Are next gen games getting shorter?

[Zera]

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?

 

[Mr. Happy]

Well of course they are. Nowadays most bloodthirsty preteen boys care more about the bright sparkly textures and high poly guns to extract that last bit of physically simulated realistically rendered blood from their foe rather than actual quality gameplay. It takes a long time to create the technology to render that stuff and twice as long as forever to actually create the damn art assets in high resolution, high poly, normal mapped and advancedly shaded glory that everyone demands.

A good artist and designer of today could probably create all of Doom, Quake, and Wolfenstein 3D put together in as much time as they spend on a single damn picnic bench now.

 

[xbeaker]

I don't think that is the case Mr. Happy. Usually all of the textures, and models are done by a seperate team from the level designers and writers. It is more about telling your story as effectively as possible, without going over budget, and without artificially drawing out the game.

Doom took many hours to play though, sure. But most of the game is the same walls and such over and over and there is almost zero story. Now a game like Gears they have a stong story and lots of variety. Yeah, they could have had you running through genenric ruins for hours on end, with each building looking like the last, but the game would get blasted for that. Need I remind anyone about the dreaded Library levels in Halo? Developers know that players tend to prefer a shorter game that is exciting and new stuff the whole way though, to forced repetition.

Then, of course, there is time. When Doom came out no one cared what the release date was. id made their game and put it out. Now time constraints can mean level cuts. "Do we edit out the battle on planet X, or do we miss our November ship date?" With the money that is put into games now they can't afford to miss schedules.

And Video games have become a more consumeable media. Much like watching a movie or reading a book. When you are done, you are done. With a few rare exceptions like that favorite movie or dog eared book, players don't go back to it. Action game developers write them with the same mindset. Fast and hard, leave a good impression and the player wanting more (a sequal.)

And it is only the action games that really suffer this problem. Puzzle, arcade, racing, rythem, party games are all much shorter, but rely on hundreds of replays. Then you have RPGs on the other end which can easily last hundreds of hours. I don't recall ever hearing someone seriously tell me "Man, I really liked Oblivion.. if only they had made it a little longer"

 

[Kuzdu]

I actually think that it's a positive trend. I hope that games get shorter, that way people get a little more conscientious about what goes into them. Also, I would trade length for price any day. Give me a three hour game that costs thirty dollars over a ten hour one that costs sixty!

 

[Katana314]

I actually kind of prefer game length...but that comes second to making the game FUN.
It's just that it comes up so often in reviews: "no matter how great the experience is, when it's over you'll be wanting more." etc...
I really don't see how a 5-hour game could in any way be BETTER than a 6-hour game (of the same type of experience).

 

[Alex Karls]

As games get shorter, their gameplay gets tighter, their stories get better. You don't have to over-inflate a game that just doesn't have the content to go a long ways.

Besides, there are plenty of gametypes that tend to wear the longer you play. In my opinion, a good FPS these days hits around 6 hours of playtime. Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Halo 3 gave me that in spades.

 

[Katana314]

Yes, but reviewers were complaining about the length of both of those. (Episode 2 less so...since it's an episode)

You seem to have this belief that the length of a game directly correlates to its gameplay experience. I'm not going to logically debunk this because I don't even SEE the logic...

 

[AnGeL.SLayer]

the length of the game means nothing really. protal was amazing and it was only 2 hours to play through. yes hl is amazing. also all of the games that followed it. but when it comes down to playing 6-10 hours to get though one single game you tend to run into the same thing over and over. go turn this and then click that. just with a different color button on the wall. you cant take just the games length as a factor all into its self. you have to have an over all view. a 10 hour portal game would have been, lets face it, ridclous. you have to take the gameplay, the graphics, the over all experience and take it all into account. you guys are missing the real big picture of how games should be made. if you ask the creators to put more effort into length your going to find yourself chasing your tail in the end. which makes for horrible game play. whether the story has good intent or not.

 

[shadow skill]

Yes they are gettung shorter and a good bit of it has to do with the online "revolution." Publishers have figured out that they do not really need to make a complete game if they include some type of online functionality. But more importantly the overall quality of games is dropping with a few notable exceptions, again due to the online "revolution." The length of a game is really not as important as the quality of the game itself take ZOE 2 it was maybe six hours but the game is a masterpiece that as of yet has not yet been equalled when it comes to fast pacced mech action.

 

[Unholykrumpet]

To Catgrr: I agree with you totally, however I would like to suggest that you don't verbally slaughter the forum infants, at least not all the way to bloody stumps. Have a heart <3.

Anyway, as to the original post, I would like to pose a counter-question, something to the extent of "Maybe games aren't getting shorter, we (and by that I mean experienced gamers) have just gotten...better?" I know the concept at first sounds like a scape goat for game makers, but think about it. The more games we play, the more puzzles we learn to solve. Those same puzzles have been repeated throughout gaming generations (such as find a block, move it to a button, push.) The reason I bring this up is that going through my favorite N64 game of all time Zelda: Ocarina of time I ended up getting through it in 8 hours, and hardly remembered any of it. From my knowledge of zelda, or the mario series, or half life, etc...I can pretty much see an obstacle and have a pretty good idea how to solve it right off.
Our resources for beating games, such as online strategy guides, faqs, forums for puzzles, etc. have multiplied many times since the N64 days.
I think it's a little of both, truthfully. Next-gen producers produce slightly short titles filled with puzzles that are, for the most part, intuitive.
Many cheers, Unholykrumpet

 

[shadow skill]

For someone who has his head up his ass about the grammar of others you sure did pick a strange phrase in the form of "from the go." Perhaps you missed a word, or need to use another word so that the phrase actually makes sense without someone having to insert a more appropriate word in place of the one you have chosen? Perhaps you are the one in need of purging?

 

[Arbre]

It is funny how as games reach more complexity and realism in their environment, the experience gets better but shorter.
A bit like in life.

God must be a dev.

 

[ccesarano]

Yes and no. If you go back and play games on the NES, the only thing that kept you coming back was how friggin' hard they are. In the end, Gears of War is longer than Contra, but you spent more time dying in Contra than you did in Gears of War.

Of course, Doom was pretty long itself, though that is if you played more than the first episode. If you played just the first episode, than either equally short or shorter.

Then there are games like MegaMan X that you can beat in an afternoon, but want to play the next day.

In the end, games are pretty much just as long as they always were, with a few exceptions.

 

[Alex Karls]

Yes, but reviewers were complaining about the length of both of those. (Episode 2 less so...since it's an episode)

You seem to have this belief that the length of a game directly correlates to its gameplay experience. I'm not going to logically debunk this because I don't even SEE the logic...

I do hold that belief, yes. And if you can't see the logic, let me elaborate...

1) Company comes up with interesting gameplay experience.
2) Company puts game into production, planning on releasing in 3 years for $59.99.
3) Company banks on a single player only experience satisfying the customer.
4) Company thinks "hmm...that might not cut it" and adds 4 more hours of gameplay.
5) Company releases 12 hour single player experience that's been bloated beyond belief.

I have, for a very long time, disliked long games in certain genres, most especially the FPS. By presenting a shorter single-player experience, the gameplay, story, and possibly presentation (graphics and audio, although it's really iffy if short length can help out presentation) all get to be tighter. That 6 hour storyline someone wrote for the game? It gets to last 6 hours. The gameplay? Look at Episode 1 and Episode 2 for great examples of how shorter single-player experiences can work well.

Here are my rules, specifically for a full price FPS:

1) Shorter lengths for single-player are better. Around 6-8 hours is optimal.
2) Single-player only doesn't cut it.
3) Multi-player only doesn't cut it.

So, yeah, as you can see that's actually logic. I apologize for sounding defensive, but your response did sound a little rude. But if you were just saying that you didn't see my point, then please, ignore this last part.

 

[Alex Karls]

I see the logic of what you're saying--it's the same logic behind dry aged beef. However, if someone wrote a 7 hour storyline--or wrote a 6 hour storyline to tell a story that should take at least 7 hours--then condensing it down to 6 hours doesn't make anything "tighter." Instead it lops essential parts off or compresses them down to something less than their optimal length.

Also I think a lot of times it's not so much what you do as how you present it. Think of great films with long, slow establishing shots. Sometimes you need to make a film longer just to give the storyline room to breathe, or to set the tone for the storyline. I think that applies to games to some extent as well.

In essence, I agree with you. Taking something and then artifically shortening it doesn't mean you'll get a better experience out of it.

That said, on a practical level, I think comparing video games with films is bad. Not because they lack similarity, but because of the fundamental differences in how they're delivered to you. Film is a linear medium, games are not. Furthermore, I think that video game concepts that need to be squeezed are much much rarer than those that need to be stretched. So, while I give you a hearty 'hear hear', I don't think that your point reflects the current state of gaming.

Also, I'm trying to come up with a better term than linear, as it doesn't quite convey my meaning. In saying linear, I refer to a medium that you experience from start to finish, like traveling a line in one direction. Take film, for example. If you leave half way through a film, you have not completed the basic act of 'watching the film'. Games aren't linear, by comparison. When you fire up a new game, the basic act of 'playing the game' can be accomplished in any number of ways, as long as you experience all of the gameplay. You don't even need to play the entire single-player storyline to get the complete 'game'.