Whats up with all the short games ?

[Jumjalum]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know how brainy you are but Monkey Island had me playing for a lot over 6 hours. It took me weeks to get some of the puzzles.

[Kalfear]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agree Wals,

 

RPGs have definately gotten shorter over the years.

 

The gold box games, original might and magic, wizardry games all took in area of 40-60 hours to complete and they were the standard for many years for the rpg genre.

 

Today your lucky if you get 30 hours outta a game (or like JE, 21 hours).

[Darque]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

For once I agree with Mr. Doom and Gloom completely.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Depends on the quality of the game. If someone asked me if I would spend that kind of money for such a short game I don't think I could give a negative answer. A game can be a good game regardless of length. When I think back to some of the console games I bought in the past, they were finishable in less than 5 to 6 hours, yet I wouldn't hesitate to buy them again because they were worth every cent. It's all on a game by game basis: some are worth it, some are not.

[metadigital]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The games were fun to clock, that was part of it. I can still clock Wonderboy:

walthrough

ref

[Gabrielle]

Short games are usually console games. Made for kids with short attention spans would be my guess.

[Hurlshort]

I don't know how brainy you are but Monkey Island had me playing for a lot over 6 hours. It took me weeks to get some of the puzzles.

 

Oh it had me playing for a long time too, but once you knew the puzzles, it was only about 6 hours. I just meant that the recent incarnation is impossible to finish in that many hours, but I don't think that because it is longer, it is better.

 

Trust me, I was no brainiac in those games...the Maniac Mansion kids all died on my watch.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Of course old adventure games are extremely short when you replay them, because you know the solutions to all the puzzles. However, the old adventures - the Sierra ones and early Monkey Islands - seemed long because there was no internet, or few people had it, so no looking for a solution. Some puzzles took me days, even weeks, because if you don't know the solution, what are you going to do? Designers were also more comfortable including bizarre and illogical puzzles, because that was an accept part of the genre, and those always took a while to get around.

 

I'd like my first playthrough of any story-driven game not to be less than thirty hours, but if the game is really good and the ending very satisfying, who knows if I'll complain? A game might be short without feeling short - I've yet to encounter such a game, however.

[Kalfear]

Of course old adventure games are extremely short when you replay them, because you know the solutions to all the puzzles.  However, the old adventures - the Sierra ones and early Monkey Islands - seemed long because there was no internet, or few people had it, so no looking for a solution.  Some puzzles took me days, even weeks, because if you don't know the solution, what are you going to do?  Designers were also more comfortable including bizarre and illogical puzzles, because that was an accept part of the genre, and those always took a while to get around.

 

I'd like my first playthrough of any story-driven game not to be less than thirty hours, but if the game is really good and the ending very satisfying, who knows if I'll complain?  A game might be short without feeling short - I've yet to encounter such a game, however.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bah, there was cheat books even back then. So it was possible (even with out internet) to get your hands on walk throughs and not figure out the problems yourself.

 

Also you assume everyone uses walk throughs and cheats?

 

I personally dont, refuse to as whats the sence of playing the game if you do. After initial game I might go read some to see if I missed anything but my time quote was based on first run through game. And those in recent times have come in at 20-30 hours. Substancially down from playing times for older cRPGs

[CoM_Solaufein]

The devs are getting lazy, the fans want the latest thing now and it doen't give the game companies a lot of time to make a large game.

[Diamond]

The devs are getting lazy

Since when?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm thinking more along the lines of space issues.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Kong just made the 20th spot on gameplays GC chart otherwise it's not even in the charts.

 

<edit> DS version at 16 (pre order).

 

Not a lot of kong love by the look of it. I sent mine back since it was sent to me by mistake anyway.

Edited November 18, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[mkreku]

You guys are comparing such different genres in your argument over if games are becoming shorter or longer. What's the point in comparing a 6 hour Mario game and a 60 hour Gold Box game? One was made for kids, the other one for computer geeks without lives.

 

There were lots of short games when I was a kid, I mean the Commodore 64 only had 64 KB RAM. If it didn't load extra levels, games were bound to be short. But the only games that still stick in my mind from those days are the Pool of Radiance's, Wasteland's and Ultima's. Those were all loooong games. Much longer than anything I have played in recent years, that's for sure. Most games nowadays last me ~30 hours, and that's if they are considered long. Jade Empire was beaten in 13 hours (or 14, not sure), by a complete newbie on 'RPG's', his 6 year old niece and me. No challenge, no mind-numbing puzzles, no problems whatsoever.

 

I mentioned Bard's Tale 3 in another thread the other day, and that got me thinking back to the days of mapping games on paper and spending days, if not weeks on a single problem. I'm not saying that it was better (I love auto-mapping for instance), but I do miss games that require me to think, instead of just having to choose the correct corridor down the forest. Something has changed, play length or something else, because I never see games like Ultima (with its gigantic world filled with towns and caves), Wasteland (with its brain teasing puzzles and riddles) or Pool of Radiance (with its multitude of zones, monsters and puzzles) anymore. I want to be able to get lost in my games, damnit!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Can you remember how long ICO was ?

[Archmonarch]

Id suggest that its a combined marketing/technological issue. As SP repeatedly states, space is becoming a premium with all the new graphical "must-haves." Also, as Hurlshot fumblingly suggests, the unfortunate reality is that the majority of gamers will rush out to buy that new hit game, play it once, twice if they really like it, then never touch it again. If it were too long, they'd lose interest, and how would they then be attracted to the inevitable sequels? Economics comes into play, as by gearing games towards the average fan, developers/publishers can achieve the highest profit margins with the smallest amount of investment of time and capital. As much as I would like it to be so, long games seem to be the province of small niche development houses.

 

(or like JE, 21 hours).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, Im sorry, but I just have to ask: How did you manage to stretch JE out that far? It does not even seem possible to me. The QA guys could beat it in under 2 hours and I beat in my first play through, without missing anything, under 7. So,

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yeah, Im sorry, but I just have to ask: How did you manage to stretch JE out that far? It does not even seem possible to me. The QA guys could beat it in under 2 hours and I beat in my first play through, without missing anything, under 7. So,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's very impressive.

 

Someone on the Bioware boards told me to walk everywhere to extend the playtime.

 

I wouldnt be too upset by the stortness thing, except we are crossing a generation. I mean I'm perfectly willing to accept that Genji is pushing the PS2 space as much as it can and since the PS3 is expanding the space with blu ray no problem there.

 

However Gun and KONG are on the 360 and if they are already running into space issues (enchant arm ran out of space already) then that dosnt bode at all well. Who knows, maybe you will be able to finish Jade Empire II in three hours

[Ellester]

I don't care if the game is the best game ever, I still can't justify paying $50 for a 5-6 hour game. And I thought x360 games were $60? That

[Spider]

However Gun and KONG are on the 360 and if they are already running into space issues (enchant arm ran out of space already) then that dosnt bode at all well. Who knows, maybe you will be able to finish Jade Empire II in three hours 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gun's or Kong's length is hardly due to space issues on the DVD though. DVD-images of those games are roughly 1.5 GB large, so there would be lot's of room on the DVD for more content.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Spider

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Gun's or Kong's length is hardly due to space issues on the DVD though. DVD-images of those games are roughly 1.5 GB large, so there would be lot's of room on the DVD for more content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You mean they only take up 1.5 GB of space on the DVD ?

 

If your refering to the PC version what is the unpacked size ?

[Atreides]

I think the internet promotes short attention spans. Especially now that I can have multiple tabs/pages open at the same time I find it rare for myself to finish reading something long without flipping to read other pages.

[Spider]

You mean they only take up 1.5 GB of space on the DVD ?

 

If your refering to the PC version what is the unpacked size ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was referring to the PC DVD, but PS2 and X-box DVD images are about the same size. With a little research I found versions spanning from 1.1GB to 2.9GB although the smaller versions are much more numerous.

 

(that was for Gun, but a qucik check confirmes that Kong is about the same size)

 

And yes, that means they only take up 1.5GB on the DVD.

[Hurlshort]

Archmonarch wrote:

Also, as Hurlshot fumblingly suggests, the unfortunate reality is that the majority of gamers will rush out to buy that new hit game, play it once, twice if they really like it, then never touch it again.

 

:'(

[Musopticon?]

^All too true.

 

Myself, I can enjoy great games several times; like Mafia or Outcast.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

^All too true.

 

Myself, I can enjoy great games several times; like Mafia or Outcast.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Mafia was the spetznaz. Or was that the shiznit? Whatever, it rocked.