Are games getting too short??????

Hello everybody... i dont know about you..but i remember games being a little longer than they are nowadays. i played Jurassic:The Hunted and i beat it in 4 hours. I played COD:MW2(im not bashing the game, its amazing) but the campaign was way too short. i also beat that in about 5 hours. now i dont know whats wrong, but i find games are becoming very short.....i can understand why COD would be a little short, most people would but it for the online play. but some games just arent worth the 50 to 70 dollars they sell for. Give me your opinion, i would like to know what others are thinking.

Thanks:)

i know what your getting at. You probably like the games with 80+ hours of gameplay like some of those RPGs. A game that i just played was Assassin's Creed 2. It was kind of short cuz i beat it in less than a week. But there is DLC so it keeps gettin a little bit longer. I think its worth it. Stunning gameplay and graphics!

yes, Assassins Creed 2 was very fun....i think a game that had alot of game time and fun in it was Fallout 3..i could play that game for weeks lol

It depends on the game, but yeah, some games are pretty short. Its difficult though as they need to be short enough that they don't get boring towards the end, but are still worth $40 - $70.

I think Modern Warfare was a good length because of the online focus of it, and even towards the end of the campaign I found it often became repetitive.

Games are probably getting shorter because of online multiplayer modes that are always tossed in.

Most developers just rely on that to provide replay value. I personally don't have a problem with it.

There are still some great single player experiences out there these days: Grand Theft Auto IV, Oblivion, and countless RPGs.

Ya but games like Uncharted 2 have great story modes and a fantastic online also. MGS4 also.

The games back in the old days were new IPs and now they've been recycled so much that they really aren't fun anymore. Like seriously, how many Zeldas can you make? What I think the main reason is for short games today is developers rushing their game before Christmas to get more money when they clearly could have done a better job on both the single player and multi player.

No I don't think so really. If you think about it there were very short games before as well but they were artificially made longer due to limited save spots, difficulty due to having to memorise patterns, etc. Games these days tend to be much more flexible in how you can play them and are usually much larger in scope. I don't think you can simply say a game is short because one aspect of it is short ie. Modern Warfare 2 has a short campaign therefor it's a short game, you have to look at the whole package including it's Special Ops mode and online mode which add a lot to it overall. Those all took time and resources to create as well. Considering the amount of time, effort, and money that goes into games today I think we as gamers are doing quite well overall.

MW2 has the shortest campaign I've played since Heavenly Sword (a 2 year old game). MW2 is an exception, not the norm.

Almost all the single players I played last year took me well over 10 hours to beat. KZ2 took me 8-9 hours, but games like AC2, RE5, and inFamous took well over 15 hours. Single player games like AC2, Infamous, and RE5 are really well designed and have tons of replay value.

I keep track of the time i put into games, and I've put in 40 hours each into Batman AA, Infamous, RE5 and AC2. 150+ hours into KZ2, and 100+ in Uncharted 2. So in short, i dont think games are getting too short.

yeah there are a few games that take maybe 4 hours to beat, then you have your average length games that last about 8-10 hours, then you have longer games that are around 10-14 hours, then you have RPGs which last maybe 20-80 hours...now I like reallly long games but it pretty much ruins renting a game for 5 days cuz you basically can't play 80 hours in 5 days, but games that you beat in less than 8 hours makes renting a game useless as well. Of course if I was going to buy a game I want it to take forever to finish it.

i prefer a brilliant short game than a mediocre long game.

call of dutymodern warfare 2 for example is short, but i enjoyed it in as much as i played through it again on harder levels (which i rarely do).

its amazing that many "older" games (arcade, megadrive, super nes, nes, master system etc)i can complete in 5 to 20 mins. but i played for hours and hours working out levels and discovering all the nuances.

so to me i prefer quality over quantity

not really.

I put 7 days in the multiplayer of mw2.

How about this...

Remember Contra? Remember how short that game was if you played with the Konami Code? Or how about Megaman 2? Those games were hard as all heck, but if you knew how to play, you could blow through those games in like an hour or two at most.

Games are getting longer. And still, I'd rather play an awesome 6 to 10 hour game than waste my time on filler. Like RPGs or other games with lots of backtracking or long pointless corridors in every location.

Games are getting to long, imo. Or, the focus of the developer tends to be the online aspect. For example, the developers of mw2 know that the fps genre is typically a "jump to the next new game" ordeal, if the game is hyped and marketed properly and plays at least half way decent, then gamers will buy it anyways.

I know that sounds contradictory, but I say they are too long because I feel that most games spend too much time dragging the player through the narrative, in part taking away part of the "game" aspect of the game. I understand that with newer technologies things are bound to change, however, at the same time, I can't tell you the last time I felt I was "good" at a game--multiplayer aside. It seems the second you get going, things are disrupted by a cutscene. I miss the minute timing and rhythm aspects of older games.

I find that a lot of games are starting to stop caring about the campaign and focusing more on the multi-player aspect of it. JustBeingFrank

Yeah, you would think that with the freedom the newer hardware allows, there would be LESS linearity. You can say KOTOR and Mass Effect offer some level of choice, but they really don't. The play is still relatively predetermined. I think more than anything, AI needs to be stressed more than graphics/sound/narrative. For example: Halo coop is a blast, but it has been done to death. Instead of just plopping a second player in the game, how about making it more integral to the story. A mission could be one player has to rescue another player from captivity. However, within the confines of the games world, it could be perfectly possible for the captive player to escape, and even the player initially in pursuit of the rescue, to be captured.

Games are probably getting shorter because of online multiplayer modes that are always tossed in.

Most developers just rely on that to provide replay value. I personally don't have a problem with it.

There are still some great single player experiences out there these days: Grand Theft Auto IV, Oblivion, and countless RPGs.

A_Mobile_Doll

Some games are getting short but some are a good length. Fallout 3 took me 34 hours, Mass Effect 2 took 30 hours, but both of these were FPS/RPGs. As for straight FPS most are pretty short, but then again I don't think many were ever longer than 15 hours.

1 Game @ $60 @ 8 hours of gameplay = $7.5 per hour of entertainment. 1 DVD @ $20 @ 1.5 hours of watching = $13.33 per hour of entertainment Games may be getting shorter, but they're still one of the better prices per entertainment.muthsera666

Excellent point. Plus, I tend to replay games way more than I rewatch movies. No, they aren't too short at all.

I feel a game I can beat in less than 20 hours is too short and that is most of them the last few years.

This is why i am such an RPG fan because that is the only genre where a game has any depth these days.

In the amount of time it takes to finish the tutorial and first quest of Fallout3, Morrowind or Oblivion you have already been able to complete some other games.

Shooters and Beat em ups, yes. RPGs, FPS/RPG hybrids, and RTSes? heck no. If anything, they are becoming extremely long and are hard to complete because of the their lengths.

Being a father of two with a career, I prefer shorter games with optional DLC. That way I can get around to playing more games, and get extra content for the really good games out there.Gammit10

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]1 Game @ $60 @ 8 hours of gameplay = $7.5 per hour of entertainment. 1 DVD @ $20 @ 1.5 hours of watching = $13.33 per hour of entertainment Games may be getting shorter, but they're still one of the better prices per entertainment.Tropictrain

Excellent point. Plus, I tend to replay games way more than I rewatch movies. No, they aren't too short at all.

This is flawed logic. One reason being, dvds do NOT cost $20 anymore. Blu Rays do, but most dvds can be had for $5-10, and never more than $15. There are special editions that may be $20, however that usually means there's a load of extra content. Another reason is quality and lastability. How many times are you going to go through a given game? How many times is the Godfather going to be watched by various people? Too many variables.

[QUOTE="Tropictrain"][QUOTE="muthsera666"]1 Game @ $60 @ 8 hours of gameplay = $7.5 per hour of entertainment. 1 DVD @ $20 @ 1.5 hours of watching = $13.33 per hour of entertainment Games may be getting shorter, but they're still one of the better prices per entertainment.Heirren

Well, games are getting shorter, that's impossible to deny (that's if we look at the single player aspect of a game, how much MP adds to the experience is subjective). I think it's a bad progression when we compare the prices of today's games. Games I bought way back when were about $40, and offered countless hours of entertainment. I can't get myself to buy a game that doesn't offer more than 6 hours of gameplay, I honestly feel that is a rip-off. That's why I'm very much looking forward to FFXIII. Sinking 60 hours intoa game sounds just awesome.

Game definitely are getting too short, if I pay $60 for a game with an 8 hour campaign that I beat in a week, I feel ripped off. That's why I'm looking into RPGs and sports now more than I am shooters. But I do plan on buying Uncharted 3 when that's released sometime in the future even though it'll be a shooter with a short campaign, but what can I say? I love Uncharted and Naughty Dog makes great games.

RPGs have very long single player stories, I got White Knight Chronicles and Star Ocean 4 a few weeks ago, and I'm very happy I did. I still don't think I'm anywhere close to beating them. And WKC also has online multiplayer to keep me occupied.

Uncharted 2: 9 hour campaign for $60= $6.67 per hour

Star Ocean 4: 40 hour campaign for $60= $1.5 per hour

Tales of the Abyss: 60 hour campaign for $30= 50 cents per hour

And sports games take a while to get old because they never end. After a year, I still have fun playing MLB09 the Show. It'll be a while before my career ends, I'm in the 2013 season as my closer, and the game will end after I retire. But when that happens, I'll just try another position and the game continues. But I'll probably have MLB10 the Show before I can retire in MLB09 the Show.

Or the fact that developers can get games out by the time the publishers want them released, and then release download content. Cha-CHING$

yes, Assassins Creed 2 was very fun....i think a game that had alot of game time and fun in it was Fallout 3..i could play that game for weeks lol

diablo654

FFX took me forever to complete, the timer was at 94 hours at the last save point at the final boss battle...not to mention the ending the boss battle and the credits, so that game lasted around 96 hours. Pretty soon I'm going to play it again. I wan't lots of games to last that long! I don't like 8 hour story modes unless they're fun!

Hello everybody... i dont know about you..but i remember games being a little longer than they are nowadays. i played Jurassic:The Hunted and i beat it in 4 hours. I played COD:MW2(im not bashing the game, its amazing) but the campaign was way too short. i also beat that in about 5 hours. now i dont know whats wrong, but i find games are becoming very short.....i can understand why COD would be a little short, most people would but it for the online play. but some games just arent worth the 50 to 70 dollars they sell for. Give me your opinion, i would like to know what others are thinking.

Thanks:)

It's common knowledge that certain franchises are getting shorter and shorter, unfairly nudging certain gamers to download the D.L.C.. But with that said, sometimes it just makes sense to wait for the 'Game Of The Year' version to hit the shelves..

If you feel your being short changed, don't buy it !

It's common knowledge that certain franchises are getting shorter and shorter, unfairly nudging certain gamers to download the D.L.C.. But with that said, sometimes it just makes sense to wait for the 'Game Of The Year' version to hit the shelves..

If you feel your being short changed, don't buy it !

DecadesOfGaming

Yup, that's what I'm gonna do with Borderlands. I don't have access to any DLC, so that's my only chance to get the awesome extra content. Sometimes, waiting it out is worth it.

I'm just glad we get less filler. If we can get rid of searching for the Triforce or grinding levels and that junk, great. If that makes the games shorter, even better.

I think there may be a developing trend for certain games to be shorter, but I don't think this is overall a problem for games in general. Certainly there are still many long games out there. You must also consider that just because a game is longer, it doesn't necessarily mean more effort has been put into it. There are some excellent shorter games out there, such as Portal.

Yes. It was understandable in the NES era because of limited space but when you have DVD's and blurays theres NO excuse to make a game thats 5 hours long and then try to say a fully price is justified by optional multiplayer.