Whats up with all the short games ?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Genji - 10 hours

Gun - 5 or 6 hours

Kong - 5 or 6 hours

 

Sucks to be anyone who pays

[Judge Hades]

There is no way I am spending $50 on a 5 to 6 hour game. That is just stupid.

[kumquatq3]

Ya, that new rare game for the 360 is supposed to be short

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Ya, that new rare game for the 360 is supposed to be short

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kameo ?

 

I'm really wondering if it's the disk space issue rearing it's head.

[alanschu]

Is this really new? How long of a game is Contra? Super Mario Brothers?

 

I remember the big thing for my friends and I when we were in school was the ability to "wrap" games without dying in short durations. These games were also $50 back in the day too, yet we didn't mind as much back then. Why is that?

[Judge Hades]

Because there wasn't really much of an Internet to complain on.

[kumquatq3]

Ya, that new rare game for the 360 is supposed to be short

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kameo ?

 

I'm really wondering if it's the disk space issue rearing it's head.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thats it. I couldn't get to Gamespot to check the name for some reason, but they said it's about 10 hours

[alanschu]

Because there wasn't really much of an Internet to complain on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But there were BBSs and other ways of venting. I still don't remember people complaining about how short many games were back in the day. The original Ultimas weren't particularly long either. Even Ultima 7, once I realized why I always got stuck on Horace (because I was an idiot), was beaten in a single weekend (and it wasn't a weekend of nothing but Ultima 7).

 

The only SNES games I remember being particularly long were the FF games.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Thats it. I couldn't get to Gamespot to check the name for some reason, but they said it's about 10 hours

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Screw that then I'll definately wait and see what blockbusters rental plans are.

[Volourn]

"Because there wasn't really much of an Internet to complain on."

 

ha. So true. I hate the internet. It's where the most hateful, cruel, and whininger people group.

 

Yet Internet Geeks always wodner why game companies almost always say they don't neccessary represent the majority.

 

Most people who play games; play them and enjoy or not enjoy them then move on.

 

CAUSE THEY'RE JUST GAMES AND NOT THAT IMPORTANT!!!

 

 

P.S. I know it's funny coming from me a Proud Internet Geek; but I can be honest about my standing in the patheticness we all wallow in. (w00t)

[kumquatq3]

Because there wasn't really much of an Internet to complain on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But there were BBSs and other ways of venting. I still don't remember people complaining about how short many games were back in the day. The original Ultimas weren't particularly long either. Even Ultima 7, once I realized why I always got stuck on Horace (because I was an idiot), was beaten in a single weekend (and it wasn't a weekend of nothing but Ultima 7).

 

The only SNES games I remember being particularly long were the FF games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

????

 

Games have been getting longer, in my mind, since the NES days, but even in the NES days you had things like Zelda, Metal Gear, and Metroid.

 

It was hard to make a long game pre-saved games.

[Hurlshort]

You look at PC games as well and they were never super long. Adventure games were king for many years, and they never took that long if you knew the way through. Doom wasn't long.

 

I think it's actually a problem that games have been too long in recent years. I rarely finish a game, because it loses me after 10 to 15 hours. Too much of those 40-50 hour games are just repetitive gameplay. Give me tight stories that progress quickly any day.

[alanschu]

Because there wasn't really much of an Internet to complain on.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

But there were BBSs and other ways of venting. I still don't remember people complaining about how short many games were back in the day. The original Ultimas weren't particularly long either. Even Ultima 7, once I realized why I always got stuck on Horace (because I was an idiot), was beaten in a single weekend (and it wasn't a weekend of nothing but Ultima 7).

 

The only SNES games I remember being particularly long were the FF games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

????

 

Games have been getting longer, in my mind, since the NES days, but even in the NES days you had things like Zelda, Metal Gear, and Metroid.

 

It was hard to make a long game pre-saved games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I don't disagree that games have probably gotten longer. But I don't think all games have gotten longer. Much of the "length" in many games I find is also swallowed up by travel time. Either that or time swallowed up getting "stuck" somewhere. I didn't play the original Metal Gear (I tried, but at the time I had already played MGS so I found it too archaic), but I didn't find Metal Gear Solid to be a partiuclarly long game either, especially now. The only games I have consistently seen take a long time to play are "epic" RPG games like in the FF series.

[kumquatq3]

The only games I have consistently seen take a long time to play are "epic" RPG games like in the FF series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Action/adventure games are frequently 15-25+ hours long

 

Zeldas, Resident Evil 4, Metroids, etc

[Walsingham]

You look at PC games as well and they were never super long.  Adventure games were king for many years, and they never took that long if you knew the way through.  Doom wasn't long.

 

I think it's actually a problem that games have been too long in recent years.  I rarely finish a game, because it loses me after 10 to 15 hours.  Too much of those 40-50 hour games are just repetitive gameplay.  Give me tight stories that progress quickly any day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Don't take this as a flame, but you have to be the only person I've ever come across to complain about long games in general. I mean we'll all beat the bukake out of the NWN official campaign for being long and tedious. But when we say long we mean long and full of stuff. Not just chests.

[alanschu]

The only games I have consistently seen take a long time to play are "epic" RPG games like in the FF series.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Action/adventure games are frequently 15-25+ hours long

 

Zeldas, Resident Evil 4, Metroids, etc

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Zeldas do have long adventure times. I haven't played any of the newer Metroids or the newer Resident Evils. Just for curiosity sake though, I loaded up Resident Evil 2 and checked out my saved game the first time I beat the game, and it clocked in at just over 3 hours. I bet even now, not having played it in many years, I could still beat it in under two. If I recall, didn't you need to beat the game in under 2 hours (or maybe it was 1.5 hours) in order to get an 'A' rating?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Zeldas do have long adventure times.  I haven't played any of the newer Metroids or the newer Resident Evils.  Just for curiosity sake though, I loaded up Resident Evil 2 and checked out my saved game the first time I beat the game, and it clocked in at just over 3 hours.  I bet even now, not having played it in many years, I could still beat it in under two.  If I recall, didn't you need to beat the game in under 2 hours (or maybe it was 1.5 hours) in order to get an 'A' rating?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes I think you had to beat it in under two hours without saving. I think it took 5 or 6 tries before I could do that. :">

 

Heres where I see the change. Maybe games like mario etc were the same length when taken from start to finish but when you factor in all the reset times you still got great value (like running out of lives 2 screens from the end and having to start over).

 

Because of the save anywhere nature of games these days in many cases autosave, the playtime is exactly that.

 

Short playtimes + easy games

[alanschu]

Yes I think you had to beat it in under two hours without saving. I think it took 5 or 6 tries before I could do that.  :">

 

Heres where I see the change. Maybe games like mario etc were the same length when taken from start to finish but when you factor in all the reset times you still got great value (like running out of lives 2 screens from the end and having to start over).

 

Because of the save anywhere nature of games these days in many cases autosave, the playtime is exactly that.

 

Short playtimes + easy games

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think that that is just convenient though. The funny thing is, we as fans pretty much demand "save anywhere" and get pissed off when it's only checkpoints. I couldn't imagine what we'd do if we were merely given "lives" with no saves whatsoever. Then we also demand longer games. You see, even if you count Super Mario 1's replay because you died moments from the finish as satisfactory additional play time, there still was not additional content. Imagine playing games like Halo with no saves, or any of those ones that you complained about in the first post.

 

The "longer" games of old times actually had much, much less content in them. I think that "accepting" the older, much shorter, games because they didn't have save features so we could still get many hours out of a game (even though you're replaying the same stuff over and over) is weak. If we count replaying, then I'd say that Deus Ex is probably the longest game I've ever played. Maybe followed up by Half-Life. Both of those single player games have been played through to their completion numerous times by yours truly. I've easily logged in more time in them than FF7 and BG2, both of which I've only played through twice.

 

 

If you want games to be "longer" like the old days, play through Kong without saving.

[Hurlshort]

There are some long games I enjoy, but they have to have a good combination of elements. I loved Xcom and Jagged Alliance 2. They were long because the tactical combat was very deliberate and interesting.

 

But long action games bore me. I can only take so much rushing around, jumping off platforms or shooting people.

 

Also, I loved the length of KotOR and Baldurs Gate, but I don't expect that from every game. They were well told stories with good pacing.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I think that that is just convenient though.  The funny thing is, we as fans pretty much demand "save anywhere" and get pissed off when it's only checkpoints.  I couldn't imagine what we'd do if we were merely given "lives" with no saves whatsoever.  Then we also demand longer games.  You see, even if you count Super Mario 1's replay because you died moments from the finish as satisfactory additional play time, there still was not additional content.  Imagine playing games like Halo with no saves, or any of those ones that you complained about in the first post.

 

The "longer" games of old times actually had much, much less content in them.  I think that "accepting" the older, much shorter, games because they didn't have save features so we could still get many hours out of a game (even though you're replaying the same stuff over and over) is weak.  If we count replaying, then I'd say that Deus Ex is probably the longest game I've ever played.  Maybe followed up by Half-Life.  Both of those single player games have been played through to their completion numerous times by yours truly.  I've easily logged in more time in them than FF7 and BG2, both of which I've only played through twice.

 

 

If you want games to be "longer" like the old days, play through Kong without saving.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't mind check point's I think Fire Emblem has the best idea though. You can save anywhere but doing so shuts down the game. Then when you reload it erases your save. That way you can only use the save feature to allow you to take a break rather than to just keep retrying something over and over.

 

That removes the only weakness of save points, which is what if you need to stop playing and there isnt one around.

 

I often play games without saving. Although it depends on how much time I have, not so much these days.

 

well I played GUN without saving (except for breaks) I certainly dont recall any time when games were

[kumquatq3]

but, to be fair to the 360, games for a new system are not really know for length

 

Tho I can't really remember how long Mario 64 was or Super Mario Bros. (snes) were.

 

but things like Luigis Mansion arn't exactly epics

[alanschu]

For me, the price of games has been exceptionally stagnant. I remember saving up $70 to buy Street Fighter II Turbo when it first came out for the Super Nintendo.

 

 

From what I've heard, it sounds as though inflation has not had much effect on game prices throughout North America. I don't know if this has been the case in Europe and the UK or not.

Edited November 17, 2005 by alanschu

[Krookie]

Paying $50 is way to much for a 6 hour game.

 

That means your paying around 8.3 dollars per hour, compared to a game that gives you around 30 hours which is only 1.6 dollars an hour.

[Hurlshort]

I guess if you approach games like an accountant, then a 6 hour game is a waste...but 6 quality hours are more important to me than 30 average hours of gaming. I'll always choose quality over quantity.

 

Example: The original Monkey Island was 6 hours, but the most recent one was about 25 hours. I prefer the original because the new one seemed to be tryng to stretch out the entertainment, and even had an odd fighting game in the middle.

Edited November 17, 2005 by Hurlshot

[LadyCrimson]

I look at games this way....it may cost $50, but it's yours, and will be yours forever unless you throw it away. 2 years later, when it's raining and you're bored, you can dust it off and replay it again.

 

Unlike, say, a $20 pizza which is gone in 15 minutes or a $10 movie ticket that has no replay value at all. I think of all the money the average person spends on consumables per year and...well...$50 doesn't actually seem all that bad, relative to the cost of living increases in general..

 

Tho I do understand when you're a 'poor student' or something similar, almost everything seems too expensive.