PS3 News: Will Games Keep Getting Shorter? - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

Will Games Keep Getting Shorter?

This is a common complaint amongst gamers today, but I want to clarify a few things before I present my theory: firstly, video games are absolutely not shorter than they used to be; in the early days of this industry, games on systems like the NES weren't long. They just seemed long because they were often so freakin' difficult; if you simply played through them as we would today, they wouldn't last more than a few hours. Just look at one of the iconic titles; the original Super Mario Bros. could easily be beaten in no time at all (check YouTube for silly fast runs). Secondly, I don't believe in arbitrarily making games longer simply for the sake of expanding the play time. Just have the length match your vision; if the pacing is right and the game rules, I really don't care how long it is. None of us should.

2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a perfect example. The single-player campaign could be completed in only 4-6 hours, and while the online multiplayer represented the title's primary appeal, people were a little miffed over that campaign. Well, I suppose it may not correlate well to the $60 price tag, but who's going to deny the bad-assery of that campaign? And if God of War III only takes 8-12 hours (depending on gamer skill and what have you), so what? The game is guaranteed to rock the house. If you want to get mathematical about it, a Blu-Ray movie will run you $25 or $30, which is half the price of a game...but the movie is likely around 2 hours and I can pretty much guarantee that the game will take longer than 4 hours, regardless of the title in question. So it's not really about money.  You always have to do a lil' compare-and-contrast session when you want to complain about the price of something; people don't do this often enough, in my opinion.

However, here's the deal- as the gaming population continues to age, it almost seems inevitable that interactive productions will become shorter. Why? Simple. Adults just don't have as much time as they had in high school or college, and as most anyone in their 20s and 30s will tell you, they don't have the time for long and involved games, anymore. I'm not necessarily in that group (well, I am at certain times of the year), but I certainly understand the sentiment. We really don't have as much time, and gaming may have to adapt to the fact that even the hardcore fans don't have a lot of time to burn anymore. There's a reason why television dramas are an hour and movies aren't much longer than two hours; the mass consuming public needs bite-size pieces of entertainment. I used to adore the 40-60-hour RPGs and while I still want to play them, I just can't all the time. I'll make time for a few of them ('cough' FFXIII 'cough'), but for the most part, I just want to play games I'll know I can complete considering my schedule.

And I'm hardly the only one. Therefore, with the ever-rising average age of a gamer in this country, I think it's only a matter of time before you start seeing games shrink in length. Besides, we all know the production costs of huge blockbuster titles are starting to skyrocket and publishers really have to clean up in order to make such projects profitable. Shorter games will benefit everyone, in some capacity. Yeah, I know; all you dudes between the ages of 12 and 20 are all screaming, "no, no, no!!!" Well, no offense, but that's 'cuz you have nothing to do. I know; I was that age once, too. But things change, and if we don't want to give up gaming, we gotta make time for it. Hence, my theory...

7/26/2009 Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (107 posts)

Jawknee
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 10:25:23 PM
Reply

I hope not.

Agree with this comment 16 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Xbox_Killer
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:14:05 AM

I concur.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

deadduck
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 10:38:44 PM
Reply

I agree that adults simply don't have as much time to dedicate to video gaming as teenagers do, but I still say the length of some of these games is hardly satisfying.
Being 18 (not quite 19), I'm kind of in the twilight of the two groups, but gaming is one of my favorite hobbies and I make time for it. And when I go to Best Buy and put down $65 for a brand new title, I'm really hoping for more than the seemingly standard 10 hours or less experience (the aforementioned 'Modern Warfare', and 'Left 4 Dead' have been great disappointments to me in this area, among other lesser offenders).
And this is nothing more than my opinion, obviously, but I feel that graphics and multiplayer have really sapped a lot of depth out of games.
Because developers focus so much on these elements, they typically end up cutting down on the single-player campaign. Characters are left undeveloped and plots aren't very deep (my kudos to 'Heavenly Sword' for doing so much in a relatively short amount of time), and the experience I end up with is 'I shot a bunch of people for six hours.'

I'll stop my whining now, and just summarize by saying that, even if the length issue isn't addressed, ensure that your campaign actually means something to the player and that we didn't just invest our time in an experience that will continue to be topped on an annual basis.

Agree with this comment 9 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Jalex
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 10:41:41 PM

Okay, this is really stupid, but this is the second time one of my comments has come up as being written by 'deadduck.' What is this?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ThePearlJamer
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:00:12 PM

I find myself not playing alot of the games I've bought due to a simple lack of time. I remember being a kid though and thats was practically my main hobby...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:33:38 PM

That's RPGs. Hardly the majority of games, especially back then.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:38:29 PM

but the latest RPG installments this gen have sat around 30 hours.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 7/26/2009 11:42:37 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Morals
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:49:22 PM

sorry I beat MGS4 in 6 hours first try on hard 13 hours second time on EXTREME! beat the first one in like 4 hours on extreme to. NOW the third THAT guy sucked at least 20 hours outa me on hard first time, Damn crocodiles.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 13 down Disagree with this comment

ThePearlJamer
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:48:16 AM

@morals

way to be a total prick...

Agree with this comment 10 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Oyashiro
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:14:54 AM

FFXII was more of a 20-30 hour game with like 60 hours of padding to me. It felt like I was being forced to wast hours of my time just to get to a plot point that should have been made earlier. Its long play time felt artificial, I never felt like I was making constant progress like earlier installments. Sort of like reading a book. Earlier games in the series felt like you where constantly flipping the pages getting the story as you as you take every step, XII felt more like read a chapter then having to set the book down for a few hours before I can continue reading.

The real question is not if Games are getting shorter. But are games trying to be longer than they really are.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:11:05 PM

MGS4 took me 3.5 hours.

For me, games tend to become repetitive after a few nights of gameplay. Unless there is a significant progression system, I'm usually bored of an action game after the first few nights.

There are exceptions, i.e. games with a great story.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 7:29:26 PM

@Oyashiro

I love FFXII, but I have to agree; the plot could have been tighter and there could have been a lot less grinding required.

p.s. I spent more than 120 hours on FFXII.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 @ 12:28:06 AM

180 hours and i still didnt master it like the older games. FFVII i could complete it 100% in 80 hours or less.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:02:27 PM
Reply

It's not just 12 to 20's who'd be screaming, it would also be this 56 year old too.

I don't go online & do multi-player(and I know I'm not alone either), so the single player's all we non-multiplayers have, so no way we'd want to spent $60 for a short-a$$ed 4 to 6 hour game.

BTW, I have a full time job, & I run a motorcycle club too, but I "MAKE" time so I can spend countless hours in a game I'm really enjoying(example: I got Farcry2 about 3 weeks ago, and I've already managed to rack up over 43 hours in that addictive game.
But I must say, this gaming drug of choice is starting to take a heavy, heavy toll on my sleep time, LOL

Agree with this comment 8 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

migabyte
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 8:53:20 AM

Ya, I agree that 60 bucks is a lot to pay for like 10 hours. GOW will be long enough and have some stuff to keep you playing. But actually when I was a kid Nintendo games were so expensive. I paid over a 100$ for some, and some lasted long, they didn't all. You can beat mario world in like 5 hours. They got away with robbery.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 9:42:57 AM

After beating Resident Evil 5 for the 1st time in just under 10 hours, I was pretty pissed. Then when I finished my speed run in 3 hours, i was even more irked. I wanted my money back. Especially cause Capcom promised it wouldn't be possible to beat the game. In under 18+ hours. Games(especially on the ps3) should not be getting shorter. So far the PS3 exusives have had decent playing times. inFAMOUS was about 25 hours, Metal Gear Solid 4 about 20 hours(5 if you rushed). Seems the only games that are gettng shorter are Xbox games and multiplatform games.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

mackid1993
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:35:19 PM
Reply

No, No, No!! But seriously I can't count how many times i've played Cod4 story mode, it still hasn't gotten old. I can't get enough of Captain Price and Gaz. CHECK THOSE CORNERS!!!!

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

migabyte
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:40:33 PM
Reply

I don't know, I don't really think games are getting shorter. I think 10-20 has always been the range for like an action adventure. RPG's are like 30+. There do seem to be some games coming out that are short, especially movie tie ins, but they are just looking for a quick cash in. Muliplayer adds a lot or replay, I don't think the people that love COD have played the 6 hour campaign 10 times, they just love the multiplayer.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Banky A
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:40:57 PM
Reply

Will I keep getting less time to live?

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:48:38 PM
Reply

Here's the thing though, I'm very unlikely to spend all that money on a blu ray unless I know I'll watch it dozens of times. For my movie needs I go to blockbuster, all I can rent for a flat fee. Since I don't have time to beat every rentable game I don't use that service (Sorry I don't do internet rentals, plus I like to collect my games) and for 65 bones I want a decent and relatively lengthy experience. If GOWIII is 8-12 hours then hey that is worth it to me, but if it's 4 hours I'd have a fit.

Although I have a strategy to combat these things, RPGs and Massive titles tend to stay full price, but shorter multiplats and shooters tend to come down in price quickly so I just schedule my gaming so that I wait those ones out to get more bang for my buck.

Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 7/26/2009 11:55:32 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BikerSaint
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:29:48 AM

@World
<<< I just schedule my gaming so that I wait those ones out to get more bang for my buck.>>>

That's what I gotta do with almost all my games just so I can stretch out my gaming dollars.

Hell, since I don't do multiplayer, I can patiently wait out a year till they've dropped down to my $20 price range.(although I've been f*cking patiently waiting for Uncharted-1 to drop low, but it's still going for $39.99 used at GS, WTF?)

Last edited by BikerSaint on 7/27/2009 12:32:01 AM

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bxshotboi
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:44:24 AM

cuz gs is a legit rip off.....the only reason i buy games there sumtimes are for the preorder bonuses besides that i dont waste my time with that place your better off buyin uncharted on ebay

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 4:08:02 PM

BikerSaint check eBay from time to time. You'll get it for 35 new. That's what I did and I'm friggin' thrilled with this game.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Fane1024
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 7:34:52 PM

@ World & Biker

You made the points I was going to make and I couldn't have said it better myself.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bxshotboi
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:48:54 PM
Reply

i believe that devs should pay way more attention to a games story becuz yea multiplayer is fun at times but a game shouldnt revolve around an online battle that gives no info on THE STORY n is just to see who is better i personally favor games that dont go online although the CoD franchise has a great multiplayer as well as killzone n plenty of others n honestly i also believe devs are spending way too much time tryin to make game characters look realistic....what ever happen to having a creative art style besides these graphics are primarily for those that hdtv meanwhile most people dont even have one including myself

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Morals
Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:52:48 PM
Reply

Its not about how long it is first time around, Its about replay value! MGS4 got 500+ hours outa me. Fallout 3 1000+.
Life is good at age 16

Agree with this comment 3 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

bxshotboi
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:06:00 AM

yea replay value plays a great deal but how do u get a good replay value out of a game with a short n or crappy story...personally i cant replay a game if its short becuz many short games are missing key elements n fallout 3 was not a short game n mgs4 had all those medals to get which actually challenged gamers as a whole but how fun would getting all the medals be if the story wasnt the back bone of the game

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ThePearlJamer
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:51:13 AM

@morals

Are we supposed to be proud of you or something...sounds to me like someone needs a girlfriend...and for the record, I highly suspect that you aren't telling the truth..

Agree with this comment 6 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Morals
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:53:49 AM

I was going to say I'm not trying to brag, I'm just trying to get my point across. But I thought It wouldn't be necessary.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 4:09:46 PM

Actually life sucks at 16. You'll see soon enough.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wquach
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:50:13 AM
Reply

I personally don't think games will "keep getting shorter," on the basis that an average of 5-8 hours for a single player campaign would not yield much of a story (or a good one at that) if it got cramped into a 3-4 hour experience.

That and there will continue to be games that are only single player (and should remain that way) such as something like The Last Guardian. I for one, and certainly other gamers out there who prefer or enjoy single player games heavily, wouldn't be too happy with the idea that they're paying $60 for a 4 hour game.

I feel there is certainly a threshold to the length that a single player game can be reduced to, and that would be around 5 hours (imo). Any less would seem like an expansion pack or additional side quests, a R&C Quest for Booty if you will.

Btw, Blu-ray movies, even those newly released on amazon, run around $20-25 or less. The fact that movies also depreciate in value even quicker than games also wouldn't make a fair comparison price-per-hour wise. I would certainly pay $15-$20 for a movie that left me speechless and deeply moved.

But a game that is only 4 hours long on single player would be a much different experience given that cutscenes, item searching, learning the basic gameplay elements, moving around, player choices, customization and a few tweaks would eat into that 4 hour playtime, leaving a very empty and unfulfilling experience. Granted, those 4 hours may have been awesome, a la Call of Duty 4 style, but it leaves you wanting more, and a bit cheated in a sense. This isn't the same with a 2 hour movie. When it's done, it's done.

Games present a different medium that involves player input, choices, and interaction that takes up more time than being presented by a story in a movie. Thus, they require a beefier play time given that they are still 3X more expensive when newly released.

Last edited by wquach on 7/27/2009 1:12:11 AM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

wquach
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 1:23:58 AM

Btw, I refer to games that actually have stories in them. The Super Marios, the PixelJunk Edens, and other level-by-level games are certainly shorter than 5 hours if played through without dying. Their game playtime (which typically end up being more than 5 hours) function on replayability, addictiveness, quick access, and simpler game mechanics/design.

What I refer to is games that would not have the same impact if they were shorter. Uncharted, MGS, God of War, or Bioshock played in 3-4 hours wouldn't feel the same.

Last edited by wquach on 7/27/2009 1:25:28 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Morals
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:51:14 AM
Reply

@bxshotboi
(forgot to press reply)
I didn't play play MGS4 a million times for the medals, did it because it was fun as hell. & fallout 3 can be beat in like 3 hours just do the main quests.

Last edited by Morals on 7/27/2009 12:52:20 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tim Speed24
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 7:19:16 AM

You are missing the point of games. Playing through at breakneck speed and skipping all the cutscenes isn't what great games are about.

You should slow down and try to enjoy the story and relate to the situations presented in the story. Heck even look at the background scenery.....some games are truly amazing looking.

Also some side quests or collectables can get involving. I for one enjoyed tracking down and battling the Templar Knights in Assassins Creed.

Just speeding thru games and saying "That was short" is hardly worth the effort to play the game in the first place. What did you get out of the game other than bragging rights?

Last edited by Tim Speed24 on 7/27/2009 7:20:28 AM

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Bugzbunny109
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 1:17:36 AM
Reply

Why was MGS4 such a great title? Not just because of the good graphics, but because the plot pulled the gamer into the game. As you played the game, you wanted to know more; you wanted to see what would happen next. That is what truly made MGS4 such a great title. Not the cinema, sound, graphics, or gameplay. It was the plot.
The problem is not that video games are getting shorter. The true problem is developers focusing more on gameplay than the actual storyline. I am not saying that developers shouldn't focus on those areas, but they should spend more time making the plots of video games more dynamic, more interesting, and more involving. Because of better graphic chips, developers are being pressured to produce crystal clear graphics. As a result, they produce beautiful looking games with half-assed plots.
Most games on the market today are "just another shooter" or "just another action game". If it continues like this, future gaming will become humdrum. Gaming will become less of a hobby, and will become obsolete, well in a way. Look at all the great titles of this generation: God of war, Gears of war, Uncharted, the MGS4, Splinter cell, ratchet and clank, and the list goes on. If you notice, they all have interesting and in-depth storylines. That is why they are so popular.
Developers need to address this issue. I don't mind sacrificing online gameplay or high quality graphics for a kick-ass storyline. I completed MGS4, and only played the online about once or twice. Without playing the online, I can still say that it was THE best game of 2008.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

BigBoss4ever
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 1:33:55 AM
Reply

ok, the games are short because there are too many FPSs, and FPS is short cuz how can u shoot for 80 hours.

but I dont see this applies to RPGs this gen, the Lost Odyssey was good for 80 hours, The Last Remnant played 60 hours, and I think Star Ocean 4 will last for at least 80 hours, no to mention Disgaea 3 lasted for 200+ hours. and if we get WKC and Demon's Souls, they will be good for 50 hours at least, the real problem is not games become short, it is we have too little epic RPGs.

Last edited by BigBoss4ever on 7/27/2009 1:37:11 AM

Agree with this comment 7 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 10:05:50 AM

A thousand point for you, games are shorter because FPS games require little to no story resulting in shorter games. Agreed 1000%.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 4:12:40 PM

In fact those who really love fps are the ones who are online with it all the time anyways. They might not even play the campaign.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:14:46 PM

I tried Star Ocean on 360... the story was REAL hard to get into. Pretty game, just... not so sure about the story and gameplay.

I want my turn-based RPGs back (ala Lost Odyssey).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BigBoss4ever
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 6:47:24 PM

@theHignLander

so lets boycott FPS for at least a while cuz we hv plenty of them for now

@Alenage

good point, FPS gamers dont do single play a lot anyway, length does not matter, as long as they can shoot at sth.

@Nynja

yea Lost Odyssey is my fav. RPG this gen so far, I am looking forward to Demon's Soul in less than 3 months, everybody says it is super hard and that gets me excited and hooked.

Star Ocean 4 is beatiful with vibrant colors, I am in the middle of it, have not done it but I like it better than Inf. Undiscovery and Last Remnant, first 2-3 hours is bit boring, but u need to hang on and get pass that before it gets interesting.

Last edited by BigBoss4ever on 7/27/2009 6:49:16 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 11:55:14 PM

BigBoss; I was actually thinking about it a couple days ago. I still have so many decent RPGs that I haven't finished. As for Infinite Undiscovery, played it for 30 minutes then sold it back. Just couldn't take it. I suppose I enjoy RPGs that tend to focus on older gamers than those that seem to be for the younger crowd.

I cannot wait for Demon Souls. I saw the preview on GameTrailers and been hooked on the concept of the game since.

So many games, so little time.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BigBoss4ever
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 10:24:05 AM

yup, i think Demon's souls gonna be awesome, with its level of difficulty and unique style, will be one of the most challenging and satisfying RPG this gen i think.

and yea, so many good games and so little time, no longer 16 years old, just eat, sleep and then play all days. :D

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:05:59 AM
Reply

MGS4 lasted alot longer than the rest of the MG games, took me 21 hours on my first go.

Uncharted it a good 6-8 hour game, but it has fantastic replay value with all the treasure and reward system, i completed it all before the trophy system was active and then i did it all over again, but i enjoyed it. Fallout lasted me a good 100 hours + and im still playing it.

I'm hoping FFXIII will last a good 60 - 80 hours, i do have to admit i need a new lengthy RPG..... I need a new Final Fantasy.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

bxshotboi
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:30:23 AM

i would love for there to be a new grandia becuz surprisingly grandia 2 took me 90 hours just becuz i liked the story but after 90 hours the boss was just a sissy lmao

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bxshotboi
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:33:25 AM

ands i also think final fantasy 13 gonna be more than just 60 hours since ff10 took me 80 hours to get all the sidequests done and smack all the bosses around with just my all time favorite ff10 character (YUNA)

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:40:18 AM

Well lets hope so, FFXII lasted a good 80 hours plus. FFX lasted froever lol, im on like 130+ hours and im still trying to beat all the Dark Aeons, i think i only have 1 or 2 left now, My brother swiped that game off me,i hope he brings it back soon.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bxshotboi
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:46:05 AM

i have ff12 but i just gave up on it cuz it just got so hard all of a sudden towards the middle of the game mind you i trained my @ss off in the desert n pulled off the longest chain in the whole universe lol

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 3:03:12 AM

lol dont get me started on FFXII, Though in a weird way i am temtped to give it another shot.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 9:47:42 AM

I liked FFXII although it was not the strongest of the 12. I just don't think square is going to be able to top VII or VIII. I invested a good 180 hours into FFXII and still didn't unlock or find everything. It was the 1st Final Fantasy that I didn't master. Shame. That one may have been a bit too long.

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/27/2009 9:56:34 AM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

coverton341
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 1:20:51 PM

FFXII is so long because it requires you to level grind. You say you worked like mad in the desert bxshotboi but you didn't do it enough... and that is a pain in the rear for sure. I am replaying it now and remembering why I put it down in the first place. I have just got to Golmore Jungle and am level 26 and finding it that I have to find a good grind place now. That is the biggest problem I have with FFXII. It makes you feel like the game is super long but in actuality it is the forced grinding that takes up so much time.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Jawknee
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 4:29:26 PM

Yea at the end of my 180 hour play through, my levels were still In the 80's. With VII I found it possible to max all 9 characters out and duplicate enough materia to customize each charcter in less then 100 hours. With VIII I was able to level Squall up to 25 before I even left Balam Garden In the beginning of the game. Let's hope XIII doesn't force us to level grind like in XII.

Last edited by Jawknee on 7/27/2009 4:33:13 PM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

556pineapple
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:16:19 AM
Reply

A lot of those speed runs are faked, but I've seen a few legitimate ones...

But anyway, I have a ton of free time right now, but I can barely find time to play one of the nine games I'm trying to tackle right now (only one of them is a new release.) So by all means, short games are alright by me. It's not that I don't like gaming as much as I used to, it's just that I find it takes more of a commitment to play when it's summer and I want to go outside and accomplish things. Video games function best for me when they're distracting me from college (and yes, I know that's not a good thing) and the weather is no good. I think I bit off more than I can chew, because I often can't decide which game I should play, and usually just end up playing Rock Band instead.

Long story short, long games, although packed with fun, tend to be daunting to me. Short games are good because they aren't as much of a commitment. I like both, but I think I might prefer short.

Sorry for the long, probably incoherent, ramblings.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

SkantDragon
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:57:24 AM
Reply

Most of the games we used to see that were very 'long' were, in my opinion, very boring. They had content at the beginning and at the end, and then the middle would just be full of grind or other mindless time wasting to pad it out to some stupid number of hours of 'play time'.

Personally, I always lost interest midway through most games because of that. You could tell when you got to the part of the game that was all fluff.

So now games seem to slice off that chaff. And I think it's great. Now I actually play games through.

And people complain they're too short... and claim completion times that are pretty ridiculous as 'the average'. Seriously... does everyone play all the way through every game at full run, constantly driving toward the goal at best speed, never ever stopping to look at any of the pretty scenery, or to actually enjoy the game?

I mean, people claimed Heavenly Sword was only 8 hours long. And all I can say is... if you finished it in 8 hours, I'm pretty sure you just missed most of the game. Seriously, it's full of stunning views and amazing stuff you might actually want to stop for just half a second and check out.

I have seen how some people play these games. And I think they're not really enjoying them at all. It's like all that matters is reaching the goal as quickly as possible, and the game itself is just an obstacle. They're continuously impatient, nothing holds their interest, and they bypass or ignore damn near everything.

Am I weird for occasionally stopping in one of these amazingly beautiful games to just look around in awe at the world they've created?

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Vivi_Gamer
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 3:08:35 AM

Not weird at all, i never rush games, i dont see the point unless you can unlock something, but i never rush on my first playthrough, like you said because if you do there is plenty you'll miss out on.

I personally dont mind if a game is short (unless its an RPG), as long as it has Replay Value, MGS2 is a prime example, i've never got sick of that, i easliy play it at least once a month.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dancemachine55
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:06:56 AM

Nothing wrong with that at all. Kinda like me the way I play compared to my friend.

My friend has about 90 games on his 360, and speeds his way through all of them. Finished them all in a few days. Then plays Halo 3 online for about 20 additional hours a week.

I take my time. Don't aim for 100% but I certainly go off the beaten track every now and then to see what the game offers.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 10:10:00 AM

One man's fluff is another man's side quest...

I agree with your point about those supposed 8 hour run throughs. I played Uncharted through several times, I can see how you could speed run the game, but you'd miss some of the game and it would be quite a slog except on 'Easy', but where's the challenge in that?

You're right that a lot of the time the claimed play times for a game don't include all the side quests and other exploration, just the critical path through the game and no sight seeing.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:20:57 PM

Every quality game I've played makes me stop and take it all in. Once I've completed it, if I want more I play it again. Speed runs can be fun, but never on the first attempt.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 3:49:52 AM
Reply

so what if people dont have as much time as they use to per day.
im lucky if i get 1 hour per day to play games once ive done tafe work assignments and such.
i still want a long game, 8 hours minimum any shorter than that it should be less than 100 AUD.
we need a logical pricing system.
like fallout 3 which can last 50 hours or so costs 110 AUD.
but leshure suit larry box office bust which is the worst game ever made can be completed in like 6 and its exactly the same price.
i dont see why were paying the same price for a piece of sh** compare to a piece of gold.
110 AUD should be the maximum price for games thats almost double what the US is paying.
BUT to warrent that price there should be minimum standards to meet.
like length of the game no less than 8 hours, and it has to be thought of a quality game like bioshock.
to me thats worth the 110, unlike other games like star wars TFU or CODMW or others.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Dancemachine55
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:02:49 AM
Reply

I feel the same way Ben.

Work and uni eats up a lot of my time. I don't have anywhere near as much time to game as I hope to.

For me a game should be about 12-18 hours first time played. Resident Evil 4 was the perfect example of this. I love that game, it was the best length, best story, best gameplay of all resident evils.

RPG's should not go more than 40 hours. To me, that is getting ridiculous. And quite frankly, I don't care about the teenagers screaming "NOOOO!!!" at this motion of making games shorter. Are they the ones with jobs making money to spend at games stores? No!! Therefore, they don't count.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:10:14 AM
Reply

I don't buy your argument at *all*, Ben. Quite the contrary, I'd say the case would be opposite: While it is true that you get less time for gaming, on the other hand there are so many other things than games that you want or need to spend cash on that personally I don't want to buy a stable of games that I've only played a few hours each. I'd *much* prefer one, maybe two huge games that I can really enjoy throughout a year.

Some years ago I spent almost three years on one single game: Anarchy Online (mmorpg). Those were the three best gaming years I've had so far.

These days I enjoy Fallout 3 (yes, still!), each time I start a character I try to play a bit different, and with *every* character I've discovered new content by acident (not storyline dependent, but things I could have discovered with earlier caracters too). Now THATS a game those of us thats reached the 40s (as I have) want to enjoy. I'd gladly pay twice as much for Fallout 3 - next time I'll order the collectors edition just to support the developers of games like that.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 10:12:24 AM

I think you're spot on. The legion of WoW players prove that a lot of gamers like games that are involving and take lots of time. The fact that FPS players play a genre that allows you to dip into and out of a game rapidly shouldn't be taken to mean that every game is getting, or should get shorter. FPS games don't reward players with a long story but instead rely on the instant gratification of a head shot.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 10:19:46 AM

Uh...I don't really have to point out the obvious differences between an MMO and a regular game that has a BEGINNING and an END, do I?

The bottom line is that all my friends are lacking on time, and not a one really wants to buy a game that takes a long time to beat because they know they probably won't finish it. That's all.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:43:19 PM

Ben, maybe you should include a statement clarifying you are referring to games that have a finish line.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 6:44:31 AM
Reply

Hopefully not...

One of the main reasons I love jrpgs

Last edited by Scarecrow on 7/27/2009 6:44:52 AM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BigBoss4ever
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:38:19 PM

same here

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

robinhood2010
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 6:58:14 AM
Reply

I am going to have lots of spare time when I qualify as a teacher...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CrazyIrishBoy
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 7:10:20 AM
Reply

I dunno, here, there arnt that many older people playing games compared to people younger than 15.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

gumbi
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 8:25:58 AM
Reply

Amen to that Ben, the last RPG I actually played... and finished was over 4 years ago, while i was in college. I started playing FF XII almost 3 years ago... and it's still not done. the only games I've played through in the last few years have been the short ones like Heavenly sword and God Of War(s). Gone are the days when i could just park it and drop half a day into a game. I get maybe an hour or two, a couple times a week, to play.

So yeah, I'm all for the good short games.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:26:25 PM

"I'm all for the good short games"

I'll fix that for you...

"I'm all for the -GOOD- shorter games"

I get lots of time to play games. More than the average 30 year old. That doesn't mean I want every game to take 20 hours to complete.

When I say 20 hours, I mean 20 hours of straight through play. No side quests, no continues. Straight 20 hours. I stress, the -ONLY- exception is games that keep you pulled in with excellent story and character development.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

RadioHeader
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 8:32:00 AM
Reply

Actually I find myself with more time for games as I get older; There's no more playing football, drinking 3-4 nights a week, hanging out in car parks admiring each other's shiny new alloys etc. It's just me, the dog, the beach and my PS3. Work is dropping off too!

The question with COD4 is did it fill a DVD? Did the developer's aim for a short'n'sweet campaign, or was it M$'s fault?

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

migabyte
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 8:55:16 AM

Same here.....you like radiohead?.....they're the best of all time......

Agree with this comment 2 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 9:40:27 PM

It's true, now it's drinking 7 nights a week.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

migabyte
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 8:58:02 AM
Reply

Ya, actually some games recently have been too long for me....didn't get through GTA4 or fallout 3....wasn't really a huge fan of those games though, for all the hype they are a bit on the boring side.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Riku994
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 9:02:49 AM
Reply

On my third run of Genji: Dawn of the Samurai I beat it in an hour and 20 minutes.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:28:04 PM

See... as beautiful of a game it was, it was terrible in my opinion. So 1hr 20min is probably not a bad thing.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Watcher
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 9:40:49 AM
Reply

I agree that games aren't necessarily getting shorter. Many modern games have an abundance of save points and unlimited continues. A gamer can progress and eventually beat every level regardless of how many times they failed.

This didn't exist for older games. If you died / failed you started back at the beginning of the stage (or midpoint if your game had one). Once you ran out of continues, you had to start the game from the beginning.

Games today are also more generous. You get a lot more health regens, power-up and other types of in game help. I remember action games that gave you one health regen or two at the most for an entire stage.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

bearbobby
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 11:39:57 AM

That made sense back in the day as many NES/Atari games were ports of arcade games, or games that followed the structure of arcade games. Limited lives meant more quarters getting pumped into the machines.

I for one am glad for save points, hell I'm pissed that most console games lack a "save anywhere/anytime" feature that many pc games enjoy. It's nice not to have to choose between losing your progress and going to work. lol.

Being able to come back and start from your latest save point also encourages the player to push on to the next area and actually complete the game. And having players complete a game and get to see the ending must bring a certain amount of joy to its creators who can feel good that their consumers are getting the most out of their product.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

BeezleDrop
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 11:20:22 AM
Reply

Fallout3 is anything but boring kids, its a true example of replay value and entertainment. So maybe I have experienced a few glitches here and there but its a great game, by no means is it short and its made SO much money. The younger generation is all about gaming(they're certainly obese enough) and it seems like they have an attention span of a gold fish. Games dont need to get shorter, the people that love to get everything out of them just need to play when they can. There are plenty of gamers that have enough time to play the hell out of a game they cant get enough of. Radiohead is amazing!!! Oh yes, and for the dudes out there that destroyed games and beat them quickly, very nice. But make sure you get everything out of the titles.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Russell Burrows
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 11:22:19 AM
Reply

Pauses PS3 Fallout 3 to charge a customer for a store item.

@Ben.

Shorter games.........hayll no!
I spend ten to 12 hours every day in my business and it better be a day filled with long 20 hour or longer games as I wait for customers.

Most older guys play games as a time killer when waiting for customers to enter the office or business VERSUS staring at a wall for 10 to 12 hours every single day for week after week and month after month and gee why did that guy jump out the window?

Back to Fallout 3 on the PS3.............

Agree with this comment 5 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:30:00 PM

"Most older guys play games as a time killer when waiting for customers to enter the office or business VERSUS staring at a wall for 10 to 12 hours every single day"

I don't know where you work, but I have NO time to just sit and stare at a wall. Let alone play games during the business day.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

booze925
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 11:30:58 AM
Reply

ppl seem to forget about games like far cry 2. it can take over 50 hours to get everything done

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Tim Speed24
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 3:06:41 PM

Or 6 hours if you only do the story quests.

Far Cry 2 is a great under-appreciated game as far as the FPS genre goes. I have 90 hours in the Single player mode of this game and I still want to play through as different characters.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 4:19:20 PM

No kidding. FC2 is a crazy good time. Get out your snipper riffle and go nuts!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 11:42:36 AM
Reply

<LONG>

Ben, I disagree with your suggestion that older gamers want shorter games and here's why.

I agree with the comments that certain genre of games have very short stories. Some games have a critical path through the game that allows a game to be finished quickly in a 'speed run'. However, such speed runs avoid side quests and do not 'stop to smell the roses'. Speed run play times also assume that a player finishes without any failures or re-tries along the way. An 8 hour minimum play through might average out to a 12 hour play through for most players, perhaps longer. Uncharted is a good example of this.

It's true to say that with longer games, fewer people actually finish them. So it's actually not a bad thing for the direct path in a game to be a manageable length to encourage more players to play through. But at the same time, too short a game leaves many players feeling cheated.

I think you're seeing the under 18 gamers vs the 18-30 gamers. Under 18s may have more time, they have fewer commitments in their life, and have more time to waste. The 18-30 folks may have more on their minds - work and/or school, finding a partner, and all that wonderful stuff that goes with trying to establish your life. Those 30 and older will prefer longer games, I think. As you get older, I think you prefer longer games not shorter. 30-somethings tend to be settled and have families, stay at home more, watch more TV, browse the 'Net, or play games. They have the time, and their kids want to do the same things. 40-somethings have even more time, their older kids are more independent, leaving more time for parents to be themselves. Remember this is broad brush, and does not define everyone in these age groups. 50-somethings are currently a generation of people who didn't grown up playing games. Their lesuire hours are more often spent with other things such as music, books, TV, and hobbies such as gardens or DIY and not gaming. However over time, those 40-somethings that have gamed since elementary school will become 50-somethings, so that will change, gradually.

If games are to take their place among entertainment such as TV, movies and books, the narratives need to reflect that. The most popular TV shows are historically speaking those with long, continuing story arcs. With movies, sequels are popular because they deal with the same characters over and over. Books are popular because they either cater to a reader's fantasies (whether romantic or action) or have well drawn characters and deep, involving stories. For games to achieve the same status as these other entertainment media, games must fit into the various genre and demographics.

For example, kids typically watch short, discrete cartoon episodes with quick stories and little to no character development - think SpongeBob Square Pants. Teens and young adults tend to like more characters and action and episodic TV. 30 or 60 minute episodes with some continuing characters and story. It doesn't matter if you miss an episode though, each is a stand alone story. With adults, the older the target audience, the more continuing stories and characters matter. As you look at older audiences, they need/want less action, and more story. In fact, some of us older crustier folks even like TV that makes us think.

I think that there is an inversion point somewhere in the early 30s where gamers start wanting more story and longer games. If you start at 5 years old and chart the preferred length of game by age I think you'll see that the preferred game length increases through childhood peaking in the early teens and then the preferred game length starts to drop through the late teens and 20'ss into the early 30's. Then the trend reverses and again as gamers age the preferred length increases. Now, since there are generations of adults who didn't grow up playing games, I think that when you hit the 50s (right now) the desired length of video game drops rapidly, as does the number of gamers. However in 10 years time, all those 40-something gamers will be 50-something. I bet they will continue the trend - up to a point.

So, I think you're wrong Ben, but I think it's a case of the preferred length of game depends on the genre and target audience.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:23:48 PM

I have to agree with Ben, though, I do agree with some of your points as well.

I would much rather finish a game with the feeling of "I want more" rather than "Finally".

In the massive ocean of games available, only a hand full of titles have captured the right formula to handle longer game completion times. To achieve this they need to develop a compelling story and some form of character progression.

When games get the right mix of story and gameplay I find myself wishing for more even after the 20 hour mark (MGS4 first play through). I have completed MGS4 5 times. I have never in my life ever completed a game that many times.

Game length acceptance comes down to quality and repetition.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 3:19:01 PM

You're over-thinking this, Highlander, although your points are sound.

There is a very simple fact that I base my theory on: as we grow older, we have less time. It's not true for everyone, but it is true for the majority.

Hence, we have to alter our schedules accordingly in regards to habits and hobbies. What we WANT and what we can DO are two very, very different things. Anything is else is fine for discussion, but there's another thing that happens when one gets older-

Many more instances become black and white that were once gray. The grayness is reserved for students; reality introduces the black and white parts. ;)

Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 7/27/2009 3:19:51 PM

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:37:16 PM

Ben, btw...

If I ever go camping, you're coming with me. You sure know how to start a fire. :P

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 10:49:18 PM

Ben, as always different perspectives bring different analysis. I do agree that I was over thinking a little. Still I abhor the idea of shorter games, they're already too short for their cost IMHO, but I see your points as well.

I like the theory of things becoming more black and white as you get older. Perhaps it's 1 part wisdom, one part experience, and 3 parts feeling that life is too short to be worrying about the shades of gray.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 1:02:03 AM

Oh, I agree.

Bear in mind that nowhere did I say I WANTED shorter games. ...I merely resigned myself to the fact that I might NEED them. ;)

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:24:59 AM

Seeing the mental capacity of my father (formerly a university professor) diminish as he ages is enlightening. I may need games with play times in the region of 10 minutes in a couple/three decades....YIKES!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

TGG
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:49:49 PM
Reply

There are always handhelds.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Strker777
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 2:11:13 PM

I know it took me 54 hours to beat Final Fantasy Tactics Advance on the GBA SP!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

dveisalive
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 4:04:48 PM
Reply

RPG's are always gonna be long regardless. But how the current game wave of having everything online, games with campaigns (the main story etc...) are going to get shorter for games now-a-days. You beat the campaign in less than 8-10 hours then you go online for ever and level up like an RPG.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 4:29:31 PM
Reply

Yes we may have less time as we get older, but that doesn't mean I want to drop $60 on a game so that I can finish it quickly and wait for the next $60 game. No, I want substance for my money and that means a game that takes some time to play through.

The real blockbusters GTAIV and Fallout 3 are prime examples of what people really want. Games that are involving, that take you places, that make you experience the unbelievable and of course allow you to save your spot so you can come back when you have more time.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

CONTRABAND
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 4:36:53 PM
Reply

I think a lot of games today are short for 2 resins.
1: sadly they focus on the online play more
2: if a game is duel platform it has to look good on both systems, thus making less room on the 360 disc. and i strongly believe that M$ is holding back gaming due to the DVD...that is just my opinion.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 5:06:26 PM
Reply

I think a lot of people are missing the point.

A terrible game is like a terrible movie, you can't wait for the credits. A great game is like a great movie, time flies and leaves you wanting more. Length is irrelevant to me. Look at solitaire. It's the most played game in the world, yet takes mere minutes to complete.

A majority of readers on this forum are RPG lovers. A recent PSXE survey had proven this. So it only makes sense that a majority of posters here prefer games that have 10s of 100s of hours of gameplay. Whether or not this includes side quests or main missions. I think we all can agree that RPGs are an exception to the rule, due to the concept of exploring and character progression.

Just because someone has completed a game in record time does not mean they did not enjoy it or take the time to 'stop and smell the roses'. I believe many of these players are the ones who are trying to fully realize the content of what developers are including. Example: RE5 and MGS4...

Both games offered additional content and bonuses if completed under a specific time set by the developers. Usually these players are going through the game a 2nd or 3rd time. Speed runs are very popular in Japan. These players have committed more hours into the 'short' game than most do in a single lengthy play through.

MGS4 had a total of 6 hours of actual play time. Yet I've invested over 50 hours playing. My longest recorded time was 28 hours on my first play through. My shortest time was 3.5 hours in my 3rd play through. I played this multiple times to experience all the content, ever little bit the developers had to offer.

Its all perception. Which would you prefer; Watch a long boring movie once or watch a shorter great movie twice? How many people out there loved a movie so much, they went back and watched it again? Sometimes you have to watch it twice to get those little parts you might have missed.

I agree with Ben.

Last edited by Nynja on 7/27/2009 5:09:28 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Scarecrow
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 9:43:49 PM
Reply

I'll always v-game, no one will change that.

No kids, nothing!
If anything they'll be right there playing too :D

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 9:44:21 PM
Reply

I don't get how people even calculate the length of gameplay for a game. MGS4 was a lot longer than 6 hours. How are you having any fun whipping through that game in 6 hours??! If I want to hide in the shadows for thirty minutes and laugh myself silly as the guards go by, isn't that considered gameplay? It's how the gamer uses the game that determines the length of gameplay. I mean does horseshoes suck because it's only like ten minutes of gameplay or does it suck because it's stupid?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Nynja
Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 11:42:46 PM

I think a majority of us who finished the game in less than 5 hours (to unlock Big Boss Emblem) played it several times. My first play through took 28 hours.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

pyrobomber70
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 2:03:57 AM
Reply

All GAMES that are put on the market should be at least 10 HOURS of play for a single player! They can add online to them if they want, but a lot of people DO NOT have strong internet connections in the USA. This should be the STANDARD for ALL developers making any game.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Naga
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 8:48:49 PM

They can't Activi$ion will sue

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

ShadowRunner
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 6:38:12 AM
Reply

I have to disagree with you Ben. Games are for all ages, gamers should be satisfied regardless their age group.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Mr Bitey
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 8:04:06 AM
Reply

This is one of the worst trends this gen. After paying $65 for a game, only to discover that the game is under 10 hours is insulting. I don't care if there is the arbitrary online mode that all games "need" to have this gen.

If games actually start to clock in around 6 hours, then rest assure I will not be buying any game new. I'll rent or buy used.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 11:29:23 AM

If a game has multiple difficulty modes with a new reward for the completion in each mode, you may play through several times. As long as a game has replay value, I can take the shorter completion times even with the cost of games today. For example I usually replay Ratchet and Clank games at least once because there are always a few things I miss, or weapon/equipment upgrades I haven't got yet.

Would you buy a shorter game if it had good replay value?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Naga
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 @ 8:47:01 PM
Reply

As we grow older we learn that FPS isn't the path of the warrior and as a gamer & fan of fantasy themed media there should be more fantasy (Mighty Warrior) Action Adventure games and one based on the Emerald Sword saga if not FPS will destroy all.

See the FPS-Virus will slowly kill some of dem publishers that produce rubbish First Person shooters it will be funny but they had there good ol' time of success in the mainstream games market

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PaiNT_kinG
Monday, August 03, 2009 @ 12:28:49 AM
Reply

i prefer 10+ hours games............FTW

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

PaiNT_kinG
Monday, August 03, 2009 @ 12:29:24 AM
Reply

i prefer 10+ hours games............FTW

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Got the Wii U?
Yep, had mine since day one.
Yeah; I just recently picked it up.
No, but I might get one soon...
No, and I don't ever want one.

Previous Poll Results