It took me almost excactly half a year to finish The Dig. It never took me that long to finish an adventure game again.
I bought Fable for the PC last thursday. I finished it yesterday (sunday). This game supposed to be bigger then the xbox version.
It took me weeks to finish Max Payne 1. Max Payne 2 looks great and the physics enginge works fine and all, but what does it matter if I finish it within 3 days?
Unreal gave me a feeling that it was almost over. "This it the 6 chapter. Maybe one more chapter before the game ends." It turned out that I had still 50% of the game to go. Unreal 2 doesn't even have 6 locations.
You can not finish Zelda: The Windwaker in one weekend. You can finish Beyond Good & Evil in one weekend.
A friend of mine finished Halo 2 in one day. And that was his first try.
Are games getting shorter? And, if so, why?
Because developers are getting lazy?
Because EA wants the game finished before christmas?
Because all those fancy graphics take up all the space?
Or is it because I'm getting better at playing computer games, and it's just my imagination...
I think they're getting shorter primarily because of the publishers. The developers, it would seem, would rather have a lengthy game that provides days or weeks of enjoyment instead of hours (at least if I take their interviews at face-value).
The publishers are pushing for better graphics, better action, and quicker releases (not to mention the fans are applying that same pressure). It's probably considered a perk to the publisher that a game doesn't take very long to beat.
I'd heard that Fable was a short game (averaging 10-11 hours for completion) but I think it depends upon how much you explore. I tried every hair-brained quest and have gone from insanely evil to angellic, back to crazily evil again. I think I'm getting close to completing the game (Xbox ver) but don't quite want to do so without a little character development. It's awesome to see the character age and develop, it's a shame it's in such a compact package.
Very few developers are able to invest the time into well-coded games as well. It seems we get less and less gameplay for more and more discs.
It may be that technology is moving so fast now, taht every six months, there is something new to show, about computers.
Thus, a game which is based on graphics, sound will be outdated pretty quicly. Furthermore, if I was head of a game production company I would want the games to be easy and end quickly so that people would buy other games again and again. See you finished with Fable in 3-4 days. Now? What are you going to play now? You will probably go and buy something new...
The same goes of course for every programm (Damn Mircosoft!) Why should you need a computer 2.8 GHz with 512 Ram etc... just to use Office. Isn't a poor 386 or 486 enough? It used to be...
Quote from: jetxl on Mon 26/09/2005 10:27:45
It took me almost excactly half a year to finish The Dig. It never took me that long to finish an adventure game again.
I finished it in just couple of days and thought it was fairly short.
I think it is because they need to sell more. A bit like clothes' fashion or songs. Expensive glossy products that are outdated by the date the next one is available and you never come back to them unless they are sold as vintage. Just like the traditional games, really. Game industries invest in impressive graphics, but they make the game fairly simple to finish, so you can't replay it more than twice ...and you buy the next one.
The old games are just as "short" as current games, it's just that the games are so easy nowadays. No unforgivable pixel-hunts, no impossible arcade sequences, people just want to click somewhere and win the game.
Not to mention how walkthroughs are strewn all over the place.
Most of the games you listed are 3d games, or rather games that demand high quality graphics balanced with acceptable performance. For such games you need so much more than for 2d games and to make them look as good, you need even more. Also, development teams haven't changed significantly in size, they have just become much more plentiful. This means they have to produce and perfect more and compete more, with less chance of getting their game to prosper on the market.
This business revolution in the gaming industry has prompted more non-gamer platforms as producers, investors and publishers, and at the same time heightened the reason for competition. And everyone knows competition leads to deadlines, half-assed production and ultimately bad products. The decreased length of games is largely due to this competition. When you have to dazzle the crowds, show good quality and give results, what does it hurt to cut the length in half? It does shorten the development time, lessen the risk of wasted manpower and get the game out when needed.
Let's take the Max Payne games for example. Both games were undoubtedly short, but they made up for it with great graphics, an incredible eye for detail and a hell of a story. It took four years to develop the original Max Payne. Still, it only amounted to about 7 hours of gameplay. It wasn't the fault of lazy developers or a lack of resources. It was because during those four years they had to revamp the engine time after time, or rather the graphical elements. Also, the level of detail in the game was never-before seen. I should know; I spent 4 years modding for the game. And I can tell you, achieving the level they achieved was almost impossible as an amateur game developer. In addition, contrary to what you implied, Max Payne 2 was a longer game than the original, averaging at about 11 hours of gameplay. It also took half the time to develop. What's that about? Maybe it's the rise of financial and public support, or maybe it was because the developers were more experienced than before.
So basically what I'm saying is, yes, games have and are getting shorter. The reason why is the elevation of competition and business in the industry, and the higher demand for quality. Sadly, the trend will probably continue, with the further commercialization of computer games, the rising popularity of console gaming and higher demand. We just have to hope some development companies keep their sense of quality precedent to quantity, and stay loyal to the right people.
Just wanna mention that... I've finished GTA SA!!!! Weeeeee!!!
Bone has a ? mark on the window, click that three times and it gives you the help you need to get pass that level.
Quote from: ildu on Mon 26/09/2005 21:19:23So basically what I'm saying is, yes, games have and are getting shorter.
What? No... no no. I don't think that's true at all.
Just look at Sierra's Quest games. They're... so short! Have you replayed any of them lately? Aren't they over before you can even get into them? The reason we think games used to be longer is because we spent hours walking around not knowing what to do in them! Games are just easier now, not shorter!
And you're not 12 anymore, surprise surprise.
My brother and I beat Sam and Max in one day, we still had time to take it back the same day we got it! And personally if I'm playing a story driven game I'd rather it got to the point and didn't dick around with mazes and pixel hunts and awkward time filler.
I think the truly great games are ones like Skies of Arcadia. That game has hours and hours and hours of sheer game play with very little filler at all. It just keeps going and going with new stories and quests and it's exciting the whole way through.
I wish more games were like that. Just supremely long and constantly engaging.
Now Gift of Aldora better have hours and hours of sheer gameplay (I'll take off one "hours") or I'll demand my nonexistant money back. :=
I think that games aren't really any easier, perhaps, just that we're better at them now. I can go back and finish Half-Life in a weekend, and I thought that was a difficult game when I first got it. Adventure games are of course the worst culprits because they're so little change in the gameplay -- but then you're probably not playing them for the gameplay.
Well, you may be somewhat disappointed in GoA if you're hoping for that, but hopefully it will take hours. Not Skies of Arcadia hours though.
You want a long, time-consuming game to waste countless hours of your life? Go play Myst. And get rid of the help book. And remove all contacts with any other living person who played it before. And then, once you do that, play Riven without the help book. And if you still have a few hours to spare, hit youself in the head with a rock a few times and play them both over again.
Nice topic.
Secret of the Monkey Island had more than 30 hours of gameplay but now you have Nibiru with 10 hours of gameplay.
That tells you everything.
And one question how do you all can play FPS? Or any game that is not an adventure game?
Hardly wait for answer!!!!
Yes and as Ghormak pointed out in this very thread, King's Quest has about 3 hours of gameplay and Monkey Island has 30 as you say... So does that mean that games use to not be long enough then were too long and are now short again?
If so then one could mention that Space Invaders and Missle Command had infinite hours of gameplay and there for Monkey Island, when compared to infinity, is short as hell!
I for one desire some games to be short and to the point. Endless quest rpgs are rarely engaging at all. The mechanics become apparent or even blatant.
Then you sir, need to play Skies of Arcadia. It's... did I use the word engaging? It's engaging.
Kinoko, I'm starting to notice that you and I like and play all of the same games. SOA was brilliant, beautiful, heartfelt, and fun. The only problem was the insane frequency of random battles while you were exploring the huge world map. (Though I heard they severely lowered it for the Gamecube version. I played the original Dreamcast version.) One thing that game wasn't, though, was short.
I'd also like to jump into the same boat as Helm. I'm at a point in my life where I just need fun games and don't have time for endless filler. I want a good story and good gameplay and I don't want it to take up too much of my time or else I may get bored and move on to the next game before I finish.
I DON'T want games to become shorter for budget reasons or because of a rush to get it out when the publisher says so. But I do want games that are designed specifically to be shorter to target people short on time and with lowered attention spans, like me.
In short: (pun intended) (and with lots of over generalization)
Long games usually are that way because of bad filler.
Short games usually are that way because of budget/publisher issues.
Neither of these options appeal to me.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Tue 27/09/2005 04:41:30
Kinoko, I'm starting to notice that you and I like and play all of the same games.
That's cause we're awesome.
QuoteSOA was brilliant, beautiful, heartfelt, and fun.Ã, The only problem was the insane frequency of random battles while you were exploring the huge world map.Ã, (Though I heard they severely lowered it for the Gamecube version.Ã, I played the original Dreamcast version.)Ã, One thing that game wasn't, though, was short.
Yep, exactly what I think. I originally played the Dreamcast version and HATED the english voice acting as well as getting tired of the constant battles (it took a long time to load the battle scene). I now have the GC version, in Japanese, and it is indeed much better. Fewer random battles, voice acting is good and there are lots of great extra missions built in.
Shorter games aren't always bad.. sometimes stories and repeating gameplay with new graphics gets annoying and boring...
However, extending the Fahrenheit plot a few more hour would of ensured hilarity! (For those who haven't played it (for shame!) its possibly the most cheesy thing I've played for awhile after about half way - altho alot of the cheesy stuff makes sense now that I think back over it)
I bought Fahrenheit (PC version), and played untill I got frustrated about those stupid button secuences. It feels like a filler to me. However now I finished Fable I feel that I'm drawn to Fahrenheit once more. (The fact that this adventure game got good reviews also makes it a must-have-played)
Seeing the game credits roll is like getting the medals after a historic battle. However, when I just got into the game, I feel empty and sad that the game is already finished.
In Fable I'm now invicible (I got all the spells, powers & skills), but now there arn't any strong enemies left to test out my skills. Sure, there are some quests unfinised, but they have nothing to do with fighting.
I continued to play GTA:SA after I finished the story. But now that I have played most of the sub-missions, I feel that the game can no longer suprise me.
I guess that's why people play WoW, because there is no ending. Blizzard keeps uploading new things (for a price).
It actually depends on what you mean on "short"
Well I'm currently playing World of Xeen. Very straight forward (and almost stupid). There are no puzzles (!) but it is a huge world, huge, so even now that I allready know what to do I will spent 3-4 days to finish it again. The same goes to the Wizardy series.
On the other hand, I was astonished to find out that I can finish Dungeon Master in three or four hours! Because it was difficult and had so many puzzles, which kept you from going further I spent weeks trying to finish Dungeon Master.
So it actually is a short game (only 11 levels to explore) but then again when you have never played the game before, well this is a lot.
PS. I do remember having so much trouble playing the original Larry and Police Quest and King's Quest I, cause at the time I could speak English very well (I'm just a little bit better at that now) and I couldn't find the correct command. So I was playing with the car in Police Quest, driving around, putting on the horn, whenever I was on a trafic light, cause I had CGA and I couldn't tell which was the red light and which the green and so on, for weeks and weeks. And I was having so much fun! But again I was like 8-10 years old back then...