So I'm going to revive this, regardless of whether anyone will read it or not, simply because I feel like I need an outlet to talk about games now even more than I did when I was actually active on Gamespot (for what, like two months a year ago?).
I'm getting older. Not "I'm old!" (as an increasing number of my 25 and under friends seem to be saying) but oldER, as in I'm no longer a teenager with copious amounts of free time. And I think this has affected my gaming habits in a number of ways. Don't worry--this isn't going to be a crusade for casual gaming. It is, however, going to be a crusade for shorter, more focused games.
The games industry in general (recent trends aside, somewhat, more on that later) has been increasing embracing the model of game design that says, if you're going to charge $50-60 for a game, it needs to last 30-40 hours for the main quest, and hundreds of potential hours for side quests, replay value, multiplayer etc. This model becomes more and more a thorn in my side every day. I won't go too far into the "I'm busy now, I don't have time for games," diatribe, because it's self explanatory and I'm sure a lot of people have heard it before. But what I think is interesting for even people who DO have the time, is that I think shorter games actually have the potential to provide a more intense emotional experience for the player, due to better pacing.
Lets turn the clock back to a pair of great games I played back a few summers ago when I still had loads of free time: Portal and Bioshock (1). Both, I think, succeeded because they were some of the best-to-date examples of games with very strong environments, so I think they're good to compare (and, I think that games as an "art" (slippery word alert!) is really about world creation). Portal was, at most, a ten hour game, while Bioshock sits closer to the 30-40 mark. Even back when I had the time, I preferred Portal, because not only did Portal establish a world that was as enthralling as Bioshock's Rapture, but it paced itself well enough that I was glued to the game from start to finish. Bioshock, on the other hand, had some absolutely great moments, and for the first fifteen hours I was similarly glued--but it mostly settled into routine shooter territory once the novelty of the environment wore off. The first fight I had with a Big Daddy was a memorable experience. The second half of the game...I can hardly even recall. When I first walked into Rapture, I was slowly peaking around corners, and surprise enemies made me jump, but when the game stopped escalating the atmosphere, it wore off.
The problem is that as long as games are locked into a $60 price point, you need to "pad" the pacing of the narrative with extra missions and "get this and fix that and collect this" in between the real high points of the story. For all that games are compared to movies, if there is one movie-making tip they should take, it is the idea that you need to cut out everything but the interesting parts of the story. Portal is a game that knows exactly what it is about (narrative-wise): the player's relationship with GLaDOS. There are no side-trips to save the other hostages, to find the secret weapon, or to collect the four keys needed to open the final chamber--the stuff of tired cliche in forty-hour games.
What about XBLA, iPhone, PSN, and other platforms that offer cheap gaming? They're great, and I fully support them...but games like Portal are few and far between (which is not to say there are not great games on these platforms). These platforms, for the most part, don't offer narrative-games or games with a crafted world like Portal and Bioshock. Perhaps, these types of games are expensive enough to produce that you need to go to the $60 route to justify building the engine or whatnot to create them. What I would really like to see happen, in the case of games like Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, and other large, sprawling 30+ hour games is a conversion to episodic release of the games. They already practically are in episodes, Mass Effect has it's worlds, Assassin's Creed has DNA strands, and Bioshock can be divided up based on the current objective easily enough. This by itself obviously doesn't solve the problem, but it provides the means to. Right now, the problem is that games are structured with an epic beginning, an epic ending, and some high points in between (Mass Effect, as much as I love it, it an excellent example of this). By placing the games into episodes, it forces the designers to consider the arc of each segment, but it still escalates to a big finale. Of course, I certainly wouldn't fight more games based around a concept--like portal was based around the concept of a rogue AI--delivered in short chunks.
Maybe I just need to sink more resources into scouring smaller platforms. Maybe the games I would really love are out there, I just haven't spent enough time seeking them out. I know the Sam and Max series is something I've been itching to try out (I enjoy old-school adventure games as well), and Steam came to Mac right when I was deciding to purchase a new MacBook Pro, so maybe I just need to hunt more for games. And maybe full-length games will evolve, and grow to be better. What I know is this: I'm tiring of formula games. I love gaming, and no matter how busy I get, when I find the free time there will always be a little gaming in some form in my life, but I would really like to be able to have more short-form experiences.
Coming up next time (maybe! tune in to find out if I continue to feel like expressing my feelings on video games): More on my not being a teenager anymore, and how I want my games to mature with me!
Log in to comment