Is it just me, or are video games getting shorter?

The Game Room
1

It seems that every new blockbuster I read about nowadays gets reviews like “stunning sound and graphics, but disappointingly short” or “10 hours or less of gameplay”.

Titles such as Halo3 and Cod4 spring to mind.

Now, I loves me some Cod4, but yeah, it was very short, even for a gamer of mediocre ability such as I.

Is it because game companies have realized, Hey, level design, voice acting, textures and motion capture are 'spensive…why don’t we just let people entertain themselves with multiplayer and charge the same amount for the game?

I guess it could have to do with how much effort has to go into graphics, sound etc. for next-gen games, so companies skimp on that to maximize profits.

I really hope this trend doesn’t continue, as I’m resolutely single-player only. I have no urge to be tea-bagged by a 12-year-old in Halo online after getting pwned by a well-placed plasma grenade.

2

My understanding is that the better processing power and graphics potential offered by the new generations of consoles requires a huge increase in man-hours needed to take advantage of that potential, hence game design has become much more expensive (whereas the retail price of console games has remained constant for the past 20 years, and that’s irrespective of inflation). Naturally, something has to give.

Someone who knows more about this than I do will be along to correct me in a minute.

3

Right, that’s what I meant when I said “I guess it could have to do with how much effort has to go into graphics, sound etc. for next-gen games”. I fear this is the truth. That said, I remember the brouhaha when it was announced that XBox 360 games would cost $60 in the US, rather than the more usual $30-40 for PC games.

I wish they would come out with a business model that somehow allows the multiplayer version to be cheaper, and they can later pay to download the extra single player content if they want, or just buy the single player version for a little more.

4

I have to go with a “kind of” as your answer.

First, there have always been short games. Take Super Mario Brothers, for example (if we go back much further than this then the metaphor becomes less universal). Once you can play you can zip through the game in an hour. Faster if you use the warp zones.

The real answer, I think, lies in the fact that games are becoming more streamlined. Modern FPS, to pick on games that you mentioned in the OP, have effectively removed the exploration elements of the game to just move the player in a straight line between combats. Poking around the levels takes up a lot of time so cutting that out makes the game shorter.

It’s a similar situation for just about everything unless the game features time sinks.

5

So the question is why do they do that. I loved me some Fallout 3 because I could just explore endlessly. And I felt Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 were not nearly as much fun because of their basically scripted linearity. (And I know they’re slightly different game types, Fallout 3 being a hybrid RPG/FPS).

ETA I’m talking single-player here.

6

An excellent question that I’m not really fit to answer. I’ve been complaining about the shoddy, linear level design in recent FPS’s for a while. There are exceptions out there like the Farcry series, STALKER, and Bioshock.

To go straight to the guessing, I think its because they’ve shifted to an action set piece paradigm rather than an environmental paradigm. The goal for most of these games is to move the player from “dramatic” set piece to set piece and once they run out of ideas for those the game ends. It’s not about the total experience, it’s about the moment.

That could segue into a bitter old man rant about new-fangled entertainment but I’ll let it drop there.

7

I believe it’s more a fact that games have leveled out to a comfortable medium (from a developer’s standpoint). You go back to the NES days and even into the SNES days and the average game was far shorter than 10 hours, excluding your RPGs of course (even most modern jRPGs are upwards of 80 hours, albeit with a few exceptions. American RPGs, say your Mass Effect or Fable, tend to be shorter but have more replayability). Nowadays a 10 hour game for an FPS is pretty standard, but they have the multiplayer for replayability and often will release map packs or other downloadable content, extending the life of the game beyond that original 10 hour single player campaign.

I agree that the linearity of most FPS games is, in my opinion, a weakness. I like exploration, and most of my favorite FPS games have RPG aspects to them beyond just exploration, Deus Ex springs to mind, allowing you to upgrade your character and whatnot. Or more recently we have Bioshock which took after the absolutely wonderful System Shock series.

I guess my point is that games are shorter per se, but in some genres the single player campaigns have become more linear which in effect makes the game shorter, but the developers have added (often extensive) multiplayer modes to compensate.

8

Yes, Bioshock was awesome too.

In fact, the first two games I played on PS3 (after a multi-year layoff from videogames) were Bioshock and Fallout 3.

So now I’m having a difficult time liking any game (that’s roughly in the FPS genre) very much.

Just got way spoiled.

9

More streamlined…hadn’t thought of it that way. COD4 is definitely a perfect, small package that leaves you wanting more. I’d like to think it’s that way because the designers decided it was perfect, and that adding more would just be padding. It definitely leaves you hungry and wanting more when you’re done. COD4 is interesting because it has pretty much zero exploration – it’s about as close to “on rails” as you can get without actually being on rails.

Maybe the open-endedness is what I miss. I really enjoyed roaming around in GTA IV and Oblivion – have spent 150+ hours on the latter finishing up the various quests.

Does anyone think Fallout 3 is still worth it, even though I’ve played Oblivion inside out? I’ve seen reviews that say it’s more or less a sci fi skin for Oblivion.

10

I can only speak for myself of course but Fallout 3 is definitely worth it. I understand the comparisons it draws to Oblivion, (uses a modified engine, from the same company…) but I thought Oblivion was just alright, I never finished it though I did spend about 30 hours on it. I absolutely loved Fallout 3 however, and this comes from a big fan of the first 2 back in the late 90’s as well. The setting and story are completely different and the switch to firearms over spells or melee really makes the combat feel different. I know it uses a hybrid RPG/FPS system but the game never really felt like a FPS to me. (Of course that’s because i used the VATS system about 95% of time.) Anyone going in to it expecting a game similar to Halo, COD, or Bioshock I think would be disappointed. And not just because of the RPG elements. It’s really not a shooter.

To address the OP… I know generally it’s accepted that games are getting shorter, but that’s really not been my experience. Action/Adventure games have always been short. Much shorter in the past in fact than they are now. Games in the Super Mario vein, and stuff like Contra could be always be finished in under an hour. (I think at one point I was finishing playthroughs of Contra in about 25 minutes) And of course RPG’s are as long, or even longer, than they’ve ever been. Multiplayer modes, (in FPS’s or strategy games), just change the focus of the gameplay. They become more akin to puzzle, sport, or fighting games and “playable hours” can’t be strictly measured. They’re more about learning the ins and outs of the various systems and testing yourself against more difficult scenarios or other players.

The standard length of a one player action/adventure these days lasts roughly 8-12 hours and it’s been that way since the early days of the PS1. Not to put to fine a point on it but the original Resident Evil, which came out in 1996, was about that length and that seems to be the blueprint for pacing of these types of games.

11

Never played Oblivion, but Fallout 3 is definitely worth it. I’ve played it through once and probably haven’t explored a third of it.

Sometimes shorter isn’t so bad. Bioshock was great but it was a short rental for me. So was Star Wars The Force Unleashed. They are pretty linear and don’t have much replayability. At least not in a sense that the story would unfold dramatically differently.

12

definitely worth it. Oblivion was, imo, a pretty weak game overall, definitely the worst of the Elder Scrolls series. It left me wondering what happened at Bethesda. I mean, the story was ridiculously short and basic, the game overall was one of the easiest I’ve ever played, and it just didn’t hold much interest for me other than mods. Fallout 3 seems like it’s much more along the lines of what I’m used to from Bethesda. The story, while not that long, is long enough and takes you around a decent amount of the world. The game lets you know if you’re running into areas before you’re a high enough level to deal with them (it does this by killing you, but you learn :wink: ) And overall I think it’s a MUCH better game in every way than Oblivion was

13

I just have to chime in to agree here wholeheartedly. When I initially found out that Bethesda was handling Fallout 3 I was hesitantly optimistic. I knew they were capable developers but Oblivion was a letdown. (Not BAD, just disappointing.) But Fallout 3 was incredible in every way. They far exceeded my expectations.

14

Wow, I thought Oblivion was great, and I’m not even that into RPGs in general. It just grabbed me. I think you guys just generated another Fallout 3 sale! I’ll add it to my list. Or maybe rent first.

15

Just got to chime in here about COD4, i am not sure why everyone says the game is too short, if you look at every COD game they are about the same length, the only difference is that COD4 is structured differently.

In the first 3 on pc each level is broken up into many different parts, get to bridge, clear bridge, cross bridge, attack bunker or similar. thats 4 separate levels in the game, where as in MW its listed as one level.

So when you look at the level select screen in 1 to 3 theres 30 or 40 levels, but in COD4 there is 18 or so. the levels are basically the same size overall, and in COD4 there is more freedom to move around the level as you want to instead of a “path” as in the other games. I do not agree with the statement that it is close to “on the rails” unless you choose to do it that way, COD5 is far more on the rails than 4. the only thing lacking in 4 in my mind is a bonus level in the mind set of nazi zombies, because the replay value on that is immense, and the aircraft level gets old fast.

Now that is out of the way, i also do not think 10 hours of fast paced FPS action is a problem, that seems like enough to keep us busy waiting for the next one, and as stated above older games were far shorter in length, but due to annoying deaths, could take longer to beat.

And last but not least on my quasi rant i havent played fallout 3 or bioshock yet, which depresses me insanely. But the RPG element is sure to increase the time spent playing and give you more bang for the buck, but when you just gotta unload a airstrike, you can always find half a hour out of ten hours of gameplay to get the juices going!!

It all depends on the game and the player, if the game is fun and well designed, the time spent can be endless, i still hammer away at GTA3 a few hours a month.

16

I felt CoD4’s campaign was about the right length for me. And while it was not as “on rails” as RainBow 6 Vegas, I really miss the old, original Ghost Recon, where you could wander the countryside looking for the best route to your objective.

I bought an XBox 360 specifically to play Oblivion, as I was a big Morrowind fan. I agree with the comments above, and I think Fallout 3 is a better game. Even though I recognize the Oblivion engine in places, it seems like an entirely different game. Three mutant thumbs-up for Fallout 3!

17

Hallo there Yin. I’m Yang.

I don’t care about single player games. There’s little to no replayability in it for me anymore. FPS games are all about multiplayer. I got Call of Duty 5* and didn’t even look at the single player campaign. I just went straight to deathmatch.

Also, it could be the folks you’re playing with. I’m an ardent supporter of a website called 2old2play.com. They’re a group of people 25 or older (and we actively weed out the kids) and play custom games, play through the campaign on co-op, or take on public folks in a group of our own. It’s great fun and if you’re a little sour on all the kids and people you don’t know, check it out. There more than a few Dopers there, as well.
*The disk stopped working, so I traded it in, unfortunately.

18

Speaking only about the two titles you mentioned in the OP, they are both FPS’s. In the case of those two particular games the value of the game is in the online multiplayer, not single player/missions. I don’t think I spent 8 hours on the COD4 single player (and I have beaten it), but I have spent over a week (actual playing time) playing online. Halo is likely going to be very similar for most players.

When you get into RPG’s with no online multiplayer, then you start getting longer amounts game play. It is a balancing act on the developers part. They can either make a long, detailed single player game or a shorter single player with a well designed online component. Most games will fall in between these two extremes. You need to keep that in mind which type of game you prefer when you are deciding what games you might like to by. Whatever developer (if any) releases a game with a long detailed single player and a well thought out and well designed multiplayer will be rolling in dough. If/once that happens of course.

19

We thought that the title you described was going to be GTAIV, but the multiplayer part ended up sucking, and the only reason it’s played now is for the new content or because people still haven’t beaten it (I’m guilty of the second one).

On a tangent, I’ve forgotten how great GTAIV is.

20

Personally I felt CoD4 had a great storyline, but I agree that it was too short. I’m not usually into highly scripted games, and in fact some missions were very much “on rails” in that key events in the mission had to happen just so in order to progress, especially the sniper mission.

But overall it was a well crafted-cinematic experience. Perhaps if were any longer, I would have been overly frustrated with the whole game.

Heavy scripting notwithstanding, it was nice to see some narrative closure that you don’t normally get in videogames when both lead playable characters are KIA (or at least the USMC guy is - with the SAS guy it’s a bit vague). These were two of the most shocking moments I’ve ever seen in a game.

And let’s face it, the multiplayer rocks, and is the real substance of the game. That it had a great (albeit short) plot is just icing on the fragtastalicious cake.

If you really want a long, rewarding single-player experience, go for GTA IV. But if you want solid well-balanced multiplayer without some 12 year-old “teammate” repeatedly running you down in an Infernus, GTA will disappoint.