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.

amaneuvering

This is quite possibly one of the worst and most ignorant articles I have ever read on gaming. It makes absolutely no sense. There are already plenty of really short games made by bigger AND indpendant developers. You can get them on PSN, XBL, Steam, online, etc, etc, etc. There are $**t-tons of 2-3 hour games out there that are quite good. And that doesn't even touch on little games like Bejewelled that any one can sit and play for free for 5 minutes to all day if they want.

And what does story have to do with how long a game is? Or what does how long a game is have to do with adults ability to play in short times. I have a small kid and playing any games is almost impossible right now. Fighting games are easy to pick up and play in short bursts. As are racing games or mission driven type games. I am playing SC2 right now and that game has tons of options that allow you to play a mission or two and take a break if you have to.

And meanwhile, this guy blames game length of games on story...but then goes on and on about how he gets tired of games once he knows the basic game mechanic? WHAT? What kind of real gamer gets sick of games once they know the basic gameplay and doesn't care about story, levels, puzzles, missions, advancing difficulty, etc, etc.? It makes no sense.

Several thoughts on this stupid article.

1. Isn't the trend heading toward SHORTER games already? Isn't that something gamers have been complaining about for awhile now?

2. 2-3 hour games? Is he kidding me? 80 hours of Demon's Souls was the best.

3. Some games are in fact too long. For example at about 30 hours Okami has a big climactic end battle and then decides to tell me that...there's more left to go. That was when I kindly set it aside and said...no thanks.

4. Games do indeed require better pacing but I do not want to pay sixty bucks for a 5 hour game.

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", 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.

amaneuvering

EVERY game is just doing the same thing over and over each time. Why do action games get the short end of the stick when people talk about "replay"? I think it more about people expectations than the game itself. I played the first Uncharted 4 times. I've beaten the silent hill games countless times each. Same with Resident Evil and other games. I primarily play single player and if the story/experience is good, I LOVE playing them again. So this idea of no replay is BS IMHO.

But people can play FPS games for 100s of hours? How is that not doing the same thing over and over? You just run around and shoot. It is literall the same thing the whole time. The difference is FPS's have a simplicity in their gameplay that people can get addicted to. They don't have to get invested in anything other than the twitch gaming process. That's fine, but why is that better? I like story and experience. Other people like the simplicity of running and gunning. Why do the FPS crowd get to monopolize the idea of "replayability"?

Many people like the games you don't though. A short single player with a lot of replayability basically describes an arcade game, such as a shmup. Even games like those become repetitive however. To make a game like you're describing (assuming you don't want an arcade game) would be a dream for most developers, I doubt it would be easy. It couldn't be story driven because it would become stale fast, so the only other significant area to encourage multiple playthroughs is the gameplay; & every developer strives for gameplay that will last, which is why there is so much focus on multiplayer lately. So to ask developers to make a game like that would be like asking a developer to produce an Oscar worthy movie.

[QUOTE="Randoggy"]

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.

amaneuvering

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.

Many people like the games you don't though. A short single player with a lot of replayability basically describes an arcade game, such as a shmup. Even games like those become repetitive however. To make a game like you're describing (assuming you don't want an arcade game) would be a dream for most developers, I doubt it would be easy. It couldn't be story driven because it would become stale fast, so the only other significant area to encourage multiple playthroughs is the gameplay; & every developer strives for gameplay that will last, which is why there is so much focus on multiplayer lately. So to ask developers to make a game like that would be like asking a developer to produce an Oscar worthy movie.

Twin-Blade

How do you people squeeze so much time out of these games ... 30-60 hours? Jesus ...

How do you people squeeze so much time out of these games ... 30-60 hours? Jesus ...

-Snooze-

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

How do you people squeeze so much time out of these games ... 30-60 hours? Jesus ...

Bread_or_Decide

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

How do you people squeeze so much time out of these games ... 30-60 hours? Jesus ...

Nintendo_Ownes7

Most games this gen are actually short, so his argument is quite inaccurate.

Also, in general terms, I'd take a (great) long gameovera (great) very short one with artificial ways of increasing its replay value: l

Time-attacks, collectibles, leaderboards and unlockables are most of the times pointless.

[QUOTE="Nintendo_Ownes7"]

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"] Maybe they move really slowly in the game? Take a step then wait ten minutes. Bread_or_Decide

Whaaaat? The majority of games are short as it is. I'll play a game a few hours a day so it makes it seem like it's longer than it actually is. Sadly you can buy most of these games saturday morning and return them for a refund later that night.

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]

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", 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.

ZIMdoom

EVERY game is just doing the same thing over and over each time. Why do action games get the short end of the stick when people talk about "replay"? I think it more about people expectations than the game itself. I played the first Uncharted 4 times. I've beaten the silent hill games countless times each. Same with Resident Evil and other games. I primarily play single player and if the story/experience is good, I LOVE playing them again. So this idea of no replay is BS IMHO.

But people can play FPS games for 100s of hours? How is that not doing the same thing over and over? You just run around and shoot. It is literall the same thing the whole time. The difference is FPS's have a simplicity in their gameplay that people can get addicted to. They don't have to get invested in anything other than the twitch gaming process. That's fine, but why is that better? I like story and experience. Other people like the simplicity of running and gunning. Why do the FPS crowd get to monopolize the idea of "replayability"?

This is so true, plus I would rather play through a 10-12 hour game 3 times (if I had the time) than play through a 3 hour game (what the article was implying) 10-12 times to get the same total play time.

[QUOTE="110million"][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.dakan45

Personally I don't really get that much out of a story mode that drags on for 30-60 hours amaneuvering

[QUOTE="amaneuvering"]

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.

lucky_star