What do you think is the reason for shorter games on next-gen systems?

-Smaller attn span?
-Not enough space left over after dealing with the 'next gen' stuff. IE too much focus on graphics
-Need better understanding of the hardware
-Laziness
-Shorter Games? What are you talking about?

Any of these sounds like a plausible answer to you? Any other ideas?

(P.S. damn it feels good to be unbanned after my last post here)

Devs are getting more money....

Devs are getting lazier by the day......

Too much focus on presentation, IMO.

On a side note, I find it funny how Mr. Miyamoto once got bashed from an interview in which he said the future of games will be shorter games, and people cried he "sold out" when in fact many developers are following the same route.

Too much focus on presentation, IMO.

On a side note, I find it funny how Mr. Miyamoto once got bashed from an interview in which he said the future of games will be shorter games, and people cried he "sold out" when in fact many developers are following the same route.

DaAznSaN

Well apparantly he was right. But of course Miyamoto is always right.

Too much focus on presentation, IMO.DaAznSaN

I think so too. People only seem to hype games based on screen shots. You cant really hype a game based on story or gameplay (maybe Bioshock but that is an exception to the rule it seems)

lazy devs,

or its a button masher or FPS, those don't last long.

I may be missing a few genres.

Multiplayer sells better than singleplayer.

Look at Halo 2.

Well i think its actually a combination of many things:

1. Its cheaper to develop shorter games, and people don't complain for the most part.

2. Devs are following the new trend of shorter 'casual' games.

3. Americans like short games with lots of action, if you go to Japan, games are much longer.

4. I do think devs are focusing more on multiplayer games. They sell better, and they often get higher reviews. A good example of this is Bioshock, great game, the only fault that many people saw with it was the lack of MP.

I do not think it has anything to do with focusing of graphics. SNES to N64 was a bigger leap then PS2 to PS3, and games actually got longer.

Well i think its actually a combination of many things:

1. Its cheaper to develop shorter games, and people don't complain for the most part.

2. Devs are following the new trend of shorter 'casual' games.

3. Americans like short games with lots of action, if you go to Japan, games are much longer.

4. I do think devs are focusing more on multiplayer games. They sell better, and they often get higher reviews. A good example of this is Bioshock, great game, the only fault that many people saw with it was the lack of MP.

I do not think it has anything to do with focusing of graphics. SNES to N64 was a bigger leap then PS2 to PS3, and games actually got longer.

snorlaxmaster

How is Bioshock a good example of multiplayer games getting higher review scores, better sales and developers focusing more on multiplayer games when, as you yourself said, Bioshock has no multiplayer at all?

Generally they are not shorter, just less confusing with the better visuals so you're not backtracking and getting lost so much. Also I think the difficulty of "Normal" has got easier because of the popularity of games, and not everyone is a hardcore old school gamer with the reflexes of a striking snake and dexterity of.....something very dextrous :?

[QUOTE="snorlaxmaster"]

Well i think its actually a combination of many things:

1. Its cheaper to develop shorter games, and people don't complain for the most part.

2. Devs are following the new trend of shorter 'casual' games.

3. Americans like short games with lots of action, if you go to Japan, games are much longer.

4. I do think devs are focusing more on multiplayer games. They sell better, and they often get higher reviews. A good example of this is Bioshock, great game, the only fault that many people saw with it was the lack of MP.

I do not think it has anything to do with focusing of graphics. SNES to N64 was a bigger leap then PS2 to PS3, and games actually got longer.

Hexagon_777

How is Bioshock a good example of multiplayer games getting higher review scores, better sales and developers focusing more on multiplayer games when, as you yourself said, Bioshock has no multiplayer at all?

So how's that possible? Someone tell me. Furthermore, weren't games supposed to become longer and more complex along with technology?

companies dont make money on games untill the customer buys them. the longer it take to make a game the more money you have to spend. you have to get the game out in a certian time to make money on it, you havea time and money budget, otherwise you lose money and go out of business. the increased time it take to make the next gen graphicks and physics means less time for making more levels etc in the game. we as games would have to accept a long wait between games meaning fewer games and paying more for them to get back to games that are going to take a month to play. the game makers are finding a balance between quality and quantity.

in the same amount of time you can only do so much. do you sacrafice graphics for more levels? do you go for both which takes more time? if you do spend more time are the customers going to be willing to pay more?

companies dont make money on games untill the customer buys them. the longer it take to make a game the more money you have to spend. you have to get the game out in a certian time to make money on it, you havea time and money budget, otherwise you lose money and go out of business. the increased time it take to make the next gen graphicks and physics means less time for making more levels etc in the game. we as games would have to accept a long wait between games meaning fewer games and paying more for them to get back to games that are going to take a month to play. the game makers are finding a balance between quality and quantity.

in the same amount of time you can only do so much. do you sacrafice graphics for more levels? do you go for both which takes more time? if you do spend more time are the customers going to be willing to pay more?

rdo

Wait, so because next-gen games are more technological advanced and cost more, we, the gamers, have to suffer?

Wait, so because next-gen games are more technological advanced and cost more, we, the gamers, have to suffer?

Hexagon_777

yeah, that's pretty much it.

It's becasue of cost. It simply takes more time and money to make a game. Now, a game that is a sandbox like say oblivion, can last 100 hours. But a game that is very linear or scripted say like gears or MGS4 will be much shorter than they were last gen.

Think of it like dungeons and dragons. If you run a game and simply design a world and then let your players just do whatever, that's like a hour of preperation for a game that could potentially run forever...though a lot less compeling.

If you design a setting, characters, plots, encounters, and every little thing, that's many many hours of work for a game that will be over in one day.

Now, with devs requireing more money, time, and people to make a game, scripted linear games are only going to get shorter.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]

Wait, so because next-gen games are more technological advanced and cost more, we, the gamers, have to suffer?

Hewkii

yeah, that's pretty much it.

So why is everyone bashing the Wii? It's not perfect either, yet nevertheless...

Great question. I've been asking myself this as well. First, I'm like, "Maybe its DVD-9. Maybe that's why multiplats are short." But that doesn't work. Oblivion was large and in charge. And games like Lair and Heavenly Sword aren't huge campaigns. So it isn't disc space.

My guess, cost. It costs a ton to make a game that they just don't want to spend the money.

1. Higher dev costs.

2. Graphics / production sells more than gameplay

3. The consoles actually all have online now so devs pretty much don't have a choice.

Being short isn't a trend though. The mayority of games used to be a 1 sitting affair.

I don't mind a game being short at all, if it has a design or some other factor that encourages replayability. I think the problem is when a game is short, and you don't feel compelled to play it again.

A game that you want to replay over and over, is quite an achievment as well despite it's lenght.

1. Higher dev costs.

2. Graphics / production sells more than gameplay

3. The consoles actually all have online now so devs pretty much don't have a choice.

tag_001

#3 is a good point I hadn't considered. Basically, everything leads back to #1...Higher dev costs. They have to get the games out the door, and it takes them so much longer to code games of the length we're accustomed.

-Smaller attn span?
-Not enough space left over after dealing with the 'next gen' stuff. IE too much focus on graphics
-Need better understanding of the hardware
-Laziness
-Shorter Games? What are you talking about?

Any of these sounds like a plausible answer to you? Any other ideas?

(P.S. damn it feels good to be unbanned after my last post here)

CameosisJ

huge cost of development combined with the relatively small userbase of next gen systems makes making a huge, epic baldurs gate size game a very risky venture. chances are we will see bigger games as this gen moves on.

also time. it takes around 3-4 years to make a long and epic game that is also top notch. next gen consoles havent been out long enough and trying to rush those kinds of games is a very bad idea.

Too much focus on presentation, IMO.

On a side note, I find it funny how Mr. Miyamoto once got bashed from an interview in which he said the future of games will be shorter games, and people cried he "sold out" when in fact many developers are following the same route.

DaAznSaN

Yeah I agree. They need to spend more time making the games bigger and release some of the focus on the presentation.

Too expensive to develop and test content. An hour's worth of satisfying content today probably costs more than entire 30 hour game 10 years ago.XaosII

indeed

shooters have never been long, but so long as my RPG's still offer me the same length i don't care.

DK 2 now that was a long game, and some of the original marios....

-Smaller attn span?
-Not enough space left over after dealing with the 'next gen' stuff. IE too much focus on graphics
-Need better understanding of the hardware
-Laziness
-Shorter Games? What are you talking about?

Any of these sounds like a plausible answer to you? Any other ideas?

(P.S. damn it feels good to be unbanned after my last post here)

CameosisJ

maybe someone didn't get the memo about b-ray and the cell!

Time and money, plain and simple.

It costs money to pay the programmers to encode all of the goodies that make next-gen graphics possible, which means there's less money to pay them to make the game longer as well.

Also, it takes time to program all of those graphics in, which takes time away from extending the length of the game. So you could get a longer next-gen game, but it would be expensive for the developers, and it would take longer for the game to be released.

[QUOTE="DaAznSaN"]

Too much focus on presentation, IMO.

On a side note, I find it funny how Mr. Miyamoto once got bashed from an interview in which he said the future of games will be shorter games, and people cried he "sold out" when in fact many developers are following the same route.

Arnalion

Yeah I agree. They need to spend more time making the games bigger and release some of the focus on the presentation.

But fanboys and 'hardcore' internet gamers dont hype gameplay. Before a game is released all people really go by are pictures. IF you have okay graphics and great gameplay nowadays, you MIGHT become a sleeper hit, but that seems to be pretty much it. If you hace great graphics and okay gameplay, you can be a best seller