Games are too short....Is it just me?

I have to say, as a veteran gamer I've noticed that games of all kinds are lacking material. But don't jump to conclusions. I have to had it to them, there's alot of flash in today's games. Alot of in-play features and amazing graphics and such. But the quality of games is just completely lost when the game is short is and full of bugs. Crysis is a good example I believe. That game had absolutely stunning graphic display and the sound and such. The idea of customizing weapons on the spot is also very unique and just plain cool :) But even if you have all of these features (and those I didn't name) it do not matter if you only play the game for an hour and it gets old. Then after another two hours you beat the game.... I would like to know what other gamers think, because I am crying out to game developers: MAKE LONGER GAMES!!!

Snake,

Games are getting shorter. Half Life 2 is shoter than the first Half Life expansion, I think.

Making games is becoming more expensive, so developers have to cut costs somewhere. The easiest way to do that is to make shorter games. We could find ourselves at a point where five hours - or even less - is the standard length.

But, you know what? I would rather play a seven hour game (or a five hour game) that is consistently excellent from start to finish, and with no filler, than a twenty hour game that, while it may be great, has bits that I don't enjoy and use old saves to skip on replays.

Half Life is about eighteen hours long, I think. I've played it through twice. Escape from Butcher Bay is seven and a half hours long, and I've played it through about five times - it has no filler and the game is consistently excellent. The seven and a half hour game has been much, much better value for money than the eighteen hour game and, pound for pound, gave a better experience as a whole.

But yeah, games are getting shorter - but I think games are also getting consistently better, so I'm not sure it's a bad thing.

Yeah some games are getting shorter, cod 4 is a big example, I got that one for 20$ new and I still feel that I got ripped-off with the sp. I notice that the majority of these short game are multiplatform, maybe because of the encryption system on console, lazyness...

I am still happy though that some company really care about the game lenght, for example Valve and the orange box, the witcher (with more free content soon!), stalker (20 hours easely), guild wars (787 hours so far O_O), Crysis. My first run of Crysis took me 35 hours, mainly because I played a lot with the environnement. If you follow the game storyline without exploring, the game must be so boring.

Games are getting shorter. Half Life 2 is shoter than the first Half Life expansion, I think.

Making games is becoming more expensive, so developers have to cut costs somewhere. The easiest way to do that is to make shorter games. We could find ourselves at a point where five hours - or even less - is the standard length.

But, you know what? I would rather play a seven hour game (or a five hour game) that is consistently excellent from start to finish, and with no filler, than a twenty hour game that, while it may be great, has bits that I don't enjoy and use old saves to skip on replays.

Half Life is about eighteen hours long, I think. I've played it through twice. Escape from Butcher Bay is seven and a half hours long, and I've played it through about five times - it has no filler and the game is consistently excellent. The seven and a half hour game has been much, much better value for money than the eighteen hour game and, pound for pound, gave a better experience as a whole.

But yeah, games are getting shorter - but I think games are also getting consistently better, so I'm not sure it's a bad thing.

mfsa

I thought HL 1 was at least that because the second game is meant to be about 20 hours from what I've read...eh, who knows.

To the OP:

I don't know how tall you are so its difficult to know if its just you but also:

I would much rather have a tight and well scripted experience like HL2: EP2 as opposed to a game that has a ridiculous amount of padding and becomes just downright tedious to play: like San Andreas for example.

I thought HL 1 was at least that because the second game is meant to be about 20 hours from what I've read...eh, who knows.

biggest_loser

When you say the second game, do you mean Half Life 2? Would that mean you haven't played Half Life 2??? I'm confused and frightened by your comments!

Half Life 2 is more like 12-14 hours long from what I remember. It's not a very long game, in part because of how easy it is.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

I thought HL 1 was at least that because the second game is meant to be about 20 hours from what I've read...eh, who knows.

mfsa

When you say the second game, do you mean Half Life 2? Would that mean you haven't played Half Life 2??? I'm confused and frightened by your comments!

Half Life 2 is more like 12-14 hours long from what I remember. It's not a very long game, in part because of how easy it is.

Yeah sorry should have made that more clear: i have played and finished both games of course. It took me ages to finish the second game, longer than 12 hours probably closer to 20 - i don't mind that its easy. I put it on Hard and was personally satisfied with that difficulty.

HL1 is one of the longest shooters I've played.

Meh, if you want to play for 60+ hrs, just play an RPG. Like several other people have said: FPSs are supposed to be intense and fun to play. If a dev-team is capable of making 20 hrs of non-stop action or tension or scariness or whatever, great! If not, just make the game shorter, take out all the filler and voila, you have a shorter, but better game.

BTW, I remember I used a lot less time on HL than 20 hrs. Probably because I just wanted to finish that game and never play it again... I'll try out Blackmesa, but I doubt it will be any better unless they tweak A LOT.

If a game is going to be short, then it should at least feel complete and make you feeling satisfied by the time it ends. It should seem worth the price you paid. Good short game: Portal

If a game is going to be long, then it should not be monotonous and have enough variety and an interesting story to keep you interested that long. It shouldn't resort to cheap tricks to make the game seem longer, like backtracking through levels you've already been. Good long game: Deus Ex.

In either case, if the game is going to include multiplayer, then it should feel like a well thought out compliment to the game rather than be a generic afterthought which will have a small online community.

Yes, the majority of games are getting shorter, and I find it disappointing. I prefer FPS games that give me a 20+ hour ride, and I remember some of the old RPGs where you could easily spend over a hundred hours playing through them. Now the trend is for 8 hour FPS games and 50 hour RPGs if you're lucky.

When it comes to the 'filler' argument against longer games, sure there are some games like that but not all. Deus Ex is a good example of game that was great from start to finish, and as I recall it took me 30 hours to play through it the first time. The Operative: No One Lives Forever was another excellent game where I didn't feel bored or that the dev had run out of ideas and was recycling stuff. The variety of gameplay and different environments made the game feel fresh all the way through, and that took me 25 hours. I remember some of the Thief missions taking me over two hours each to complete, and I never got bored (that game took me 20 hours to finish).

If anything, I see more repetition in some of the shorter games of recent years. Halo: Combat Evolved is a good example, because while it took me about 7 hours to finish, the last half of the game was going through the same levels over and over fighting the same enemies, so technically the game could have been half as long to tell the actual story. Rainbow Six Vegas took me about ten hours to play through, but some of those levels/missions felt repetitive as well (and the hordes of enemies strained the credibility of the entire experience).

A long game can be just as great an experience as a short game if the developer is creative, and includes a variety of gameplay and environments to explore. But I do agree that a dev should not simply throw in extra levels/encounters to pad out a game if they run out of ideas, even if that results in a short game. However, I'm usually not going to pay full price for a short game, particularly if the MP is mediocre or non-existent. I'm disappointed with CoD 4, because the MP just isn't as good as I'd hoped (too much spawn-raping etc.) so I won't be playing that as much as I used to CoD 1, and I finished the SP in 5 hours (including reloads when I died). Enjoyable as it was for those 5 hours, it just didn't feel worth the £30 I paid for it. That's the last CoD game I will be getting.

In addition, I prefer SP games that have elbow room for replayability (such as allowing stealth or run-and-gun play or even vehicles), and these shorter very linear 'cinematic' games just aren't that replayable. Once you've played through it once, there's no incentive to play it again because you'll be doing exactly the same thing in the same order down the same linear pathways without variation. I find that boring because I like to explore game worlds and have opportunities to vary my gameplay style depending on my mood. That's why these days I prefer more 'open' experiences like STALKER, or even Crysis, which allow you the freedom to play how you want to play. They just allow you more freedom of choice, so you can have a different experience the second or even the third time you play them.

If the future of PC FPS gaming is the likes of CoD 4, then I'll pass. I prefer games with more meat on the bones.

Yes, the majority of games are getting shorter, and I find it disappointing. I prefer FPS games that give me a 20+ hour ride, and I remember some of the old RPGs where you could easily spend over a hundred hours playing through them. Now the trend is for 8 hour FPS games and 50 hour RPGs if you're lucky.

When it comes to the 'filler' argument against longer games, sure there are some games like that but not all. Deus Ex is a good example of game that was great from start to finish, and as I recall it took me 30 hours to play through it the first time. The Operative: No One Lives Forever was another excellent game where I didn't feel bored or that the dev had run out of ideas and was recycling stuff. The variety of gameplay and different environments made the game feel fresh all the way through, and that took me 25 hours. I remember some of the Thief missions taking me over two hours each to complete, and I never got bored (that game took me 20 hours to finish).

If anything, I see more repetition in some of the shorter games of recent years. Halo: Combat Evolved is a good example, because while it took me about 7 hours to finish, the last half of the game was going through the same levels over and over fighting the same enemies, so technically the game could have been half as long to tell the actual story. Rainbow Six Vegas took me about ten hours to play through, but some of those levels/missions felt repetitive as well (and the hordes of enemies strained the credibility of the entire experience).

A long game can be just as great an experience as a short game if the developer is creative, and includes a variety of gameplay and environments to explore. But I do agree that a dev should not simply throw in extra levels/encounters to pad out a game if they run out of ideas, even if that results in a short game. However, I'm usually not going to pay full price for a short game, particularly if the MP is mediocre or non-existent. I'm disappointed with CoD 4, because the MP just isn't as good as I'd hoped (too much spawn-raping etc.) so I won't be playing that as much as I used to CoD 1, and I finished the SP in 5 hours (including reloads when I died). Enjoyable as it was for those 5 hours, it just didn't feel worth the £30 I paid for it. That's the last CoD game I will be getting.

In addition, I prefer SP games that have elbow room for replayability (such as allowing stealth or run-and-gun play or even vehicles), and these shorter very linear 'cinematic' games just aren't that replayable. Once you've played through it once, there's no incentive to play it again because you'll be doing exactly the same thing in the same order down the same linear pathways without variation. I find that boring because I like to explore game worlds and have opportunities to vary my gameplay style depending on my mood. That's why these days I prefer more 'open' experiences like STALKER, or even Crysis, which allow you the freedom to play how you want to play. They just allow you more freedom of choice, so you can have a different experience the second or even the third time you play them.

If the future of PC FPS gaming is the likes of CoD 4, then I'll pass. I prefer games with more meat on the bones.

RobertBowen

What you say is interesting because judging from your collection of games you don't seem to mind the linear action titles based on the scores you've given them:

Fear, Quake 4, CoD 2, Halo games, Condemned, Soldier of Fortune, HL2, Far Cry, MOH: AA, Red Faction, Max Payne, Doom 3.

These are all linear, tightly scripted action games, with not much replayability at all. So im just a little confused about what you've said and what you've bought.

how long it takes partly depends on how you play it - anyone who does STALKER in 20 hours for example, probably hasn't played all the side missions or simply walked around doing stuff like you can, which is what's good about it.

OK, so Quake 4 was 15-20 hours, but it's just meant to be fun and not last for ever.

but i do find games take me longer than the average - i almost always play on 'hard' for start but also just make sure i explore every map fully - maybe that's why

i think some of the expansion packs could be better - FEAR extraction point was good, but seemed a little short - and i think i'm right in saying they pretty much retail as much as the original when they first come out - though feel free to correct me because i hardly ever buy new! :oops:

What you say is interesting because judging from your collection of games you don't seem to mind the linear action titles based on the scores you've given them:

Fear, Quake 4, CoD 2, Halo games, Condemned, Soldier of Fortune, HL2, Far Cry, MOH: AA, Red Faction, Max Payne, Doom 3.

These are all linear, tightly scripted action games, with not much replayability at all. So im just a little confused about what you've said and what you've bought.

biggest_loser

Well, first of all I've say that I will always give a higher score for a game that gets the basic gameplay mechanics right (smooth intuitive controls, movement rate, variety of movement, etc.), and works without issue out of the box. A few too many games these days fail these first hurdles with clunky controls or being so bug-ridden they are difficult to play, so I'm going to reward quality where it's due. All of the games you highlighted had rock solid gameplay mechanics, and worked flawlessly for me from start to finish, ie, I did not need to install a patch to play them, and did not encounter any significant bugs (except for CoD 2 which had an issue with my dual-core processor at the time).

Secondly, I never claimed that I've never enjoyed a linear game. It would be extremely disingenuous of me to grossly mark down every linear action game just because it is linear and has scripted events.

Thirdly, preferences change over time, and it is mostly in recent years that my preference is for more open and less constraining games, partly because I have played so many linear games. When I've scored older games, I've tried to put myself in the mindset I had at the time, and how much I enjoyed a game overall.

If you require a more detailed reason why I gave those games their relative scores then I'll summarise...

FEAR - yes, it was linear for the most part, but there were quite a few sections with multiple pathways, and the AI was good enough to make each encounter challenging and not exactly the same, which gave the SP campaign some limited replayability. The multiplayer was very well executed as well, which was reflected in the overall score. The SP got a decent score mainly due to the story, atmosphere and presentation.

Quake 4 - I view as the best of the Quake series, and there was a good variety of gameplay and a decent story. It felt less constrained than previous Quake games, or even Doom 3, and I had fun playing it hence the score I gave it. I never underestimate fun as a factor in rating a game, and it was a decent length.

CoD 2 - got a decent score largely due to the multiplayer which, while not as enjoyable as CoD 1, still gave me a few hundred hours of enjoyment so I felt it was worth the money and was replayable in that way. The SP campaign was good, but I did find it much too linear and repetitive, with 'set piece' battles in favour of a more cohesive story, and far too many respawning enemies. Incidentally, I think CoD 4 has a better story, but it still suffers from linearity, repetition and too many respawning enemies, and it's even shorter than CoD 2.

Halo - I must have been very generous at the time when I scored that game. I must have been having a funny half hour or something, or maybe I was possessed (or maybe my mouse slipped). On reflection it deserved a 7.0 for the story and presentation, and some variety in the gameplay afforded by vehicular combat. Other than that it was a very average shooter, and much too short and repetitive. I hated the multiplayer.

Condemned - got a higher score than I would normally give due to a good story and great atmosphere, and an attempt to get away from the usual 'run and gun'. I will always give devs a +1 for trying something different. Again, I did feel too constrained by the linearity of the game, but its overall presentation deserved a decent score.

Soldier Of Fortune - automatically got a +1 for the Ghoul system (blowing off heads and limbs), and being the first game I played to have a 'moving train' level. :p Some of the levels also afforded different pathways to objectives, so it was not wholly linear. The game was also a decent length, which is always a plus in my book.

Half-Life 2 - is fairly linear, and has lots of scripted events, but it had a great variety of gameplay, great AI that made most encounters different, a great story, great characterisation and took me more than 20 hours to finish (as I explored everywhere). The MP that came with the game was fun for a while as well. Greatness should be rewarded with a great score.

Far Cry - maybe we played different versions of the game or something, but I didn't find Far Cry that linear at all. Every game has a certain linearity due to the story, and having to get from the start of a level to the end of a level, but Far Cry offered a great deal of freedom in how you got from A to B and what encounters you had along the way. So I dispute how you can call Far Cry linear and scripted.

MoH:AA - is another game that I slightly overscored. I hereby deduct .5 points, although it must be said the multiplayer aspect of that game afforded me many hours of enjoyment before I got hooked on CoD 1, and made up for the short SP campaign and the very annoying sniper level. :p Having said that, the SP campaign was a good, solid and varied experience with a decent story, which is often lacking in games today.

Red Faction - again got a +1 for the devs attempting something different with their GeoMod tech. Otherwise it was just a decent, solid shooter that I enjoyed at the time. The ability to use vehicles varied the gameplay, and attaching explosives to the backs of enemies was a good laugh.

Max Payne - On reflection, I devalue it to a 7.5, and that's the number of hours it took me to beat it. The story and presentation was solid, but without bullet time and the 3rd person perspective, it would have been a very average shooter, and it is paynefully linear. :p

Doom 3 - got a +1 because it was better than I expected, after all the things I had read about it. Yes it was very linear and repetitive in parts (which is why it didn't score higher), but had a decent length, good presentation and solid gameplay. Also, I played it with the GTX mod, so I had the flashlight all the way through. Maybe I would have scored lower if I'd been forced to constantly switch between flashlight and guns as in the core game.

The thing is, if I enjoyed a game, and it offered solid gameplay mechanics/controls and a decent story, I will rarely score a game lower than 7.0 or even 7.5 if the game is a quality build (even if it's short), because there are far worse games out there which have clunky control schemes, badly designed levels, poor AI, rubbish animation, awful sound, and have more bugs than the entomology department of the local zoo.

FEAR - yes, it was linear for the most part, but there were quite a few sections with multiple pathways, and the AI was good enough to make each encounter challenging and not exactly the same, which gave the SP campaign some limited replayability. The multiplayer was very well executed as well, which was reflected in the overall score. The SP got a decent score mainly due to the story, atmosphere and presentation.

Quake 4 - I view as the best of the Quake series, and there was a good variety of gameplay and a decent story. It felt less constrained than previous Quake games, or even Doom 3, and I had fun playing it hence the score I gave it. I never underestimate fun as a factor in rating a game, and it was a decent length.

Halo - I must have been very generous at the time when I scored that game. I must have been having a funny half hour or something, or maybe I was possessed (or maybe my mouse slipped). On reflection it deserved a 7.0 for the story and presentation, and some variety in the gameplay afforded by vehicular combat. Other than that it was a very average shooter, and much too short and repetitive. I hated the multiplayer.

Soldier Of Fortune - automatically got a +1 for the Ghoul system (blowing off heads and limbs), and being the first game I played to have a 'moving train' level. :p Some of the levels also afforded different pathways to objectives, so it was not wholly linear. The game was also a decent length, which is always a plus in my book.

Far Cry - maybe we played different versions of the game or something, but I didn't find Far Cry that linear at all. Every game has a certain linearity due to the story, and having to get from the start of a level to the end of a level, but Far Cry offered a great deal of freedom in how you got from A to B and what encounters you had along the way. So I dispute how you can call Far Cry linear and scripted.

Red Faction - again got a +1 for the devs attempting something different with their GeoMod tech. Otherwise it was just a decent, solid shooter that I enjoyed at the time. The ability to use vehicles varied the gameplay, and attaching explosives to the backs of enemies was a good laugh.

RobertBowen

agree with you on all i've selected above but surprised re your view of Halo - seemed quite long to me, also the feel was good, the weapons and scenario interesting (ie more than one enemy, getting caught in 3-way battles etc), and the vehicles also - not reviewed it myself but if i did i'd also bear in mind what else was around when it was released and probably be looking at 8.5 or 9 i'd say

i hate fillers. and most fps are...filled with them. 5 hours of hl2: episode 2 or cod4 are far more exciting than 15 hours of doom 3. that's all i know.fireandcloud

I agree, and while those 5 hours are filled with action the entire way through and are just amazing. Fact remains the games are only 5 hours long. Why do game developers get away with it? Because people let them. When people rave about COD4 and those that play it are all playing online. The single player is awesome the first time through, but without mutliplayer it would be nothing. Seems to days of long, quality single player games with a great multiplayer is over.

To RobertBowen: I don't care what score you gave the games.

The point is that you still bought these titles, presumably knowing that they were linear. Like what else is there to say?

And I guarantee now that you will buy linear shooters in the future. Everyone does, thats just the way it is. I know I do.

I don't mind linear myself as long as it isn't contrived and the scripting is interesting:

I love COD4, terrific game, same with Max Payne: I really don't think its fair that you deduce that game and suggest what it would be like without its key elements. Thats like asking what Crysis would be like without the Nano suit, c'mon.

I didn't like Condemned: I won the game but found it to be horribly linear and contrived. You can only get past an electronic gate but finding the shovel? Please, thats just key searching and unimaginative.

I don't care what score you gave the games.biggest_loser

The point is that you still bought these titles, presumably knowing that they were linear. Like what else is there to say?

And I guarantee now that you will buy linear shooters in the future. Everyone does, thats just the way it is. I know I do.

I love COD4, terrific game, same with Max Payne: I really don't think its fair that you deduce that game and suggest what it would be like without its key elements. Thats like asking what Crysis would be like without the Nano suit, c'mon.

I didn't like Condemned: I won the game but found it to be horribly linear and contrived. You can only get past an electronic gate but finding the shovel? Please, thats just key searching and unimaginative.

A game's length is directly proportionate to the depth and playability of the gameplay.

If you only play singleplayer games, then yes, they generally are very short.

For example, I have spent around 20,000 hours playing Counter-Strike.

I really don't see how bullet time is a gimmick because you do have to use it through out the whole game. It actually aids you and I think it does require some timing. If it was such a gimmick then other games wouldn't try to constantly copy it.

I think the voice acting is intentionally cheesey. I just get the feeling that Max Payne is not as self assured and serious as it might seem. It really is a take on all those old Noir movies and crime capers. But i really like it because I've never seen a game with such an original style like that in its storytelling.

To quote Vlad: Of course, we agree to disagree...

Strategy Games seem to be getting longer. :?Hewkii

I wish they were.. some RTS series are a decent length.. others have had a very dissapointing single player campaign.. C&C3, Supreme Commander etc have all had dissapointing campaigns. Even Sins of a Solar Empire doesn't have a campaign.. its just skirmish. COH single player campaign was good, although if it didn't have skirmish and online i wouldn't be happy.. still a bit short.

There have been some awesome single player campaigns though.. like Age of Mythology, Starcraft, C&C Red Alert, Warcraft 2 etc which also has skirmish and online... so there isn't much excuse for the other games not to have a decent length.

multiplatform games are too short, yes. Games like Gears of War, Call of Duty 4, and others feel like ripoffs.

PC exclusives, however, are extremely nice. The Witcher, Crysis, Halflife series, Sins of a Solar Empire...all 12+ hour games.

Games becoming shorter, Yes.

I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing either, especially for certain genres. And actually, as I'm getting older, with more, ahem...responsibilities, my gaming time is getting shorter as well ;)

Ponder this though:

Are games and other forms of entertainment (movies in particular) converging? Well, actually movies (dvds) typically just have lame interactive bonus features, not really converging very well towards games IMO. How about this question instead, are games becoming more like true interactive movies? At least in their campaigns, multi-player is different.

For games, we are seeing better graphics, better physics, more realism, shorter (Portal as long as a movie for example), higher development costs, easier (less emphasis on points and more emphasis on being able to see the game/story to completion), etc...

I like both. A short good game like Portal is fine to me. If the game is long and dull there's no point to it. There's some really big games like The Witcher which I don't get the time to play to much, but it's fine because that way you have a game that's gonna last for a long time.

Also if the game is short, but has a lot of replayability so there's no problem with it.

The problem is only when you feel that something is missing from short games or on the contrary when you become bored because the game is so long.

As long as there's good quality I don't mind if the game is short or long. I feel that COD4 left you wanting more though.

Even Sins of a Solar Empire doesn't have a campaign.. its just skirmish.

Rattlesnake_8

They didn't make a campaign for Sins because it would have sucked &%$^. The game is a long RTS that there really is no way to make a campaign for it. It would be like a campaign for Civilizations or Total War games. Its better off having scenarios rather then a campaign. Its kinda weird game because most real matches take too long to play online and the AI isn't that amazing.