Are games ACTUALLY short nowadays?

L31mr0d

I'm signed up to a few gaming forums and i'm constantly hearing that games are way too short nowadays. I mean a 7 hour game is SHORT by most peoples standards.

What i'm saying is, have games, other than RPGs, ever been really that long?

I mean, the wife wanted some gaming nostalga so I set her up with a SNES and SEGA emulator on the HTPC to play through games we both had as kids. But what i've realised is that most of these games can be completed in one sitting.

For example, I completed all 4 of the Sonic games (1, 2, 3, and Knuckles) in 2 evenings. My wife, who played mario as a kid, is blitzing through all the Mario games on Super Mario Allstars.

What gave these games longevity to me was all the little side missions (like collecting all the emeralds, completing them with different characters...etc) and the fact I didn't have the money to be buying a new game every day.

On the other hand, i'm also playing through Jericho atm, I play around 1.5 hours a night and it will probably take me a week to complete it. The same is true for the last handfull of games i've played.

So my question is, are games actually short now? Or has our perception of how long a game should run been changed for some reason?

sebastianlieken

well with sega, i found that the longevity came from the fact that u couldnt save games, therefore the ud play the same things over and over again, always tring to get that little bit furhter.

i think aswell that developers took more pride in makin games a few years back when there were only a handful of games and platforms, now theyre jus a dime a dozen n games r bein squirted out like theres no tomorrow. in that sense games are becoming more half-assed and easier, but also lackin in extras like side missions

another thing is that when we were kids, we had nothin better to do than play games, there was nothin really important goin on so we could sit in front of the same game for hours upon hours on end. Now tho we have jobs, college, etc. goin on and time is short. I tend to play thru a game lately jus to finish it jus so its out of the way that i can get back to my life.

so no, i dont think games are getting shorter, it jus feels like they are.

L31mr0d

sebastianlieken wrote: »

another thing is that when we were kids, we had nothin better to do than play games, there was nothin really important goin on so we could sit in front of the same game for hours upon hours on end. Now tho we have jobs, college, etc. goin on and time is short. I tend to play thru a game lately jus to finish it jus so its out of the way that i can get back to my life.

But this is my point! I have less free time now than when I was a kid yet I still think games are too short. If I can complete it in a week it feels short to me. Playing through Sonic again made me think "Wow, can't believe I wasted money as a kid buying such a short game"

Yet games nowadays are a lot longer but I expect to get at least 15 - 20hours out of them.

Feelgood

I reckon you right here, games are definitely shorter alright, finished Gears of War in 9 hours....I was just getting into it and it was all over, Ghost Recon about 11 hours...Not very long at all..

I think the market is now geared towards online gaming, so they tend to make the actual games a lot shorter...Been playing Ghost Recon online for the last 2 years now and still love every minute of it, so its still excellent value for money..

Mind you I paid about 5 quid for Last Ninja 3 on the Commodore 64 and still haven't managed to finish it....

BlitzKrieg

I would say it would depend on if you were raised up on PC or consoles.

Consoles are not *that* much shorter these days, like you said you can complete the original four sonic games in 5-6 hour sitting. But with the exception of sonic 3 you couldnt save in any of those games, and the design ethos around those games was their replayability, something I must admit they got spot on, I find the sonic games to be very replayable. But the length of consoles game length has not fluctuate much. I think console gamers got a bit spoilt in the 32 bit era though as games did get a bit longer there wwith the full support of saving and bigger space on CD's and then they got shorter again when the latter part of the ps2's lifespan and into the current generation.




On the other hand, if you started off with PC/Amiga etc computer games, then yes Games have gotten insanely short compared to their early beginnings, PC games, especially earlier first person shooters were much much longer then the current crop.

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

On the other hand, if you started off with PC/Amiga etc computer games, then yes Games have gotten insanely short compared to their early beginnings, PC games, especially earlier first person shooters were much much longer then the current crop.

But what I find funny is that games for the PC have gotten shorter, timewise, but the actual size of the maps and levels have gotten bigger. Like in the original HL you where running back and forth, pushing buttons, opening doors, etc, you moved a lot slower through the levels. Yet in the newest HL2 episode, you basically just run all the way through without looking back, the 2nd last level being the exception.

Even FF7, a long game for its time, could be completed in a week if you didn't care for the side missions.

Oh and yeah I do agree, the Sonic games are very replayable. I didn't actually intend on playing them all, I just wanted to test that the emulator was working, then I got hooked in. Even though I can now save the game using the emulator it does defeat the purpose of sonic doing this, its meant to be completed in one sitting.

BlitzKrieg

i admit being sort of angry with valve.

with the original half life they scored level design gold with the simple design

enter area

see really big f*cking threat (tentacle monster/goliath monster) OR see important goal (trapped scientist/really big rocket etc)

see what you need to do

go to one part of map for one piece of goal

go to other part of map for other piece of goal

return to the start combine the pieces and move on to new challange.

The level design in Half Life 1 was fantastic because it stuck to small variations of this design principal

Half life 2 for the most part dropped this and went for a more direct line approach...still great game but I missed my set pieces

Blowfish

L31mr0d wrote: »

But what I find funny is that games for the PC have gotten shorter, timewise, but the actual size of the maps and levels have gotten bigger. Like in the original HL you where running back and forth, pushing buttons, opening doors, etc, you moved a lot slower through the levels. Yet in the newest HL2 episode, you basically just run all the way through without looking back, the 2nd last level being the exception.

That is exactly what I think has been lost. Most FPS games used to have at least some sort of puzzle aspect to them, but it seems that quite often they are solely about shooting now.

That's also why you can't really compare the first run through an FPS now with replaying Sonic/Mario now. When you were a kid and hadn't played much Sonic/Mario, it would have taken you a lot longer for your very first run through the game, simply because you would have been working out exactly what you have to do at each point. Replaying them now when you either know them backwards or at the very least know what types of things you will be facing, it will obviously take you a lot less time.

There is a big big difference anyway between time needed to complete the game and average time spent playing. If you look at Oblivion, it would only really take a few hours to complete the main storyline quests, but in doing so you would have missed 90% of the game.

Slow Motion

I can beat yis all! Having read the book, which I thought was good, on a supr of the moment thing and never having read any reviews of it I bought Timeline (*DO NOT BUY THIS PIECE OF CRAP*). Finished this abomination in an hour !

L31mr0d

Slow Motion wrote: »

I bought Timeline

do you mean timeshift?

tba

I'd say you were traveling at a faster speed than the rest of us.

Mark Hamill

L31mr0d wrote: »

"Wow, can't believe I wasted money as a kid buying such a short game"

Ah, here's your problem, when you where a kid you didn't have the appreciation of money you have now, so that coupled with ther fact that kids have really short attention spsans means you could get really short games, not care how much they where, but replay the crap out of them.

One thing I see with new games, particularly fps, is that they seem to be loosing their replayability and know rely on multiplayer to give a game its long life. This is fine if you have online play, but if you work all day and only play at nite without online play, your relying on single player to keep you entertained.

User45701

No, i dont remember games being very short when i was a kid, and if they where short hard used to mean hard. i mean didnt halo3 get completed on legendry a mere 20 or so hours after its release? thats pathetic. Ive always found storylines to be the best for me and also in games being flawless, perfect tatics, in halo campaign i played like i woulc CS, very caerfull/sneaky, in RTS games i would build a flawless base first then move on my enemy so countless hours spent doing that. (pays off well in some games, anyone remember the 5thor 6th allied mission in RA1?) you go back to an earler base you built earlier on a later harder mission but with the base i had the map was on in only a few moments.
RPG's well i do everything i can every quest, get/do everything so i dont play many games at all tbh, there mostly bollox these days with maybe 3 or so titles a year that peek my interest. Still PC games and mods are the most entertaiting thing if you find a game you love and has a loyal comunity it can go on for years if not even longer. i still play the odd game of total annilation for anyone who remembers that. actually i still think its better than SC or forged allaince (which im palying now)

Games have become to obsessed with grafix, if the grafix where not as detailed in modern games the engines would be able to handle more in terms of number of players and actavity on the map.

Games are getting shorter and the story lines are becomming bollox (lets hope Kanes Revenge fixes this.) Ive been lookig forwards to mass effect for well since it was first anounced but now im thinking of waiting for a pc port because the hassle of buying a x-box just for that 1 game, elthough it does look good.

tba

Mark Hamill wrote: »

One thing I see with new games, particularly fps, is that they seem to be loosing their replayability and know rely on multiplayer to give a game its long life. This is fine if you have online play, but if you work all day and only play at nite without online play, your relying on single player to keep you entertained.

Thats probably why the sims is so popular

Ciaran500

User45701 wrote: »

Games have become to obsessed with grafix, if the grafix where not as detailed in modern games the engines would be able to handle more in terms of number of players and actavity on the map.

Like Dear Rising, 99 Nights, Kameo, Heavenly Sword?

Slow Motion

L31mr0d wrote: »

do you mean timeshift?

tba wrote: »

I'd say you were traveling at a faster speed than the rest of us.

No! Timeline, based on the Michael Crichton novel of the same name!

L31mr0d

Slow Motion wrote: »

No! Timeline, based on the Michael Crichton novel of the same name!

Read the book also, liked the medieval part, not so much the far fetched timeline side of it. Never watched the movie.

Are you saying they made a game about this Novel? Can't seem to find any info on it.

Zombrex

I would agree with seb, I think games felt shorter in the "good old days" because when you died you had to start a section or level again. A level in Super Mario or Sonic or Contra or Doom etc might only take 2 or 3 minutes to get through non-stop if you do it perfect. But if you are dying every time and it takes you 2 or 3 hours to get passed a level, and there are 15 levels, you can see how this adds up.

These days we tend to just play through the game. The time it takes you to go through a level non-stop is the time it takes you to finish the level. If we die we just quick load from a save point a few seconds behind the hard bit.

It isn't that games are shorter or longer, it is the sense that you are only actually playing it once, and then you are done. With older games, even though you technically play it through once, it feels like you are playing it through many many times because of all the times you replay a bit to actually beat it.

L31mr0d

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't that games are shorter or longer, it is the sense that you are only actually playing it once, and then you are done. With older games, even though you technically play it through once, it feels like you are playing it through many many times because of all the times you replay a bit to actually beat it.

My question is then, are games better for having quick saves, or is the checkpoint system of Mario and Sonic better? Would you rather play 20 minutes through a game only to die and have to do it over again numerous times. This would add length to a game but would it make it better?

Slow Motion

L31mr0d wrote: »

Read the book also, liked the medieval part, not so much the far fetched timeline side of it. Never watched the movie.

Are you saying they made a game about this Novel? Can't seem to find any info on it.

"Timeline
Despite some potential, author Michael Crichton's software debut comes up short in more ways than one.
By - Sal "Sluggo" Accardo



LET'S GET THIS out of the way: Timeline is an extremely short game. Short as in "I finished it in under 3 hours". In fact, the second time I played through, it took less than an hour, and I had to wonder if I was actually playing a game targeted to kids. "

http://archive.gamespy.com/reviews/november00/timeline/

L31mr0d

Slow Motion wrote: »

"Timeline
Despite some potential, author Michael Crichton's software debut comes up short in more ways than one.
By - Sal "Sluggo" Accardo

Man... :rolleyes: you know a game is old and bad when one of its pro points is its good uninstall feature

BlitzKrieg

L31mr0d wrote: »

My question is then, are games better for having quick saves, or is the checkpoint system of Mario and Sonic better? Would you rather play 20 minutes through a game only to die and have to do it over again numerous times. This would add length to a game but would it make it better?

I dont know many games try and put something in to stop quick saving but it is usually responded with an unfair amount of whinging.

examples include the original Aliens vs predator, which limited savegames to 5 and Ground Control which only autosaved between missions (the whinging here i could understand because a single mission in ground control can take up to 2 hours)

but on console games you dont get quicksaves...just alot of checkpoints or in worse case scenario (bioshock) no death at all.


personally I rarely quicksave...actually I would say I never quicksave unless i am stuck at a point I am doing over and over and over and decide to play it cautious on my twentieth attempt.

I wwould like to meet these people who constantly quicksave, never understood how you remember to do it. Must have fantastic memory.

L31mr0d

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I wwould like to meet these people who constantly quicksave, never understood how you remember to do it. Must have fantastic memory.

lol, that's me I use "8456" for WASD (i'm a leftie) and have quicksave usually mapped to "2" on the numpad. Will usually just tap it when i'm running through a part of the game where nothing is happening, I also sometimes accidentally press it instead of 5 which isn't a bad thing either (although it is in situations where a rocket is just about to explode in my face and I quicksave, as I don't save anything put quicksaves it usually means restarting the whole level, but this rarely happens)

But I only use it because its an option. If it wasn't there (like in Jericho which is checkpoint based) I don't care about it. I personally liked the way Prey implemented it, having you fight the spirits to come back to life.

I guess it didn't bother me in Sonic because it was never an option before Sonic 3 so what I never had I didn't miss. But now, playing through Sonic, I did get frustrated a few times, dying, losing all my lives on the second last level and having to completely restart the whole game.

tba

I remember the best death/save feature i ever used was in the original Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver.

Bubs101

I think games seem shorter now because nobody would criticise it too much before MGS on the PS1. I think the flack that the reviews that that game recieved were all practically saying it was perfect but the length let it down. Since then It has become a much bigger factor.

Also, back in the day alot of older games offered you rewards for completing the game again (like MGS or Resident Evil) like new characters and weapons but that seems to be missing from modern games bar the sequels that have it entrenched in their history

steviec

I think you get the occasional huge game, like GTA or Oblivion or Final Fantasy or any MMO, that makes everything else look short, when the reality is that 10-12 hours is fairly normal for the vast majority of games, and it's an acceptable length too and has been for quite a while. The key is for the game to be enjoyable enough for you to want to play it again in future after you've completed it, and that can be questionable.