any time soon. Bearing those two factors in mind, whats the only way for me to truly find something new, fun and enjoyable, even if it only lasts 2 hours? A good story.

So heres the thing. If portal was a stand-alone game, not worth 60$, say 30$, but still the gem it is today, how far under the radar would it be? Very, very far. Story driven games aren't given credit they deserve, and just don't sell well. They need ways to identify with people who cant pull their heads out of an FPSs' ass, a perfect example being Bioshock, which IS an fps wrapped in an amazing story. If making a game short is what it takes to get games like Bioshock and Portal, Im all for it.

 

[Zera]

I didn't care to read whats going on in the thread past page one, so heres my response to the original topic (A quick glance revealed how off topic things are now)

I look at games like Bioshock and Portal, and I'm pleased, nay, ecstatic about the direction games are headed. Particularly in the case of Portal. That game is "story" driven genius. Is there really a story? Eh, kind of. Have I ever liked puzzle games in my life? No. Was it the shortest game I've ever enjoyed? Without a doubt. Portal was a gem of what "next-gen" means to me. Games that are HIGHLY enjoyable on a single play through, driven by a heavy story(ala Bioshock) or some similar uncontrollable factor(Portals hilarity). I don't want, or need better graphics. I doubt people are going to come up with a way to reinvent FPS's, RPG's, or RTS's any time soon. Bearing those two factors in mind, whats the only way for me to truly find something new, fun and enjoyable, even if it only lasts 2 hours? A good story.

So heres the thing. If portal was a stand-alone game, not worth 60$, say 30$, but still the gem it is today, how far under the radar would it be? Very, very far. Story driven games aren't given credit they deserve, and just don't sell well. They need ways to identify with people who cant pull their heads out of an FPSs' ass, a perfect example being Bioshock, which IS an fps wrapped in an amazing story. If making a game short is what it takes to get games like Bioshock and Portal, Im all for it.

Thank you for being on topic.
If games are getting shorter, than thats fine with me now. Thanks to my new cumbersome scheduling, I dont find as much time to play them. I also prefer a game not to drag out and overstay its welcome either. Or if they leave early. Thats why I find myself playing more handheld games nowadays

 

[ccesarano]

Re: Arbre and Geoffrey42: yeah, thinking back, I was out of hand. I have a tendency to get on the defensive pre-emptively in an environment where I constantly find my viewpoints being attacked, even if other folks tend to do so without realizing it. It's a bad attitude for me to have, though, as it can create issues where they otherwise don't exist. I've decided I'll watch myself from now on and be more careful, so as not to ruin things for those that are genuinely smarter, more open-minded and just more fun to discuss with.

If games are getting shorter, than thats fine with me now. Thanks to my new cumbersome scheduling, I dont find as much time to play them. I also prefer a game not to drag out and overstay its welcome either. Or if they leave early. Thats why I find myself playing more handheld games nowadays

Pretty much my sentiments from earlier. I remember before Twilight Princess was released Nintendo claimed the game clocked around 70 hours, and I complained about it. My friends acted like I was nuts for such a thing, wanting games to be longer.

Thing is, I had to send Blue Dragon back through GameFly because I currently don't have the time for such a game. I can't even do forty hours, let alone seventy. While I understand plenty of people want longer titles, honestly, 12-20 is fine. A game should be fun enough that you play through it multiple times anyway, and if it's only fun the first time through then honestly, it's not a really good game.

 

[Harrie]

I think there are several things to consider when talking about the length of games in general.

A players own gaming skill is one of these things. Just try playing a game that took you for ever to finish a couple of years ago. Most of you will find that the game just got a lot shorter due to your own improvement in the skills needed to play that game.

Another thing to consider are the mechanisms the game uses to pace your progress. Consider the first mario for instance. The game essentially consists of short puzzles (levels) which you had to learn how to solve by not getting killed and reaching the flag/killing the boss. Getting killed reset you to the beginning of the puzzle and you had a limited amount of tries (lives) to complete the entire game. Increases in skill meant you didn't have to try the level as often and decreased your total game time to finish. Modern games use mechanisms such as savegames, checkpoints and recently respawn chambers (bioshock).

I think there is a fine balance between the difficulty of the encontered problems, the cost of failing to solve those problems and the (feeling of) reward gotten by solving the problem. Reducing the cost of failing a puzzle makes it less relevant. The puzzles become an obstacle to following the storyline. Making the difficulty of the puzzle higher solves this problem. Unless of course you are set back too far (too little savegames/lives) in which case you get frustrated. And if the puzzle is not chalenging and you don't get an extra reward the game is essentially useless.

In conclusion: i think todays games baby the players too much. By reducing the amount of effort a player has to invest in order to solve a game, todays games are made more accessable to the general player population. The downside to this, i think, is the lack of satisfaction gamers get from gaming... and sometimes the total length of play is reduced. Gamers are capable of solving games that are a lot more difficult than those available today.

Thank you for your patience.

 

[gears19 [deprecated]]

well personally i like them fun and pretty thats what i go for in a game as long as its more than 8 hours i dont really mind that much

 

[Katana314]

Yeah. That's the thing. 6 is becoming more of the standard now.

 

[Kronopticon]

there needs to be a revolution in gaming, games designers are now focusing WAY too much on graphics, instead of actual gameplay, hell, people play flash games, they arent amazing graphics, its cool if it is amazing graphics, but as long as it gives us an acceptable amount of fun, its a worthwhile game; graphics arent important, hell, thats why pong is still so widely recognised.

More content, less graphics.

 

[Arbre]

One my favorite genre, shmups, has games that rarely last one hour, but they have a ton of reply value.

 

[GeeDave]

[Haven't read all of replies]

One thing that some people may have overlooked when it comes to questioning the lack of play time in a game, is the audience. Every game published will have a target demographic, but it seems there's a sub-demographic now. Define an audience, and then define which of those will want to play for long periods of time. We're living in the age of the 'casual gamer' and i'm not here to debate who's fault that is, or how it came about, i'm just saying, that... regrettably... shorter games appeal to a wider audience. And appealing to a wide audience is very much a good thing for the games industry.

I found myself sat in a library once (doesn't happen often), and I'd stumbled upon a relatively new book on game design... it was a pretty vague book that tried to cover as much as possible and never really went into major details, lots of pretty pictures, lots of buzz-words. It was basically something that you or I could have written. It was a book on Games Design for the 'Casual Games Designer'. What was interesting though... was the brief topic on creating story in games. And the author of the book had this to say... "Don't". Obviously it was a little more wordy than that but the summary of his thoughts was that storys cost too much to create (ie, take too long) and you're better off spending that time on... wait for it... graphics! This is no word of a lie (though details are missing)... if anyone's interested in the Title and Author of this book, I can attempt to re-find it again.

This was pretty appalling, but I felt as though it served as an accurate analysis for the way in which the narrative in games is viewed today, obviously not by you or I, but definitely someone. And a large majority of 'someone' at that.

But then this brings us onto the topic of a story contributing to the length of a game. For me it's a straight up "No". The length of a game should be entirely down to the player. These are games after all, not books. In games we have the advantage of becoming part of the story, and yes i'm well aware of the level of immersion in books, but you can't pause the story of a book and yet still remain in the book. You can with a game though, theoretically at-least, and it's an advtange that I don't believe is being used all too well in recent releases.

I can't help but think of Final Fantasy 7 (and others, but lets not get crazy). You could probably complete that game in 1 - 2, maybe 3 days if you really hammered through it, sticking only to progressing the story. But at the same time you could play it for weeks on end without ever leaving the story, and by doing so you'd be taking advantage of the GAME. The problem with modern releases that boast amazing stories is that there's no way out of it. You can't enjoy the game without accidently completing it. Maybe it's just me though, maybe I don't play games to complete them. I know deep down that an ending sequence is not going to be as enjoyable as actually getting there, and so i'm the kind of player that likes to take his time, i'd like to be able to enjoy a game, and that can't be done without a little bit of freedom.

Replay value is obviously important in games, and if we can just take a moment to look at Bioshock here... who actually enjoyed playing it the second time round? Honestly, I didn't. And i'm actually suprised I managed to churn my way through it just to see the alternate ending. It was quite possibly one of the most dissapointing moments i've ever had in a game. Reply value, for me... is most valued not when I want to play the game again after completion, but when I want to play the game again... when i'm still playing it. We can't blame bioshock though, it's a first person shooter... everything is a bloody first person shooter these days. And there's only so much you can do with an FPS, I love the FF7 style of play, but if they tried to incorperate that into an FPS... it would fail, horribly. RPG elements (which in my own opinion, make for great long games) do not fit well with FPS'.

Sooo, next-gen games getting shorter? Yes... because of the audience with limited attention spans, because of linearity and because of the unbelievable amount of FPS' being released (see linearity). I can only hope though, that this has all been planned... and after the casual gamers are well and truly hooked, we'll start seeing some GOOD games, with GOOD play time and GOOD varience. If they release another god damn Halo though... then i'm afraid we'll be waiting even longer.

$0.02

 

[Girlysprite]

I like that some games are somewhat shorter. I have only 1-2 hours per day to play, and I get to finish some games still


I wonder....a lot of people keep saying 'designers care too much about graphics', but where is the proof of that? I think developers always cared a lot for em. Games were not better in the past. We just forgot the tons of shit that were produced back then. There are enough games with great stories and excellent gameplay out there.

Vote with your wallet.

Now getting back on gamelength; when games get 3d, en 3d gets more advances, it does take longer to make the same amount of gameplay time. Not only on graphic level, but also on gamedesign level. Its not as easy anymore, putting tiles together in 2d. The 3d, and also the physics and all other new forces and engine wise items in new games bring a lot of new considerations and problems for leveldesigners. Ah, and it also takes more programmer time, making a render and physics engine. To get a game done in 2-3 years still...well, it results in less gameplay time, despite the fact that some development teams already have exploded in size and budget.
It is not ONLY graphics (before someone puts the blame just there) it is just the fact alone that it is 3d, and also all the new forces that well, are just expected in games of these days.

By the way- again- Im quite fine with shorter gameplay time. I do enjoy physics in a game, because it enables new gameplay. Tp a certain extend I like new graphics, because it can bring the world more to life. Example; I really enjoyed daggerfall, but hell, when i saw the sun rise in Morrowwind and oblivion....just wow! It really helped in immersion...I loved exploring the world without tangling in the story just because of the looks, the realism in it alone. Same goes for bioshock.

 

[ForkOnAStick]

Hello first post here XD

Anyways, I believe that games should focus on quality entertainment first and formost, as most people here seem to. However, I do like my games to have some length and depth. I of course would rather play a good game for a few hours than drudge through some fugly, nasty game for weeks, but if I am paying around $60(U.S.) I want to have more than just a few measly hours of fun. I could buy other things around that price and get a longer kick out of them. I'm not saying that many games are like this, I still like to pop Dead Rising in and mutilate hundreds of zombies or shred on my cheesy little brightly colored plastic guitar on Guitar Hero from time to time, but I think that this is becoming common enough to start worrying about. I belive that once the games I shell out $60 for, to play on my several hundred dollar console(or several thousand dollar PC)slowly start to seem as short and shallow as the free online games I'm playing to pass time on the inter-webs, I begin to worry. Luckily for me I usually rent my games before I purchase them, so I didn't end up wasting $60 on something I finish once and have little desire to replay again*coughhalo3cough*. I miss the days with games that could have you go around and immerse yourself into the world that the game makers create. I remember on Majora's Mask(One of the few Zelda games diffrent enough that I acutally picked up and thoroughly enjoyed) going around and spending several game sessions doing fun things, and doing absolutly nothing to progress the story yet still having fun and getting absourbed into the story. In that game I felt compelled to stop the moon from crushing the land, because I thought it was worth the effort, to save a world as deep and and engrossing as that one was. In Gears of War, I could've cared less about whatever world Marcus and his grunting, steroid abusing, gorilla friends were in, the multiplayer just gets so repetitive, and the Xbox Live community in the words of Ben Croshaw, "...are a player base that can be charitably described as lively, and can be uncharitably be described as a bunch of hooting d**kholes." I promptly returned the game to Gamestop within the 7 day return thingymajig and got enough money back to be appeased. I have been ranting long enough, so to cut a long story short, I think that games, while staying fairly true, are becoming superficial enough where swimming in the pool of gaming may become shallower and less fun if something does not change. Thanks for listening

 

[burnit999]

First of to answer the thread
Are games getting shorter? some are
Are shorter games necessarily better? no
Are longer games necessarily better? no
.... so what is better.......? Like any story there has to be an ending/climax this ending is as important to the game as the story, graphics or mechanics.

It all comes down to the fact that companies want the most money. Which means the shortest possible game that they think will still sell. Customers want value. The longest game that is still fun to play. It is all just a matter of free market mechanics, polls, the invisible hand of the market ect.

It is worth noting that the gaming industry has stated interest in the idea of episodic content/games where the play time is less and the game would be cheaper. I have noticed that the fact that this coincieded with the release of the next gen consoles it makes it very hard for a customer to compare the relative value(episode/game length vs. cost). In my opinion the game industry overprices their games. It would be better if all you had to do to buy a game was order it online from the publisher and have them mail you the game. This would allow them to lower the price of the game because they cut out the middle man.

I myself love games that let you take your time without necessarily progressing the story and ending the game. For instance FFXII I did virtually every side quest I could find because I loved the mechanics so much... and cringed every time I had to listen to Vaan or pinnello talk in a cut scene such horrid voices. I enjoy Rachet and Clank even though they tend to be short because there are side missions, quests, collectibles and the such to extend game play. The only time I would ever buy a FPS was if I liked the multilayer. The campaigns are usually to short and alternate endings/different difficulty levels are not enough to keep me interested. But, this is all just me. As was mentioned earlier the game industries are trying to tap into the casual game market as well and by producing shorter games that are able to be completed by people who only game a few hours here and there they make more money in the end.

This is just my two cents.

 

[jayjaydoubleyou]

Three words - Army of Two.
£45 for 5 hours gameplay.
I flidding well think not.

 

[Grimm91]

Yes games are getting shorter. I think because they spend so much time in development

 

[mark_n_b]

I get this feedback all the time at the Gamestop I work at. After the customers come and rant on how action packed the game was(I stop listening when the start talking about the graphics), they then complain that the game was short. I look at some reviews and some of the big games have been said to be short(i.e. Gaers of War, Heavenly Sword, and apparently Call of Duty 4). Now begs the question, are they really getting shorter, If so, why?

Games are getting shorter and there are a number of reasons for it.

More adults are playing games now than ever. with kids, bills, and full time jobs that are a little more involved than making change, a larger number of gamers have less time to dedicate to gaming, but still, players (and game devs) want games to be finished, so that the whole experience can be had.

Again, because gamers are older, disposable income makes it so that a gamer can purchase more than one game title very month or two. More games to play means less time with individual titles (in the mid / late nineties, I only had a PS1 and five games, compared to now when I own several systems and over two hundred games, if I spent as much time on games today as I did with FFVII most of my game cases would go unopened)

The popular feature of eighty to a hundred hours of game-play for any given title is actually a seriously lame feature when you think about it. Especially given that this entails hours of what amounts to repetitive game-play. After games moved into completable narrative style and the power of systems increased game devs started making games longer and longer as a means of offering more "bang" for the buck and because people were curious about this new realm of complex world development in games. At a certain point (early 2000) a threshold point was passed and people started realizing that at 100 hours, the game is just too long for a hobby activity.

Ironically, although it has been suggested many times on this thread, young gamers have very little to do with the shortening of games. It has nothing to do with attention spans at all. If you want to spend all weekend with a game, breaking only for lunch a sleep, then you should be able to finish it, rent a new one next weekend. If you play four or five hours a week, it is completely reasonable to expect you'll be finished and able to move on in a month or two.