Maybe games should be shorter?
- Thread starter misterbobperson
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just think they should manage their time more wisely.
Anything at all should be designed by starting with the beginning, then the end, and finally anything in the middle. Most video games seem like they're designed chronologically, which isn't a good thing.
Anything at all should be designed by starting with the beginning, then the end, and finally anything in the middle. Most video games seem like they're designed chronologically, which isn't a good thing.
I'm gonna go against the crowd and agree with you. I'd prefer games to be shorter. With so many coming out all the time, I never get the chance to finish them. I would prefer to spend full price on a game I would actually finish, then on one that is too long and I never complete.
You really want to keep paying the same amount for less content? Huh. I guess I can see the appeal of cutting out dull padding or artificial gameplay lengthening, but, really, that just strikes me as an excuse for lack of creativity on the part of dev teams who can't think of any ideas for good missions, so they just make it shorter. And sometimes padding is a good thing.
For example, if Call Of Duty 4 had cut out all those parts of missions with the stealthy British SAS which were just you getting to places for the next mission, it would have been a significantly worse game for the absence of those sections. They could have cut straight to One Shot One Kill at your spot in the sniper's nest and cut out the mission of getting there with MacMillan, and that would have sucked, wouldn't it?
For example, if Call Of Duty 4 had cut out all those parts of missions with the stealthy British SAS which were just you getting to places for the next mission, it would have been a significantly worse game for the absence of those sections. They could have cut straight to One Shot One Kill at your spot in the sniper's nest and cut out the mission of getting there with MacMillan, and that would have sucked, wouldn't it?
Apart from Black cocks...I mean Black Ops, I bought most of my most recent titles (Farcry 1/2, Singularity, Metro 2033, etc) on the steam sale, so ha-ha.Zantos said:
Also, as a Steam user and possibly lover, if it ever develops a 'user friendly' android (EA's version will be the S&M-style, smacking you around for buying it), I mostly refuse to pay anything more than thirty of the Queen's face for my video gaming pleasure. I don't see why I should fork out more money for another 6 hour story followed by an anti-climatic ending, coldly reminding me of the last time I visited a hooker.
Also, you can get drunk, but drunkness fades, atleast Black ops had multiplayer, which extended its game-life by atleast....an hour. Or two, if you had friends and wanted them to never speak to you again after you teabagged their corpse for the 30th time. (Ballistic Knives are a dickweapon).
There are three kinds of games on the market today:
Really short singleplayer + extensive multiplayer component, (EG call of duty)
Extensive singleplayer, (Mostly RPG/RTS/TBS)
and Complete multiplayer. (MMOs, some FPSs)
These cater to different kinds of audiences. HOWEVER: If a singleplayer audience wants to play the campaign of Call of Duty N: Modern Wordplay, they have to pay $60. Is it worth it? No, it isn't.
So why not just isolate the singleplayer and the multiplayer components of the game? Charge $20 - the same as a DVD movie - for the singleplayer campaign, then charge $30-$40 for access to the multiplayer (which could be downloaded separately). Voila! Instant proper value!
Really short singleplayer + extensive multiplayer component, (EG call of duty)
Extensive singleplayer, (Mostly RPG/RTS/TBS)
and Complete multiplayer. (MMOs, some FPSs)
These cater to different kinds of audiences. HOWEVER: If a singleplayer audience wants to play the campaign of Call of Duty N: Modern Wordplay, they have to pay $60. Is it worth it? No, it isn't.
So why not just isolate the singleplayer and the multiplayer components of the game? Charge $20 - the same as a DVD movie - for the singleplayer campaign, then charge $30-$40 for access to the multiplayer (which could be downloaded separately). Voila! Instant proper value!
I wouldn't consider that part padding though. The stealth broke up the "normal" sections of the game and gave you the chance to do something new and fun without it not making sense, and it was neccessary to the plot.badgersprite said:
My idea of padding, even though I haven't played the game and only have Yahtzee's word on it are the work minigames in No More Heroes. They just sound like, well, work and they just lengthen the game without any real purpose.
I would use steam, but my computer is a whole 2 years old now and is struggling to cope with new titles, so I'm consoling until I can afford an awesome gaming rigFarleShadow said:
.I disagree with you saying the endings are anti-climatic. I think after the hardcoreness of the Modern Warfare 2 ending no game will ever live up to that. I don't know who thought up pulling the knife out of your chest and throwing it into his eye, but they deserved to be made a saint.
1st. no, just no. shorter games by big budget companies would be no better than the longer and would just rob you of your money.
2nd. why are people complaining about paying $60USD? i pay anywhere between $100-$150AUD on launch day and the AUD has been on par with the USD for months. is PAL superior to NTSC in some way that would cause x2 the price? the answer is NO.
2nd. why are people complaining about paying $60USD? i pay anywhere between $100-$150AUD on launch day and the AUD has been on par with the USD for months. is PAL superior to NTSC in some way that would cause x2 the price? the answer is NO.
Your loss over Steam, its a great platform.Zantos said:I would use steam, but my computer is a whole 2 years old now and is struggling to cope with new titles, so I'm consoling until I can afford an awesome gaming rig
I disagree with you saying the endings are anti-climatic. I think after the hardcoreness of the Modern Warfare 2 ending no game will ever live up to that. I don't know who thought up pulling the knife out of your chest and throwing it into his eye, but they deserved to be made a saint.
Also, endings, well, having played games for nigh on a decades, I'm largely disapointed by current-generation's spawn deciding to 'sequal' every ending, aside from the obvious ones (Mass effect, etc), games rarely live up to their sequal's and even MW2 was a wank (FINISH THE STORY, YOU FUCKS popped into my mind almost immediately).
I'm not saying all recent games have bad endings, its just most of them do. Games should either finish their respective stories cleanly or have the next one ready atleast 3 months AFTER the first. Because I hate it.
I agree with you completely. That was really my less-than-subtle dig at Black Ops. I can think of several missions that would have vastly improved the game if they had just created a section that bridged them. For example, right at the beginning. You burst into a roadblock, lights flash at you, and suddenly you're somewhere else. Black Ops is such a short game already, it baffles me why they wouldn't have created a sequence where you had to sneak away and get to the rendezvous point for your kill Castro mission. That would have added tension and made the game longer.misterbobperson said:
Well, trying to see the OPs point. I will counter what the reoccuring theme has been and say the OP is right... in a sense.
I hate obvious filler material, it gets aggravating to wade through pointless timesink after timesink.
However, I disagree that games should be shorter. If anything every game selling initially at MSRP full retail price should clock in at no less than 25 hours of content. Anything less than that and your paying an extreme amount of cash for a diminished return.
What I would much rather see is developers take more time and increase their developmental cycles. CoD REALLY needs to heed this. Games like Bioshock 2 could have been a hell of a lot better if they would have taken 3 years instead of two from the release of the initial IP. The gameplay was fine but the story mechanics needed a lot more work. I forsee Arkham city will likely be this years Bioshock 2 in that respect.
So once you have an IP up and running with an established well made gameplay mechanic, add an extra year and focus on nothing but the content of the game.
So the OP isnt entirely wrong, But I think they went about it by suggesting the wrong way to do it.
I hate obvious filler material, it gets aggravating to wade through pointless timesink after timesink.
However, I disagree that games should be shorter. If anything every game selling initially at MSRP full retail price should clock in at no less than 25 hours of content. Anything less than that and your paying an extreme amount of cash for a diminished return.
What I would much rather see is developers take more time and increase their developmental cycles. CoD REALLY needs to heed this. Games like Bioshock 2 could have been a hell of a lot better if they would have taken 3 years instead of two from the release of the initial IP. The gameplay was fine but the story mechanics needed a lot more work. I forsee Arkham city will likely be this years Bioshock 2 in that respect.
So once you have an IP up and running with an established well made gameplay mechanic, add an extra year and focus on nothing but the content of the game.
So the OP isnt entirely wrong, But I think they went about it by suggesting the wrong way to do it.
NO.
There is not so many people that have internet in their consoles, or don't have gold, so they cant play in Internet, and if they pay 60 dollars for a game that will be short like, MW2..... I mean if you dont have internet service in your console having MW2 is a waste of money.
Terminator Salvation was short, like 3 hours and didnt have internet, that was a waste of money.
Games should be big. So you get tired? quit playing, thats my answer.
There is not so many people that have internet in their consoles, or don't have gold, so they cant play in Internet, and if they pay 60 dollars for a game that will be short like, MW2..... I mean if you dont have internet service in your console having MW2 is a waste of money.
Terminator Salvation was short, like 3 hours and didnt have internet, that was a waste of money.
Games should be big. So you get tired? quit playing, thats my answer.
No. Repetition and patterns are what make you feel successful at the game. They could design the game to have different enemies every step of the way, but they deliberately give you the same enemies over and over again.
The idea is that you learn and adapt and gain mastery over the game throughout the duration.
As for the actual length, I have been satisfied by both depending on the experiences I gain from them. A couple of examples:
Gungrave on PS2
I beat this game in one sitting and never played it again. It took a little over 2 hours to beat. This wasn't the greatest game I've ever played but I enjoyed it thoroughly for the tidbit of entertainment it was.
Contra on NES
This game takes between 30 and 40 minutes to beat. I play this game regularly and know it inside and out. It is repetitive as hell since I know where every soldier is, but that is okay because I enjoy the experience.
Dragon Age: Origins
This game took over 70 hours the first time I played through it and a couple of its shorter expansions. Even though the combat was dry at times, I loved the challenge of it and the storytelling was first class in my opinion. I plan to play through it again with a different character soon because while the time commitment is large, I feel that it is well worth the time.
The idea is that you learn and adapt and gain mastery over the game throughout the duration.
As for the actual length, I have been satisfied by both depending on the experiences I gain from them. A couple of examples:
Gungrave on PS2
I beat this game in one sitting and never played it again. It took a little over 2 hours to beat. This wasn't the greatest game I've ever played but I enjoyed it thoroughly for the tidbit of entertainment it was.
Contra on NES
This game takes between 30 and 40 minutes to beat. I play this game regularly and know it inside and out. It is repetitive as hell since I know where every soldier is, but that is okay because I enjoy the experience.
Dragon Age: Origins
This game took over 70 hours the first time I played through it and a couple of its shorter expansions. Even though the combat was dry at times, I loved the challenge of it and the storytelling was first class in my opinion. I plan to play through it again with a different character soon because while the time commitment is large, I feel that it is well worth the time.
No, that's kind of a poor solution to a series of games you may find "repetitive". The better solution is that developers put more time into making the content far more robust, which is what is happening. They could become longer even, so long as the content received more TLC and attention to detail.
For some games, there just isn't much to expand upon though. Such as Final Fantasy, it is destined to be nothing but repetitive. They've tried to change it up by making the entries very "ultra-cinematic" and over-the-top, but it will never change the fact that the games themselves are very on-rails and repetitive.
The way forward, in my opinion, is expanding on games like Fallout and the Elder Scrolls, or Dragon Age, Mass Effect, or even the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series. Expand on the content, make the grand scheme branch out into multiple entries (Mass Effect's saved game system) among other things.
Basically, I feel that a directed narrative in an free-form open world is the best route to expanding on "lots" of content. It never feels like filler, or lack of creativity, because you can do whatever you want, and the games themselves can do nothing but improve on the concept.
For some games, there just isn't much to expand upon though. Such as Final Fantasy, it is destined to be nothing but repetitive. They've tried to change it up by making the entries very "ultra-cinematic" and over-the-top, but it will never change the fact that the games themselves are very on-rails and repetitive.
The way forward, in my opinion, is expanding on games like Fallout and the Elder Scrolls, or Dragon Age, Mass Effect, or even the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series. Expand on the content, make the grand scheme branch out into multiple entries (Mass Effect's saved game system) among other things.
Basically, I feel that a directed narrative in an free-form open world is the best route to expanding on "lots" of content. It never feels like filler, or lack of creativity, because you can do whatever you want, and the games themselves can do nothing but improve on the concept.
Games should not be shorter than 20 hours. Shorter is only appropriate if it has a fantastic multiplayer. If you can't manage either of those, then release it as an XBLA or PSN game.
I actually agree, and it's already happening.
Some developers are releasing content in episodes. The problem is they charge way too much for each episode so you end up paying £80 for a £30 game.
Oh and I forgot to add, episodic content doesn't work for all game genres. With RPG's for example it'd just make things messy.
Some developers are releasing content in episodes. The problem is they charge way too much for each episode so you end up paying £80 for a £30 game.
Oh and I forgot to add, episodic content doesn't work for all game genres. With RPG's for example it'd just make things messy.
Any thoughts? Yeah, what kind of games have you been playing!? Half the games out there now are 5-6 hours, if that. They are getting shorter than ever as it is already, and they are jacking the prices up more and more. I swear I'm going to need to find a new hobby soon because the "gaming" department is dying for those of us who don't want to play online with elitist pricks who ruin the game for everyone.misterbobperson said:
Yeah you're right.viranimus said:
In my opinion I'd like a good long game as much as (and longer than) a good short game but if someone just wants to make a fun game out of an idea they shouldn't pad it just for the sake of making it longer. I actually like finishing the story. If given the choice between a longer, padded version of a game or a shorter, leaner version I'll go for the leaner.