Ill say this straight.....

Its generally too costly to make these huge epic games.

As much as i would loved to see more of them, i can understand it. However, i dont appreciate some of the more recent 10 - 15 hour shooters. Any $50+ game should provide a minimum of 20 - 25 hours of gameplay without artificially extending it.

Its generally too costly to make these huge epic games.

As much as i would loved to see more of them, i can understand it. However, i dont appreciate some of the more recent 10 - 15 hour shooters. Any $50+ game should provide a minimum of 20 - 25 hours of gameplay without artificially extending it.

XaosII

Well, I'm the exact opposite. Give me short games 10 or so hours, that are excellent, edge-of-your-seat affairs.

With all the games coming out, I don't have enough time to sit down and play all that I want. I don't mind paying $60 for a 10 hour game. $6 per hour of gaming is not a bad deal at all.

Throw in multiplayer that will have me coming back for more, and it's a real bargain for me. With my limited time to play, I don't want to deal with filler material.

Rather than making lengthy games nowadays they make open-ended games, which suck. Open-ended should mean Fallout-style gameplay where you don't have to travel down a set path but instead find your own way to the end. It shouldn't mean short game with huge world stocked with generic filler that provides no real content *coughOblivioncough*

I'd love a game that takes me weeks to complete. I've gone back and played through Baldur's Gate 2 several times because there's so much content in that game, even with knowing exactly where to go it still takes a long time to work through it.

If they're going to make open-ended games they need to come up with some kind of working advanced random quest/level generator.

Neverwinter Nights had a random dungeon generator mod, why not build on that? Make a random quest/mission generator that can piece together elements from various templates to form new content whenever you want it. A random level generator that has enough checks in it to make sure it's developed properly.

Oblivion's forests are randomly generated based on how they would appear in the wild so you can't tell me it's impossible for them to do.The idea just requires some more attention. Will Wright and Peter Molyneux are 2 developers that attempt to push the limits like this, with Molyneux being far less successful as he tries to do too much. The industry should follow their lead though, baby steps :P Rather than concentrating on making fancy graphics they should put that time, energy, and money behind content creation. The industry would be in a better state as a result.

Well, I'm the exact opposite. Give me short games 10 or so hours, that are excellent, edge-of-your-seat affairs.

With all the games coming out, I don't have enough time to sit down and play all that I want. I don't mind paying $60 for a 10 hour game. $6 per hour of gaming is not a bad deal at all.

Throw in multiplayer that will have me coming back for more, and it's a real bargain for me. With my limited time to play, I don't want to deal with filler material.

biosc1

I guess if you're happy shelling out $5-6 per game hour, its your money.

Personally, I don't think its unreasonable to expect to get more for our money. 25-50 hours is not unreasonable. $1-2 per game hour. What really annoys me is when a big AAA production game clocks in at only 10 hours or so. Developers spend so much time and money on flashy graphics and cut scenesthat they seemingly forget to add in the actual content.

Any decent MMO should net you a value of $1-2 per game hour pretty easily, so $5-6 per game hour to me just seems like a massive disappointment. Not to mention the number of MMO games that are available free on the internet such as Puzzle Pirates, Rappelz, Sword of the New World, Tales of Pirates, and so on.

Its generally too costly to make these huge epic games.

As much as i would loved to see more of them, i can understand it. However, i dont appreciate some of the more recent 10 - 15 hour shooters. Any $50+ game should provide a minimum of 20 - 25 hours of gameplay without artificially extending it.

XaosII

I totally agree. Games like No One Lives Forever and Deus Ex took me 30 hours to complete on the first play through, so I miss having games with that kind of duration.

I remember completing Max Payne in 7 hours, and MoH: Allied Assault SP in about the same time, and I was disappointed. That length of time is where I feel like I've played a third of the game and I'm just getting my teeth into it. And then it ends, which sucks.

That's why I'm a lot more cautious about which games I purchase on the day of release. I'm more inclined to sit back and read lots of reviews now to see how short a game is, and if I consider it to be too short (even if it's a good game), I'll delay purchase for a while until the price drops. Sure, it might take more money to develop these games today, but that's the fault of the developer if they keep trying to inject their games with cutting edge graphics and neon-bling-bling special fx.

I don't particularly want cutting edge graphics, I want cutting edge gameplay. I can still fire up a lot of older games in my collection and get just as much enjoyment out of them today purely because they have great gameplay. That's not to say I think good graphics don't have their place, because they do. I just don't see the need to blow half your budget on the graphics at the expense of gameplay.

If a developer made a game today using the Quake 3 engine with good level design, good characterisation, great gameplay and a campaign that lasted 25 hours I would buy it in spite of dated graphics. I would much rather have better environmental interaction than Bloom or HDR. I would much rather have great characterisation than blurry bump-mapped textures and lighting that makes everything look like plastic. I'll take a player body in game to improve immersion over depth of field effects which if overused can make things in the environment look like toys.

Everyone's got caught up in the graphics rat-race and now games are shorter or less complex or just plain less enjoyable.

a 2-hrs game should be made a standard. $25 an hour isn't really that bad eh?

/sarcasm

but i think that 20+ for an FPS and 40+ for an RPG is alright. that doesn't take mixed genres into account

Play games on the hardest dificulty and they will last much longer.Deihmos

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Its generally too costly to make these huge epic games.

As much as i would loved to see more of them, i can understand it. However, i dont appreciate some of the more recent 10 - 15 hour shooters. Any $50+ game should provide a minimum of 20 - 25 hours of gameplay without artificially extending it.

flclempire

I agree, but I still want a longer game. There has to be a break-even point and I feel that currently we are getting games that are below that.

Blame the graphics whores....

As long as they prefer to have ultramegablastersuper amazing graphics for 5 hours instead of great graphics and long interesting gameplay, we will be getting those games (some even remind me of old demos we had....)

I think its because of the developers now too freaking busy to try and make the next best thing.

Thats why games come out at the same time, then nothing happens for 6 months, then more games come out the same time. Developers are now trying to craft that perfect something instead of that attitude 10 years ago when developers just wanted for the gamer to have a good time.

Let's see.. I shell out 14 bucks.. for a 2hr movie (if on sale) 20 normally.. and I get director's commentary and deleted scenes (in some cases) .. how many times do I watch said movie? 10 max? maybe even less? Screw it I'll just get a Netflix membership and rent everything..

I find it better to spend 50 bucks+ on seasons from TV series'. Usually I stay around the 50 buck per season mark.. let's see.. 20 + episodes each episode roughly around 45 minutes-50 minutes. Yeah better deal for buying series than buying Hollywood flix. Course I could wait for them to go down to 10 dollars.. but by then I rather watch a new flick than an old flick that is being televised on TNT or USA.

Sometimes quality is better than quantity. 10-15 hours suits me fine. I was playings game that rated well in the 9's in Gamespot but stopped at about the 20 hour mark. I'd had enough. Horses for courses, I guess.

8)

Who else is fed up of short games these days? Where did all my 80 hour epics go? even RPGs are getting way shorter. Devs are relying more and more on multiplayer, replayability and unlockables to prolong a games life, i really dont think makes up for a short campaign. Its been a while since a played a game with a long, thrilling campaign which really stuck in my memory. Discuss?F4ll3n_1

What's to discuss? Games are short. The end.

didn't 60 hours for an rpg used to be the minimum?

and as far as FPS how long did it take any of you to finish Doom first time around?

FPS games are usually pretty cut down.

Man, I can remember playing through FFVII for the first time and it taking me best part ot 60 hours, and then there was Half Life which took me weeks.

I agree on one principle that playing games on a harder difficulty makes the games last slightly longer, but that's only because you keep dying and having to do the same thing over and over.

Take Gears of War for example (Not a PC game I know) but that had great graphics and good game play (Running for cover anyone?!?) but it was finished faster than a burger infront of a fat man. It's crazy, thankfully I only loaned that from my friend!

But like someone said, since the release of Halo everyone seens to be going 'showy' on us and making graphics the main concern and the gameplay to lag behind.

Bring back the EPIC games, the ones that took us eons to play through, even tho you know it's and industry made for making money, if they can tie you up in one game for 10-15 hours and release another one just like it 1 - 2 months later they can double their money, much more so than getting you to play Deux Ex for 40+ hours and you not need another game for 3 - 4 months.

Because they have seen how much money can be made from this industry they are squeezing as much money out of it as possible, which is also why you see so many underdeveloped, regurgitated repetitive slop coming from some developers now.

Anyway, I'll stop there before I bore you all to death =P

I agree. I miss the lenghty epic adventures. They don't make them anymore because it's all about graphics and flash. Todays games are all flash and no substance. However, the name of the game is that you have to keep up with the Jones's. Afterall, that is why new consoles are released every four to five years and graphics and play control are continually being pushed forward. Developers and Publishers know that if they don't do this they will get left behind and their games won't sell. So as a result the games get shorter and shorter.

I hate how multiplayer is used as the selling point in games today, and I deeply despise how everything on the PC seems to be going MMO. Multiplayer by itself is not fun. What makes it fun is when you get with the right people, which is usually your friends. However, anything with friends is fun, and anything is fun provided you get the right people for it. Take Beer Pong and Flip Cup for example. They are two of the stupidest games ever invented, but what makes them fun is when you are with friends. However, that doesn't mean the game is fun, because the game is not fun. It's being with your friends that is fun.

Its generally too costly to make these huge epic games.

As much as i would loved to see more of them, i can understand it. However, i dont appreciate some of the more recent 10 - 15 hour shooters. Any $50+ game should provide a minimum of 20 - 25 hours of gameplay without artificially extending it.

XaosII

1 word: oblivion. Theres no excuse.

I agree most FPS are too short. But I don't think this is happening to other genres like RPG. Most RPGs still give you a good 30+ hours.Drizzt13

I don't even want to buy RPGs with less than 50 hours of gameplay.

Well, I'm the exact opposite. Give me short games 10 or so hours, that are excellent, edge-of-your-seat affairs.

With all the games coming out, I don't have enough time to sit down and play all that I want. I don't mind paying $60 for a 10 hour game. $6 per hour of gaming is not a bad deal at all.

Throw in multiplayer that will have me coming back for more, and it's a real bargain for me. With my limited time to play, I don't want to deal with filler material.

biosc1

I agree with this guy. I have always enjoyed games with a multiplayer focus, but a story mode that keeps me busy for a couple of afternoons.

I find the length in most games reasonable butI tried going through Doom 3 and Far Crybut man, the games are so long that I started getting boredbecause it was just sorepetitive. I never did finish them even tho I got really far. One I will get back at it and try to finish them.

One thing I have to say tho is that FPS shouldn't be longer than 8-10 hours because after that, it just gets flatout boring and the game is dragging on and on.

Quality over quantity? I don't think that's what we're asking for here. People are saying they want quality AND quantity, which is what we used to have more of.

I too have been feeling as though games of late have beena little short. Maybe the market is changing but for me it's not jsut about the destination, but the ride. Remember the old Atari games? You know, centipede, frogger, pacman, etc. You never beat those. There was no end! But they were (and still are) a blast. When I drop $50 on a game, I want to feel as though I got $50 of entertainment out of it. I'll use The Darkness as an example. In my opinion it was an awesome game! The story was top-notch and the gameplay mechanics were great. But it was ~13 hours long. I enjoyed the heck out of it while it lasted, but I still don't feel like I got my full moneys worth. It took me ~1 month to beat FFVII at a somewhat casual pace and I had no problems with that. It also had no MP, and I couldn't care less. I got a large amount of prolonged enjoyment out of it. It had both both quality and quantity in my opinion, and I'd like to see more of that.

mmos and online games are taking over, The last great single player games I played were HL2:EP1 (about 3hours long.... :| but okay they're doing it in episodes, I'd prefer if they just did HL3 :? )

And FEAR (about 15hours long too short imo) Oblivion was absolute rubbish compared to morrowind (what happened to the depth of the game?!!) I finished with it in 50 hours which I suppose was okay but then I spent close to 220hours on morrowind-which was much better

there are probably other examples but im tired so im going to bed now...

I'll take quality over length any day of the week...monco59

The last computer RPG I played was probably Oblivion, and that took me quite a while to complete. Although I do agree that games are getting shorter and shorter, hell, even Nintendo flat out stated that they will attempt to make games shorter but have greater replay value.

With that said, it looks like developers are beginning to cater to a larger audience by making their games shorter and more accessible. Theres still some long games coming out though: Hellgate for the PC might be long and Blue Dragon for the xbox is 3 DVDs long.

[QUOTE="monco59"]I'll take quality over length any day of the week...smokeydabear076

Agreed, but life has shown us that you can't always have everything. Hence, I choose quality.

yeah some games are getting short but i hate it when they try forcing out length out almost floggging a dead horse.

games are differant from films we like long games but we don't like long films