Archive: 18 posts

---

Okay, before we start, I just want to establish that this is a thread for serious discussion. 'Kay? 'Kay. [Watch out, long post ahead. Don't get crushed by wall of text.] So, here I am, finding myself returning yet another game to Blockbuster a (very) short time after renting it, having beaten it and lost interest. What game is it this time? Why, it's Batman: Arkham Asylum. Now, I loved every second of this game, don't get me wrong. Here's the problem I've found, though. There just weren't enough seconds in the game to love! The game came out last Tuesday, right? Well, I finished it on Monday. That's right, I finished it. Final boss beaten, boom, done. Now what? Tedious riddle-hunting and trophy-farming? Do not want. Now, maybe I've been playing too many Final Fantasy games, but before I shell out $60 for a game, I want to be sure I get my money's worth. 10-12 hours for the main storyline is NOT worth $60, if you ask me. $30 or $40, sure. I mean, that's roughly $6 for an hour of game. But, I'm getting off track. This thread isn't about the cost of games, which, if you take inflation into account, is technically less then it used to be, but about the length of the games. Here's another example: inFamous. I beat this game twice (!!) in a span of two and a half weeks or so. Sure, I played it for a bit longer then that, but that's because I was hunting shards for trophies. And, hey, let's go from that into what seems (at least to me) to be the heart of the problem: trophies and "item hunts". Let's face it, trophies have become a pretty big deal to gamers. The H4H phenomenon is proof of this. It seems to me that developers are banking more and more and trophies and item hunts to keep gamers playing, instead of storylines. Just go to the GameFAQs message boards for inFamous. Almost all you'll see are "349/350 Shards! HALP MEH!!!" threads. I promise. See, devs think that if you put in tons of things for players to find and base some (anywhere from 2 to 10 or maybe more) trophies on those items, it will keep people playing. That might work for some, but not me. I spent a day or two tracking down shards on inFamous, and a few hours hunting riddles on Batman: AA. Did I do it for the trophies? Did I do it to keep these games, both of which I absolutely loved, going? Even I don't know. Either way, the results were the same; I grew bored with running around the same areas for hours on end and just took the games back. (Both were rented) Maybe if these games had a bit more replayability if wouldn't be so bad, but I really, REALLY didn't want to replay Batman: AA again on Hard just for a trophy. Let's face it: trophies are ruining games. Devs are relying more and more on them to add an element of replayability to games that have none or to make item hunts worthwhile. If inFamous or AA came out last gen exactly the way they are, I'm not so sure they would do very well. Last gen, we didn't have trophies to "encourage" us to keep searching for that last shard or riddler trophy; the only way anyone would spend the time looking for them was if they wanting a perfect 100% save. At the end of the day, I'm left wondering if maybe playing Final Fantasy has spoiled me to the point that 10 hours is just too short to be satisfying to me. I recently beat Final Fantasy X for the first time, an accomplishment of which I am actually proud because it took me well over 60 hours to do so. Finishing inFamous and AA didn't leave that feeling when I beat them. At the end, all I could think was "What, that's it?" instead of "Wow, that was amazing!" or something similar. I was talking to a friend's mom and grandmother the other day, and complaining about how short AA was. They looked at me like I was crazy, complaining about 10 hours being too short. Maybe I am crazy and 10 hours is an acceptable time for a game's storyline to be, but if wanting longer games is wrong, baby, I don't wanna be right. If it is trophies that are doing this to games, then I call shenanigans. I always thought they were meant to enhance our gameplay experience, not beat our gameplay experience to death. I mean, really, a trophy different trophy for all three difficulty modes? There's no way I was going to play AA more then once, I'm sorry, it just wasn't that good. And this is coming from the kid that is still replaying Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door for the Xth time and dusts off The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time every summer. There are games that have replayability and games that don't. I'm sorry, but that's the way it goes. You can't force replayability, it just happens. Heck, I love some games so much, I'll suffer through the filler quests (I'm looking at YOU, Wind Waker!) just to play them again. But I can't see myself wishing I had inFamous again in a year or two. So, at the end of the day, it seems that games are getting too short and devs are focusing on trophies more and more. Again, I call shenanigans and wait for Final Fantasy XIII. At least I know I'll be getting my money's worth for that game.

2009-09-02 18:25:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

A lot of games are for some reason, but instead of longer singleplayer, we get multiplayer, which sometimes makes the singleplayer and the multiplayer bad, the only reason I could put up with Call of Duty's shortness is because of its fantastic online. I do love games like FF or Oblvion that dont rely on multiplayer, just give long single-player experiences which are great.

2009-09-02 18:57:00 Author: creelers Posts: 275

---

I agree with your points, but you forgot one important factor : graphics. It's undeniable that the graphics of the current gen are better than they used to be. This is a trend that has been going on forever on the PC, and will only stop once we've reached the plateau of seamless photorealism in games. But making graphics that look good takes time, even with all of the modern advances in motion capture, graphics engines and 3D software. This time costs money to the developer, which ultimately translates into the game's final price tag. I feel this is one of the major factors for the decline of gameplay and replayability in games. Most gamers simply won't buy a game if it doesn't look good, so the developers tend to concentrate on that first and foremost. Unfortunately, most gamers also won't buy a game if it's too expensive, so a sacrifice has to be made somewhere to allow the game to sell at a reasonable price. Not every developer has the financial and fanbase support to be able to release a game with superb graphics, intuitive and lengthy gameplay, and faultless QA at a price point that can compete on the shelves. I'm not saying that the current trend is good and we should ride it out though, but I am saying that we are reaping what we have sown. If the majority of gamers keep buying games with jaw-dropping graphics, short gameplay and hundreds of trophies... well that's what the developers will give us. In the end, we speak with our wallets. That's something we shouldn't forget.

2009-09-02 19:18:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536

---

I am saying that we are reaping what we have sown. If the majority of gamers keep buying games with jaw-dropping graphics, short gameplay and hundreds of trophies... well that's what the developers will give us. ^This. Games cost so much to make now, and consumers aren't really willing to pay enough to get everything they demand. We expect the games to become more and more complex in every aspect, but don't expect to pay more for it. Something has to give.

2009-09-02 19:37:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

You all bring up excellent points. I forgot about multiplayer-dependability and graphics, but those are two things that are also holding us back. But, I also don't think that the single-player experience should suffer just because the devs wanted a good multiplayer experience. Take Halo 3, for instance. It's really just a multiplayer game with a tacked-on campaign. Now, what do people who don't have XBL or multiple controllers do? Simple: they be sad. As far as graphics go, with the advent on HD and Blu-Ray and all that, we've become graphics wh*res. Blunt, yes, but true. I mean, let's take a look back at Super Mario Bros. and Pac-Man. Both are amazing games that have stood the test of time, but the graphics aren't good at all. Why? Because back in the day, no one really cared about graphics. It was innovative enough just to have graphics. Fast-forward to last generation and a game called Wind Waker. It was brushed off by most people that weren't die-hard Zelda fans. Why? Because of the graphics and nothing else! Of course, when the game ended up being amazing, I'm sure those people felt rather silly. I just really think that devs would figure out that games are about gameplay and not trophies or graphics or tacked-on side quests to try and squeeze out some replayability. It's just getting to the point where the gaming industry (the largest in the world) is just shooting itself in the foot.

2009-09-02 20:28:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

As far as graphics go, with the advent on HD and Blu-Ray and all that, we've become graphics wh*res. It was brushed off by most people ... Because of the graphics and nothing else! I just really think that devs would figure out ... Look at the sections I've bolded from your post. It's the consumers (mass market) that can't see it, the devs probably know. But to them it is a living - they need to appease the wider audience. Shops are even refusing to stock "tier-2" games, so how are devs supposed to make their money. It's just getting to the point where the gaming industry (the largest in the world) is just shooting itself in the foot. They really aren't. At worst they are selling out.

2009-09-02 20:36:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

From what I've noticed, there are still games that are being released with good, honest gameplay. These are mostly from small, independent developers who don't have the manpower or means to compete with the big players on the graphics arena. Because they also generally don't have an over-funded marketing department, they tend to fly under the radar and barely get a mention or shelf space, but they are still there. Some ally themselves with big publishers in the hope of compensating for their lack of funding, but this makes them vulnerable to the publisher's whims and lack of foresight. To truly help these guys out, it's important to notice games whose names you've never heard before, either at the very bottom of a shelf or at a passing glance from an "upcoming games" list. A bit of search on google should generally yield enough information on the game to figure out whether it's worth a try or not. The PSN and XBLA services are also good place to look for these types of games, as they are a more accessible and affordable way for small developers to break even. As a bonus, most of these games generally cost a lot less than the big summer blockbuster.

2009-09-02 20:48:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536

---

Look at the sections I've bolded from your post. It's the consumers (mass market) that can't see it, the devs probably know. But to them it is a living - they need to appease the wider audience. Shops are even refusing to stock "tier-2" games, so how are devs supposed to make their money.You know, you raise a really good point. I guess I never thought of it that way. From what I've noticed, there are still games that are being released with good, honest gameplay. These are mostly from small, independent developers who don't have the manpower or means to compete with the big players on the graphics arena. Because they also generally don't have an over-funded marketing department, they tend to fly under the radar and barely get a mention or shelf space, but they are still there. Some ally themselves with big publishers in the hope of compensating for their lack of funding, but this makes them vulnerable to the publisher's whims and lack of foresight.Yeah, I really see what you mean. It's kinda like Psychonauts from last gen. It was an amazing game, but Double Fine was a new company so it didn't get all the recognition it deserved. It got some, but it should have had much more. To truly help these guys out, it's important to notice games whose names you've never heard before, either at the very bottom of a shelf or at a passing glance from an "upcoming games" list. A bit of search on google should generally yield enough information on the game to figure out whether it's worth a try or not.That's actually a really good idea. It could actually not only serve to help out newer companies, but it might also send a message to the bigger companies that says "Hey! I wanna play more stuff like this! Why don't you have stuff like this?" At least, in theory, right? The PSN and XBLA services are also good place to look for these types of games, as they are a more accessible and affordable way for small developers to break even. As a bonus, most of these games generally cost a lot less than the big summer blockbuster.Yet again, an excellent point. I've bought several games from PSN that fit your description (Super Stardust HD and Cell Factor most notably) and sometimes those games are much better then full $60 Blu-Ray games. Cell Factor, for instance, I love, even though I normally can't abide shooters. Sometimes I wish more of these games had demos, though, cos I don't really like to buy games if I'm not sure I'll love them...

2009-09-02 21:50:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002

---

Compared to old games modern titles are quite long, for example the classic Sonic games, streets of rage 2 and alien storm only take about an hour to playthough.

2009-09-02 22:52:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728

---

Games are getting too short and too easy but there will always be a few gems out there Most old games weren't that long really, they were just really difficult so they took a while to complete! There's still a lot of games that have good gameplay and enough content to be worth your money

2009-09-02 22:59:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100

---

Yes they are, try Fallout 3 though. It has no online but has a very large single player mode that you can go through at your own pace. Most games that focus around multiplayer can get boring sooner; I got to 10th prestige on CoD4, and CoDWAW was just coming out so I didn't see the point anymore in CoD online I just got to level 55 and realised there was no more point. LBP however is a good example of online based gaming and manages an ok single player mode too.

2009-09-02 23:00:00 Author: S-A-S--G-U-N-R Posts: 1606

---

Oh yes, they're definitely getting shorter. Most games nowadays are 8 to 10 hours total. I remember clocking over 100 hours on The Legend of Dragoon.

2009-09-02 23:08:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

I think some of you guys are only focusing on the longer games that you used to play when there was probably a ton of really short games back then as well We still have a lot of really long games like Disgaea 3 and Patapon 2 and a lot of other rpgs It's just that that genre of games is getting overshadowed these days by the ton of shooter games! There's also a lot of games these days that are replacing length with serious amounts of replayability! For example LBP took me about 2 days to complete but i'm still playing it 6 months later. Then there's others like Street Fighter 4 that are really difficult to master but get more fun as you get more skilled at them.

2009-09-02 23:18:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100

---

From what I've noticed, there are still games that are being released with good, honest gameplay. These are mostly from small, independent developers who don't have the manpower or means to compete with the big players on the graphics arena. Because they also generally don't have an over-funded marketing department, they tend to fly under the radar and barely get a mention or shelf space, but they are still there. Some ally themselves with big publishers in the hope of compensating for their lack of funding, but this makes them vulnerable to the publisher's whims and lack of foresight. Very true. This is something I find really sad. So many good games get overlooked if they have a simplistic look to them. To dandygandy . . . I know what you mean about the length of games. After playing RPGs like mad, I find it hard to find a game that will last long enough. I loved the Zone of the Enders games, especially the 2nd one, but they were extremely short. Each one that I rented from Blockbuster was extremely short. My final game time on Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner was 4 hours and something (maybe less). I was actually shocked as I LOOOOOOOOVED the game so much, but the single player experience was too short, shortest I've ever played. That is just one example of many games I've played that can be beaten in a day or less than a week. Going by length, and gaming in general, RPGs seem to be the only genre that fulfills these things the most (not always). I guess I have played too many. Think, if we never played RPGs, the length of some games might not be as short as they seem to us. Even Killzone 2 is pretty short (and a lot of shooters). I mean it's not extremely short, but I beat Killzone 2 in a few days. I like trophies, but at the same time I also like a single-player that is going to last me a while. But what others here have said is also true, and you also have to take in consideration of gamer skill. Expert gamers like myself, and probably you and a lot of people from this site, will blaze through a game much quicker than a casual gamer. This is why replayibility also incorporates higher difficulty on some games. And if you don't like the game enough to replay it on different difficulty or to fulfill certain goals, then it was probably never for you in the first place, as it would have to be something that appeals to you enough to play it like crazy.

2009-09-02 23:36:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I loved every second of this game, don't get me wrong...There's no way I was going to play AA more then once, I'm sorry, it just wasn't that good. Video games aren't getting shorter; RPG's are getting fewer.

2009-09-03 04:26:00 Author: EVOin3D Posts: 91

---

I think that 10 hours or less for a videogames isn't a problem at all. In fact, the real problems with videogames is that there's too many "one gameplay wonders" out there. Most games getting over 10 hours are just repeating the gameplay you had in the first 10 hours. Bring us BETTER games and we will not complain. Take God of War per example. Most people aren't complaining about the 4-5 hours of gameplay this game give. Why? Because the game is beautiful, excellent and is not repetitive. My problems with games today is that they are full of fluff and many are quite artificially lenghtened for no good reason. Only because most gamers have the mentality of "longer = better". Well, this is wrong. The reality is "the better the game = the longer you play it". I don't want to play a 80 hours game with 10 hours repeated 8 times. I prefer playing a super duper fun 10 hours game 8 times. What games do we replay actually? Shorter ones. Will you seriously redo the whole GTASA someday and even if its a great game? probably not. Well, how many time did you replay the whole Mario Bros 3 or Tetris then? I have like 186 awesome hours of GTASA on my savefile. Well, I must have 500 of those hours in Super Mario Kart. How is that? Mario Kart's lenght is freaking 1 hour and a half or something. I'm sorry to put this up to you guys. "Lenght" really doesn't make a game good and repetition kills longer game. And that's also why 75% of gamers out there actually don't finish the games they buy. This is real data i'm sharing with you there. All that stuff is studied in and out when we make a game. It's also better to build a replay friendly model or base your game on creativity rather than lenght. How long is the story mode lasting in LBP? How many times did you spend on LBP since last October? Think about it. Lenght doesn't mean much unless it really is extreme stupid short. .

2009-09-03 04:47:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901

---

Holy Cow! I have DEFINITELY realized this! My first game was Ratchet and Clank: Going Commando and, even though I totally sucked at games back then, It took me 5 YEARS to complete. And it only cost about $20. Recently I got the newest Ratchet and Clank, All 4 One, and I was really disappointed. It cost about $40, and, 1.)It really wasn't that fun 2.)The storyline was to predictable 3.)It only took me a couple of days to complete (I only game for like 2-3 hours a day) 4.) While there were lots of trophies and stuff, the game itself could have just been bulked up a little. I'd honestly rather lose the achievements and stunning graphics and just go back to the days when you payed a decent amount for a long, satisfying game with good graphics. (Obviously, LBP is a different story cause you have all the community levels.)

2012-07-30 05:15:00 Author: Unknown User

---

Sorry, but this thread is rather old, and bumping old threads generally isn't a good idea. So I'm going to have to lock this discussion.

2012-07-30 07:38:00 Author: warlord_evil Posts: 4193

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.