Are next gen games getting shorter?

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
I think we can calculate satisfation levels, according to the following ratio: "quality per hour" (QPH).
It can turn out to be "fun per second" (FPS), regardless of whether you're playing the same game, or if you've been playing two shorter games.
 

FatRabidRamboCow

New member
Nov 1, 2007
27
0
0
I think that one of the problems to games being shorter is that our hands are being held as we go through the game. This in turn makes the games easier so we play through them faster.

A video game that had the potential to be slightly longer (Episode 2) was shortened by the fact that you was given someone to follow or got a helping hand, all the way through the game. Some things that really could have been done on your own, and spent time doing, were taken away from you.

Another game I'd like to choose is Neverwinter Nights 2. Complete one area and then open up the next. What the Heck?! Wheres the free-roam? The exploration? You're an RPG. I could have spent hours doing side dungeons and quests, but there was nothing there and everything was where I needed to go anyway. Waste of potential.

However, some games like Metroid Prime 3 and even Bioshock (to some level) just told you where to go and let you get there, by yourself, in your own time. Thanks for letting me take the time to do your little puzzles and extras, developers! Cheers.

I know I'm not directly attacking shorter games, but I think hand-holding is a key element in making games shorter.
 

Zera

New member
Sep 12, 2007
408
0
0
Interesting responses. Well I asked one of my co-workers these questions and he said of course. Apparently to him, all the games budget (most of it anyways) go to the graghics and less for everything else. Part of me thinks this is true, though I also believe some of us have gotten better at the games and therefore we finish them faster. Still enjoy them.
 

Lightbulb

New member
Oct 28, 2007
220
0
0
When you read a novel you don't comment: That was amazing, moving, funny, and overall the best book i have ever read but why was it only 200 pages long!!! I want a refund!

Is complicated though because we all want good value and quality games - hence why i buy budget games. I don't know about prices in the rest of the world but online you can get a quality title for £18 new. It could be as low as 3 for £25 thats £8 each. So roughly $16 instead of $36. Reducing the price leads to better 'value for money'.

It could be argued that a shorter story will have more focus - lets use films this time. Whats the average simple film length? 80 to 90 minutes? There are some 'epic' films that weigh in a twice this much but does that make them twice as good? Of course not! I think game stories are, in general, fairly simple. Dragging out a simple story twice as long as is needed doesn't help anything.


Now on to technical issues:
Development times. Shorter development = lower cost = more profit for the same sales - or alternatively you make money on it earlier (by this i means its easier to sell 50,000 copies than 250,000)

You NEED shinyness to sell games (or at least devs/publishers think so, which is effectively the same thing) so you have to spend time on these.

So what do you cut? Length!

Obvious right?

So whats the solution: Shared assets and/or procedural generation of content.

If everyone uses the same engine and textures - adding what you need - they save time. Now everyone has the same shinyness and has to make decenty games.

I think we could be approaching the point where graphics will stop selling games. I couldn't care less whether a game has the Cry, Quake Wars, Unreal engine. So long as its optimised, runs smooth and looks good i couldn't care less.

The other option is to go down the Oblivion/Spore approach and automatically generate stuff thus saving alot of development time. It will start off simple - Spore. But in time it could grow to be a great time saver.

Combine both and who knows what could be done...
 

laikenf

New member
Oct 24, 2007
764
0
0
It's not so much how much shorter games are getting, it's how EASY they are nowadays. Games are so easy these days that when a challenging game hits the shelves gamers and reviewers put them down because of it. The truth is that games have technically gotten more impressive than ever, but there is something that's missing. Besides from being overly lenient games feel extremely unrewarding (with a few exceptions of course). After beating Bioshock and MP3 (both are amazing games) I didn't really feel like I accomplished anything; maybe it's because in Bioshock you don't actually die or because in MP3 you're grabed by the hand and told exactly what to do; but my point here is that there is no real hustle. there are very few games that force you to drop the controller, think (or meditate for that matter) and move on. Oh and one more thing: ENOUGH WITH ALL THOSE FPS's PLEASE!! Let's get more stuff like Assasin's Creed or something, you know, something ORIGINAL for once...
 

LisaB1138

New member
Oct 5, 2007
243
0
0
There is an actual LIMIT to what can go on a disk. Better graphics take up more space, so there's less levels. Remember--this was a selling point for the Blu-Ray format. The discs could hold more data and reduce the need to for two disc games.

I'm sure money is a consideration too. Isn't it always? But I remember waaay back when the consoles were all in their pre-release state that actual space on the game disc was becoming an issue.
 

xbeaker

New member
Sep 11, 2007
283
0
0
Great point Lisa. Though it is not always the case (Heavenly Sword for example) But of course there are work arounds.. reuse textures and such. But I think the difficulty, how "Hard" the game is, is a big deal too. You look at ghosts and Goblins, or Kid Ikirus. They were not considered short games. Though you could complete either in about 2 hours. IF you could beat the game. But it would take you months to get to the point where you get to the end.. hell, it could take months to get to the second stage. Now skip ahead to a game like Ninja Gaiden. A friend of mine traded it after not being able to complete the tutorial. I heard all kinds of talk about how it was SO hard. But in truth when I played it, it really isn't that bad. I died. A lot. But it makes passing that next checkpoint, of finding that next save point so much more rewarding. And the game give countless hours of entertainment for what may only be about a 7 or 8 hour actual play-through.

It is the growing popularity of video games that is hurting them in this case. Developers don't want to scare off the more casual player with games that are too hard, or too confusing to newer players. Then they think throwing in a 'hard' difficulty will apease the more hard-core gamers. Or worse yet, you can unlock a harder difficulty when you beat the normal one. I do miss the good old days of it meaning something when you completed some games. And the weeks leading up to it, instead of the hours. oh well... I'm gonna go tell kids how long I used to have to walk to get to school now.

Oh, and Catgrr: get Bent. Thsi is a vry mature and inteligant board. we dont nead some gramer nazi coming in adn geting all self righious just to show of there self-improtance. stik to the topic and dont worry about mispellings. some of us are at work and using default browsers and dont want or have time to spell check
 

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
laikenf said:
It's not so much how much shorter games are getting, it's how EASY they are nowadays. Games are so easy these days that when a challenging game hits the shelves gamers and reviewers put them down because of it. The truth is that games have technically gotten more impressive than ever, but there is something that's missing. Besides from being overly lenient games feel extremely unrewarding (with a few exceptions of course). After beating Bioshock and MP3 (both are amazing games) I didn't really feel like I accomplished anything; maybe it's because in Bioshock you don't actually die or because in MP3 you're grabed by the hand and told exactly what to do; but my point here is that there is no real hustle. there are very few games that force you to drop the controller, think (or meditate for that matter) and move on. Oh and one more thing: ENOUGH WITH ALL THOSE FPS's PLEASE!! Let's get more stuff like Assasin's Creed or something, you know, something ORIGINAL for once...
I can understand this. I directly started God of War II on the most difficult level available from get go, and damn, that's tough. It really requires to remember all the tricks, techniques and dodges available, and when use them at their best and most profitable moments, to survive the brutality of the enemy's attacks.

I Die. I Die A Lot. But when I win, I get the feeling that I've kicked something pretty big.
That said, it's how things are today, as you have to let the consumer decide of the level of difficulty.

I have no issues with shorter games. It's a bit like Lord of the Rings. I just couldn't bother going to the theaters and sit inside for nearly three damn hours or so.
I'd rather watch a movie that's well packed, within one hour and 20 minutes.
 

Katana314

New member
Oct 4, 2007
2,299
0
0
Lisa: I would think so too, but I think generally DVDs are not completely used. Also, people seem to have no qualms with putting a game on two discs if absolutely necessary (in rare cases)

xbeaker: Unfortunately, the board's against you on grammar.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.50823

I'm starting to agree with the possibility that easiness makes the games go by faster...Episode 2 suffered from this. The developers often cut down puzzles after playtesters just got frustrated. I think people especially wanted the final strider fight to be harder.
 

Alex Karls

New member
Aug 27, 2007
84
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I think my point reflects my tastes while your point reflects your tastes. I have a feeling that some of what you would consider 'needless bloat' I'd consider 'time to really absorb the game experience' or 'time to really get to know the weapons' or something positive.
I don't think that's the case either. As I said before, I agree with what you were saying before. To be clear, I was just pointing out that I don't believe it was a practical point (cutting a game down doesn't = better gaming, some games need room to breathe like movie) because no games reflect those qualities. In other words, while shortening a longer concept isn't necessarily good, I don't think there are any games that sit on that side of the divide.

Now, the issue of game length as an enjoyment is in a way a different issue altogether. I think what happens is that games don't get designed to satisfy everyone's idea of length. Those people that want a game that's long get a short game artificially inflated to a longer length. And no, I don't consider important gameplay (like getting to know your weapons) to be bloat. On the other hand, the gamers that want a more complete, well told story, or just tighter, less repetitive gameplay, get a game that lasts eons too long.

Hmm...as a side note, I think this means that there is something to be said for repetitive gameplay having its place.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Games are gettign shorter and they are not cheaper this is not a good thing I hate boring twich games and most games even RPGs are all for the twitch and nothing about depth Doom 3 a joke,Quake 4 overly simplistic gun and run, Halo shorter/worser with each game, Hell even HL2 is not as great as it could be if they took time to build levels right....


I have 2 gripes with modern gaming 1 is fun and keeping a game from being repetitive to the point of begin dull and 2 length, a 10 hour 50$ game is one reason I don't buy new games anymore.
 

Geoffrey42

New member
Aug 22, 2006
862
0
0
Katana314 said:
xbeaker: Unfortunately, the board's against you on grammar.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.50823
While I'm all for proper grammar, and everyone does appreciate when people post clear, well-written things, not to mention the benefit of the positive reflection on the poster, I understand where xbeaker is coming from. Catgrr is being a bit of a tool. Not only is she critiquing their grammar, but also insulting them. Why the need for insults? Admittedly, I called her a tool. But at least I'm insulting her with something relevant, rather than accusing someone with poor grammar of being an AOL user.

<On-Topic>

The common thread I'm seeing in some people's posts, and that I've read elsewhere on the subject, is that games are not shorter (as a measure of content) than older games, but instead are just easier to beat. I agree that if you look at old-school games, there is a lot of re-used content, and much higher difficulty levels, especially those that started off in an arcade setting, where the entire model was to be engrossing, but to kill you often so that you fed in more quarters. But, I think that games steadily grew in content until a point in the late 90's, and as of late have been getting shorter. I'm not unhappy with this situation, as long as the game is still of high quality (Portal was awesome). It just appears to be a reaction to the horrible budget issues with large game productions, getting games released on time, and the higher investment necessary to produce the HD art assets required of modern-generation games. Strategic re-use of assets helps, but I think I could make a graph demonstrating that the higher the quality of an asset, the harder it is to reuse. If something is generic, and blase, you can use it over and over again, and the player's mind will mold it to fit the situation. If you model it with accuracy, the appropriate context for that exact asset narrows, because, for example, why would an entire city use the exact same light fixtures in every building? I appear to have gone off on a tangent about reusability of art assets, but I think I got most of my point across. Games were originally short but hard, then became easier as they became longer, and are now returning to a point of being short, with selectable difficulty, though typically lower than the originally punishing difficulty of the arcade era.

EDIT: Fixed pronoun trouble; turns out Catgrr is a she.
 

Alex Karls

New member
Aug 27, 2007
84
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I think a lot of people feel that games like _Heavenly Sword_, _Halo 3_, and even _Bioshock_ sit on that side of the divide.
I think that each of those three games didn't have the story or writing to go further. Heavenly Sword could've had the gameplay if it was tweaked better. Halo 3 and Bioshock could've been pushed out because they did have the gameplay, but I can't see how their material was cut down from a longer length. I just don't think they had it.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
That's the point I was trying to get across with the movie analogy--sometimes repetitive gameplay doesn't advance the story any, but it does give you time to get familiar with the weapons or absorb the game experience.
I agree, and that's one of the reasons I embrace gameplay as such a final arbiter of the quality of a game.

Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I mean, think about the game that your icon is from, _Ico_. Besides the fights with the shadow demons in the crypt-like room and the ones that come if you wander too far away, all the other fights are just arbitrarily inserted. It's very repetitive gameplay. Frankly, it's button mashing. Yet would any "less" of it make the game any "tighter"?

If you got rid of all the puzzles that don't have anything to do with the storyline you could probably shrink _Ico_ down to like, a two hour game. Would you, though?

I think there's a difference between 'how long it takes to tell a story' and 'how long a game *should* take to tell its story'.
Well, that begs another question. Is story what's most important when we're talking game length, or can gameplay be a big factor there too? Ico was a joy to play through, because most of it was puzzling. I don't usually say the same thing about FPS titles, because shooting people is the same whether you're doing it with a handgun or a railgun. So I'd argue that gameplay has a lot to do with length too.

However, I do think that story will continue to get the short end of the stick. It just isn't as indispensable as gameplay.
 

xbeaker

New member
Sep 11, 2007
283
0
0
Here is a scary thought: Portal. An absolutely brilliant and entertaining game. A first time play though was about 4 hours for most people I think. A straight run can be done in about 2 once you know the puzzles. Why does that scare me? because everyone has been saying it is so good that it doesn't need length. Some people have said they would have happily paid full price for it, or that the entire purchase price of The Orange Box was justified by that one game. I really hope developers don't misread this (as they often do) to mean they can start releasing games that are that short as long as it is *really* good game.

Here is another thing to ponder. If you are willing to play through rehashed/repeated levels, is that really any better then just playing the game over from scratch?

As for selectable difficulty, I would really like to see there be a bigger change in the game then the bad-guys having more hit points and the ammo boxes not being as full. For example, more around where the enemies spawn, or how many there is. On an easy level this bunker is a nice decoration, and a little bit of cover, but on hard it is swarming with enemy units. On easy you can move up a hill to get a better flank on the enemy, on hard, that same hill is guarded by a turret and requires you to rethink the whole encounter. Something like this would allow more play time to the same game without really expanding the budget or development time while not making the extra length feeling tacked on to avoid a gnome award.

And you are right Katana. I was probably way too harsh but Cat's multiple posts about grammar just rubbed me the wrong way. That mis-typed last paragraph was a little painful for me to write in fact. I do apologize to anyone I offended, Catgrr included. I get cranky before lunch.
 

Arbre

New member
Jan 13, 2007
1,166
0
0
Cheeze_Pavilion said:
I mean, think about the game that your icon is from, _Ico_. Besides the fights with the shadow demons in the crypt-like room and the ones that come if you wander too far away, all the other fights are just arbitrarily inserted. It's very repetitive gameplay. Frankly, it's button mashing. Yet would any "less" of it make the game any "tighter"?

If you got rid of all the puzzles that don't have anything to do with the storyline you could probably shrink _Ico_ down to like, a two hour game. Would you, though?

I think there's a difference between 'how long it takes to tell a story' and 'how long a game *should* take to tell its story'.
The game is meant to have you take time. The vast and empty citadel, haunted by souls, and filled with mechanisms, is really a place you're meant to spend a lot of time wandering through. There are not many games where I'm actually encouraged to pause and just gaze in the open.

Ico was more of a ballad than a rush, as as such, I think trying to complete it as fast as possible, or make it a one or two hours trip, is possibly missing something important to the experience you can get get from it.

I'm sorry, but from the million games out there, I think you picked the wrong one.
 

LisaB1138

New member
Oct 5, 2007
243
0
0
Some games are meant to be experienced more than played. Ico is one of them. It's not a long game, but it's one that very rewarding emotionally.

I can't say that making games outrageously difficult so they are longer makes them any better. Boss fights where my attacks takes off one-fiftieth health versus one fourth of mine for the boss's attacks don't really make for thrilling gameplay unless a character is as nimble as Dante from Devil May Cry. Constantly dying just to make the gameplay "longer" isn't any fun.

Funny that one of the series folks love to hate on is also one that consistently delivered long games: Tomb Raider. The new games may look good, but blink and you'll miss them. Underdeveloped gameplay and a checkpoint system make the games artificially longer than they should be. At least Anniversary was priced accordingly (unlike Legend which made me feel raped.)

Action/Adventure games are generally not super-long even when they're good, but the problem is that publishers are expecting us to pay 60 bucks for (maybe) ten hours of entertainment. There's very few games I'm so interested in that I'm gonna plop down that kind of money to get. The local Gamestop or eBay vendor will probably get my money for most of my games because I just can't justify that expense.