Regarding Longevity In VideoGames

CiDeRmAn

Lads and Lasses,
I picked Ghost Recon AW up for the 360 a week ago in my friendly neighbourhood Gamestop and I have to say initial impressions were very very good, as the week drew on I was making progress, getting smarter with my tactics and getting killed a lot less.
Then to my dismay I found out, while having a trawl through Gamefaqs to see how many missions I had ahead, that I had 3/4 of the thing finished already, in like 4 days play.
Now I am not in the position to use broadband as my area isn't yet enabled, as a result I am a single player only man and I see that despite my €75 outlay my fun is to be cut really really short. Not too impressed I have to say, surely for the money I should have expected more from the game.
Condemned was the same as was COD2. Once again, given our investment in these expensive toys, shouldn't we expect, nay demand more gameplay, more bang for our buck?
I wasn't this disappointed since Fable turned out to be more of a shortstory than an epic novel.
I know many gamers just flit from game to game, never finishing games and so the creative investment by developers goes unseen and unplayed, but what of those of us who play to the bitter end?

What are your thoughts?

Dont be at yourself

I rarely finish games, and, as you say, my kind are pretty much in the majority. As such, does it make more sense for a developer to spend time and money on content that a huge part of it's audience will never see, or to create a smaller, but much more polished, experience for everyone?

Ambition can be a hinderence to developers. If they try to make a game which looks great, plays great and lasts for a considerable time, they'll rarely achieve all three (or any), and often end up with a lacklustre game. So, the solution is either to increase the development time and budget, or to try and do one or two of the above really well.

Downloadable content does provide a solution to this - by gamers paying for a game, and are then able to go out and buy extra levels or what-have-you if they want to. Some may say that that's unfair to the hardcore, but if the developers had spent time making the original game longer, other parts may have suffered and then *nobody* would be happy.

Crucifix

I can't afford to buy games often (generally anyway), so I do like games with a good bit of time in them.

KdjaCL

But your lack of playing is due to your lack of broadband, your playing games with specific longterm gaming online.

Luckily for you Oblivion may be out this month.

kdjac

SantaHoe

I think RTCW singleplayer was just about the right length... MOHAA was pretty decent value aswell... Deus Ex aswell (of course ).
I think they got the ballance between quality and quantity just about right with those.
Actually I'm still trying to think of a game that I found too long... hmmm

DingChavez

Don't play FPS if you want long games. Play something like Baldur's Gate.

CiDeRmAn

Not sure if I agree with you Ding, FPS titles have been my faves for quite a while now since first playing Doom on the PC many many moons ao, plenty of gameplay in ColdWinter, Warhammer on the PS2 etc, its just the effort needed to produce level after level of good gameplay isn't worth it to developers, they rather the easier route of making a multiplayer local that will be used again and again or a racetrack that is simply looped time and time again. Perhaps games like Shadow of the colossus and Zelda are the only places that single player gaming is in the ascendent. Its a little unfair however to say the FPS genre is rooted in online play for the longevity of a given title, I seem to remember Halo and Halo2 providing plenty of gameplay offline as did Goldeneye by altering the characteristics of the enemy as the difficulty level was changed at the outset. They turned previously familiar areas from regions of easy progression to one where you had to fight for every metre of territory gained, an intelligent way to extend the single players pleasure.
As for Fantasy games, aside from Zelda I never found satisfaction in any of them, looking forward to Elder Scrolls Oblivion however, though Morrowind on the Xbox sucked.

Retr0gamer

I try to finish every gmae I play as long as I think it's worth playing. I don't mind short games myself since I a huge backlog but recently I was really disappointed by Black when I finished it in 4 hours. I think an action game should at least give you 8 hours of quality gameplay.

SantaHoe

Retr0gamer wrote:

I [have] a huge backlog

All-Bran & prune juice ftw

BLITZ_Molloy

It seems kind of contradictory but I find the shortest games have the best longevity. If a game is 10 hours long and 5 hours of that was average then I'm never going to replay it.

But if a game is 40 minutes long and doesn't have any filler I'll play it over and over and over.

Used to get home from school when I was a kid and finish Revenge of Shinobi, Wonderboy III: Monster Lair and the first loop of Ghouls N' Ghosts in a couple of hours. Yet I played those games for years.

I'm of the opinion that if games were a little less linear (Mario 3 is a good example of a game where you can pick and choose your levels) and alot shorter people wouldn't be complaining about not finishing games. My attention span just doesn't last for 10 hours unless a game is pretty unique like Katamari or SotC anyway.

Most music albums are less than an hour. Most films are less than an hour and a half. Games have alot more potential to be different evey time than linear media, so I don't see why their longevity needs to be measured in the length of a single playthough.

You take a game like Counter Strike and it's very low on content. There are only a handful of levels. You can see all the levels in just a few hours. But just because you've played the level once doesn't mean it won't be completley different next time. The rounds are only 30mins long, there's no saving, there's no leveling up, there's no plot, but there's longevity. Multiplayer games seem to be sticking closer to the old arcade style ideas and have much better longevity than the bloated stuff we're getting in single player games these days. Maybe that's something developers should be considering. A game with 5 good levels, and more original/unpredicable gameplay is alot more entertaining in the long term than a game with 100 bad levels and samey gameplay.

SantaHoe

BLITZ_Molloy wrote:

I'm of the opinion that if games were a little less linear

Yeah bingo.
I know DeusEx wasn't as non-linear as they made it out to be, but there was certainly room for a different replay experience when you go with different augmentations/skills every time.

Multiplayer adds hugely to a games lifespan; even MarioKart on the SNES had hundreds of hours clocked up on it by myself and my brothers.
But sometimes you just want a good single-player plot based game.
I don't like the trend of online multiplayer-only games though... I bought UT2003 then later UT2004... really there's no reason for me to ever install UT2k3 again.
Same with Tribes2... last time I installed that, there was either no players or no servers... I can't remember which, but playing it online was a no-go.
In the long-term, there's a really terminal life span with these games.

Retr0gamer

BLITZ_Molloy wrote:

Used to get home from school when I was a kid and finish Revenge of Shinobi, Wonderboy III: Monster Lair and the first loop of Ghouls N' Ghosts in a couple of hours. Yet I played those games for years.

But how long did it take you to get to that stage. I remember playing Gn'G for months before I could 1 credit it. As for Revenge of Shinobi, I could never beat the last boss.

DonkeyStyle \o/

I don't think I've ever completed GnG... super-hard game... by gumbo they don't make 'em like that anymore :eek:

ghost26ie

games are more geared to multi-player nowadays. single player is of less importance. i cleared both Half Life 2 and Fear over a weekend each and COD2 in about 15 hours of play.

BLITZ_Molloy

Retr0gamer wrote:

But how long did it take you to get to that stage. I remember playing Gn'G for months before I could 1 credit it. As for Revenge of Shinobi, I could never beat the last boss.

RoS took me 6 months. WB3 took maybe a month on normal, 6 on hard. I managed to beat the first loop on GnG in a couple of weeks. Couldn't do it on one credit or anything though.

My point is just that regardless of wether I was finishing the games or not I enjoyed replaying them just for the sake of it. There were certain levels I didn't enjoy but when they're only 5 or 10 minutes in total then I'm much happier to put up with those parts.

CiDeRmAn

Of course, and the point has already been made but is worth repeating, a quality 6 hours of gameplay is worth far more than 18 hours of backtracking and poking around for the one item that eluded you in the forest/desert/ice level but is essential for attempting the all too mysterious industrial final level, covers pretty much every 3d platformer I have ever played!
COD2 was case and point, very short but fantastic, Metal Gear Solid on the PS1 was similar, quite short but an incredible experience, making up for the brief nature of the game itself.
That said 16 hours of quality gaming would be even nicer, especially if you just wish the game could just go on and on, like Metal Arms, honestly a really enjoyable game, so much to do, plenty of gags, excellent design and it had plenty of length in single player.
Then you play muck like Driver3 and you wonder if anyone played anymore than 30mins to an hour and realised they'd never get that time back and wisely traded it in for GTA ViceCity, they'd had it before but its a comfort just to have a copy around, takes the bad taste of tripe like the aforementioned game and TrueCrime LA out of your mouth, who really cared how many missions or how long the single player component was since it was agony just to play them.
Silent Hill2, perfectly formed, perfect length, difficulty spot on and the ability to make me see faceless killer nurses in the hospital I work in late at night when the lights are off, perhaps not an intended feature of the game but a potent one nonetheless.

CiDeRmAn

And as for the comment about games being geared for multiplayer and online play, that would be a bit premature, most gamers still play single player only, whatever PC owners say, A proper single player mode or campaign is essential, too much of the target market in consoles still don't have access to broadband, give me Nintendos approach any day, make games first and online components when everything is perfect, that way you prevent insults to ones senses like Perfect Dark Zero which, by all accounts, got that philosophy the wrong way around, maybe Rare should have stuck with Ninty after all, at least people played their games back then instead of hanging onto the receipt and returning them the next day, felt quite downhearted when I booted up PD0 and saw what a disaster it was, again longevity didn't matter a jot, it sucked so much I couldn't bring myself to waste more than an hour on the thing.

k99_64

I have to say most games I play on the xbox last no time what-so-ever, Halo2 and half-life-2 we're really really short, rainbow6 3 was an exception but more and more i finish the games within 2-3 days.

Dont be at yourself

I'm glad someone mentioned Metal Gear Solid - for me, possibly the best game ever made. It didn't offer huge, expansive environments, or free-roaming, non-linear gameplay. It was a heavily scripted game that could be completed in well under ten hours on your first run through. Yet every single inch of the game was brilliantly realised, and you never felt as if you were slogging through to get to the next good bit. I must have played through that game 6 or 7 times, it was that good. That's longevity.

Gummy Panda

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

I'm glad someone mentioned Metal Gear Solid - for me, possibly the best game ever made. It didn't offer huge, expansive environments, or free-roaming, non-linear gameplay. It was a heavily scripted game that could be completed in well under ten hours on your first run through. Yet every single inch of the game was brilliantly realised, and you never felt as if you were slogging through to get to the next good bit. I must have played through that game 6 or 7 times, it was that good. That's longevity.

I agree!!

Excellent game.

Retr0gamer

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

I'm glad someone mentioned Metal Gear Solid - for me, possibly the best game ever made. It didn't offer huge, expansive environments, or free-roaming, non-linear gameplay. It was a heavily scripted game that could be completed in well under ten hours on your first run through. Yet every single inch of the game was brilliantly realised, and you never felt as if you were slogging through to get to the next good bit. I must have played through that game 6 or 7 times, it was that good. That's longevity.

Have to agree as well. I remember playing the demo for ages even though it was only 3 rooms long. There was more to do in those rooms than in most other games. Finding new weapons and new ways to annoy the gaurds was great fun. I've beaten the game multiple times as well. And to think I got MGS and the mission pack for 20 pounds. Best videogame bargain I've ever picked up.

Trip Hazard

I also agree wit hthe metal gear solid statment. That goes for all of the MGS games. Anyway I'm one of thise people who will always clear a game no matter what. And it usually only takes me about a week and I might skip days. I'm third person RPGs in particullar I get totally submersed in the game and wont stop until it's finished. The last game I played was Path of Neo pretty easy in fairness cleared it in about a week and a half, thats the type of game you wonld go back to after clearinf because you can relay any level and most of them are **** cool levels.

Before that I started Mortal Kombat Shaolin Monks and I'm stuck half way through it that why I started Path of Neo. But i'm Back to Shaolin Monks and I cant progress its annoying when that happens. While I'm on the subject the next game i'm thinking of getting is Res Evil 4, anyone know is it any good. The Res Evil series always gave me weeks upon week of gaming because some bits are so hard you have to leave it for a few days them come back to it and BAM you progress, gotta love when that happens.

I'm always relucant to buy sequals unless i've cleared the predessessor.

Dont be at yourself

Resident Evil 4 is well worth your money, and is perhaps the game of this generation. It's actually probably the only other action game apart from Metal Gear Solid to completely enthrall me. Gave up on the second disc though, too long for me

joe_chicken

Real time strategy games (as far as one player go) are the best for longevitiy.

I think I must have finished Red Alert 2 about 4 or 5 times, and I dont know how many skirmishes i played

Haven't really played anything as good since.

Was very disappointed by the length of Half Life 2. I have picked it up a good few times since completing it and have got my fair share of play from CSS, so cant complain (too much )

Stephen

I think games like HL2 and max payne are just right, lengthwise. I don't have time to spend every waking hour completing games
Max Payne 2 was a little short though, but was excellent while it lasted. HL2 was excellent throughout too - I guess that's what i like - short but high quality over long but low/mediocre quality.

koneko

I agree with Stephen. There are plenty of games that I wished were longer, like HL2 and NOLF2 at the time, but when it boils down to it, I don't *actually* want them to be longer. They left me wanting more, left me with a smile on my face when I finished the game, instead of dragging on and forcing me through hours of boring/dull gameplay that was thrown in just to make it longer. Especially in some FPS games, it can't be too long or it risks losing the gamer's attention, and they'll just drop it for something else.

I like a long game, don't get me wrong, and it's good value for money, but I'd rather have a short-medium length great game, than a long average game. Though 4 hours is just pants, really.

It's a bonus if something has longevity through online play. HL2 has HL2:DM and CS:S with it to keep you entertained for a long long time. Replayability is good too. Compared to some other RPGs out there, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines wasn't too (about 25hrs IIRC), but I liked it so much I played it twice to make up for that. Same with KOTOR.

Retr0gamer

I have to agree about the length of FPS games like Half-life 2 being just right. I remember being bored to tears about a quarter of the way through both SOF games and they were very long. Also being a bit crap didn't help but it felt like punishment trying to beat them during the later levels. RTCW also should have ended well before it did (without out any stupid ubersoldiers either) but at least that was excellent for the first half before becoming dull due to bad enemy and level design.

SantaHoe

long dull games ftw

Cake Fiend

I'd rather play Metroid Prime for a few days than Final Fantasy VIII for a month tbh.

SantaHoe wrote:

long dull games ftw

How appropriate for a TFC lambart!



In other news: wow, Santy is still alive :eek:

SantaHoe

Whatever Q33r :rolleyes:

Still waiting on that taxi btw.