Why do people complain about 7 - 10 hour games?

In the Nes and Snes era unless the game was an RPG you would be lucky to get 6 hours out of a game back then most games of that era were arcade ports that took an hour to beat. That's not a whole lot diffrenet from this era RPG's tend to still be long and action/insert genre here game will often be in that 7 - 10 hour range. And with that said the price of games has stayed virtually the same and if you account for inflation they were more expensive in the 80's and 90's.

I'm 32 and was used to replaying a game once it was over, maybe since the action/adventure/fps games don't have the replayabilty of games from the past outside of online of course. I don't see why so many people complain about 6 - 10 hour single player games.

I remembered 16-bit games being longer than apparently they really were. There's complete playthroughs of many of them on youtube and many are only 30 minutes long! If asked to describe how long the games were based on memory alone I would have gotten it wrong by a big margin in a lot of instances.

That doesn't make any sense if you consider the primary demographic for games back then was kids compared to late teens to adults who purchase there games themselves.

idk why either that's plenty long for me since I have a job and a wife

Sure, you can beat Contra really quick. But only after you play it a lot longer than that. And that's the same for almost all of those games you're referring to. Since now you're not really replaying games over and over as you had to before, you end up finishing them sooner even if they're longer.

That doesn't make any sense if you consider the primary demographic for games back then was kids compared to late teens to adults who purchase there games themselves.

NinjaLegacy

People have gotten spoiled. No matter how far the bar gets raised consumers always want more. Back in the 2D days I used to play games over and over again. I rarely ever do that with modern ones.

I see more people complaining about 4-6 hour games.

I think that another thing that has substantially changed things is infinite continues. In the old days a lot of games didn't have that. Heck, there were plenty of games with no continues at all. You died and it was all the way back to the beginning. That made the games seem longer than they were and the endless continues in games nowadays makes them seem shorter than they are.

I'm fine with a solid 8 hour game that doesn't have obvious padding and remains interesting throughout. I even enjoyed Spec Ops: The Line's 5 hour campaign due to the story, but I would have been pissed if I paid $60 for it. I got it for $2.50.

Because those people are older and expect a lot more out of games today than they did in the 8 and 16-bit eras?1PMrFister

This, I don't care about the "old days", they're long gone, and if you have to rely on statements like "stop being so ungrateful, in the old days we had this and that", your argument is badly flawed. Standards change signifficantly over time...

That said, there's plenty of games on the market where I think 10 hour campaigns work well, the length feels decent, and the game is done before it starts dragging on. Of course, I generally wouldn't consider paying full price for such a game, unless it's known those 10 hours would offer a top quality experience.

IDK maybe because people spend 50 hours in rpg while only 10 in other types of games... BUT what most people fail to understand is in rpgs you spend quite a bit walking in open worlds and the most quest is garbage. while other types of games the levels tend be more detailed  and more story driven Then they tend throw in extra MP and side thing while most rpgs won't do that 

only types of games i think lack amount of content to pack up $60 price tag is sport games and fighting games. 

Because for 60 dollars I expect much more content.

I'm fine with a solid 8 hour game that doesn't have obvious padding and remains interesting throughout. I even enjoyed Spec Ops: The Line's 5 hour campaign due to the story, but I would have been pissed if I paid $60 for it. I got it for $2.50.

BPoole96

Yeah, this is true, you can't just say something like "campaigns lasting less than x hours are short and bad". It's a more complex topic, and depends a lot on the other factors like the overall quality of the game and the price you payed for.

Have been noticing a similar them in here: "Several hour games are fine but I wouldn't pay full price for them." That sucks cuz those tend to be action/story-driven games and imo those are the best ones. I understand why people feel the way they do about it but at the same time it blows cuz straightforward action/adventure games are gonna disappear entirely if people keep thinking that way.

Have been noticing a similar them in here: "Several hour games are fine but I wouldn't pay full price for them." That sucks cuz those tend to be action/story-driven games and imo those are the best ones. I understand why people feel the way they do about it but at the same time it blows cuz straightforward action/adventure games are gonna disappear entirely if people keep thinking that way.

Wickerman777

back in the day we used listen to music from cassette and only stereo on crappy analog quality. Back in the day TVs were 480i. Back in the day... Times change.

[QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

Have been noticing a similar them in here: "Several hour games are fine but I wouldn't pay full price for them." That sucks cuz those tend to be action/story-driven games and imo those are the best ones. I understand why people feel the way they do about it but at the same time it blows cuz straightforward action/adventure games are gonna disappear entirely if people keep thinking that way.

fueled-system

Because you pay $60+ for a f*ckin CDAckad

[QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

Have been noticing a similar them in here: "Several hour games are fine but I wouldn't pay full price for them." That sucks cuz those tend to be action/story-driven games and imo those are the best ones. I understand why people feel the way they do about it but at the same time it blows cuz straightforward action/adventure games are gonna disappear entirely if people keep thinking that way.

fueled-system

But it depends on the kind of game. There's plenty of long-ass RPGs out there that really don't have anymore terrain you cover than what you get in a Halo campaign. But because you spend so much time messing with inventory, talking with people, doing minigames, running around, etc., it just seems like there's more to it.

Indi games tend to be that length or a little less. The $50 games are not necessarily more fun either... That sounds like a hard sell.
What games are considered to be that short though? I played Bioshock Infinite longer than that, and had my fill by the end of it.

[QUOTE="fueled-system"][QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

Have been noticing a similar them in here: "Several hour games are fine but I wouldn't pay full price for them." That sucks cuz those tend to be action/story-driven games and imo those are the best ones. I understand why people feel the way they do about it but at the same time it blows cuz straightforward action/adventure games are gonna disappear entirely if people keep thinking that way.

mems_1224

How many games have harder difficulties that are actually worth trying out, ones that introduce some real changes to the gameplay and force you to adapt and experiment, creating an interesting challenge?

In most games higher difficulties just mean more precise AI (sometimes even borderline cheating AI) and lower amount of health. Not worth it to replay a game for something like that, especially if your playthrough ends up being an exercise in frustration where most of your time is spent sitting behind cover in a middle of a boring and arthritic firefight, waiting for your health to regenerate.

I actually kind of like 10 hour games, unless it's an rpg. But too many rpgs are needlessly long, Alpha Protocol is about the length that modern rpgs should be shooting for.

It's because there was an apex. Obviously, super old school 16-bit games were short as hell. But, there was a time, not too long ago, when the average single player game (big budget, AAA game) lasted far more than 10 hours, and they were also only $40-$50, rather than $60.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="fueled-system"]Do what Bioshock did and give people harder difficulties and such after you beat the game . Just having an 8 hour game and being reward with zero replay value does not justify 60 dollarsRocker6

How many games have harder difficulties that are actually worth trying out, ones that introduce some real changes to the gameplay and force you to adapt and experiment, creating an interesting challenge?

Yeah, I beat Bioshock Infinite on 1999 mode the other day, and it was a blast. Pretty much standard fare for an "extreme difficulty level". Just stronger enemies, and less defense for the player. But they also lowered the amount of infusions you could get, and you get less money, so you need to be strategic in how you upgrade your vigors and, most importantly, with what gear you use. Gotta change gear on the fly, to suit any given situation. I was also going for the achievement you get for doing 1999 mode without using a Dollar Bill vending machine, and that added a new layer on it. Was a very nice, satisfying challenge. And, despite what some speedrunners have claimed, Infinite wasn't even that short. Took me 14 hours on my first playthrough, on hard. Another 14 hours for 1999 mode.

Because it's not the NES era anymore. :roll:

Actually the price of games has decreased. Don't you remember when games were like, $70 brand new if it was a AAA title? Prices have decreased, and games have gotten longer, and yet we see more complaints than ever from gamers. Amazing.

Actually the price of games has decreased. Don't you remember when games were like, $70 brand new if it was a AAA title? Prices have decreased, and games have gotten longer, and yet we see more complaints than ever from gamers. Amazing.

6_Shooter_25

$60 is still a lot of money for a game in today's economy. And there's a huge difference between paying $60 for a short, under 10 hour campaign vs. $60 for something like Skyrim.

Times have changed. 

[QUOTE="6_Shooter_25"]

Actually the price of games has decreased. Don't you remember when games were like, $70 brand new if it was a AAA title? Prices have decreased, and games have gotten longer, and yet we see more complaints than ever from gamers. Amazing.

Vari3ty

$60 is still a lot of money for a game in today's economy. And there's a huge difference between paying $60 for a short, under 10 hour campaign vs. $60 for something like Skyrim.

Times have changed. 

For poor people.

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"] What games dont have harder difficulties? the_bi99man

How many games have harder difficulties that are actually worth trying out, ones that introduce some real changes to the gameplay and force you to adapt and experiment, creating an interesting challenge?

Yeah, I beat Bioshock Infinite on 1999 mode the other day, and it was a blast. Pretty much standard fare for an "extreme difficulty level". Just stronger enemies, and less defense for the player. But they also lowered the amount of infusions you could get, and you get less money, so you need to be strategic in how you upgrade your vigors and, most importantly, with what gear you use. Gotta change gear on the fly, to suit any given situation. I was also going for the achievement you get for doing 1999 mode without using a Dollar Bill vending machine, and that added a new layer on it. Was a very nice, satisfying challenge. And, despite what some speedrunners have claimed, Infinite wasn't even that short. Took me 14 hours on my first playthrough, on hard. Another 14 hours for 1999 mode.

That's good, will definitely try 1999 mode some time after a regular playthrough. Can't wait to start playing, got the game today from Steam (one of the rare full priced game purchases I've done recently), already downloaded and ready. Will get to it as soon as I'm done with Deus Ex HR replay (won't be long, I'm nearing the end).

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="fueled-system"]Do what Bioshock did and give people harder difficulties and such after you beat the game . Just having an 8 hour game and being reward with zero replay value does not justify 60 dollarsRocker6

How many games have harder difficulties that are actually worth trying out, ones that introduce some real changes to the gameplay and force you to adapt and experiment, creating an interesting challenge?

In most games higher difficulties just mean more precise AI (sometimes even borderline cheating AI) and lower amount of health. Not worth it to replay a game for something like that, especially if your playthrough ends up being an exercise in frustration where most of your time is spent sitting behind cover in a middle of a boring and arthritic firefight, waiting for your health to regenerate.

Actually the price of games has decreased. Don't you remember when games were like, $70 brand new if it was a AAA title? Prices have decreased, and games have gotten longer, and yet we see more complaints than ever from gamers. Amazing.

6_Shooter_25

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"] What games dont have harder difficulties? mems_1224

How many games have harder difficulties that are actually worth trying out, ones that introduce some real changes to the gameplay and force you to adapt and experiment, creating an interesting challenge?

In most games higher difficulties just mean more precise AI (sometimes even borderline cheating AI) and lower amount of health. Not worth it to replay a game for something like that, especially if your playthrough ends up being an exercise in frustration where most of your time is spent sitting behind cover in a middle of a boring and arthritic firefight, waiting for your health to regenerate.

That's exactly the problem, nothing comes to mind (aside from BS 1999 mode which sounds promising). I just wanted to point out how I usually see little point in replaying a game on a harder difficulty since there's not much difference, and in some bad cases, I only get rewarded with plenty of frustration over cheap difficulty spikes.

[QUOTE="6_Shooter_25"]

Actually the price of games has decreased. Don't you remember when games were like, $70 brand new if it was a AAA title? Prices have decreased, and games have gotten longer, and yet we see more complaints than ever from gamers. Amazing.

1PMrFister

Well maybe people should just note the relative value of games now in comparison to what it has been. Back in '93 your average person was making $14,000 per year and paying a couple of nickles over $2 for a gallon of milk, and almost every other cost of living was a lot lower, and yet games were still more expensive than they are now.

Factoring in inflation, everything else has raised relatively while games have gotten cheaper, relatively and actually. To complain about the price of games is to either wish for cheaper prices and a worse industry for it, or to simple be unrealistic.

because it's short for today's standard ?

It's because there was an apex. Obviously, super old school 16-bit games were short as hell. But, there was a time, not too long ago, when the average single player game (big budget, AAA game) lasted far more than 10 hours, and they were also only $40-$50, rather than $60.

the_bi99man

When was this mystical time? Even in the PS2 and PS1 eras people were complaining about games being too short. At least on the internet.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

It's because there was an apex. Obviously, super old school 16-bit games were short as hell. But, there was a time, not too long ago, when the average single player game (big budget, AAA game) lasted far more than 10 hours, and they were also only $40-$50, rather than $60.

6_Shooter_25

When was this mystical time? Even in the PS2 and PS1 eras people were complaining about games being too short. At least on the internet.

Well the internet is always going to be full of people complaining. It's what the internet is for. :P

But, I do remember quite a lot of longer games in the early-mid 2000s era. Mostly PC games, but I did have a PS2 back then, as well. I remember MGS2 and 3 were reasonably long. And Twisted Metal Black had a great amount of content, that would take way more than 10 hours, to finish all the character's stories. I'm pretty sure Doom 3 lasted me longer than most modern shooters. Then there was the epic-length Half Life 2. And Far Cry. And plenty more, I'm sure. Maybe it's not just that games have got shorter, but also that there's just so many of them now, too. We've got <10 hour campaigns dropping left and right, all year long, these days.

Well the internet is always going to be full of people complaining. It's what the internet is for. :P

But, I do remember quite a lot of longer games in the early-mid 2000s era. Mostly PC games, but I did have a PS2 back then, as well. I remember MGS2 and 3 were reasonably long. And Twisted Metal Black had a great amount of content, that would take way more than 10 hours, to finish all the character's stories. I'm pretty sure Doom 3 lasted me longer than most modern shooters. Then there was the epic-length Half Life 2. And Far Cry. And plenty more, I'm sure. Maybe it's not just that games have got shorter, but also that there's just so many of them now, too. We've got <10 hour campaigns dropping left and right, all year long, these days.

the_bi99man

We can most certainly agree on the bolded. I think PC games have always been longer, on average, than console games.

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

How many games have harder difficulties that are actually worth trying out, ones that introduce some real changes to the gameplay and force you to adapt and experiment, creating an interesting challenge?

 

Rocker6

Yeah, I beat Bioshock Infinite on 1999 mode the other day, and it was a blast. Pretty much standard fare for an "extreme difficulty level". Just stronger enemies, and less defense for the player. But they also lowered the amount of infusions you could get, and you get less money, so you need to be strategic in how you upgrade your vigors and, most importantly, with what gear you use. Gotta change gear on the fly, to suit any given situation. I was also going for the achievement you get for doing 1999 mode without using a Dollar Bill vending machine, and that added a new layer on it. Was a very nice, satisfying challenge. And, despite what some speedrunners have claimed, Infinite wasn't even that short. Took me 14 hours on my first playthrough, on hard. Another 14 hours for 1999 mode.

That's good, will definitely try 1999 mode some time after a regular playthrough. Can't wait to start playing, got the game today from Steam (one of the rare full priced game purchases I've done recently), already downloaded and ready. Will get to it as soon as I'm done with Deus Ex HR replay (won't be long, I'm nearing the end).

you're in for a treat. I would highly recommend using the mouse sensitivity and FOV ini tweaks, though. Depending on what kind of mouse you use, the default mouse sensitivity might be unplayably high, even at the lowest end of the slider. And the FOV is pretty tiny. I tweaked it so that I could get it to just a hair under 90 degrees. Makes for a handful of spots during certain animations where it gets a little weird, because you can where Booker's arms cut off at the shoulders, but totally worth it for how much better the game feels. 

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

Well the internet is always going to be full of people complaining. It's what the internet is for. :P

But, I do remember quite a lot of longer games in the early-mid 2000s era. Mostly PC games, but I did have a PS2 back then, as well. I remember MGS2 and 3 were reasonably long. And Twisted Metal Black had a great amount of content, that would take way more than 10 hours, to finish all the character's stories. I'm pretty sure Doom 3 lasted me longer than most modern shooters. Then there was the epic-length Half Life 2. And Far Cry. And plenty more, I'm sure. Maybe it's not just that games have got shorter, but also that there's just so many of them now, too. We've got <10 hour campaigns dropping left and right, all year long, these days.

6_Shooter_25

We can most certainly agree on the bolded. I think PC games have always been longer, on average, than console games.

yeah, that's probably where I'm getting that feeling from. Like I said, I had a PS2, but even then, I didn't have many games for it, and didn't play it anywhere near as much as my PC. Been PC gaming since Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. Good times...

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]

Yeah, I beat Bioshock Infinite on 1999 mode the other day, and it was a blast. Pretty much standard fare for an "extreme difficulty level". Just stronger enemies, and less defense for the player. But they also lowered the amount of infusions you could get, and you get less money, so you need to be strategic in how you upgrade your vigors and, most importantly, with what gear you use. Gotta change gear on the fly, to suit any given situation. I was also going for the achievement you get for doing 1999 mode without using a Dollar Bill vending machine, and that added a new layer on it. Was a very nice, satisfying challenge. And, despite what some speedrunners have claimed, Infinite wasn't even that short. Took me 14 hours on my first playthrough, on hard. Another 14 hours for 1999 mode.

the_bi99man

That's good, will definitely try 1999 mode some time after a regular playthrough. Can't wait to start playing, got the game today from Steam (one of the rare full priced game purchases I've done recently), already downloaded and ready. Will get to it as soon as I'm done with Deus Ex HR replay (won't be long, I'm nearing the end).

you're in for a treat. I would highly recommend using the mouse sensitivity and FOV ini tweaks, though. Depending on what kind of mouse you use, the default mouse sensitivity might be unplayably high, even at the lowest end of the slider. And the FOV is pretty tiny. I tweaked it so that I could get it to just a hair under 90 degrees. Makes for a handful of spots during certain animations where it gets a little weird, because you can where Booker's arms cut off at the shoulders, but totally worth it for how much better the game feels. 

I see, thanks for the info!

Just did a Google search, those tweaks look easy. If I run into any problems, will go for it!

I remember a distinct lack of cutscenes filling that time staple back then. I also remember playing both short and long games that weren't rpgs, but they had a real sense of replay value. Sometimes I don't mind the short time depending on what kind of experience I'm getting out of it, but I just cant afford to risk paying top dollar for toss away games these days. 

I would say mp is the one saving grace about that, but there so much tacked on garbage, that it's hardly worth mentioning.

I used to be of the opinion that a game needed to be long or it wasn't worth the money. That opinion has changed drastically the last few years as I've worked through way too many games crammed with filler. I don't want hours upon hours of recycled or dull content just to get the interesting bits, I want a game that is only as long as it needs to be.

Bioshock Infinite was perfect in this regard, it was over before I started to feel like it getting dull, as most games tend to for me towards the end. In fact that game didn't have a single dull moment from the boat to the end.