How do you feel about the shorter lifespan of various games?

Well it does make me angry to me in two ways,

i would like to play more.

i would have not have spend any time let alone money to play a short (great or good) game.

like those 15 mission fps games of tom clancy or other average fps or other genre's games which are shorter, i hate shorter span games. Especially when we consider if one has shorter time play on daily average basis.

I completely agree. I mean...I like to spend half a year on a game!!! Somehow someway. I like to spend months and months just lookng into things. Games nowadays.:roll:

Quality beats quantity.

You can still find huge games out there with tons of value. Mass Effect, Call of Duty 4, Halo Reach, The Orange Box, Fallout 3, Red Dead Redemption, Burnout Paradise, Forza 3, Grand Theft Auto 4, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2, LittleBigPlanet, Battlefield Bad Company 2, and countless others.

There are tons of long life-span games out there. You're not looking hard enough. Heck, Halo Reach will probably be played for years.

Well it does make me angry to me in two ways,

i would like to play more.

i would have not have spend any time let alone money to play a short (great or good) game.

like those 15 mission fps games of tom clancy or other average fps or other genre's games which are shorter, i hate shorter span games. Especially when we consider if one has shorter time play on daily average basis.

I don't mind short games since it's easier to replay a 2 hour game than a 60 hour one. Also, there's always challenge runs to extend their lifespan by getting good at them.

Shorter Games + Higher Prices = FAIL

I didn't mind that codmw2 was short cuz of the multiplayer...

I love it now that I don't have much time to game.Dracula68

This is my feeling on it. I'd rather had a shorter, but far better quality game. I hate how developers put tiresome multiplayer trophies/achievements into games just to get you to play for hours on end.

Any game length can be enjoyable and worth the price of admission. Things like extended length and multiple playthroughs are only a luxury. For instance, I spent almost $70 on Mirror's Edge (when games were $60 in Canada *sigh*), it took me just under 5.5 hours to finish and I felt satisfied completely with my purchase. It didn't matter that I was able to go on and beat the game another 10-something times and do all the speed running and challenges (which probably took close to 70 hours after all was said and done).

I find the idea of padding games out with content just to increase the length of the game to be stupid and ruin the experience. Making a game that has enough content to last 5 hours, shouldn't take 25+ hours to finish with most of it being busy work. Red Dead Redemption falls prey to this so very much. The main story, given its premise shouldn't last longer than 5 hours... but you are just given so much busy work to complete it feels like they don't WANT you to see the end at all. They are always introducing new characters and antagonists and never just letting you finish. I can remember thinking at least 3 times, "what, that wasn't the end?" after some missions, where I could have SWORN the end should have been coming very soon.

Short games are usually better games (for value at least)... because they tend to have high amounts of replay value. Replaying a 70 hour game that has 40 hours of padded content is fun for no one except the gaming masochists. *stares hatefully at Persona 3: FES*

I like it, because it normally gives me a chance to re-play the games that I really enjoy, and, if I'm not enjoying it, at least I get the great feeling of completing it. :)

But, if you think about it, how long was Super Mario Brothers? I think it can be beaten in like a half hour at the shortest, so it's not like this is much new. And that game only had one difficulty and really no replay value at all (just saying). Now games try to give us more with difficulties and unlockables and multiplayer, so I'm not sure how much shorter the lifespan of games are now, anyway.

But, if you think about it, how long was Super Mario Brothers? I think it can be beaten in like a half hour at the shortest, so it's not like this is much new. And that game only had one difficulty and really no replay value at all (just saying). Now games try to give us more with difficulties and unlockables and multiplayer, so I'm not sure how much shorter the lifespan of games are now, anyway.

vadicta

And Super Mario Bros. had INSANE replay value, because it forced you to replay everything you had already done every time you ran out of lives. It was definitely a bad way of increasing the life of the game, but it worked... and a lot of developers these days are so quick to hold the player's hand and help them through everything, that punishing players for making a single mistake is almost unheard of. Its why people complain about the save system and time limit in Dead Rising 1/2... they are too used to be helped through everything and get frustrated when they get punished for messing up. It just goes to show how many people actually grew up during the NES/SNES era and had to practice levels over and over and over again until they were actually able to beat them.

foxhound_fox

I agree. I was just about to say the same thing. I look back at a lot of NES games now and think to myself, I can beat that game faster now because I've replayed it a million times. But as a younger kid, it felt like the game was a journey and you had to start it over every time your continues were finished.

As far as games nowadays. If you play a game that lasts you 10 hours or less, think why. We've got save features that allow you start where you left off, instead of starting from the beginning. Most games from the 80s and 90s had special codes or tricks you had to enter if you wanted to start on a different level. And the only way you'd know about it, would be from a magazine! Times have changed.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

And Super Mario Bros. had INSANE replay value, because it forced you to replay everything you had already done every time you ran out of lives. It was definitely a bad way of increasing the life of the game, but it worked... and a lot of developers these days are so quick to hold the player's hand and help them through everything, that punishing players for making a single mistake is almost unheard of. Its why people complain about the save system and time limit in Dead Rising 1/2... they are too used to be helped through everything and get frustrated when they get punished for messing up. It just goes to show how many people actually grew up during the NES/SNES era and had to practice levels over and over and over again until they were actually able to beat them.

KPAXMAN

I agree. I was just about to say the same thing. I look back at a lot of NES games now and think to myself, I can beat that game faster now because I've replayed it a million times. But as a younger kid, it felt like the game was a journey and you had to start it over every time your continues were finished.

As far as games nowadays. If you play a game that lasts you 10 hours or less, think why. We've got save features that allow you start where you left off, instead of starting from the beginning. Most games from the 80s and 90s had special codes or tricks you had to enter if you wanted to start on a different level. And the only way you'd know about it, would be from a magazine! Times have changed.

And Super Mario Bros. had INSANE replay value, because it forced you to replay everything you had already done every time you ran out of lives. It was definitely a bad way of increasing the life of the game, but it worked... and a lot of developers these days are so quick to hold the player's hand and help them through everything, that punishing players for making a single mistake is almost unheard of. Its why people complain about the save system and time limit in Dead Rising 1/2... they are too used to be helped through everything and get frustrated when they get punished for messing up. It just goes to show how many people actually grew up during the NES/SNES era and had to practice levels over and over and over again until they were actually able to beat them.

foxhound_fox

I grew up playing Super Mario 1 and 3. That said, unforgiving gameplay isn't the mark of "quality" game design. It always has been, and always will be, a cheap tactic to artificially increase game length. Whether or not you actually enjoy that type of gameplay is completely up to you, but let's not pretend that it's something it is not.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

And Super Mario Bros. had INSANE replay value, because it forced you to replay everything you had already done every time you ran out of lives. It was definitely a bad way of increasing the life of the game, but it worked... and a lot of developers these days are so quick to hold the player's hand and help them through everything, that punishing players for making a single mistake is almost unheard of. Its why people complain about the save system and time limit in Dead Rising 1/2... they are too used to be helped through everything and get frustrated when they get punished for messing up. It just goes to show how many people actually grew up during the NES/SNES era and had to practice levels over and over and over again until they were actually able to beat them.

Greyfeld

I grew up playing Super Mario 1 and 3. That said, unforgiving gameplay isn't the mark of "quality" game design. It always has been, and always will be, a cheap tactic to artificially increase game length. Whether or not you actually enjoy that type of gameplay is completely up to you, but let's not pretend that it's something it is not.

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

And Super Mario Bros. had INSANE replay value, because it forced you to replay everything you had already done every time you ran out of lives. It was definitely a bad way of increasing the life of the game, but it worked... and a lot of developers these days are so quick to hold the player's hand and help them through everything, that punishing players for making a single mistake is almost unheard of. Its why people complain about the save system and time limit in Dead Rising 1/2... they are too used to be helped through everything and get frustrated when they get punished for messing up. It just goes to show how many people actually grew up during the NES/SNES era and had to practice levels over and over and over again until they were actually able to beat them.

vadicta

I grew up playing Super Mario 1 and 3. That said, unforgiving gameplay isn't the mark of "quality" game design. It always has been, and always will be, a cheap tactic to artificially increase game length. Whether or not you actually enjoy that type of gameplay is completely up to you, but let's not pretend that it's something it is not.

Excuse me, I didn't explain myself properly.

By "unforgiving gameplay," I mean "Moderately difficult gameplay, punctuated by the requirement of starting the game over from level 1 if you died too many times."

Forcing a player to replay stages already cleared is what artificially increases game length.

[QUOTE="vadicta"]

[QUOTE="Greyfeld"]

I grew up playing Super Mario 1 and 3. That said, unforgiving gameplay isn't the mark of "quality" game design. It always has been, and always will be, a cheap tactic to artificially increase game length. Whether or not you actually enjoy that type of gameplay is completely up to you, but let's not pretend that it's something it is not.

Greyfeld

Excuse me, I didn't explain myself properly.

By "unforgiving gameplay," I mean "Moderately difficult gameplay, punctuated by the requirement of starting the game over from level 1 if you died too many times."

Forcing a player to replay stages already cleared is what artificially increases game length.

I more of a quality over quantity guy. If a game is good but, short then I'll just play it again and spike up the difficulty or give myself a chaleenge like a speed run, or beating the gaming using only pistols or with no magic or I go back to unlock stuff.