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

[Airk]

I, on the other hand, can’t fathom why anyone would even bother -buying- a new FPS just for the priviledge of playing essentially the same multiplayer content. Okay, fine, there are some new maps and maybe a new mechanic or something, but in all seriousness, how many real, significant changes are there between multiplayer FPS X, Multiplayer FPS Y, and Multplayer FPS Y2? I know there are going to be some people who call me out as an FPS newb for this, which is probably true, nowadays, but I went through several iterations of Unreal Tournament, for example, before I sat down and thought “Why am I actually buying these games? They’re essentially the same.”

If I’m going to be persuaded to purchase one of these games, it needs to have a meaningful amount of new content and that doesn’t just mean “we subtly rebalanced the sniper rifle”. Sorry guys, that’s a patch, not $50. The most effective way to persuade me that there’s meaningful new content is for there to be an honest to goodness real campaign.

Of course, I’m also an outlier in that I exhaust content way more slowly than the average gamer. What might amuse a normal person for a few hours or one of the twitchy, crazy, stimulus junkies you sometimes run into for 45 minutes will amuse me for days. I don’t possess the same “playing against the computer is nothing compared to playing against real people” mentality that many people have, and in fact, I find that as a general rule, dealing with other people tends to break a lot of these games.

Erm. Anyway. Back on topic…

Games are getting “shorter” not because they are getting shorter, but because thye are getting easier/more forgiving. Gone are the days “extra life every 100,000 points”. A lot of older (or older style) games are really punishingly hard in a way that the modern “save at any time” titles are not. I couldn’t tell you how long I spent struggling through the first few levels of Super Mario Bros, and I’ve NEVER actually finished Ikaruga, in spite of logging like 40 hours at it. Yes, producing game content is getting more expensive, but that’s mostly being expressed as there being less of it, and less innovation, rather than a reduced amount of content in any given title. However, the actual amount of time required to consume that content has, generally, shrunk, due to efforts to make games more forgiving and accessable. I’m not saying that’s bad, but it does reduce the amount of time required to ‘consume’ the content.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Airk

I, on the other hand, can’t fathom why anyone would even bother -buying- a new FPS just for the priviledge of playing essentially the same multiplayer content. Okay, fine, there are some new maps and maybe a new mechanic or something, but in all seriousness, how many real, significant changes are there between multiplayer FPS X, Multiplayer FPS Y, and Multplayer FPS Y2? I know there are going to be some people who call me out as an FPS newb for this, which is probably true, nowadays, but I went through several iterations of Unreal Tournament, for example, before I sat down and thought “Why am I actually buying these games? They’re essentially the same.”

If I’m going to be persuaded to purchase one of these games, it needs to have a meaningful amount of new content and that doesn’t just mean “we subtly rebalanced the sniper rifle”. Sorry guys, that’s a patch, not $50. The most effective way to persuade me that there’s meaningful new content is for there to be an honest to goodness real campaign.

Of course, I’m also an outlier in that I exhaust content way more slowly than the average gamer. What might amuse a normal person for a few hours or one of the twitchy, crazy, stimulus junkies you sometimes run into for 45 minutes will amuse me for days. I don’t possess the same “playing against the computer is nothing compared to playing against real people” mentality that many people have, and in fact, I find that as a general rule, dealing with other people tends to break a lot of these games.

Erm. Anyway. Back on topic…

Games are getting “shorter” not because they are getting shorter, but because thye are getting easier/more forgiving. Gone are the days “extra life every 100,000 points”. A lot of older (or older style) games are really punishingly hard in a way that the modern “save at any time” titles are not. I couldn’t tell you how long I spent struggling through the first few levels of Super Mario Bros, and I’ve NEVER actually finished Ikaruga, in spite of logging like 40 hours at it. Yes, producing game content is getting more expensive, but that’s mostly being expressed as there being less of it, and less innovation, rather than a reduced amount of content in any given title. However, the actual amount of time required to consume that content has, generally, shrunk, due to efforts to make games more forgiving and accessable. I’m not saying that’s bad, but it does reduce the amount of time required to ‘consume’ the content.

Balance, feel, controls, and “extras”. My game of choice, Halo 3 has some amazing weapon balance, some very good maps, the ability to make your own maps, the ability to watch your games on film, perfect controls, and is a perfect example of how the modern first-person shooter is to play. You can have ability, but that gets you so far. After that point, the game is all about communication and teamwork. If you don’t have it, you lose. It’s chess, but with three other teammates.

Additionally, there are no real glitches, maps don’t get broken, the developer greatly cares about the product, and it shows, and I know of a lot of people that play it and I can get a game at virtually any time I log on with people that I know.

[PopeJewish]

@Least_Original_User_Name_Ever

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

Really? I thought it was easily the least fun game to come out this year. I had absolutely no fun playing that game, it was boring and tedious. It’s like the devs completely forgot they were supposed to make the game enjoyable. Easily the worst game of the series imo.

@Least_Original_User_Name_Ever

Balance, feel, controls, and “extras”. My game of choice, Halo 3 has some amazing weapon balance, some very good maps, the ability to make your own maps, the ability to watch your games on film, perfect controls, and is a perfect example of how the modern first-person shooter is to play.

that explains it, didn’t like Halo 3 very much either. Felt it improved the graphics of the other games but overall didn’t do much else. Then again was never a fan of the Halo series, felt it failed on most of the potential it had and just ended up taking a lot of ideas from Tribes, a far superior game (jumping real high, recharging shields instead of health, etc) and feeling overimportant about having a terrible story. That’s an arguement for another day, though. Easy enough to just say you and I have different tastes in games

I do agree that the reason people pick up a newer version of the same game (a sequel) or a new game that plays similarly to an older game is for new maps, tighter controls, different weapons, all the stuff that started to get boring in the old game that will be renewed in the new game while still keeping them same tactics/strategies or overall gameplay style that, to them, doesn’t get old. Hence why many developers will spend only enough time to make a decently solid, if short, single player campaign and spend the majority of their time working on the multiplayer aspect. For many genres, particularly FPS’s, multiplayer is what the vast majority of the fans want and where they’ll spend most of their time

[Argent_Towers]

@Jihi

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.

Or if you were an idiotic 12 year old who couldn’t figure out the puzzles, backtracked through the mansion again and again in search of the keys, and kept getting killed by Hunters, it took about 9,000 hours.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@PopeJewish

Really? I thought it was easily the least fun game to come out this year. I had absolutely no fun playing that game, it was boring and tedious. It’s like the devs completely forgot they were supposed to make the game enjoyable. Easily the worst game of the series imo.

that explains it, didn’t like Halo 3 very much either. Felt it improved the graphics of the other games but overall didn’t do much else. Then again was never a fan of the Halo series, felt it failed on most of the potential it had and just ended up taking a lot of ideas from Tribes, a far superior game (jumping real high, recharging shields instead of health, etc) and feeling overimportant about having a terrible story. That’s an arguement for another day, though. Easy enough to just say you and I have different tastes in games

I do agree that the reason people pick up a newer version of the same game (a sequel) or a new game that plays similarly to an older game is for new maps, tighter controls, different weapons, all the stuff that started to get boring in the old game that will be renewed in the new game while still keeping them same tactics/strategies or overall gameplay style that, to them, doesn’t get old. Hence why many developers will spend only enough time to make a decently solid, if short, single player campaign and spend the majority of their time working on the multiplayer aspect. For many genres, particularly FPS’s, multiplayer is what the vast majority of the fans want and where they’ll spend most of their time

It’s funny about Grand Theft Auto. People didn’t really expect anything different. They had GTAIII, San Andreas, and Vice City, so they knew what they were getting. GTAIV wasn’t going to be any different, and all the Little Things, including the real main character, the city were added on. I haven’t had the opportunity to play Saints Row 2, but I’ve heard that it’s a lot like the anti-GTA, or the Grand Theft for people that really didn’t like Grand Theft Auto in the first place. Rockstar is amazing at creating a sarcastic and satiric world. The points and themes that were raised in GTA are pretty much over a lot of heads, and it could also just be that people aren’t looking for any greater meaning; they just want to play a game.

Did you play online on Halo 3? All the stuff you brought up means nothing online.

Yeah, it’s a damned shame that Rockstar couldn’t figure out a solid multiplayer mode.

Ooh, also, did you play Crackdown? What did you think of that?

[GargoyleWB]

@DarrenS

M
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.

Absolutely worth it IMO. It refined a lot of Oblivion’s shortcomings for me. Quests and characters were improved, and environment locations all felt unique and custom (not cookie-cutter temples and towns like Oblivion).

I’ve put over 100 hrs into Oblivion, and in Fallout 3 I put about 60 hrs into the single-player just out of the love of the exploration and constantly finding new discoveries.

Oh, and for the OP, Tales of Vesperia ran me about 70 hrs. most games are way too short though (I’m a lookin’ at you, Tomb Raider!)

[Jihi]

@Argent_Towers

Or if you were an idiotic 12 year old who couldn’t figure out the puzzles, backtracked through the mansion again and again in search of the keys, and kept getting killed by Hunters, it took about 9,000 hours.

Well, someone had to be on the end of the bell curve.

[Argent_Towers]

@Least_Original_User_Name_Ever

It’s funny about Grand Theft Auto. People didn’t really expect anything different. They had GTAIII, San Andreas, and Vice City, so they knew what they were getting. GTAIV wasn’t going to be any different, and all the Little Things, including the real main character, the city were added on. I haven’t had the opportunity to play Saints Row 2, but I’ve heard that it’s a lot like the anti-GTA, or the Grand Theft for people that really didn’t like Grand Theft Auto in the first place. Rockstar is amazing at creating a sarcastic and satiric world. The points and themes that were raised in GTA are pretty much over a lot of heads, and it could also just be that people aren’t looking for any greater meaning; they just want to play a game.

I agree about this, though I think I might be one of the only people whose head it didn’t go over. Even when GTAIII came out, and I was still in high school, I thought, “wow, this game is one gigantic and very clever postmodern critique of consumerism.” I know that sounds pretentious, especially because most people who haven’t played the game only know it as “that game where you can kill hookers” as the media keeps referring to it over and over, but the game is expertly crafted and very, very intelligent. If you are smart enough to not have it all go over your head. The amount of satirical in-jokes they throw in there is truly amazing. Hell, they even had a series of missions in GTAIII that were a reference to “The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover.”

[Just_Some_Guy]

@Argent_Towers

I agree about this, though I think I might be one of the only people whose head it didn’t go over. Even when GTAIII came out, and I was still in high school, I thought, “wow, this game is one gigantic and very clever postmodern critique of consumerism.”

Wait, there were people who didn’t get the satire out of GTA3? The huge pile of satirical commercials and signs weren’t a tip off? Ammu-nation? You’d have to be pretty dense not to get that stuff.

[magnusblitz]

@Airk

I, on the other hand, can’t fathom why anyone would even bother -buying- a new FPS just for the priviledge of playing essentially the same multiplayer content. Okay, fine, there are some new maps and maybe a new mechanic or something, but in all seriousness, how many real, significant changes are there between multiplayer FPS X, Multiplayer FPS Y, and Multplayer FPS Y2? I know there are going to be some people who call me out as an FPS newb for this, which is probably true, nowadays, but I went through several iterations of Unreal Tournament, for example, before I sat down and thought “Why am I actually buying these games? They’re essentially the same.”

I’d be fine if it was the same quality game over and over, with some new graphics, models and levels, and maybe a new gameplay mode or two. But it seems that each new version is worse than the one before. UT 99 was amazing, UT 2003 was … okay, UT 2004 added so much new stuff that it didn’t feel like the same game and I couldn’t get into it. UT3 just feels too different to me (though maybe it just might be because my computer can’t handle it and running at too low of FPS makes it feel clunky). All I really want is a game exactly the same as UT 99 with better graphics and new maps.

But to answer the OP’s question: yes, games are getting shorter, and they’re taking longer to make. Content is just more difficult to make - graphic models and textures are much more detailed, levels are much more detailed, most games have dedicated composers and voice actors, etc. Someone could churn out a decent Doom level in a day, whereas it takes months of work to make even one good level on the Source engine.

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Just_Some_Guy

Wait, there were people who didn’t get the satire out of GTA3? The huge pile of satirical commercials and signs weren’t a tip off? Ammu-nation? You’d have to be pretty dense not to get that stuff.

Yes and no. The beauty of GTA is that it is whatever you want it to be. You can just grab a moped and cruise around or you can get a hooker, fuck her, kill her, then get your money back.

[PopeJewish]

@Least_Original_User_Name_Ever

It’s funny about Grand Theft Auto. People didn’t really expect anything different. They had GTAIII, San Andreas, and Vice City, so they knew what they were getting. GTAIV wasn’t going to be any different, and all the Little Things, including the real main character, the city were added on. I haven’t had the opportunity to play Saints Row 2, but I’ve heard that it’s a lot like the anti-GTA, or the Grand Theft for people that really didn’t like Grand Theft Auto in the first place. Rockstar is amazing at creating a sarcastic and satiric world. The points and themes that were raised in GTA are pretty much over a lot of heads, and it could also just be that people aren’t looking for any greater meaning; they just want to play a game.

Did you play online on Halo 3? All the stuff you brought up means nothing online.

Yeah, it’s a damned shame that Rockstar couldn’t figure out a solid multiplayer mode.

Ooh, also, did you play Crackdown? What did you think of that?

see I dunno. I loved GTA3 and it’s mods (vice city and san andreas. VC was actually my favorite of the 3) but I just felt it’d lost some of it je ne sais quois by 4. I enjoyed playing GTA 3, I was fundamentally bored with GTA 4. My friends and I had a long discussion abotu what exactly we didn’t like concerning GTA 4, and mind you we had all beat and nearly all of us completed the GTA 3 games (I didn’t complete 100% on San Andreas) but something about 4 just didn’t click right, I dunno. As for their multiplayer, I’m both surprised and not at all surprised they couldn’t figure out a decent one. I’ve been dreaming of a multiplayer GTA for years now (and am looking forward to APB (all points bulletin) which looks promising and something of what I’d invisioned GTA online to be) but this was their first real outing into multiplayer AFAIK, can’t expect 'em to get it down pat first try, but they gave it a decent go. It’ll be interesting to see what they’ve learned and how they apply it to the next game

As for Halo 3, I was never a fan of the series, but yes I played a bit of Halo 3 online when it first came out. Halo’s strength is definitely in the multiplayer mode, but it’s just not really my schtick. I liked COD4 a lot better, but in truth I’m more of a Team Fortress guy.

Ah crackdown, that was a great game. Got a bit repetitive towards the end, maybe it didn’t help that I did everything I could to max out my skills (other than driving) as early as I could, but yea that was a great game, a lot of fun. I’ve persistantly heard rumors of a crackdown 2, but it probably won’t happen until after APB. Still APB is a game to keep an eye on, that should be a lot of fun

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@PopeJewish

see I dunno. I loved GTA3 and it’s mods (vice city and san andreas. VC was actually my favorite of the 3) but I just felt it’d lost some of it je ne sais quois by 4. I enjoyed playing GTA 3, I was fundamentally bored with GTA 4. My friends and I had a long discussion abotu what exactly we didn’t like concerning GTA 4, and mind you we had all beat and nearly all of us completed the GTA 3 games (I didn’t complete 100% on San Andreas) but something about 4 just didn’t click right, I dunno. As for their multiplayer, I’m both surprised and not at all surprised they couldn’t figure out a decent one. I’ve been dreaming of a multiplayer GTA for years now (and am looking forward to APB (all points bulletin) which looks promising and something of what I’d invisioned GTA online to be) but this was their first real outing into multiplayer AFAIK, can’t expect 'em to get it down pat first try, but they gave it a decent go. It’ll be interesting to see what they’ve learned and how they apply it to the next game

As for Halo 3, I was never a fan of the series, but yes I played a bit of Halo 3 online when it first came out. Halo’s strength is definitely in the multiplayer mode, but it’s just not really my schtick. I liked COD4 a lot better, but in truth I’m more of a Team Fortress guy.

Ah crackdown, that was a great game. Got a bit repetitive towards the end, maybe it didn’t help that I did everything I could to max out my skills (other than driving) as early as I could, but yea that was a great game, a lot of fun. I’ve persistantly heard rumors of a crackdown 2, but it probably won’t happen until after APB. Still APB is a game to keep an eye on, that should be a lot of fun

Ah, so it appears that you’re definitely another opposite of me when it comes to games. The line forms behind Justin Bailey.

I’ve got Team Fortress 2 and I’ve played it a little bit, but I don’t really like it.

[Robin_Goodfellow]

I feel like one of the few people who consider GTAIV a solid game through and through, I think. The gameplay was great, the social commentary was as present as ever, and the story and characters were excellent.

I’d have to say that anyone expecting another wacky romp in a huge sandbox where you can hit people with double-ended dildos and fly fighter jets over the desert will have to look for a different game, tho. The GTA game titled “Four” is a bit too realistic for some tastes, with cars handling a bit sluggish and being difficult to accelerate, and the graphics not being nearly as colorful as San Andreas or Saint’s Row. The only thing that bothered me about the game was the idea that you were obligated to spend your time between missions not having fun and wreaking havoc, but taking your friends out on virtual dates that were difficult to streamline.

Basically, I’d say if you’re looking for a sandbox title with a focus on story presentation, realistic physics, and shaded graphics, pick GTAIV. If you’re looking for a game with UFOs, skydiving, and extremely bright cars, pick Saint’s Row 2.
I was going to try and make an intelligent response to the OP topic of the thread, but I realized it ended up being a comparison of modern FPS games to Fallout and Deus Ex. I’m not willing to try and respond to that in a fair and even manner.

[Odesio]

@Least_Original_User_Name_Ever

It’s funny about Grand Theft Auto. People didn’t really expect anything different. They had GTAIII, San Andreas, and Vice City, so they knew what they were getting. GTAIV wasn’t going to be any different, and all the Little Things, including the real main character, the city were added on.

GTAIV was a bit different from the others and I’m saying that as a fan of the series. The violence in previous GTA installments (at least starting with GTAIII) contained a great deal of violence that was way over the top. Hit someone with your car and they often flew comically far and and absurdly high. In contrast the violence in GTAIV was a little more realistic. Running someone over looked a little more realistic with bodies rolling over hoods and blood staining the automobile. Also, the protagonist Niko was a lot more serious and complicated than the sociopaths from other GTA games. It still had some of it’s humor. When Niko said to Brucie “I don’t want to talk about your balls” with is accent it cracked me up. On the flip side when he told his story about finding Roman’s mother raped and murdered in her home during the war it went to a dark place none of the other GTA games went to.

I still enjoyed GTAIV but it wasn’t as fun as GTAIII.
Odesio

[Least_Original_User_Name_Ever]

@Odesio

GTAIV was a bit different from the others and I’m saying that as a fan of the series. The violence in previous GTA installments (at least starting with GTAIII) contained a great deal of violence that was way over the top. Hit someone with your car and they often flew comically far and and absurdly high. In contrast the violence in GTAIV was a little more realistic. Running someone over looked a little more realistic with bodies rolling over hoods and blood staining the automobile. Also, the protagonist Niko was a lot more serious and complicated than the sociopaths from other GTA games. It still had some of it’s humor. When Niko said to Brucie “I don’t want to talk about your balls” with is accent it cracked me up. On the flip side when he told his story about finding Roman’s mother raped and murdered in her home during the war it went to a dark place none of the other GTA games went to.

I still enjoyed GTAIV but it wasn’t as fun as GTAIII.
Odesio

This is me disagreeing with you. I suppose if you wanted realism, you’d go outside, though.