Gamers' expectations for length are unrealistic.

We no longer live in a time with 20x20 pixel 256-color sprites, text, and MIDI-style music. Back then, it was easy to make a long game--an art asset took a matter of hours to make, not days or weeks, and nobody was expected to include things like voiceovers or orchestral music, because it wouldn't fit on a little game cartridge or a few floppies.

Even in the days of early 3D, production values were infinitely simpler. Models were comprised of dozens, not thousands of polygons, and you could get away with using a solid color instead of a texture on many surfaces. Voice acting was still rare.

It's been a gradual climb since then, but the simple fact is, it now takes a week or more to make a single character whereas once several could be completed in a day.

So why do gamers expect the length of their games to be the same as they were in 1997?

Sure, it's possible to make them that length, but it's difficult and expensive, and it requires lots of procedural (programming-generated) art and the reusal of resources, and it's only feasible for some games (like Oblivion, for example).

The worst thing for me is how RPGs are expected by many people to take upwards of 40 hours to beat (see: Mass Effect 12 hours thread). This is a ridiculous expectation that is not even born by the history of the genre--most Western RPGs don't take much longer than a normal game to beat, they just include a much bigger game world with lots of side quests and lots of places to explore and people to talk to. See: Fallout, Fallout 2, all of the Elder Scrolls games, all of BioWare's other games, and so on.

The reason I bring this up is because length is often a complaint brought up in SW. Gamers need to adapt to the fact that games are going to be shorter now--it's impossible for most projects to be as long as you're demanding given the time and money allotted to them by their publishers.

If the issue is value for your money, I suggest you take a look at other media before demanding tons of gameplay. Movies, for example, cost $20 when they're new and drop to around half that after years. On average, a movie probably gives you less than 2 hours of entertainment from one watching. So if you bought three brand new movies, it'd cost you $60 for 6 hours of entertainment--at best.

If you bought them on sale, used, or when they were older, it would be cheaper--but the same is true for games.

How about music? $15 for at best 1 hour of entertainment.

Gamers have unrealistic expectations in value for their money, too.

You don't need a lot of procedural art or over-reuse of textures, there's enough space in blu-ray and hdds to have a lot of texture variety not to mention new stuff such as this.

However I agree, you need tike and money to create more textures and more content, that increase the cost of games a lot. One possible solution for this would be to make games more like 'games 2.0', release SDK and development standards early in the game development, so the community could start creating mods and 'side-quests' from the very beging in the game development cycle.

By the time the game was ready for release, the developer could choose among a lot of user created content and ship with the game in the game disc, increasing the ammount of content without incresing the costs. Free user created downloadable content is another good way of expanding games.

That's one premisse I hope Little Big Planet can live up to, and even might change the top-down metality of current game development.

You don't need a lot of procedural art or over-reuse of textures, there's enough space in blu-ray and hdds to have a lot of texture variety not to mention new stuff such as this.

lordxymor

I never said anything about space. As you agreed, time and money are the issue, not storage space.

an art asset took a matter of hours to make, not days or weeks, and nobody was expected to include things like voiceovers or orchestral music, because it wouldn't fit on a little game cartridge or a few floppies.

Sure, it's possible to make them that length, but it's difficult and expensive, and it requires lots of procedural (programming-generated) art and the reusal of resources, and it's only feasible for some games (like Oblivion, for example).

I'm saying it doesn't need a lot of preceudral content or to reuse textures as there is enough space avalible for real textures, which look better in my opinion (check the link for some examples), but do take more time to be created.

Texture variety take space, the megatexture technique take insane ammounts of space, check the link.

Games are supposed to get better. Better graphics, better sound, better control, etc. The GOTY contenders (AAA's, etc) do something better than the others...THEY EXCEED EXPECTATIONS. This is why Heavy Sword got average reviews. It did not exceed expectations.

As for RPG's and length? Oblivion. I played that for over 150 hrs, and there's plenty of areas I didn't explore. It alsolooked fantastic, had great voice acting, etc at the time. Hence Oblivion won GOTYawards.

Sure, it's possible to make them that length, but it's difficult and expensive, and it requires lots of procedural (programming-generated) art and the reusal of resources, and it's only feasible for some games (like Oblivion, for example).

I'm saying it doesn't need a lot of preceudral content or to reuse textures as there is enough space avalible for real textures, which look better in my opinion (check the link for some examples), but do take more time to be created.

lordxymor

Yes, exactly, they take more time and money to make than reusing old ones or using procedural art. That's exactly what I meant. The only reason Oblivion was able to have as much content as it did was because it did things like generating terrain through programming, reusing and modifying lots of different models for characters, vegetation, and so on. Otherwise Bethesda would never have had the time and money to complete it in that form.

If the issue is value for your money, I suggest you take a look at other media before demanding tons of gameplay. Movies, for example, cost $20 when they're new and drop to around half that after years. On average, a movie probably gives you less than 2 hours of entertainment from one watching. So if you bought three brand new movies, it'd cost you $60 for 6 hours of entertainment--at best.

If you bought them on sale, used, or when they were older, it would be cheaper--but the same is true for games.

How about music? $15 for at best 1 hour of entertainment.

Gamers have unrealistic expectations in value for their money, too.

OremLK

Games, music and movis are different things. They all have their different standards. And game standards are dropping in terms of game length which is really bad. I don't know why anybody would want their games to be short.

If the issue is value for your money, I suggest you take a look at other media before demanding tons of gameplay. Movies, for example, cost $20 when they're new and drop to around half that after years. On average, a movie probably gives you less than 2 hours of entertainment from one watching. So if you bought three brand new movies, it'd cost you $60 for 6 hours of entertainment--at best.

If you bought them on sale, used, or when they were older, it would be cheaper--but the same is true for games.

How about music? $15 for at best 1 hour of entertainment.

Gamers have unrealistic expectations in value for their money, too.

OremLK

And I all most never buy movies or CD for that very reason it not worth the money

I got 50+ hours out of Zelda:TP.

We shouldn't be sacrificing gameplay and game length for pretty graphics.

I don't mind a short game... but you better have alot of hidden stuff (items/characters/missions) or something that gives your game replay value. Or it should be fun enough that people don't mind doing the same missions over and over again.

Some people seem to be suggesting this, but I disagree that gameplay = game length. If the gameplay is fun, you can play an 8 hour game over and over and over again and still enjoy it.

[QUOTE="OremLK"]

So if you bought three brand new movies, it'd cost you $60 for 6 hours of entertainment--at best.

How about music? $15 for at best 1 hour of entertainment.

Gamers have unrealistic expectations in value for their money, too.

HarlockJC

And I all most never buy movies or CD for that very reason it not worth the money

I have to disagree. A good album has high replay value. Do you honestly listen to a song/album and say, "well now that i've heard it once, I have no need or desire to ever hear it again." The same goes for a good movie.

We no longer live in a time with 20x20 pixel 256-color sprites, text, and MIDI-style music. Back then, it was easy to make a long game--an art asset took a matter of hours to make, not days or weeks, and nobody was expected to include things like voiceovers or orchestral music, because it wouldn't fit on a little game cartridge or a few floppies.

Even in the days of early 3D, production values were infinitely simpler. Models were comprised of dozens, not thousands of polygons, and you could get away with using a solid color instead of a texture on many surfaces. Voice acting was still rare.

It's been a gradual climb since then, but the simple fact is, it now takes a week or more to make a single character whereas once several could be completed in a day.

So why do gamers expect the length of their games to be the same as they were in 1997?

Sure, it's possible to make them that length, but it's difficult and expensive, and it requires lots of procedural (programming-generated) art and the reusal of resources, and it's only feasible for some games (like Oblivion, for example).

The worst thing for me is how RPGs are expected by many people to take upwards of 40 hours to beat (see: Mass Effect 12 hours thread). This is a ridiculous expectation that is not even born by the history of the genre--most Western RPGs don't take much longer than a normal game to beat, they just include a much bigger game world with lots of side quests and lots of places to explore and people to talk to. See: Fallout, Fallout 2, all of the Elder Scrolls games, all of BioWare's other games, and so on.

The reason I bring this up is because length is often a complaint brought up in SW. Gamers need to adapt to the fact that games are going to be shorter now--it's impossible for most projects to be as long as you're demanding given the time and money allotted to them by their publishers.

OremLK

how can you people say this when every time i come to this site all i see are "graphics this..... graphics that..... x360 or ps3 for the best graphics no the pc rules...." you people want your cake and eat it too well guess what you can't. just be happy with the long games you do get. Heavenly Sword was a masterpiece if it was on the pc or x360 it would have gotten no less than a 9.2 from every game site. the TC is right many gamers' expections are to high.

Why would a game dev send more money to more a 40+ hour game knowing that most gamers now a days have careers, families, other hobbies to play a game that long. as for the people that can all they need to do is add on-line MP for replay vaule at a far less cost. remeber they make games to make asmuchmoney as possible. i'm sure most game dev want their games 25+hours with topof the line graphicsbut its cost too much time &money

I never said anything about space. As you agreed, time and money are the issue, not storage space.

OremLK