Games are getting shorter and we stopped caring about it

Long story short: I stumbled upon Gamespot's Armored Core: Project Phantasmareview (1998 ) and, well, see what the reviewer said in the bottom line:

"While the missions are fun and there's still something to be said for the duels, Armored Core: Project Phantasma can be beaten within the space of two or three days, meaning there simply isn't quite enough here to justify the cost of purchase. Hardcore AC fans might want to pick it up, but others should be able to get by with a rental".

The game scored a 6.6 for this reason alone. So, back in 1998 the fact a game, even a good one, could be beaten in 2-3 days was considered a big shortcoming, which heavily detracted from the final score, to the point the game was considered too short and a waste of money! I thought: in year 2009, almost every game available can be beaten in 1-2 days, even an afternoon in some cases, but they don't get penalized any longer because of this. Someone may say that games are more multiplayer oriented nowadays, but keep in mind that Armored Core already was a multiplayer-focused game, featuring a great split screen battle mode in which you could use your custom robots against your friend's.

There's no excuse: games are getting shorter by the minute, and we stopped caring about it.

The lust for long games is probably a result of people's lowering standards.

Really, tell me, what (long) games have you played recently that weren't mostly filled with fluff?

The lust for long games is probably a result of people's lowering standards.

Really, tell me, what (long) games have you played recently that weren't mostly filled with fluff?

Lxthr

Umm the only games that were actually long at all were RPGs every other genre has been about the same completion time.

I remember completing a lot of PS1 and N64 games in under an hour or two unless they were like Oot or Super Mario 64 that took me around 40 hours to beat playing 1-2 hours a day cause of school.

People need to get the ****** idea out of their head that games are getting shorter cause they AREN'T!,same thing that pisses me off is the whole "games are getting crappier" phad.If you have an issue with gaming find a different hobby.

A lot of games run around 8 to 10 hours now, I think. So, things haven't really changed that much. :Pmuthsera666

Are you familiar with the phrase "anecdotal evidence"? Or perhaps "jumping to conclusions"? You found a single example and extrapolated it to define a trend in an entire industry.

Apparently, a fair number of gamers think gaming is going to hell, and we need to go back to the way games were some arbitrary point in the past (depends who you ask). This is often blamed on games getting shorter, but I really don't see it. I mostly play shooters and Western RPGs, and the occasional wargame. Based on my own gaming experience:

• Shooters haven't gotten any shorter. I played through all four episodes of Ultimate Doom on my 360, and it took me about the same amount of time as it did to beat Halo 3. Some shooters are a little longer, and some are a little shorter, but overall, they're about the same.
• It's hard to say RPGs are getting shorter when you have a game like Oblivion. Looking to BioWare, which is probably my favorite game studio, Mass Effect took about as long to beat as Baldur's Gate. (No, not all of Baldur's Gate; that was a series.) The first Baldur's Gate took me 40 hours; that was being very thorough, exploring every region on the map, and playing the expansion pack. Mass Effect took me about...40 hours, being very thorough.
• I've played Command & Conquer 3 on my 360, and right now I'm playing through Starcraft again. They're about the same length. A game of Medieval II: Total War takes about as long as Panzer General, War in Russia, or any of the old wargames I played. Europa Universalis, a relatively recent game, takes a ****ing eternity to play.

Maybe other genres are getting shorter. Shooter definitely aren't, and I suspect a number of other genres aren't either.

The lust for long games is probably a result of people's lowering standards.

Really, tell me, what (long) games have you played recently that weren't mostly filled with fluff?

Lxthr

The lust for long games is probably a result of people's lowering standards. Really, tell me, what (long) games have you played recently that weren't mostly filled with fluff?

Lxthr

I think there are plenty of long games out these days. However, whether games were longer or shorter back in the day, a lot of older games' length was fluff. RPGs were filled with absurd amounts of grinding (WRPGs anyway, can't speak to Eastern RPGs). Action games took weeks because you had toplay the same levels dozens or hundreds of times with speedrunner-like zeal, to have any hope of actually seeing the end boss. Don't confuse playing length with content.

[QUOTE="Lxthr"]

The lust for long games is probably a result of people's lowering standards. Really, tell me, what (long) games have you played recently that weren't mostly filled with fluff?

Palantas

I think there are plenty of long games out these days. However, whether games were longer or shorter back in the day, a lot of older games' length was fluff. RPGs were filled with absurd amounts of grinding (WRPGs anyway, can't speak to Eastern RPGs). Action games took weeks because you had toplay the same levels dozens or hundreds of times with speedrunner-like zeal, to have any hope of actually seeing the end boss. Don't confuse playing length with content.

I agree. I beat Super Mario Bros. in 2 hours without using warp pipes. That is a bad value.

See what I did there? I pointed out an even older game that is way shorter than almost every game coming out now. When games are distilled to their most basic parts, they have never been that long. I could even argue that Fallout 3 is mostly boring fluff when it comes to wandering around the wasteland. Sure, you could find a few long games from any era, but the point is that games aren't much shorter, and are probablly longer if anything.

Contra or Life Force on the NES could be beaten in about 30 minutes or so. For 50$ is that a good deal? What about the original Final Fantasy being a grindfest, quite literally, with maybe about 30 minutes total of story advancing scenes?

So as much as we claimed bloody murder on Heavenly Sword for being like 6 hours long, that's practically a steal.

The biggest question is how much replayability or what level of enjoyment do you get from the game. Personally I love RPGs but if the entire game was a 60 hour grindfest with no story or character development or epic boss battles, I'd be quite upset, and bored. Besides with lots of good games coming out, I don't mind a sort of short game I can finish and move on to the next nowadays.

Like others who have posted I don't really see this whole "games are getting shorter" scenario happening. Sure there are some games here and there that you can call too short but there always have been those kinds of games and always will be. Regardless though I've always been one to equate quality with the experience that a game provides and not it's initial length.

Am I one of the only people that actually replays my games this gen? if I like a game I replay it to death over that generation lol (resi 4 :?) and if its that good chances are I will still dig it out years later (SMW, which I can finish start in about 25 minutes I think using warp stars).

One thing I find funny is that people say that arcade games are often the shortest, but if you play them properly, they're actually the longest.

Am I one of the only people that actually replays my games this gen? if I like a game I replay it to death over that generation lol (resi 4 :?) and if its that good chances are I will still dig it out years later (SMW, which I can finish start in about 25 minutes I think using warp stars).

SapSacPrime

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

Am I one of the only people that actually replays my games this gen? if I like a game I replay it to death over that generation lol (resi 4 :?) and if its that good chances are I will still dig it out years later (SMW, which I can finish start in about 25 minutes I think using warp stars).

SemiMaster

Yeah I usually replay most of my games at least once more on each of the varying difficulties and on games where you can continue playing after you beat it I'll try to find more secrets and complete more quests that I may have missed.

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"][QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

Am I one of the only people that actually replays my games this gen? if I like a game I replay it to death over that generation lol (resi 4 :?) and if its that good chances are I will still dig it out years later (SMW, which I can finish start in about 25 minutes I think using warp stars).

Archangel3371

Yeah I usually replay most of my games at least once more on each of the varying difficulties and on games where you can continue playing after you beat it I'll try to find more secrets and complete more quests that I may have missed.

[QUOTE="muthsera666"]A lot of games run around 8 to 10 hours now, I think. So, things haven't really changed that much. :PBlack_Knight_00

I am kind of happy with games that are short asuming they are quality, all too often especially with some RPG's they are long for the sake of it rather then having a point, where as i would prefer it shorter with more high impact moments myself.

I definitely have noticed that games are getting shorter, but I have a feeling it's due to the gain in popularity of genres with games that normally only run eight to ten hours by default.

JRPGs are still rather lengthy for instance, even though they aren't quite as popular as they used to be. Pure FPS were never as long as RPGs even before they became a dominant genre.

But I do think there's some truth to what you are saying. General tastes have changed. Twilight Princess was a much longer Zelda game than any I've played before, but it seemed like that was one of the things it was criticized for.

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"][QUOTE="muthsera666"]A lot of games run around 8 to 10 hours now, I think. So, things haven't really changed that much. :Pmuthsera666

I am kind of happy with games that are short asuming they are quality, all too often especially with some RPG's they are long for the sake of it rather then having a point, where as i would prefer it shorter with more high impact moments myself.

AzelKosMos

We've stopped caring? How much difference did we make when we did care?

Can I have a 20 hours awesome game? It's been done before :DBlack_Knight_00

Games are getting shorter and we do still care, but it cost so much to make games that something has gotta give. That is why I stick with rpg's like Oblivion or The Witcher that I know I will get my moneys worth. I also enjoy rts games since I can play them over and over and rarely get bored.

For me the length has never been the issue. A good chunk of the greatest games ever made are short in length. My issue with gaming nowadays is how easy they have become. How many games out there can honestly claim they will kick your ass and deliver?N3MO

I like to find every item/spell/secret pair of undies.Allicrombie

I don't really agree, you can never experience a game fully with 1 playthrough because you miss stuff. Plus most games have a multiplayer portion which adds extra time.

secret pair of undies

Allicrombie

Like the ones that were literally in Baldur's Gate, in the form of the pantaloons.

Games are generally longer now than they were when I first got into video games during the late 80's. I'd suggest they're easier these days, but not shorter. If you're completing games too early you should aim for the higher difficulty.Raiko101

I agree, I also find that games these days are longer than they used to be and more forgiving (ie a bit easier).

I do see why this could be a problem. But I think it really depends on the genre of the game and what kind of game it is.

Also, I think we just have to pick and choose what we want and be wise about what we're getting. If I feel I'm not getting my money's worth, I don't pick it up. I've done that many times already with games that I felt like I wouldn't get what I'm paying for. For example, I'm skipping FEAR 2 for now and waiting until it gets cheaper. But on one hand, I just picked up Turok, Condemned 2, The Darkness, and Dark Sector for $10 each.

But if I feel I'm getting my money's worth or if it's a game I just want I have no problems paying full price. Modern Warfare, Dead Space, Gears of War 2, and Resident Evil 5 are good examples. Their single players aren't that long but they're still worth it.

So my take is, since we can't do anything about it, just adjust to it and just be smart with the money we spend.

Are you sure that game got a low score because of the life span alone? MGS was among the highest rated games back then and yet it could be beaten in 3 hours. The problem isn't with the game duration, but with the content of the game. If you have a videogame that lasts for three hours without repeated content or backtracking or level grinding the game could still offer alot but if those three hours were mere repetions and backtracking then it's here where the problem lies. This tends to be problematic in Action/Adventure titles.

Developers have sacrified quantity for quality, which in my opinion isn't too much better.

Developers have sacrified quantity for quality, which in my opinion isn't too much better.

Bioshockraptor

Contra or Life Force on the NES could be beaten in about 30 minutes or so. For 50$ is that a good deal? What about the original Final Fantasy being a grindfest, quite literally, with maybe about 30 minutes total of story advancing scenes?

So as much as we claimed bloody murder on Heavenly Sword for being like 6 hours long, that's practically a steal.

The biggest question is how much replayability or what level of enjoyment do you get from the game. Personally I love RPGs but if the entire game was a 60 hour grindfest with no story or character development or epic boss battles, I'd be quite upset, and bored. Besides with lots of good games coming out, I don't mind a sort of short game I can finish and move on to the next nowadays.

SemiMaster

I think that during the 32-bit era an unreasonably long game length standard was set that could not be maintained. I'm glad that game lengths are reducing a bit because I wouldn't have time to finish any games if they all required a 40-80 hour commitment.