Support NeoGAF

[Lothars]

Welcome to "old times were always better".

I spent in my childhood a lot of hours playing the same games, even when I beat them.

Now I'm unable to play to replay any game. After I finished any game, continue playing it seems more work than fun.

That doesn't mean that games released now are any better or worst than games released 20 years ago but I still replay games released recently especially if it's something I really enjoyed in fact I am replaying Mass Effect for the second time and I had just beat it earlier this week, every generation has a good portion of games that can be constantly replayed, it's not something that's really changed.

 

[Revolution number one]

it sounds to me like you long for the days of levels that exist for no other purpose than to extend the game time, rather than actually do anything new or fun

it's actually been one of my favourite things about this gen; devs are finally realising that a well-paced 8-12 hour game is superior to a bloated 20-50 hour game

*fist bump*

Correct

 

[wRATH2x]

There is a trend of games getting shorter than what used to be considered an acceptable time for completion but it seems to be sliding into acceptable because the "hardcore" dont seem to care as much as long as it has whatever namebrand attached to the title.

8 Hours used to be the acceptable Minimum for most games at the start of this generation. Now it seems trophies or achievements are what matters.

Fucking this, I remember when short games were ten hours, and the average game lasted 15-20 hours. No we're lucky to get a 9 hour game.

 

[ReBurn]

This is why I pretty much buy all my games used.

I picked up Virtua Fighter 5 the other day for 10 bucks. I barely play it but I've already got my moneys worth.


Seriously, game's prices PLUMMET after release....not to mention every video rental store has a bargain bin.

Somebody needs to remind Nintendo of that. They still think that many two year old Wii games are made of freaking gold.

 

[agaru]

As I get older, I want games to be higher quality, and shorter, so I'm loving it. I can't wait till forty million dollars buy's you four hours of gameplay.

This very thought has crossed my mind earlier today when I was playing Fallout 3. The game is utterly incredible in every respect, but at one point and while wandering in the wastelands, I took a sigh and told myself "why games have to be this huge? It's too much." The thought surprised me because I've always liked massive games with huge content and longer playtime. I concluded that it's just me getting older/busier with life, and hence would be more comfortable now with relatively short experiences with high quality (Uncharted as an example. Enjoyed every second of it to death.) I now think I won't complain at all if Final Fantasy XIII turned out to take 20 hours to complete 100%.

Also, I was shocked several weeks back when I watched the whole Art of Fighting story mode being beaten from start to finish in a single 10 mins YouTube clip. :lol In the old days, it felt so much longer than that, it felt like 10 hours!! :lol Talk about time perception as we grow up.

 

[rpmurphy]

I try to stick to games with replay value nowadays, and very selective on RPG's. And going back through the campaign to find every secret doesn't count at all; it's tedious work. I've still gotten stuff that I felt weren't worth my money, but overall I'm good.

But shortness I don't think is the deal with me though. I find a lot of older games to be far better despite length because each SP session is extremely quick to pick up (no lengthy intros and dialogue and tutorials) and the gameplay is fun.

 

[ReBurn]

This very thought has crossed my mind earlier today when I was playing Fallout 3. The game is utterly incredible in every respect, but at one point and while wandering in the wastelands, I took a sigh and told myself "why games have to be this huge? It's too much." The thought surprised me because I've always liked massive games with huge content and longer playtime. I concluded that It's just me getting older/busier with life, and hence would be more comfortable now with relatively short experiences with high quality (Uncharted as an example. Enjoyed every second of it to death.) I now think I won't complain at all if Final Fantasy XIII turned out to take 20 hours to complete 100%.

Also, I was shocked several weeks back when I watched the whole Art of Fighting story mode being beaten from start to finish in a single 10 mins YouTube clip. :lol In the old days, it felt so much longer than that, it felt like 10 hours!! :lol Talk about time perception as we grow up.

I know what you mean. I pretty much limit my game purchases to something that I can play for half an hour and put down. If games take forever to finish then I'll never finish them.

 

[Narcosis]

People need to research their purchases more and stop thinking they need to buy every title out there just because people are talking about it. For instance, if you're not heavily into multiplayer co-op experiences, then yeah, Left4Dead probably doesn't have the same appeal to you as another more SP or MP fragfest oriented shooter and it's gonna seem to be lacking.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

I'm totally with Rez on this. I'd rather have a shorter game that's awesome all the way through than a longer game that starts to fall apart sometime in the game. Anyone who wouldn't buy a game at full price just because it's short irrespective of its quality (which is far too many posters here) is a damn fool and should quit gaming forever because you suck.

 

[.GqueB.]

Welcome to "old times were always better".

I spent in my childhood a lot of hours playing the same games, even when I beat them.

Now I'm unable to play to replay any game. After I finished any game, continue playing it seems more work than fun.

Probably the kids, now, play Crysis like there were no tomorrow but, in 15 years, they will complain about how awful is Crysis 8, and that these games aren't as addictive as the original Crysis.

I think youre mistaking your adolescence for something completely different. And that "something" somehow has everything to do with the quality of the game in your eyes.

It has been scientifically proven that as a child, we are more willing to engage in the same activity over and over again because we have this certain feeling of accomplishment when we can do well at something over and over again. Watch a few shows on nick jr for a week and youll immediately notice one thing. They show the same episode over and over and over again for many of their shows. Blues clues is the best example.

Ive watched my 10 year old cousin play the opening section to Killzone2 about 5 or 6 times now. He gets excited when he beats a section faster than he did before or when he doesnt die in certain areas. Its childlike human nature.

Im tired of gamers making this mistake over and over again. Theres a very specific reason why we cant sit and play games over and over again and it has very little to do with quality. We simply dont feel like it a lot of time. Theres no incentive. Yea there are certain games we can go through over and over again buts its pretty rare. And after a few times we just cant do it anymore. Youre growing up. There are kids out there (like my cousin) who can play the same games you "put down after one play through", over and over again.

And on top of that, many games are just built to be played over and over again depending on the experience. Of course I can play through games like tetris and geo wars multiple times without getting tired of it. Doesnt make a game like Mass Effect or MGS lacking in quality because I cant immediately pick it up again.

 

[kamspy]

I bought NBA Live 06 when I bought my 360. I know this story very well.

When I got FEAR 2 for PC and was locked into a 16x9 AR, found there was no support for extra mouse buttons or good ol PC FPS lean, I accepted out new console overlords....and shed exactly 1,080 bitter tears.


P.S.
Considering how bad ^^that sentence^^ is grammatically, I'm not going to try to add that the IQ of FEAR 2 vs FEAR 1 is also a downgrade.


There are better examples of what the OP is talking about, but I happen to be playing FEAR 2 right now.



Crysis* and Burnout Paradise are packed to the gills with value though. You can put Fallout 3 in that category too depending on what you think of the price of the added content.


*Crysis value added in the mod community. Best since the Source engine. I don't think I'll ever get around to playing all the added SP levels. Then I might make one.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Quit buying new games. Only buy games that are 20 dollars and below.


Problem solved.

 

[WTFing]

Quit buying new games. Only buy games that are 20 dollars and below.


Problem solved.

Exactly!

 

[crazy monkey]

Quit buying new games. Only buy games that are 20 dollars and below.


Problem solved.

That's the thing i follow. Even if you buy many people don't play them. The most expensive game I bought was zelda tp for 30$.
Everything else is less than $20.

 

[agaru]

I know what you mean. I pretty much limit my game purchases to something that I can play for half an hour and put down. If games take forever to finish then I'll never finish them.

Yeah, but not "half an hour." I mean I know we're in 2009 but that's extremely short, man. :lol For me I should say.

But yeah; a relatively (to its genre) short game + high quality = MEGA WIN

 

[dakilla13]

L4D was shallow, repetitive, and ultimately boring. Before anyone says "get friends" or "play expert noob", I got the game due to peer pressure from friends, and the only reason I play is because of friends. Guess what? Still boring. Mind-numbing shallow gameplay. Now TF2 on the other hand, I would have paid 60$ easy for that game. The amount of replay, and the exceptional support Valve has shown is worth my money. Multiplayer games need to follow TF2's example.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

What do you do in COD4? Grind to level up for some skills? I can see L4D having some lasting power, but it's still an FPS game.

Is that a complaint about grinding from a guy who spent 153 hours and counting on Pokemon?

 

[mclem]

The more worrying trend is DLC being used as held back material. I am still hesitant to even rent Prince of Persia knowing I'd still have to buy the Epilogue DLC just to get the full story, for instance.

Well, there's lots of good reasons to not play Prince of Persia *anyway*, but don't let that be one of them; the game actually felt *less* complete with the epilogue.

 

[aeolist]

One thing that'll help is getting developers to stop half-assing multiplayer modes. Stop wasting time, money, and manpower adding something to a largely single-player game that people will play for an hour before going back to multiplayer-only games that do it better.

Single-player games need to focus on co-op for MP and that's it.

 

[rollingstart]

Arguing about game length is just as boring as NPD shit now. Do people play games to finish them or because they enjoy the time they spent playing them? I've replayed parts of Crysis several times because it's just so much fun to play some of those situations again.

I'm happy either way with how games turn out; shoter, longer, whatever. I'd rather have a short game than a game extended with monotonous tasks to meet some sort of "bar" (I guess I can blame you people for that). Pacing matters more than length.

If there is any trend I'd like to see happen, I'd like shorter games that are build around replaying them. Way of the Samurai and Dead Rising do this so well. You won't experience everything the first time through, just like you shouldn't be able to. It also allows for more freedom, consequence and impact behind player choices. You play Way of the Samurai and choose to join one group, you're stuck there; the game changes and ends based on the choices you make. It works in a short game since you can choose a different path the next time through. Infamous or Mass Effect would have been a lot better if playing as an evil character meant having a vastly different progression than playing as good.

Fucking this, I remember when short games were ten hours, and the average game lasted 15-20 hours. No we're lucky to get a 9 hour game.

haha, yeah. I replayed a couple games considered really short back when they were released (PoP Sands of Time, ZoE2, Beyond Good and Evil) and was amazed how standards have changed.

 

[MadOdorMachine]

The other thread got me thinking about a few things; today's games really don't feel like they're worth the money anymore. We hear about how ginormous game budgets are -- and I don't doubt that -- but I feel like we're getting less and less for our money.

I bought Crysis for 40 bucks, and I'm pretty happy with the game, but it didn't last long enough (I think 5+ hours) for me to feel like it was worth the money. The game also doesn't have a very strong multiplayer either. Still, I did enjoy the game. Later, I bought Warhead for 25 I think, and I knew ahead of time this is even shorter, but hey, I also paid less. Still, I came back disappointed.

Two weeks ago, my friend bought Left 4 Dead for 20 bucks or something. At most, the game had enough content for a weekend rental. There were like 4 different scenarios and maybe a robust multiplayer. I says maybe because I got kicked off a few times for some strange reason -- I think I didn't pick the right weapon or something. Most people were complete asshats, so I didn't play multi enough to see how robust it was. I know the single player lasted maybe 3+ hours? Probably the same can be said about COD4. I know the COD4 community is no better, but at least I didn't get kicked out for some stupid reason. Lucky for me, I played at someone else's house and didn't spend a dime.

The last game I felt totally satisfied was Rainbow Six Vegas ($4) and Turok ($20) during the Circuit City going out of business sale. I also bought Pokemon Platinum at launch ($30 I think), and I've clocked 153+ (I'm still collecting and battling) hours into that game so far. The actual run through clocked at maybe 70 hours... AND. I. CHEATED. I used cheats to bypass EV grinding and breeding.

Just imagine, the next generation, average budgets can reach 60+ million for a game that'll probably last you an hour!

[/rant]

Hmmm. Well, I think that over all games are too expensive, but I'm not really too concerned about length so much as replayability. Crysis is probably the worst example you could have given. The game is pretty much perfect for my tastes. I've beaten Crysis 3 times and Warhead twice. I'm currently on my third play through and every time I see something different or try to tackle it a different way. Not only is it beautiful and the gameplay perfect, but it has a ton of options for how to complete a level. It's my game of the gen by far.

What's pathetic is that even brand new, Crysis was only $50 ($10 cheaper than a console game) and the graphics are still better than any other game on the market. Warhead was $30 brand new. Today, you can get both of those, plus Crysis Wars for $30. There are a ton of examples of this. I'm guessing the royalty rates must be the reason PC games are so much cheaper.

Anyway, for the most part I agree that games don't offer as much value. The result is that I've become very picky on what games I'll buy. I have no problem waiting for the price to drop on a game and even then, I'm still picky.

 

[whitehawk]

Quit buying new games. Only buy games that are 20 dollars and below.


Problem solved.

Yup. I follow this pretty much. The last new game I bought was Skate 2, and before that it was Gears of War 2. I just got Bioshock for $20 a couple days ago and I've already got my moneys worth.

 

[DangerousDave]

I think youre mistaking your adolescence for something completely different. And that "something" somehow has everything to do with the quality of the game in your eyes.

It has been scientifically proven that as a child, we are more willing to engage in the same activity over and over again because we have this certain feeling of accomplishment when we can do well at something over and over again. Watch a few shows on nick jr for a week and youll immediately notice one thing. They show the same episode over and over and over again for many of their shows. Blues clues is the best example.

Ive watched my 10 year old cousin play the opening section to Killzone2 about 5 or 6 times now. He gets excited when he beats a section faster than he did before or when he doesnt die in certain areas. Its childlike human nature.

Im tired of gamers making this mistake over and over again. Theres a very specific reason why we cant sit and play games over and over again and it has very little to do with quality. We simply dont feel like it a lot of time. Theres no incentive. Yea there are certain games we can go through over and over again buts its pretty rare. And after a few times we just cant do it anymore. Youre growing up. There are kids out there (like my cousin) who can play the same games you "put down after one play through", over and over again.

And on top of that, many games are just built to be played over and over again depending on the experience. Of course I can play through games like tetris and geo wars multiple times without getting tired of it. Doesnt make a game like Mass Effect or MGS lacking in quality because I cant immediately pick it up again.

Yeah, but I don't see where is the contradiction with what I said.

The OP considered the replayability of the old games vs the non-incentive to replay it like something attached to the game, and I argued that is something related to the age.

The games that we have now are way superior in terms of game design as the games of 10 or 20 years ago. A lot. The differences in term of game design are as great as the graphical differences.

Game Over screens that forces you to restart the whole game, lack of checkpoints, fixed enemy patterns that make exactly the same action in each play, etc. Now most of us would get bored of that dirty tricks in a matter of minutes. We have more games, we have less times, and we don't accept the repetition. And, even with all that handicaps, we're able to enjoy the games. We would get bored easily if the dessign remained the same as 20 years ago.

So now the games offer much greater gameplay experiences, we're not getting less, we're getting much more than 20 years ago. Instead of a racing game with 5 endings, that we have to replay most of the stages each time, one car and 5 tunes, we get open-world racing games with dozens of cars with different properties and a lot of upgrades, full customization, hundreds of different races in different game modes, secret objects, dozens of music tracks, story, etc. Objectively, its much more content. Even if we finish Midnight Club L.A. in a week, instead of playing Out Run during 3 months.

 

[DaveKap]

People who are dissatisfied with games that "don't last long enough" are the people who force game developers into adding filler into their games. If you can't enjoy the experience for what it is and instead come away all mad that it isn't longer than some strange expectation that you pretty much make up out of nowhere... then you're the shitty demographic that make competent games go bad.

This is especially true for those freaks who just want to beat games for the sake of beating them or simply because you love to go through the game as fast as possible without replaying. How the hell you consider yourselves "gamers" is beyond me.

As much as I'd love to agree that games are getting higher budgets but with less content, the high-resolution textures and high-polygonal models mixed with non-proprietary AI, animations, and other licenses that need to be made (havok, fmod, etc) pretty much prove you wrong. To make a game means buying up a lot of things that you can't simply own or create, unless you take more than 3 years to build the engine from scratch... in which case, that's 3 years of paying top developer salaries, which means high budgets anyway.

Trust me, just because you think a game is really quick to beat or has a lower amount of content than (insert other title here), doesn't mean it's necessarily true. The expectations of us gamers is simply growing and with those expectations come a higher cost for development. Be happy prices of games haven't doubled in the last decade.

 

[Sohter.Nura]

I dunno.
I have a feeling western games have always been this short in the PS2 generation, but I could be wrong. It's just that I think western games (which I feel like are associated with short games) are much more prevalent nowadays

 

[Yagharek]

Without wading into the intricacies of this debate as it has waged on, there are optimal cases for each person on the cost versus time spent enjoying a game. Some notable examples from my time:

$8 Pixeljunk Monsters for 100s of hours
$50 for Beyond Good and Evil for 12-15 hours
$65 for Oddworld Stranger for 15-20 hours
$85 for MGS3 for 35 hours

(All in Aus dollars, time on first playthrough except for PJM)

In each of those cases, I feel I more than got my money's worth because all four games were fucking fantastic. I could list another dozen or so games easily but they serve the purpose of my point enough.

Price is mostly irrelevant. Time is mostly irrelevant. Value is relevant based on how much you enjoy the game. And that sense of value can be severely compromised by unfinished games (Halo 2, Prince of Persia), exhorbitant and cynical DLC (Guitar Hero anything, Resident Evil 5 VS), and overpriced games to start with (Activision games post-2004). The most important thing is enjoying the game, but that can be hampered when you are treated more as a bag of cash by the publisher than a customer who is valued.

 

[Bowlerguy92]

I'm always a fan of the fact that I spend $60 on a game and then "gotta have it" content is released just weeks or even DAYS later for a nominal charge. People just accept this and back up developers saying that "I don't mind paying for it, it just didn't make it in and they wanted to get the game out the door", sometimes yes, that's probably the case, but typically it's just to milk the game and everyone buys into it and the developers walk away rich. I can hardly stand to be on XBL anymore because of all of the ridiculous DLC ploys they have rampant through the interface...just disappointing.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

You are a flat-out liar if you say Crysis was beaten in around 5 hours :lol The game easily has a 10+ hour campaign, unless you set it on Easy and just blast through the whole thing.

Left 4 Dead is another poor example. I've gotten well over 40 hours out of the game, and I'm nowhere near done. The game has enough unique campaign to easily last 5-6 hours your first time through them, and even more as you get better playing with your friends, attempting to beat the campaigns on Expert. It's like a whole different game.
And then you've ignored Versus mode, which is just plain ridiculous. It's like talking about Call of Duty while ignoring multiplayer.

If I could get something to die in gaming it would be this: turn up the difficulty and it's a completely different game. No it's not. Harder, yes but not different. It's still a dumb FPS with less emphasis on balance, level design and more focus on twitch shooting and fighting a horde. It's a good game but upping the difficulty doesn't do a lot to the core game.

People who are dissatisfied with games that "don't last long enough" are the people who force game developers into adding filler into their games. If you can't enjoy the experience for what it is and instead come away all mad that it isn't longer than some strange expectation that you pretty much make up out of nowhere... then you're the shitty demographic that make competent games go bad.

That's off base. We don't force devs to do anything. They just take the lazy way out by adding filler. Zelda Twilight Princess is filled with bloat but the dungeons are the biggest and some of the best in the series. Why? Because the devs decided to focus on great design. Those dungeons take 1-2 hours to complete and are a big step up in scale compared to previous games. EA and Activision would not have put that effort into a game. They take the lazy way out by adding Achievements and Multiplayer, which for people w/o the ability to play online or deal with the hassle, leaves them with not a lot of ability to engage in the progress of the past few years.

Why would you complain about gamers forcing devs to be lazy instead of blaming the devs for being lazy and the publishers for wanting to make a fast buck? That's backwards. Is this like victims of domestic violence blaming themselves for being hit?

 

[killdatninja]

I never understood using the Next Generation term so late in the game, I mean is there any real reason to say it now? Now that the "next gen" is going on 4 years old? XBOX & Gamecube phased out, ps2 barely on life support.

 

[JdFoX187]

I don't know, I kind of find myself enjoying shorter games. I looked at my backlog dating back to summer last year and hadn't finished many games at all because I go from one to the next so fast. So I decided I'm going to go back and start beating them. No matter how fun the game is though, the longer they are, the more boring they get.

Bioshock, as much as I love that game, began to drag on toward the end. The same goes for Red Faction Guerilla. I beat it today, but found myself pushing to do it. I prefer the shorter, more polished and less filler games. People bitch about Bionic Commando's length, but it was perfect. The same goes for Call of Duty 4 and World at War. Both ended at the perfect time for me.

I just don't have time to invest in long games. It took me a month, off and on, to beat Red Faction Guerilla and I logged only around 12 hours into it. So I can stretch them out if I want. But I put more value in how much fun I have in a game rather than how long it lasts.

 

[Duke Togo]

Crysis is one of the few games in recent memory where I actually replayed sections of the story. It has a reputation as a tech demo but the designers gave a lot of options for playing the maps. After you beat the game try experimenting with different loadouts. If you used the sniper rifle switch it out for the shotgun. Try getting all your kills by picking up barrels and turning into Donkey Kong. Ram into a troop transport going full speed in a humvee. Open up a file with notepad and change your strength value so every time you punch someone it rockets them into the sky.

The fuck? Find your own avatar Junior!

 

[Pumpkins]

So, what is a good price for games?

I mean generally, games prices tend to rise and drop based on popularity, so it's not like every game is always $59.99/$49.99 forever.

I think the problem you're having is buying now as opposed to later. There are some insane deals on Amazon, Steam, and other online distributors that justify a purchase towards a game.

 

[Yagharek]

I never understood using the Next Generation term so late in the game, I mean is there any real reason to say it now? Now that the "next gen" is going on 4 years old? XBOX & Gamecube phased out, ps2 barely on life support.

I think the term has persisted so that people can use it to differentiate between Wii and Ps3/360. It's a petty distinction in my mind, but the language has stuck and I think it will do so until the next hardware revisions are announced.

 

[SpacLock]

I'm pretty sure that Halo 3 has more content than any other console game made before this generation.

 

[Pantheon Of The Lesser]

i like it. as years go by i find myself with less patience for long games. 10 to 15 hours is the ideal for me.

 

[Shurs]

I don't think that the enjoyment of short, well paced games and long, dense games have to be mutually exclusive. I enjoy both but my purchasing habits are effected by game length and multiplayer.

I tend to pay full price full long games (15+ hours) and games with multiplayer, while waiting for single player only games to drop to the $40 or less range before purchasing. I try not to buy used games as I do want to support the developers, even if it is at a reduced price. For example, I waited for price cuts on Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Prince of Persia and Heavenly Sword before buying them.

So, my advice to the OP is to check establish what you find valuable in a game, content wise, and base your purchasing decisions on that criteria. That's what I do. And I'm a happy gamer.

 

[Rollo Lawson]

sounds like you should focus on single player-centric games when buying. i had to learn this the hard way. if i cant get a heavy campaign/ career/ story mode i usually dont bother

 

[SonicX_Zero]

I would have agreed with you if you went with some other games rather than L4D and CoD4 as I easily spent countless hours offline and online with multiplayer. =/

 

[ghst]

men of war.

4 complete single player campaigns. each scaling up to hard as balls, with some missions taking over an hour.

full co-op mode in which you can play through any of the 4 campaigns with up to like, 6 players or something. aswell as specially generated co-op missions.

robust vs. mode multiplayer, a whole salad of game modes.

big mod community, downloadable mission packs up the wazoo.

seven dollars on steam.

 

[Yagharek]

I'm pretty sure that Halo 3 has more content than any other console game made before this generation.

Super Mario World. MGS3. Resident Evil 4. Ocarina of Time. Goldeneye. Gran Turismo.

"User made" content doesnt really count here. Halo 3 has a short campaign mode, a robust multiplayer mode, and a level editor. That is not 'content'; it is longevity - a bit like Counterstrike.

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

I really and truly feel like people have absolutely no recollection of how short games really used to be.

 

[TitaniumGroceries]

These games, from previous generations (SNES and NES had a TON of games that only took a few hours to "beat") only took me between three and four hours. And there are a good few from the PS1/Xbox years that also only took a handfull of hours.

I find that most of the quality games released today are between 10 and 15 hours, which seems like a decent amount of time for a non-RPG.

 

[IrishNinja]

good points, but we're arbitrarily pointing at games & length without necessarily respecting genre. if you want long games regardless of setting, go play disgaea.

its been said a few times that our favorite classic titles were not often much longer (RPGs aside), though we've seen mebbe more 8-10 experiences than what used to be 12-15, but how much of tha twas padding? fighting the same bosses again, going back to collect shit to move onto the next level (Prince of Persia just did this to me recently), sure the game's longer but its cheap, and possibly lessens the overall experience.

the original Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of the Colossus etc - depending on if you were decent at them vs dying a thousand deaths - were actually quite short compared to some of the big budget games being thrown around here, but i think many'd say they were some of the best 8-10 (?) hours they'd played. Me, i beat Rez and Katamari quickly but have prolly played both hundreds of hours since, so its pretty relative.

you know what's not relative? drudging through fetchquests in xenosaga 2. that just plain sucked.

 

[Persona7]

If I paid 60$ for Mirrors Edge I would have been pissed.

But for 20$ brand new its perfect.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Leaner, more potent experiences at a lower price. Too much substandard filler and overvaluation of visual detail has mucked it up. It should be about filling games on newer hardware with less-restrained design and content and not about just trying to pack a screen, disc, and game with a bunch of shit just because you can. But that's my ideal and not what most want. At least, DD has somewhat met my desires...

 

[K.Jack]

People claiming that games once averaged 15+ hours are so full of it. It's mind-boggling. I grew up in the Master System era, and if anything, games have become way longer. Even PS1 and PS2 games weren't epically long, unless you count RPGs.

The fuck? Find your own avatar Junior!

Wow I thought that was you. I see the avatar and don't even look at names.:lol

 

[dojokun]

I blame the gamers' expectations on realistic graphics. It makes it hard to maintin high frames per second, and also takes longer to dev, etc. I'll take a game with good art (and therefore easily higher FPS) anyday.

 

[Pantheon Of The Lesser]

I really and truly feel like people have absolutely no recollection of how short games really used to be.

indeed. most non-rpg games could be finished in one sitting. i remember one of my favourite games, Streets of Rage 2, taking barely a hour to complete.

 

[JdFoX187]

I'm pretty sure that Halo 3 has more content than any other console game made before this generation.

A campaign that can be beaten in under six hours? A half-assed level editor? The only thing that gives Halo 3 its longevity is its multiplayer, which is completely baffeling considering the baffoon running the playlists. Hardly the most content of any game before this generation. Shit, check out just about any RPG and it has more content than Halo 3. For that fact, FarCry 2 takes everything Halo 3 does and does it better.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

For the most part, story-driven games aren't worth my time anymore. I don't like to spend money on games that are only worth one playthrough, especially when that playthrough doesn't last more than a few hours.

Arcade style gameplay and competitive multiplayer are where it's at. The only 2 games I've been playing for the past 4 months are Pokemon Platinum (~200 hours) and Virtual On Oratorio Tangram (~1600 battles), and I don't see myself getting tired of either of them in the near future.