Video Games Are FAAAAR too Short These Days!!

Fr0dus Maximus said:
I don't think I got to that one. Could u explain it?
One of your squad-mates, who supposedly died when you were ambushed by the Thresher Maw shows up at an installation, run by the Prometheus Corporation (or whatever it's called), at least I think. You see him there, you have a conversation, and the entire quest is resolved by him either killing himself, or you convincing him not to.
 
I've never really cared about the length of a game. I grew up with the original NES, so I always thought of games as something you picked up and played for half an hour at a time. Every once in awhile you'd come across a game that you could play for a couple hours at a time, but usually that was because you had your own fun with the game. For example, I could sit down and play NHL 96 on my Sega Gen for several hours at a time because I played games back to back to back. But I never sat down and played Mario 3 on the NES for more than 1 hour at a time.

I don't really think games have gotten longer or shorter as time went on. I think they got longer as available memory increased and the "save system" replaced passwords and the like. But even then you still get a mish mash of games, some longer than others. I think the nature of the industry and how we play games has changed, especially as rental stores emerged and developed. We now associate quantity with a game's value. It's not enough for a game to entertain us, it must be entertaining for a minimum number of hours. If it can be beaten in a week or less, then it seems unworthy of a purchase, because most rental stores will give you the game for a week. A game isn't simply worth playing or not worth playing anymore, it's judged on a whole different scale of criteria: how long is it worth playing for? Are there incentives to play through it more than once? Is their multiplayer? Is there online? Is their accomplishments/reward systems?

We look at games very differently than we used to, and we expect a lot more from a game. We also see playing a game without direct objectives, and simply "for the fun of it," as a bit of a waste of time. A game like Assassin's Creed can be short if you simply jump through the hoops the developers placed for you, but like many older games I played as a child, doing what the developers wanted you to do and doing what you wanted to do in the game were two very separate things. I think people today want to feel that the time they spend playing videogames is somehow productive, as though they are accomplishing something by playing it. To this end I think people are disappointed when they feel they work astutely to that end and reach it very quickly. I think if people played games for sheer fun, like they used to, then the length of a game would not be an issue, as it was not before.
 
Who cares about how long a game is? Doesn't everyone still love Call of Duty 4's cinematic single player? Would Galaxy be worth it if it wasn't as fun? Games don't have to be long to be justified purchases, you just need to be happy you played it.
 
fhqwhgads said:
Who cares about how long a game is? Doesn't everyone still love Call of Duty 4's cinematic single player? Would Galaxy be worth it if it wasn't as fun? Games don't have to be long to be justified purchases, you just need to be happy you played it.

spending 60$ on a game that i can just rent and play in 5 hours does make my wallet reaally sad XD. but still i'm happy for have played the game even if i rented it
 
Zidart said:
spending 60$ on a game that i can just rent and play in 5 hours does make my wallet reaally sad XD. but still i'm happy for have played the game even if i rented it
How would your wallet feel after a 100 hour crappy game?
 
Oh yeah, I should get on topic now. I don't mind how long a game is unless it's supposed to be an RPG or anything like that. Then I'd be upset.
 
Plus, length depends on skill and focus, some massive variables for most people.
 
GamingMaiden said:
Oh yeah, I should get on topic now. I don't mind how long a game is unless it's supposed to be an RPG or anything like that. Then I'd be upset.

But even short rpgs can be good. I was able to beat Golden Sun in less than 20 hours, and that's one of my favorite rpg games ever. Granted, it's a GBA game, and handheld rpgs are usually shorter, but still. Also, I've gotten through many of the Tales games in about 50-75 hours, and yet there are people who complain when rpgs aren't 80+ hours.
 
GamingMaiden said:
Oh yeah, I should get on topic now. I don't mind how long a game is unless it's supposed to be an RPG or anything like that. Then I'd be upset.
Agreed. I couldn't help but want more, after I blew through Mass Effect in 20 hours. Why not just make two games, instead of 3, so I can actually get a long, and satisfying experience out of both of them, instead of being left wanting more.
 
Yeah, 20 hours is short for a console rpg. The first time I played Tales of the Abyss, I didn't do a lot of the sidequests, and I still got 45 hours out of that (compared to 75 in the next playthrough when I did all the sidequests). The shortest console rpg I've played recently was Eternal Sonata, and even that was about 35 hours.
 
20 hours or more is what i'm looking for.. many of my games are actually from 20 to 100 hours...

and fhq i have never played a crappy 100 hour game XD
 
fhqwhgads said:
Twilight Princess was said to be 100 hours with everything in it...

IT WAS NOT CRAPPY (and by the way FFX and FFXII took me 100 hours and they ARE NOT CRAPPY XD) i know you hated that zelda and i know you think is crappy but i don't think so soooo yeah i would not spend 100 hours on a game that I THINK is crappy
 
Twilight Princess may be too long. Perhaps if they had cut out some of the superfluous elements, it would have played a little better.

What is sometimes good about short games is that they are straight to the point. No unnecessary fluff.

I'd rather have a short game with awesome gameplay than a game that is long for the sake of being long.
 
Zidart said:
IT WAS NOT CRAPPY (and by the way FFX and FFXII took me 100 hours and they ARE NOT CRAPPY XD) i know you hated that zelda and i know you think is crappy but i don't think so soooo yeah i would not spend 100 hours on a game that I THINK is crappy
I spent about 100 over my few files on it, and I still thought it was crappy. I mean, it's ok until Snowpeak, then it drops. Fast.
 
fhqwhgads said:
I spent about 100 over my few files on it, and I still thought it was crappy. I mean, it's ok until Snowpeak, then it drops. Fast.

that's called being a zelda hardcore fan :lol even if you though it was crappy you still played it (it happened to me with shadow the hedgehog....but the ending was not even worth the time i spent on the game)

i rather have game with good gameplay... if it is short then give it replay value or at least an awesome story (phoenix wright) if it's long then give me at least something to get hooked for more than 20 hours (TP and FFXII )
 
These days I appreciate games like Super Mario Galaxy, where you can just beat the game in reasonably short time but it gives you twice as much to do if you want to...or not.
 
Back
Top