I totally agree with a lot of stuff this guy has to say...

http://www.next-gen.biz/blogs/lengthy-arguments

Let's make the main single player story mode in games shorter again but add in a lot more replay value instead. I'm talking about bringing back games with months of re-play as opposed to games with 30-60 hours of repetitive tedium and overstretched plots that most people don't really care about in the first place and that the vast majority of people will most likely never play much again if they even bother to complete them a single time.

you know NOT every game is 60 hours long right? alot more games are shorter than longer these days

if it's an RPG then yea it's gonna be long...RPG's have been like that since day one and that's about how long they're expected to be, so no i don't want my 60 hour games to be shortened

http://www.next-gen.biz/blogs/lengthy-arguments

I really don't like all these 60 hours games that just drag things out far too much that I'm most likely never going to complete and therefore never get the satisfaction of finishing the game.

Let's make games shorter again but add in a lot more replay value instead, especially in the main single player story mode, to keep me coming back for months rather than 60 hours of repetitive tedium and overstretched plots that I don't really care about in the first place.

you know NOT every game is 60 hours long right? alot more games are shorter than longer these days

if it's an RPG then yea it's gonna be long...RPG's have been like that since day one and that's about how long they're expected to be, so no i don't want my 60 hour games to be shortened

CDUB316

Well most games that are that long are open world repettive games. I dont like em either, i get a linear 10 hours anytime over them.dakan45

It's pretty obvious that many people in here didn't start playing games until maybe the last couple of generations because their view of a games long length as being important or equal to the overall quality and amount of time you can actually have fun playing the game is clearly wrong. Many of you are so used to playing these 30-60 hour games, that you maybe only replay a couple of times at most, and so you equate that to the lastability and value for money of a game but in reality a game that lasts say 10 hours to complete the main story but that has tones of replay value can actually last you much longer, potentially many months in terms of replay value rather than a couple of days if you actually manage to play these "longer" games a few times through.

It seems to me that many modern games have replaced the re-playability in the single player game, that a lot of older games had in abundance, with the re-playability of the multi-player mode instead. That's the wrong way of thinking about it imo because although multi-player is a great way to extend the re-playability of a game it should never come at the expense of a great and repeatedly rewarding single player game imo. There are still a lot of people out there who get most of their enjoyment and playtime from the single player experience, probably still the majority I'd think, and cutting the re-playability down in the single player mode for the online component is a bad idea imo. Extending the single player mode to 30-60 hours doesn't actually fix this issue imo, it just means I'm even less likely to complete the single player mode and get even less satisfaction from it.

Personally I'd take 6-10 hours of great gameplay and level design that I'm going to complete, then play again and again for months, over 30-60 hours that I'm maybe going to play through a couple of times at best if I even bother to complete it the first time which I rarely do with many current-gen slogfests.

It's obvious many people here didn't start playing games until maybe the last couple of generations because their view of a games long length as being important or equal to the overall quality and amount of time you can actually have fun playing the game is clearly wrong. Many of you are so used to playing these 30-60 hour games, that you maybe only replay a couple of times at most, and so you equate that to the lastability and value for money of a game but in reality a game that lasts say 10 hours to complete the main story but that has tones of replay value can actually last you much longer, potentially months in terms of replay value rather than a couple of days if you actually manage to play these "longer" games a few times through.

It seems to me that many modern games have replaced the re-playability in the single player game, that a lot of older games had in abundance, with the re-playability of the multi-player mode instead. That's the wrong way of thinking about it imo because although multi-player is a great way to extend the re-playability of a game it should never come at the expense of a great and repeatedly rewarding single player game imo. There are still a lot of people out there who get most of their enjoyment and playtime from the single player experience, probably still the majority, and cutting the re-playability down in the single player mode for the online component is bad design imo. Making the single player mode 30-60 hours doesn't actually fix this issue imo, it just means I'm even less likely to complete the single player mode and get even less satisfaction from it.

Personally I'd take 6-10 hours of great gameplay and level design that I'm going to complete, then play again and again for months, over 30-60 hours that I'm maybe going to play through a couple of times at best if I even bother to complete it the first time which I rarely do with many current-gen slogfests.

amaneuvering

I have been playing games since the 1980s.

I like both long and short games depending on what type they are.

Resident Evil 4 took me like 20 hours to beat and I thought it was well done.

Most games today are actually short.

RPGs are the few that are long.

So I like short games like Mirror's Edge and long games like Oblivion.

I usually never replay a game not even Dragon Age which I spent around 55 hours to complete not counting the expansions.

The only games I go back to play are multiplayer games or games that are over a decade old.

Dragon Age is one of my favorite games this gen and it is pretty long + full of detail and lore.

I've never played a game that had a 60 hour long story. Nowhere near 60 hours ...

Longest Singleplayer i've played this gen was Dragon Age, the first time around and that wasaround 20hours.

Other supposedly long games like FFXIII took even less time, and then games like GOW3 just felt like i spent £40 on a demo.

I don't have a problem with the 12 hour standard for action/shooter/action-adventure/platforming types of games, as long as the story is good and/or there's plenty of interesting new gameplay situations throughout. Up to 60 hours is fine for an RPG as long as the story is good. If action games only lasted a few hours, I'd find that pretty unsatisfying in this day and age.

I do agree with his point that many game stories are pretty crappy, but we should be asking for better writing and some more interesting and original concepts, instead of asking for games to only last a few hours.

It's pretty obvious that many people in here didn't start playing games until maybe the last couple of generations because their view of a games long length as being important or equal to the overall quality and amount of time you can actually have fun playing the game is clearly wrong. Many of you are so used to playing these 30-60 hour games, that you maybe only replay a couple of times at most, and so you equate that to the lastability and value for money of a game but in reality a game that lasts say 10 hours to complete the main story but that has tones of replay value can actually last you much longer, potentially many months in terms of replay value rather than a couple of days if you actually manage to play these "longer" games a few times through.

It seems to me that many modern games have replaced the re-playability in the single player game, that a lot of older games had in abundance, with the re-playability of the multi-player mode instead. That's the wrong way of thinking about it imo because although multi-player is a great way to extend the re-playability of a game it should never come at the expense of a great and repeatedly rewarding single player game imo. There are still a lot of people out there who get most of their enjoyment and playtime from the single player experience, probably still the majority I'd think, and cutting the re-playability down in the single player mode for the online component is a bad idea imo. Extending the single player mode to 30-60 hours doesn't actually fix this issue imo, it just means I'm even less likely to complete the single player mode and get even less satisfaction from it.

Personally I'd take 6-10 hours of great gameplay and level design that I'm going to complete, then play again and again for months, over 30-60 hours that I'm maybe going to play through a couple of times at best if I even bother to complete it the first time which I rarely do with many current-gen slogfests.

amaneuvering

you know you're like 0/2 on judging me, lol

i started playing on the NES dude...you don't really need to judge people and say things are "obvious" just because we don't agree with you

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]

It's pretty obvious that many people in here didn't start playing games until maybe the last couple of generations because their view of a games long length as being important or equal to the overall quality and amount of time you can actually have fun playing the game is clearly wrong. Many of you are so used to playing these 30-60 hour games, that you maybe only replay a couple of times at most, and so you equate that to the lastability and value for money of a game but in reality a game that lasts say 10 hours to complete the main story but that has tones of replay value can actually last you much longer, potentially many months in terms of replay value rather than a couple of days if you actually manage to play these "longer" games a few times through.

It seems to me that many modern games have replaced the re-playability in the single player game, that a lot of older games had in abundance, with the re-playability of the multi-player mode instead. That's the wrong way of thinking about it imo because although multi-player is a great way to extend the re-playability of a game it should never come at the expense of a great and repeatedly rewarding single player game imo. There are still a lot of people out there who get most of their enjoyment and playtime from the single player experience, probably still the majority I'd think, and cutting the re-playability down in the single player mode for the online component is a bad idea imo. Extending the single player mode to 30-60 hours doesn't actually fix this issue imo, it just means I'm even less likely to complete the single player mode and get even less satisfaction from it.

Personally I'd take 6-10 hours of great gameplay and level design that I'm going to complete, then play again and again for months, over 30-60 hours that I'm maybe going to play through a couple of times at best if I even bother to complete it the first time which I rarely do with many current-gen slogfests.

CDUB316

you know you're like 0/2 on judging me, lol

i started playing on the NES dude...you don't really need to judge people and say things are "obvious" just because we don't agree with you

[QUOTE="CDUB316"]

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]

It's pretty obvious that many people in here didn't start playing games until maybe the last couple of generations because their view of a games long length as being important or equal to the overall quality and amount of time you can actually have fun playing the game is clearly wrong. Many of you are so used to playing these 30-60 hour games, that you maybe only replay a couple of times at most, and so you equate that to the lastability and value for money of a game but in reality a game that lasts say 10 hours to complete the main story but that has tones of replay value can actually last you much longer, potentially many months in terms of replay value rather than a couple of days if you actually manage to play these "longer" games a few times through.

It seems to me that many modern games have replaced the re-playability in the single player game, that a lot of older games had in abundance, with the re-playability of the multi-player mode instead. That's the wrong way of thinking about it imo because although multi-player is a great way to extend the re-playability of a game it should never come at the expense of a great and repeatedly rewarding single player game imo. There are still a lot of people out there who get most of their enjoyment and playtime from the single player experience, probably still the majority I'd think, and cutting the re-playability down in the single player mode for the online component is a bad idea imo. Extending the single player mode to 30-60 hours doesn't actually fix this issue imo, it just means I'm even less likely to complete the single player mode and get even less satisfaction from it.

Personally I'd take 6-10 hours of great gameplay and level design that I'm going to complete, then play again and again for months, over 30-60 hours that I'm maybe going to play through a couple of times at best if I even bother to complete it the first time which I rarely do with many current-gen slogfests.

amaneuvering

you know you're like 0/2 on judging me, lol

i started playing on the NES dude...you don't really need to judge people and say things are "obvious" just because we don't agree with you

well it's gotta be somebody here right? you didn't call out anyone specific...so how was i supposed to know that i wasn't one of those "many" people? yea, that's right i couldn't have known

I'm pretty sure many people in here would say a game like RDR is a lot of fun with plenty to do and a pretty decent story too...Now, while that may or may not be true imo, I still think it is far too long and dragged out beyond any reasonable measure. Cutting the story mode of that game down to say 8 hours would have made it so much better and more powerful imo, I would have remembered some of it for a start, and that would still leave the entire open world game with countless hours of side tasks and missions and endless exploration for those people who wanted to play around longer in the world. On top of that there is still all the multi-player stuff too. The single player mode is however far too long, repetitive and ultimately tedious and unrewarding and it's length for the sake of length itself rather than it actually serving the gameplay experience or overall fun to be had in the game in any way imo. A statistic on the back of the box if you will to keep all the current-gen so called "hardcore" gamers out there happy no doubt.

Just providing one example of the kind of thing I'm talking about. It's not necessarily a dig at that particular game just for the sake of it.

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"][QUOTE="CDUB316"]

you know you're like 0/2 on judging me, lol

i started playing on the NES dude...you don't really need to judge people and say things are "obvious" just because we don't agree with you

CDUB316

well it's gotta be somebody here right? you didn't call out anyone specific...so how was i supposed to know that i wasn't one of those "many" people? yea, that's right i couldn't have known

Well if you don't know if you are one of those people I really can't help you but you obviously do and my point still stands.

So what you are basically saying is that you don't have time to play long games anymore and you basically demand that games should change to fit your life.

Egoistic much :|

[QUOTE="CDUB316"]

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"] I said "many people". Who said anywhere that you were one of those many people? If you're not then stop getting your panties in a twist.amaneuvering

well it's gotta be somebody here right? you didn't call out anyone specific...so how was i supposed to know that i wasn't one of those "many" people? yea, that's right i couldn't have known

Well if you don't know if you are one of those people I really can't help you but you obviously do and my point still stands.

again...if you don't quote or call out specific people you could be talking about ANYONE who disagrees with you

remember that next time, k? :)

I don't get why it's so hard for people to grasp that different genres have different standards. RPGs are generally long. It may be 30 hours, or it may be 100+ hours, but the games are long because the appeal of the genre is generally the attachment to a character (or characters) that you have developed over the course of a long story. A 5 hour RPG would totally fail. Action games, such as shooters or hack-and-slash games, are generally short, because the appeal of the game is completely about the actual game mechanics, so playing the same few levels over and over is just as fun as playing new levels. Threads like this one, or the far more common "Games are too short this gen" thread ignore the fact that there have always been short games AND long games, as long as there have been different genres of games. The only thing that changes is the popularity of one genre over another from one gen to the next.

For a game to have replay value it needs a scoring system, something that keeps pulling you back competitively like action games have (DMC for example). Then again if the game is good you can make your own up or do speed runs (Zelda 3 heart speed runs are a perfect example). That said I still expect my games to be 15+ hours single player, I have been disappointed often this gen :lol: so Im cautious about paying full RRP.

I am not for games being shorter or longer. What is important to me is that my gaming hours are not filled with fluff or filler. Most sandbox games do that unfortunately. They give you long commutes from one mission to the other and fill your hours with side character tangents that add nothing to the story. It wouldn't be bad if these tangents added to character development or the story but they don't. They just fill your hours with more repetitive errands.Javy03

Yeah, I definitely agree with that and I also think many of these sandbox games are the worst offenders and imo they are possibly to blame for the ridiculous obsession we are seeing regarding the length of a game with many of today's designers and gamers, especially with some games/genres that really don't benefit from more length. It seems to me that many current-gen designers and gamers simply assume a game has to be a certain minimum length, usually far too long imo, for it to be considered acceptable. I mean many people went mental because Modern Warfare 2 was around 6 hours or so in the main campaign as if that automatically means it's can't be great value for money. What if it were 6 hours you would want to and enjoy playing over and over for months on end (not saying it was or was not in this case)? It's like they don't even know what re-playability is any more and I can sort of understand when all they see is 30-60 hour story modes, or slogfests as I like to think of them, that they usually maybe only play through a couple of times at most.

I agree, some games are to long and a pain to complete without get sleepy

http://www.next-gen.biz/blogs/lengthy-arguments

I really don't like all these 30-60 hours games that just drag things out far too much, anything over say 10 hours for the main story mode is just pushing it imo, because it's just the same stuff repeated over and overso I'm most likely never going to completethem and therefore I never actually get the satisfaction of finishing the game.

Let's make games shorter again but add in a lot more replay value instead, especially in the main single player story mode, to keep me coming back for months rather than 60 hours of repetitive tedium and overstretched plots that I don't really care about in the first place and that I will most likely never play much again even if I do complete it.

amaneuvering

I liked what RE5 had going on: after you finish the game for the first time, you could pretty much go nuts and play it however you wanted to after that, like spamming the unlimited ammo weapons or just replaying my favorite level over and over just for the hell of it. Believe me, it was months before I actually got bored of RE5 :D. DethSkematik

Yup, I did the same thing with games like GoldenEye and Halo, although funnily enough I still didn't even complete Halo fully (because my flatmate completed the last couple of levels on my save), and I got months and months of gameplay just from messing around in the game's levels and trying new ways to play through the ones I really enjoyed. That sounds much better to me than 30-60 hours of repetitive gameplay and an overly drawn out story where I couldn't even go back and play the bits I actually liked again unless I went through the whole game again too.

what a lame concept. it's like saying don't read books because it takes more than one setting to finish them.

also if you are looking for a satisfying story arc you are mostly barking up the wrong tree by trying to find it in gaming.

if you ever do happen to find one in gaming you can bet that length won't play a part in whether it was good or not.

a satisfying story depends on many things and the majority of the time length is not one of those things.

I like games like Just Cause 2, where you have total freedom in a gigantic world and unlimited hours of playtime.

what a lame concept. it's like saying don't read books because it takes more than one setting to finish them.

also if you are looking for a satisfying story arc you are mostly barking up the wrong tree by trying to find it in gaming.

if you ever do happen to find one in gaming you can bet that length won't play a part in whether it was good or not.

a satisfying story depends on many things and the majority of the time length is not one of those things.

Riverwolf007

what a lame concept. it's like saying don't read books because it takes more than one setting to finish them.

also if you are looking for a satisfying story arc you are mostly barking up the wrong tree by trying to find it in gaming.

if you ever do happen to find one in gaming you can bet that length won't play a part in whether it was good or not.

a satisfying story depends on many things and the majority of the time length is not one of those things.

Riverwolf007

A book like The Lord of the Rings, that takes many hours to read, I might only read once every few years. But my daughter will have me read Pajama Time to her 10 times in one day. So clearly, Pajama Time is a better book than the Lord of the Rings, right?

[QUOTE="DethSkematik"]I liked what RE5 had going on: after you finish the game for the first time, you could pretty much go nuts and play it however you wanted to after that, like spamming the unlimited ammo weapons or just replaying my favorite level over and over just for the hell of it. Believe me, it was months before I actually got bored of RE5 :D. amaneuvering

Meh Resident Evil 5 was a big letdown.

It shouldn't even be called resident evil.

Resident Evil 4 was great but not really a true Resident Evil game.

I had much more Fun with one 20 hour play through of Resident Evil 4 than any amount of play through with RE5.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

what a lame concept. it's like saying don't read books because it takes more than one setting to finish them.

also if you are looking for a satisfying story arc you are mostly barking up the wrong tree by trying to find it in gaming.

if you ever do happen to find one in gaming you can bet that length won't play a part in whether it was good or not.

a satisfying story depends on many things and the majority of the time length is not one of those things.

ianuilliam

A book like The Lord of the Rings, that takes many hours to read, I might only read once every few years. But my daughter will have me read Pajama Time to her 10 times in one day. So clearly, Pajama Time is a better book than the Lord of the Rings, right?

Some of my favorite books are the longest.

One of my favorite series was "The Sword of Truth" series.

Especially with the book in the series called "Faith of the Fallen".

Most of those books were around 800 pages and there were 11 books in the series.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Well most games that are that long are open world repettive games. I dont like em either, i get a linear 10 hours anytime over them.110million

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

what a lame concept. it's like saying don't read books because it takes more than one setting to finish them.

also if you are looking for a satisfying story arc you are mostly barking up the wrong tree by trying to find it in gaming.

if you ever do happen to find one in gaming you can bet that length won't play a part in whether it was good or not.

a satisfying story depends on many things and the majority of the time length is not one of those things.

ianuilliam

A book like The Lord of the Rings, that takes many hours to read, I might only read once every few years. But my daughter will have me read Pajama Time to her 10 times in one day. So clearly, Pajama Time is a better book than the Lord of the Rings, right?

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

what a lame concept. it's like saying don't read books because it takes more than one setting to finish them.

also if you are looking for a satisfying story arc you are mostly barking up the wrong tree by trying to find it in gaming.

if you ever do happen to find one in gaming you can bet that length won't play a part in whether it was good or not.

a satisfying story depends on many things and the majority of the time length is not one of those things.

amaneuvering

A book like The Lord of the Rings, that takes many hours to read, I might only read once every few years. But my daughter will have me read Pajama Time to her 10 times in one day. So clearly, Pajama Time is a better book than the Lord of the Rings, right?

[QUOTE="Randoggy"]I think we can all agree that TC is a clown shoe.amaneuvering

Non multiplayer games should be at least 20+ hours long but MP games I don't mind as long as the MP is good.gamebreakerz__

Same here buddy. Beating a game in only a couple sit downs is a joke. Unless it's just so good you can't put down the controller haha. Uncharted 2 was like that for me, beat that game in two sessions.

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]That made me think a little. Ever since I had a kid, I've been reading a lot of books like Goodnight Moon and 5 Silly Monkees and Where the Wild Things Are...

A book like The Lord of the Rings, that takes many hours to read, I might only read once every few years. But my daughter will have me read Pajama Time to her 10 times in one day. So clearly, Pajama Time is a better book than the Lord of the Rings, right?

ianuilliam

Same here buddy. Beating a game in only a couple sit downs is a joke. Unless it's just so good you can't put down the controller haha. Uncharted 2 was like that for me, beat that game in two sessions.

Randoggy

See, you're clearly not quite getting it.

Uncharted 2 is a great game to play through a single time, regardless of it's length (which imo is still a wee bit too long), but imo it has next to no re-play value unless you like doing almost exactly the same thing each time. There is very little room for experimentation and just "playing around", or different ways to go through levels or extra things like time attack modes etc, which is what gives a single player mode re-playability and true value for money imo. It wouldn't matter if it were 30 hours longer, you'd just have the story dragged out and spread even more thinly and it would just become monotonous eventually.

I'm saying we need to bring back re-playability to the single player mode instead of these games where you get X hours play from the story mode and that's it, and the couple of times max that you might re-play it, because there's no real fun in going through a mostly linear and story driven game more than a couple of times at most if there is nothing beyond the main gameplay moments and level flow.

Personally I don't really get that much out of a story mode that drags on for 30-60 hours and that after I complete it, if I even manage that, I won't feel any desire to come back for more because there really isn't anything more to come back to. Give me 10 hours of design and game play that I will want to play through over and over and over and I'll be a much happier and more satisfied gamer overall. That's real value for money imo.

Many of you guys are focusing on completely the wrong aspect of these games imo.