Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Editorial Modern games are too long

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,375
Tags: Fallout 3

<a href="http://www.atomicgamer.com/article.php?id=711">AtomicGamer's Matt Cabral applied his brain cells</a> to the length and breadth of modern games and reached the conclusion:
<br>
<blockquote>Games are too damned long. If I wasn’t certain of this before, I am now, as I stare at a stack of holiday titles I’m yet to break from their shrink-wrap prisons. Yet, despite my certainty, titles are still often criticized for being too short. And because this sort of unwarranted sentiment is so widespread, it encourages developers to pack our games with content we don’t need or want. Shouldn’t, with few exceptions, games be judged by what’s there rather than what’s not? Whether a title clocks in at 5 or fifty hours isn’t the issue, but rather how those hours are spent. If a game keeps me engaged from start to finish, I don’t care how short it is. In fact, let me enjoy and savor an 8-10 hour game, rather than slog through a 40 hour one. More often than not these days, I find completing games, even the good ones, can feel like work by the time the end credits roll.
<br>
[...]
<br>
Bioshock offered a similar quality-over-quantity experience. It didn’t even offer a multiplayer component, but its solo campaign was so packed with detail and narrative excellence that its 10-15 hour campaign offered more depth than most games twice its length.
<br>
[...]
<br>
The absolute worst offender in adding filler-feeling content is the tacked-on multiplayer mode. Where was it written that every game must include online competitive play? In many cases, publishers are robbing quality content from the solo experience in order to put time and resources into building a half-baked multiplayer mode that’ll do little more than add a bullet point to the back of the box.
<br>
[...]
<br>
Now, despite my disdain for long games that have no right to be long, I totally appreciate an interactive experience that packs the content like bacon at an all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet. A good RPG, like Fallout 3, requires more time to develop its characters, flesh out its story, and realize its scope. That’s not to say all RPGs need to be 50+ hours, especially when half that time is spent having uninteresting conversations with NPCs, and doing slightly varied versions of the same quest over and over again. The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category, give players a choice: take the shorter, critical path, or explore every nook and cranny till you realize the sun has risen and you need to get to work.</blockquote>
<br>
The Codex is organising a lynching for Matt. If you'd like to attend, just give us your contact details and we'll let you know when and where it's happening.
<br>
<br>
Spotted @ <a href="http://www.rpgwatch.com">RPGWatch</a>
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,590
Location
Djibouti
I agree, we should divide games into about 20 chapters - each would cost as much as a single game and would provide about 30-60 minutes of gameplay. The length of today's games is just preposterous!
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
Since when does one get lynched for being stupid? Just cut out his tongue, shatter his finger bones, put out his eyes and castrate him, lest he carry even more of his stupidity into the world.
 

Angthoron

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
13,056
But they do have dog companions, for some that qualifies as the best thing ever.

Some like bicycles better, but don't that bias hold you from seeing the aforementioned games as best things evar.
 

hiver

Guest
The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category
ho ho ho.
i wonder how many bubbleheads or lunch boxes with "love from bethesda" he got for that line or two.

then again maybe he is moronic enough to really mean it?
who knows? Who cares?

Sign me up for the lynching please.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
5,934
Location
Being a big gay tubesteak hahahahahahahahag
I think he partly means that games have too much filler crap to artificially boost playtime to an "acceptable" standard, which I can agree with - would NWN2 really be any worse off for losing an hour of playtime if you cut out the orc caves? STALKER if there was a way to make fetching trips from the Bar to the Cordon and back not take half an hour a time?

On the other hand, he does also seem to be saying that he wants a 5-hour WHAM BAM THANK YOU MA'AM adrenaline fest rather than a slow burner of 20+ hours so
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
DarkUnderlord said:
<a href="http://www.atomicgamer.com/article.php?id=711">AtomicGamer's Matt Cabral applied his brain cells</a>
Too bad he didn't apply them to the inside of his skull first. If he did, he would have noticed what excruciatingly moronic shit he's spewing and shut the fuck up.

The only salvageable thought there was that interesting gameplay is better than boring, but it doesn't quite take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out, does it?
 

Jim Cojones

Prophet
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
2,102
Location
Przenajswietsza Rzeczpospolita
Matt Cabral said:
If a game keeps me engaged from start to finish, I don’t care how short it is. In fact, let me enjoy and savor an 8-10 hour game, rather than slog through a 40 hour one. More often than not these days, I find completing games, even the good ones, can feel like work by the time the end credits roll.
A good game is a game that you can play for hours and hours and even then after finishing it you regret that it was too short. If a game isn't good enough to keep me playing for 40 hours, then it means that game is a crap and isn't worth my money. When developers make a product of the same quality but four times shorter so the player won't get bored before the end, then it is definitely less worthwhile.

Bioshock offered a similar quality-over-quantity experience. It didn’t even offer a multiplayer component, but its solo campaign was so packed with detail and narrative excellence that its 10-15 hour campaign offered more depth than most games twice its length.
Can anybody tell me why Bioshock is praised as an example of "deep game" while "simple"action platform games from 80s force player to think more frequently?
 

Talby

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
5,522
Codex USB, 2014
Jim Cojones said:
Can anybody tell me why Bioshock is praised as an example of "deep game" while "simple"action platform games from 80s force player to think more frequently?

Because it has references to Ayn Rand, which therefore means that the story is deep, and by association, the gameplay.
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
Admiral jimbob said:
I think he partly means that games have too much filler crap to artificially boost playtime to an "acceptable" standard, which I can agree with - would NWN2 really be any worse off for losing an hour of playtime if you cut out the orc caves? STALKER if there was a way to make fetching trips from the Bar to the Cordon and back not take half an hour a time?

!=
Games are too damned long.

He's not saying that there are games out there that focus very much on the cinematic experience while providing mediocre or plain bad gameplay that could do with less of said bad gameplay. Thus improving the game. He's not saying that certain parts in certain game are disliked by the majority of players and could have been left out to flesh out better parts of the game.
He is saying:
Games are too damned long.

Now either one hates playing games or is a complete retard and agrees with that generalisation, or one likes gaming and actually uses both halves of the brain and politely disagrees...
 

Angthoron

Arcane
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
13,056
Jim Cojones said:
Bioshock offered a similar quality-over-quantity experience. It didn’t even offer a multiplayer component, but its solo campaign was so packed with detail and narrative excellence that its 10-15 hour campaign offered more depth than most games twice its length.
Can anybody tell me why Bioshock is praised as an example of "deep game" while "simple"action platform games from 80s force player to think more frequently?

Same reason Halo was hyped all the way to the sky and third installment. It's the first noticed quality/"innovating" game for the new generation of consoles. Bioshock is essentially the new Halo with the kewl helmet replaced by a Big Daddy.
 

Korgan

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,238
Location
Fahrfromjuden
I'm sure I'm expressing everyone's opinion here when I say MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN.
Just listen:
The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category
The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category
The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category
The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category
The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Korgan said:
I'm sure I'm expressing everyone's opinion here when I say MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN MAIM KILL BURN.
Not really. I, for example, would do much more than just maiming and burning him. Also, I'd just kill him once, at the end of the entire 'ordeal' - killing him earlier would make latter sessions of maiming and burning pointless.
 

WhiskeyWolf

RPG Codex Polish Car Thief
Staff Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,817
This guy fail so many times that a lynch is obligatory.
 

AlaCarcuss

Arbiter
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
1,335
Location
BrizVegas, Australis Penal Colony
I kinda see where he's comming from but certainly not applicable to RPG's (unless they're really bad).

For instance, COD4's single player campaign was heavily critisized for being too short at around 6-7 hours. However, it was 6-7 hours of supreme quality FPS gameing. Many other shooters may have less, or even similar hours of quality gameplay but are then fleshed out with shit in between just so they hit the 10-15 hour length.
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
5,934
Location
Being a big gay tubesteak hahahahahahahahag
Shannow said:
Admiral jimbob said:
I think he partly means that games have too much filler crap to artificially boost playtime to an "acceptable" standard, which I can agree with - would NWN2 really be any worse off for losing an hour of playtime if you cut out the orc caves? STALKER if there was a way to make fetching trips from the Bar to the Cordon and back not take half an hour a time?

!=
Games are too damned long.

He's not saying that there are games out there that focus very much on the cinematic experience while providing mediocre or plain bad gameplay that could do with less of said bad gameplay. Thus improving the game. He's not saying that certain parts in certain game are disliked by the majority of players and could have been left out to flesh out better parts of the game.
He is saying:
Games are too damned long.

Yet, despite my certainty, titles are still often criticized for being too short. And because this sort of unwarranted sentiment is so widespread, it encourages developers to pack our games with content we don’t need or want

Packing games with content to bolster playtime. In other words, unnecessary filler content.

Though I might be giving him too much credit in thinking that was what he was actually trying to say.
 

Worm King

Scholar
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
706
If you enjoy a game, why do you want it to be shorter? It just doesn't make any sense. No matter from what angle I look at it, I can't comprehend it. This is not even stupidity, this is some sort of totally new plane of thinking.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
7,953
Location
Cuntington Manor
Worm King said:
If you enjoy a game, why do you want it to be shorter? It just doesn't make any sense. No matter from what angle I look at it, I can't comprehend it. This is not even stupidity, this is some sort of totally new plane of thinking.

Agreed. It really makes no sense at all.
 

feta

Novice
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
60
Location
Yulai X-DED
Come on guys, he does make sense.

In his experience really good stuff come have a VERY short duration.
His wife probably calls him a premature endcreditator.
 

ricolikesrice

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
1,231
AlaCarcuss said:
For instance, COD4's single player campaign was heavily critisized for being too short at around 6-7 hours. However, it was 6-7 hours of supreme quality FPS gameing. Many other shooters may have less, or even similar hours of quality gameplay but are then fleshed out with shit in between just so they hit the 10-15 hour length.

CoD4 was 6-7 hours of really mediocre/shit FPS gameplay covered up in a pretty well-done (if that s your cup of tea )"interactive hollywood-movie" feeling. i liked that in rebel assault and call of duty 1/2 but it s really overdone these days so i hate CoD4 maybe more than it deserves for simply delivering what people like about the series.

then again Half Life one, unreal one, duke nukem 3d, just to name the most popular ones .... all those FPS had ten times better gameplay (and, hilariously enough, aside from graphics also better / at least not worse .. technology considering physics/AI ) and were twice as long.

So yeah, between a 15 hours of "utter shit" FPS and a 5 hours of "shit, but less so" FPS
.... who wouldnt take the later (if he s forced to take one that is....) ? but i m missing the "if there was 15 hours of GOOD FPS 10 years ago, why not today?" option.

for a really stupid analogy:

its kinda like buying donuts ( i imagine donuts is a fitting example for all you fat rpg geeks, LOLZ ):
10 years ago you got 3 well-tasting donuts for a dollar but nowadays 2 out of those 3 taste like shit.
but instead of supporting those who still sell 3 well-tasting donuts for a dollar you are happily jumping over your store announcing that he ll no longer sell the shit-donuts which leaves 1 well-tasting donut for a dollar. yeah, right. the industry loves you.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom