Single Player Dying?

[tkioz]

I know I'm a rarity, but I buy games for the single player mode, I rarely play online, usually once a week at most with friends, so I detest having to buy games that are basically multi-player online such as MWF2, which when I looked at, looked very cool, but then I find out it's 6 hours long?

I'm not dropping a $109 for 6 hours of entertainment that I might play once a week in multiplayer mode.

And it's not just multiplayer games doing it either, WET was maybe at most 10 hours, an okay game really, not great, but not horrible, but 10 hours and I dropped $100 on it? WTF? Batman AA was an awesome game as well, I don't feel bad spending the money but again it was fairly short.

The only game recently I purchased that I think I got value for money out of was Dragon Age, I'm at 60 hours in and still loving it. Before that it was Fallout and Assassins Creed, with Halo 3 having an okay length single player mode for an FPS.

Is it DLC making developers lazy? Thinking that can sell as game for $100+ and then dribble out the content that should of been in it over a few years milking us for more cash?

 

[Frankydee]

That's pretty much my complaint as well considering I'm also a rare single player kindah person. And I'm not someone who likes to go in for obvious DLC cash ins for a game I might get a little more play out of.

But I don't really have a right to complain since I'm not much of a gamer anymore.

 

[Sassafrass]

I think that 6 hours is a fine length for a game. It's longer than a movie you might pay up to 30 quid for.

Nailed it in one.
Taking MW2 for an example, the campaign is short, yes, but at least it's twice the length of any movie I know off.
And the SP campaign is better then most of them as well. Same goes for Batman: AA and Halo 3 as well.

 

[fix-the-spade]

Personally I think games are gettin too short, with the 'it's more convienient for people with lives' thing just a refuge of the deperate. Better to play one game for three months than three games for one week.

For full price game 6 hours is pathetic (seriously £10/hour, to paraphrase, GTFO), even if it's fantastic all the way Metal Gear Solid was much longer than that and it got lambasted for it's lack of length. If I'm paying full retail I expect either fantastic, massive multiplayer options or a single lpayer that's more than 15 hours or needs multiple play throughs to really have fun with.

I think that 6 hours is a fine length for a game. It's longer than a movie you might pay up to 30 quid for.

Holy smeg, where do you go to see movies?

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I only buy games for single player nowadays.

rant begins

L4D is the most recent addition, and I find the AI Director just engaging enough to keep me playing. I found Halo 3 depressingly short, and they'd clearly bumped all their money into the multiplayer, which was good, but I don't use it. I personally found Batman AA to be a great length for a game, and replay value has kept me going back to it.

The problem is that I keep returning to my old games, where you could get twenty plus hours out of them if you were dedicated enough. I replayed Mass Effect recently, I spent a few days going through the Max Payne games, and found them vastly superior in story and gameplay and length to anything I bought recently.

My Mass Effect games have over 30 hours per character on them, Max Payne 1 took me about 15 hours and Max Payne 2 took longer. I even replayed Final Fantasy VII and IX recently, and am at nearly forty hours without even being on the final disk.

/rant

Single Player campaigns have vastly decreased in my opinion. The allure of multiplayer might work for the majority of players, but I won't be convinced until I actually start caring about the characters again, and that takes play time and a good story.

 

[xavierxenon]

I personally am quite a fan of shorter single player games. Having to balance my last year of college, anime and whatever other stuff I may want to do just wouldn't be possible if every game that I buy lasts 20+ hours (and I buy a lot of games)

 

[tkioz]

I think that 6 hours is a fine length for a game. It's longer than a movie you might pay up to 30 quid for.

Geebus where do you go to see movies? Do they have gold plated seats? It costs $10 AU for any movie in my town opening night, not inc. food/drink which I never buy anyway.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I don't see the problem with short single player campaigns. Mindless killing is fun and all, but I don't want to sacrifice the plot just so that I can have fun for another hour or two.

Yes, this is probably sacrilege, but there where parts in HL2 where I wanted all the enemies to stop coming and the plot to expose itself and tell me something interesting instead of just giving me things to shoot.

I just want an awesome story that keeps me interested an is satisfying in the end when playing single player.

 

[tkioz]

There was a thread just now that was incredibly similar to this, but whatever.

I think that 6 hours is a fine length for a game. It's longer than a movie you might pay up to 30 quid for.

Absolutely right, not only that but a film doesn't come with trophies and different difficulty settings.

Movie at cinema, $10. 2 hours give or take entertainment,

DVD purchase, $20. 2 hours plus extra content on disc of entertainment.

DVD Box set of a TV show, around $70-80. 15 hours plus extra content of entertainment.

Video Game, $109 new. 6 hours... assuming you get your way... I personally need to find game really awesome to replay it within 12 months, otherwise I want my value for money the first time through.

I don't see the problem with short single player campaigns. Mindless killing is fun and all, but I don't want to sacrifice the plot just so that I can have fun for another hour or two.

I think it comes down to Dragon Age as a recent example of how to do it, each area I did took me 1/2 hours at most, and I played those areas and got to new plot and interesting new stuff at the same time, then it moved on.

The problem is with a lot of games they only have 2 or 3 of those areas and call it done. WET was a classic example of that, each "stage" was maybe 20-40mins long, longer if you stuffed up, and only a handful of stages.

 

[Mirroga]

I agree with this topic. Single-player games have been ignored for more profitable multiplayer aspects as well as DLCs.

It's really frustrating that single-player is dying at the same time becoming more lazy in actually finishing the game (patch issues).

It's really a downside to be a single-player gamer, but even more insulting when that gamer has no online support for his consoles.

 

[tkioz]

We had this thread mere hours ago.
LOCK this.

no-one is forcing you to read it, why the hate, it's just debate.

 

[IamQ]

Uncharted 2.

Longer singleplayer

+ Multiplayer

...

Does not compute.

 

[Abedeus]

There was a thread just now that was incredibly similar to this, but whatever.

I think that 6 hours is a fine length for a game. It's longer than a DVD you might pay up to 30 Euros for.

EDIT: Sorry, everyone seems to have misinterpreted me. I don't really go to see movies. I meant a DVD.

Wow, I don't know ANYONE who would pay 30 EUR for a movie. Or 3 movies.

In Poland, movies are under 30 PLN, blurays are a bit more expensive. Tickets for movies are 10-20, too.

 

[zidine100]

Heh its not dying you just have to look harder, for example the hated genre of jrpgs length is still growing strong and such.

And in all fairness its easier to make a few multiplayer maps than make an entire 15-20 hour single player game with the level of graphics that people demand, and might i say mightly expensive, while this is no excuse for this. It states the companys postition and why long single player games arent really that cost effective anymore, hence why the focus on the multiplayer.

mind you im still rather annoyed at it.

 

[Alphavillain]

I don't like to say it, but I can see a time when all major releases will be online only.
I think single player is made almost to sell online play rather than the other way round, although I always see online as at most 50% extra on top of what game sites call the single-player "campaign" (another revealing word).

 

[Doug]

I know I'm a rarity, but I buy games for the single player mode, I rarely play online, usually once a week at most with friends...

Nope, your not rare - its still a large part of gaming, frankly, and I wish people would stop assuming the LOUDEST members of our group (gamers) are the MAJORITY of our group. By loudest I mean most likely to express themselves on places like this.

As for me, I love single and multiplayer.

 

[Woem]

There was a thread just now that was incredibly similar to this, but whatever.

I think that 6 hours is a fine length for a game. It's longer than a DVD you might pay up to 30 Euros for.

EDIT: Sorry, everyone seems to have misinterpreted me. I don't really go to see movies. I meant a DVD.

Seriously, 6 hours? Baldur's Gate 2 had a playability of 200 hours, and I spent way much more time than that.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I know what you mean, but because of how multiplayer options have opened up in the last few years, the multiplayer scene is really hot.

It's much more difficult to make a compelling single player story than it is to make a fun multiplayer romp, and apparently many companies don't think that the money is in a good single player game.

And I agree that 6 hours does seem a bit short, but I would rather have a fantastic 6 hour game than a drab and dull game that takes a few days. Portal is one of my favorite all time games, and it's only around 2 hours... then again it didn't cost 60 bones either.

 

[Hazy]

6 hours, while short, is an acceptable length by today's standard.
[sub]I am, of course, referring to MW2.[/sub]

But single player in gaming is far from dead: Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy XIII, etc. are all evidence of this. Each seem to have quite a long campaign, and offer a good amount of replayability.

And if you aren't wishing to drop dollars on an experience you may not be completely fullfilled with, might I suggest renting?

 

[tkioz]

I know what you mean, but because of how multiplayer options have opened up in the last few years, the multiplayer scene is really hot.

It's much more difficult to make a compelling single player story than it is to make a fun multiplayer romp, and apparently many companies don't think that the money is in a good single player game.

And I agree that 6 hours does seem a bit short, but I would rather have a fantastic 6 hour game than a drab and dull game that takes a few days. Portal is one of my favorite all time games, and it's only around 2 hours... then again it didn't cost 60 bones either.

Well yes, if I'm buying a game like Portal or Shadow Complex for $10 I don't expect 20 hours of game play, but if I'm dropping a large chunk of my weekly wage on a game, I damn well expect some decent length, not something I can blow through in an afternoon, yea I might enjoy it, but it was still 100 freaking dollars. For a $100 I expect value for money.

Thankfully some good games have come out recently, like Dragon Age and Batman AA, or I might of just said "screw this" and started pirating games.