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

Wyrmlord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
28,886
Blackadder said:
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.
I am just trying to think of an explanation as well.

Aha, here's a possible one, although I am not sure if it is quite that.

People maybe feel that because they have paid money for the game, they are entitled to see all of the content in it, just as much as any gamer.
 

BethesdaLove

Arbiter
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
1,998
tl,dr

Fallout 1 was 15 hours (timed) on my playthrough. Replaying after some years.
 

Worm King

Scholar
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
706
Wyrmlord said:
Blackadder said:
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.
I am just trying to think of an explanation as well.

Aha, here's a possible one, although I am not sure if it is quite that.

People maybe feel that because they have paid money for the game, they are entitled to see all of the content in it, just as much as any gamer.

Hmmm, maybe the author is just tired of the same shit FPSs, MMOGs and FFs but refuses to admit it? The most popular genres usually have mind numbingly lame gameplay but are nevertheless popular. He is still interested in gaming but refuses to expand his horizon to strategies or real RPGs, where gameplay is more than walking a hall and shooting monsters.
 

Konjad

Patron
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
4,361
Location
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming! Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Planescape Torment was long and that's why quality of this game sucked.

EDIT:
Oh shi... it says "Modern".

Anyway I could say the same thing about Bloodlines or Witcher.
 

Korgan

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4,238
Location
Fahrfromjuden
Good point. If you do as much sidequests as possible, Witcher is pretty long. The first chapter is the only place with a lot of filler content, however. Once you finish it everything's pretty intense and smooth till the end.
 

trojan pony

Novice
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
20
Too many games try and show everything in the first level rather than make reaching the endgame rewarding. Is there any difference in what you can do as a level 1 character in Oblivion compared to a level 50 (other than kill slightly different shaped respawning beasts)? When a game is one note no wonder people get sick of it droning on for 40 hours. Portal isn't just great because it's short it's great because it's well paced and as soon as things get stale (like the test chambers) it mixes things up.

Bioshock as an example of quality :roll:
 

themadhatter114

Liturgist
Patron
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
309
Location
Morgantown, WV
Sure, the guy qualifies his statement by saying that he doesn't like lots of filler content, but then his main praise for Fable 2 and Fallout 3 are that you can zip through the critical path if you like.

It just doesn't make any sense. Even with repetitive gameplay, there's little reason why big budget titles shouldn't be able to come up with at least 20 hours of content. For instance, he offers up GTA4 as an example of something with a "tacked on" multiplayer that detracted from the single player. But the single player of GTA4, even rushing through the plot critical path, would take over 20 hours I think.

What's ridiculous is not only that he's suggesting that developers cut down their game length to 5 hours, but he's suggesting that they cut out multiplayer so that they can make those 5 hours better. Now, I don't know about you, but I think you can get 5 hours of detailed, cinematic content by spending $20 on a special edition DVD. Watch a 2-3 hour movie, then watch the deleted scenes, and then watch some of the mini - documentaries. That's a much better use of your time and money than spending $60 on a 5-hour game.

So, yeah, if you have a low budget, use your money wisely and create high quality content and don't sacrifice quality for quantity. And don't tack on a half-assed multiplayer that no one is going to play. And then I'll gladly pay $20 to play your awesome 5-hour game.
 

Phalanx01

Novice
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
12
I agree with this fellow! Running around and shooting bad guys for 5 hours is WAY too long! They ought to make games about 30 minutes in length TOPS! Oh yeah and the bad guys should just stand still and stop shooting also, what if you die and need to reload or something like that? Adds a bloody 5 minutes in detour time like that!

And I also agree that FO3 is the best RPG evah! I mean look at the storyline and content, it's superb! Even the dialogues are excellent!

And now for the serious part of this post:

Matt Cabral is a complete retard. I don't mind people saying what's on their mind, but it has to be a serious opinion. Thanks to morons like him there's so much pirating. Be honest; who in his right mind would pay 50 Euro (or more on consoles) for a game with a playlength of 5 hours (even 10)?
 

ricolikesrice

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
1,231
Phalanx01 said:
who in his right mind would pay 50 Euro (or more on consoles) for a game with a playlength of 5 hours (even 10)?

Call of Duty 4 sold something around 10 million copies and thus was pretty much one of the most successfull video games ever. Sure, there s multiplayer to it and while CoD4s MP was certainly very succesfully (nothing compared to good old CS though ), still around 8-9 in 10 CoD4 purchasers barely touched its MP.

There s plenty of people who are stupid enough to support the industry in their strife for more profit for less work and the only way to change that is
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
522
Admiral jimbob said:
ricolikesrice said:
still around 8-9 in 10 CoD4 purchasers barely touched its MP.

You sure? For PC, maybe, but the majority of people I know who bought the Gruelbox version - high school kids, granted - bought it mainly to play their friends on Live and haven't shut up about it for about a year now.

you can say that again.

*heavy stuttering and spit* m-m-man c-call of duty four ith awethome
 

ricolikesrice

Arcane
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
1,231
Admiral jimbob said:
ricolikesrice said:
still around 8-9 in 10 CoD4 purchasers barely touched its MP.

You sure? For PC, maybe, but the majority of people I know who bought the Gruelbox version - high school kids, granted - bought it mainly to play their friends on Live and haven't shut up about it for about a year now.

yeah, PC i guess. didnt see numbers / dont frequent with many people who play xbox ( anymore, a lot of those who owned a 360 have gotten a PS3 now, no clue why, guess because of blue-ray ). for PS3 i dont know numbers either but those i do know barely touched it, which means 1 week of "COD4 is the awesomest game ever", quickly replaced by "i cant wait for GTA4 / MSG 4, playing sports game XY again right now".

anyhow, even if MP is very important for the xbox crowd (german magazine wrote half of the 10 million sales for CoD4 were PC, rest consoles - but obviously no clue if thats the truth or maybe they were only refering to german sales - which could very well be as PC vs console unlike rest of the world is apparently still 50:50 here ), i think it would have still sold just as much even just for the SP. i doubt the mainstream really cares whether their games are 10 or 50 hours as long as they feel like a hollywood movie.
 

Mad_Dog

Liturgist
Joined
Nov 29, 2002
Messages
109
A lot of games I never finish because I lose interest right at the end. I've thought about it a lot, I'm not sure why it happens. it used to bother me, and I would try to finish them, but now I just don't care. When I stop enjoying it I quit. That said, I have finished most of the big, 'approved' RPGs from the late 90s, but those are about the only long games I have finished. Now I play mainly wargames (Combat Mission, Steel Panthers) because the scenarios are bite size, and I can leave them when my son tries to kill himself.

Fantastic short games:
Metroid Zero Mission (GBA): ~4-6 hours
PoP: Sands of Time: 12 hours
Crimson Skies: 12 hours
Halo 1&2 (if they bug you, shut the fuck up): 16 hours
Ghost Recon: can't remember
Beyond Good & Evil: 12 hours
Fallout: varies

Mainly console I guess... Good long games I didn't finish:
Zelda: The Wind Waker
Half Life
Fallout 2
BG: Throne of Baal
Fallout Tactics
 

Longshanks

Augur
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
897
Location
Australia.
DarkUnderlord said:
AtomicGamer's Matt Cabral applied his brain cells</a> to the length and breadth of modern games and reached the conclusion:
<blockquote>Games are too damned long.
He may have a point. it is difficult to find the motivation to finish most modern games. Mainly because they suck.

A good RPG, like Fallout 3, requires more time to develop its characters, flesh out its story, and realize its scope.
Yes, because if Fallout 3 had anything it was well developed characters and a fleshed out story. If his argument is against filler content, Fallout 3 and all other Bethesda RPGs should be prime targets, not exceptions.
 

BehindTimes

Novice
Joined
Oct 22, 2008
Messages
38
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.

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...

He stated several times he's talking about filler used to artificially expend a games length. And I honestly have to agree. Too many games are designed to be played within 2-3 hours, and given 20+ hours just to say it has X hours of gameplay.

For me, even when it comes to RPGs, I can devote 5-10 hours for a game. If it's an exceptional game, maybe 20. The games that are very short? I actually finish. The games that are longer? I tend to put those away. A good game is a good game when you want more. There's no such thing as a long enough great game. All enjoyable games are too short, whereas all unejoyable games are way too long.
 

themadhatter114

Liturgist
Patron
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
309
Location
Morgantown, WV
A game isn't good just because you don't get bored before it's over. I think that, if a game is over, and you say "What the fuck? That's it!?" isn't a game of satisfactory length. And I think that any game that you paid $60 for, if you're enjoying it, and it's over after 5 hours, that's pretty much going to be your reaction.

10 hours is more reasonable, but still, the game needs replay value. I think each Splinter Cell game takes at least 10 hours or so, especially on a first play through, but it's interesting to replay some of the missions and just murder everyone. But even those I bought used for under $5 after the original X-Box is all but extinct.

Heck, I don't want to play $30 or $40 for a Nintendo DS game that isn't going to last me at least 10 hours to ultimately master.
 

ushdugery

Scholar
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
371
Modern games do have too much grinding filler content stuff that is there so you can mindlessly repeat some inane gameplay mechanic ad infinitum. But he's too idiotic to word anything like that so concisely or maybe it's just because he's a journalist whatevs.
 

Rhalle

Magister
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
2,192
ushdugery said:
Modern games do have too much grinding filler content stuff that is there so you can mindlessly repeat some inane gameplay mechanic ad infinitum. But he's too idiotic to word anything like that so concisely or maybe it's just because he's a journalist whatevs.

It's just step two of the plan.

Step three is 'making games better by removing the filler content' (that was put in place to make up for the real content they took out).

Step four is promotion and, subsequently, consumer acceptance of even shorter games.


It is all a sub-plan of the 'let's make more money; let's phase out PC as a platform' plan.

This forward-looking journalist and visionary is simply doing his duty.
 

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