Video games- too long?

[TheLuckyOne]

Just a thought I had the other day- it seems like in recent years, the trend has been to make longer and longer video games. Not just RPGs, which have always required at least a few full days' gameplay (though even those mammoths are getting longer), but even in regular games. It's especially noticeable because most save cards these days record how long you've been playing, and you're confronted with that big "Wow... I've spent literally 4 full days of my life just on this one game." Even on the relatively short games, you can still count on putting in at least 10-20 hours of gameplay.

Now, in many ways that's good- certainly it indicates games with increased depth, storytelling, and replayability. Let's face it, the reason games were so short back in the day was because the programmers were constrained by graphics and memory limits. But to me, it seems like they compensated by making the games a lot harder; I find that in general (with exceptions), old Atari/NES games are consistently harder than modern games. No longer do video games test quick reflexes; now they're endurance tests, determining who'll spend an extra 5 hours to get that last 0.2% of completion to view the best ending. But correspondingly, they're a heck of a lot easier.

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, I'm just curious: 1, is this a trend you notice or do you think I'm crazy; and 2, do you support it? Do you prefer the shorter games of the past, or the mini-marathons of modern times?

-D

[StarOpal]

1, Yeah I've noticed also.

I think that the price of games is another reason they've been getting longer. At $50-$60 a pop (that is the current rate yes? I'm so behind on gaming) a game that lasts less than 10 hours is a bit of a rip-off. So you make the game longer in the hopes that people may actually buy it - without waiting a couple of years for the price to go down.

2, Depends on the game. Some games are just a lot of fun to keep working at, but others feel padded out, like a book or movie that doesn't know when to quit.

I guess my vote is for porridge.

[PoolMan]

I'm of mixed minds (what a shock).

On the one hand, I agree that for the price tag, games should take longer than a few hours to beat. Back in those hallowed Atari days, the games cost $8. It was forgiveable if they were short or repetitive. Today, you really want to feel you're getting your money's worth if you're spending the equivalent of 6 movie tickets or a nice dinner out.

On the other hand, however, I find myself gravitating towards games that take less time per play. Considering a fair number of gamers are, like myself, getting into their late 20's or early 30's, life makes bigger demands on your time than it did 10 years ago. I appreciate being able to pick something up, play for 15 minutes, and put it down. I guess the best compliment to that would be a game where you can accomplish something in that 15 minutes and there's a lot of new content to see.

[varana]

My dreamfame would be ver long, take at least 40 hours to complete, but also include lots and lots of diverse minigames baked into the mix. A game I could pick up to play for 15 minutes when I'm on a break, but where I also have the option of playing an entire weekend. I know, I'm asking too much

[Spiderdancer]

It's hard for a game to be too long for me. I felt really cheated by Deus Ex 2, for example; it's only like 20 hours long unless you go out of your way to do every single thing possible to make it longer.

I'm also cheap. I want the most gameplay I can get for my money. Morrowind and Oblivion have both been good choices for that reason. I also like modding for Oblivion (though this is sort of a mild term, sort of like saying 'I like crack') so that's a bonus.

I also don't play in increments shorter than an hour. This means I mostly do it on weekends, but it's not my only or primary form of stress relief, so that's okay. If I'm playing at all, I want to be able to sit down at my computer and just be in another world for as long as circumstances allow me.

[Head Mutant]

See, I've been noticing an opposite trend, of many games getting much shorter in length, and complaints deriving from dropping 50 bucks on a game that only contains 6-8 hours of playtime.

Of course, to be truly smart we have to break games down to fit into the following categories, then judge them on their time:

1. Very linear games with a definite ending. Point A to B to End. Many platformers & shooters (single-player) fall in this category. Here, your time value becomes extra special, because once the game is done, it's done and there's little reason to go back through it. Many of these games are the ones suffering from what I see as a large decrease in gaming hours, because they're expensive to program to any great length.

2. Short games with great replayability. Multiplayer, random maps/environments, unlockable content. Lego Star Wars might be a good example here -- I can beat the game in a couple hours easy, but its replayability is off the scale and offers dozens more hours of play. These types of games are often great for the very casual gamer who can only game in small chunks -- 30 min here or there. Hop online, do a match of Unreal Tournament, hop off.

3. Massive, sprawling games with open-ended play. I'm thinking GTA, online role-playing games, etc. Anything where the scope of the game is gigantic, non-linear and offers dozens of options what you might want to do. Easier to pick up and put down, but you will eventually need to put in a lot of time to win or become powerful.

4. Massive games with linear play that contains a lot of time sinks. Huge (unskippable) cut scenes, a long long quest, and so on.

So really, it depends which of these categories you're looking at. I'm always looking to get my best value AND quantity for my dollar, so as long as a game gives me a great experience while not cheating me of time, then I'm fine with it.

[Spiderdancer]

There's a point. Another reason I like the Elder Scrolls games is that they are large, but they're not online. I like to sort of roleplay and make up little stories in the game (this also being why I write fanfic) and any exposure whatsoever to l33t during gameplay would massively screw that up. For me to like a long game, it also has to be successfully immersive, and for that it can't be limited to online play.

[Head Mutant]

You could jump on a roleplaying server in WoW, for instance, and immerse your butt off.

Or you could just shut off all the chat options and remain a little island unto yourself and still be able to play 90% of the game.

People don't ruin my immersion faction, because I know the power of /ignore.

[Spiderdancer]

Yes, but it's now too late and I'm an Oblivion graphics whore.

[Hucklebubba]

poolman said:

I appreciate being able to pick something up, play for 15 minutes, and put it down.

Sounds like FFXII is the game for you! Get yours today!

(The preceding is an unpaid endorsement, and a balfaced lie.)

For my opinion, I'm going to go with a hybrid of Poolman and Shalen (Their opinions, not their actual selves).

I like my games ridiculously long, and I'm not afraid to invest big, sad, pathetic chunks of time into them, but I also want to be able to pull the ripcord at a moment's notice.

PC games, with their oft-scoffed-at "save anytime" tendencies, appeal to me for this very reason. For the same reason, the otherwise fabulous FFXII has earned itself some grumpy points.

[Spiderdancer]

hucklebubba said:

For my opinion, I'm going to go with a hybrid of Poolman and Shalen (Their opinions, not their actual selves).

Whew, for a minute there I was picturing some sort of chronically angry, ambiguously-gendered giant with a funny accent and a love for spiders and beer...

[Head Mutant]

And four kilts.

[TheLuckyOne]

spiderdancer said:

Yes, but it's now too late and I'm an Oblivion graphics whore.

Wow... the Madonna and the whore? Kinky.

-D

[TheLuckyOne]

Lady Luck also requests I point out that really long video games are bad because they take new husbands away from their loving wives for long periods of time, greatly increasing the risk of said wives strangling them.

...um, I have to go now.

-D

[Lordmoon]

varana said:

My dreamfame would be ver long, take at least 40 hours to complete, but also include lots and lots of diverse minigames baked into the mix. A game I could pick up to play for 15 minutes when I'm on a break, but where I also have the option of playing an entire weekend. I know, I'm asking too much

If you own the Nintendo Wii or know someone that does, try the new Zelda game. From start to finish it's over 100 hours of play time. But there are also dozens of mini games in between that you can play for hours on end without getting board. Add the fact that you're using a motion sensitive controller (the Gamecube version uses the standard joypad) and you get yourself one hell of a ride.

Personally I don't mind a short game. One of my favorite games of all time is Resident Evil 2 which at this point I am able to complete in under 90 mins without any saves. It's just a fun fast paced game. Although the first play through took me a couple of weeks due to tip-toe-esq effect that the Resident Evil series tends to have when you play the games for the first time.

I also enjoy long games, particularly RPGs. I remember back in junior high a buddy and I stayed up for 36 hours straight playing the first Lunar game. My Sega CD was so overheated that the game would start freezing during battles. Eventually his grandfather resorted to shutting off the electricity to the house to get us to go outside