Lunchtime Discussion: Length

Are games getting shorter?

Published 03/05/2010 at 12:00.
By Kris L [raen].

Share |

Related stories (more)
Lunchtime Discussion: Animals [45]
Lunchtime Discussion: Apathy [28]
Lunchtime Discussion: Comedy [31]

Latest Stories (more)
Fake Alert: Sony Haven’t Banned Anyone Over Jailbreak, Yet. [10]
Sunday Thoughts: Reviewing Reviews [66]
Review: Metroid: Other M [30]

In an age when the price of games seems to be discussed more and more, bang for your buck is becoming more and more important. I know I say this a lot, but I don’t recall the length of games being talked about as much as they are now, but on the other hand games don’t seem to have such a large variance as they do in this generation. Sure you always had games like the RPGs which stood out in length, but I can certainly recall most games being closer together in terms of length.

Part of that is certainly due to storage medium limits that existed in earlier generations. With Blu-Ray on the PS3 and improvements in compression technology for the 360′s DVD-9 storage the amount of space for developers to play with is at an all time high, and not every developer is going to be able to have the resources available to fill all of the space. Beyond the simple issue of filling the wealth of available space, developers are becoming less and less constrained by their medium. It may be that developers can now make, or at least get closer to, the games they want to make with the stories they want to tell. Those games and stories aren’t all going to have the same kind of content, lengths are going to vary far more than has been possible previously.

There’s also the Modern Warfare 2 excuse, multiplayer makes up for the length of single player campaigns and that’s quite true. When people talk about the length of the game it’s generally only considering the single player campaign, but with online multiplayer and co-op modes the majority of most games now doesn’t consist of playing through the game’s story by yourself, it’s now all about the ‘long tail’ of a game. Developers want you to come back over and over, playing the online modes so you’ll buy add-on content and keep the title and developer fresh in your mind.

Are modern games changing in length? Are single player campaigns evolving to push gamers towards online play? What kind of length is right for you,do you focus on quick single player, or are you investing your time in multiplayer to get the most play out of the game?

Comments

Please note that all comments are the opinion and responsibility of the individual author and not TheSixthAxis. You must read and agree to our terms before reading and commenting on this site. User comments are not always moderated by TheSixthAxis.

1 2 3 ... 6 Next »

waddo_89 | 03/05/2010 12:05
Member
889 TSA Points | Member since: Mar 2009

I’d rather play a short yet decent single player then crack on with the MP rather than feel obliged to battle through a campaign which isn’t neccessarily better simply because it’s longer.
- DRCD1 | 03/05/2010 18:49
  Member
  1590 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008
  
  My thoughts exactly.
Spotter5 | 03/05/2010 12:08
Member
1295 TSA Points | Member since: Forever

I prefer a shorter game, like Aliens Vs Predator, which is a very short campaign to something with a really long campaign because I often get bored of a game or stuck.
gideon1451 | 03/05/2010 12:08
Member
829 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2009

I like single player games quite a bit more than multiplayer ones. I like the fact there’s an achievable goal, for example: completing the story. Multiplayer games seem, & can, to go on for literally ever. There’s no closure, that’s what games miss.
YOURMUMANDME | 03/05/2010 12:09
Member
3028 TSA Points | Member since: Oct 2008

I hate it when a game is really good and it ends too fast, Heavenly Sword spings to mind. Not a favorite by all but I loved it, even though it was over in a split second. I think most of the problem lies with current gen developers wanting a movie experience rather gaming one.
gazzagb | 03/05/2010 12:09
Master of speling mitakse
4781 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009

While the MW2 single player was short, it was brilliant. I think around that length is acceptable, providing that its exciting and the game has a decent Multiplayer to extend its life.
There are some games that are too long. For example, ive got GTA4, but havent done a single mission. I just downloaded a 100% game save of the internet so I can just drive around and explore the whole area.
Fallout 3′s length totally put me off. I played a bit at my cousins house, then looked at some websites and saw that it had a stupidly long play-through. I knew I would get bored after a few hours and would have ended up wasting my money so I never bothered getting it.

Overall, I generally pick a game for its multiplayer, theres only a few games that I bought for its single player like Assassins Creed 2 or GT5: Prologue.
Nauraph | 03/05/2010 12:10
Member
656 TSA Points | Member since: Jan 2010

My parents actually completed Heavy Rain on my ps3 a couple of days ago.. And my dad mentioned that the game is a bit pricy compared to the length of the game. I never compared the price and length before, but I suppose he was right here..
As with Modern Warfare 2. The single player was pretty short but because of the special ops and multiplayer the play time is heavily increased. But I do know there are many people around that don’t touch any multiplayer option and I suppose they will be disappointed.
- TSBonyman | 03/05/2010 12:47
  Member
  3284 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2009
  
  Admittedly Heavy Rain a short game but it needs to be played several times to get the full experience. The way the story drew me in made the price irrelevent for me – and i finished it in 2 sessions the first time i played it.
  - tonycawley | 03/05/2010 19:07
    Member
    1718 TSA Points | Member since: Feb 2009
    
    Couldn’t possibly disagree with a statement more than i disagree with this. I played through heavy rain once, straight through in a single sitting. I was gripped. But i haven’t touched it again as i know it just can’t be as good second time round. The whole reason it was so good first time was wanting to find out how it all unfolds. The gameplay is hardly the greatest for a second playthrough to be worthwhile.
cc_star | 03/05/2010 12:12
Team TSA: Writer
12558 TSA Points | Member since: Forever

Disk space is being taking up by an increase in pixels rather than longer & longer games…

I think a quality 10-12 hour campaign provides great value anyone who spent £35-£40 on Uncharted2 got great value – and the multiplayer is just a tacked on bonus.

Quality wins out everyday of the week.
bunimomike | 03/05/2010 12:12
Member
10300 TSA Points | Member since: Jul 2009

I don’t like how single player campaigns can be squeezed by the multiplayer aspect (MW1 being a good example). Great six hours but… six hours? Then again, Shadows of the Colossus doesn’t take long to finish and that feels right although there’s quite the story to be told in a way.

Monstrous games like Oblivion, Dragon Age Origins take real input, which is lovely. 50 hours or so for the latter. Oblivion over 200 hours but both are a totally different genre.

Actually, you know what? I’m groovy with game-length. inFamous was perfect. Uncharted2 as well. Yep. Happy me! :-)
- hairfreax | 03/05/2010 12:32
  Member
  2025 TSA Points | Member since: Jun 2009
  
  Im with you on this, on Hour 26 on FF and im just hitting my stride now i know what the hell im doing. Now im fully appreciating the game and wishing i understood more sooner but with a whole load of more hours, days even more months play im looking forward to it not ending.
  - MadBoJangles | 03/05/2010 15:14
    Member
    499 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2009
    
    FF13 was around 105 hours for me.
    Which is awesome value for money, especially when you compare it to Dante’s Inferno that lasted around 15 hours :|
Roynaldo | 03/05/2010 12:18
Member
4371 TSA Points | Member since: Nov 2008

I focus almost entirely on single player modes, barring a small amount of exceptions.
I would like them to be really long, like you say “bang for your buck”. Trophies/Achievments throw in a major part of that. They give you something to strive for and can lengthen a game 2 fold if done correctly.
Take Final Fantasy for example, already a long game (48 hours until story completion). The side quests albeit quite lacking in amount then kept me playing until 108 hours before I platted it because the trophies were designed to make it that way.
Another example would be GTA4. I completed the story in just short of 30 hours (gaining a trophy to do so) and then all the other trophies were designed for you to throw in (at least I think) another 100 hours, maybe more!

Of course many people are not interested in the slightest in trophies/achievments and thats fine. You would still like a game to last a good 20-30 hours though wouldnt you? rather than 8-10 which seems to be an increasing trend these days.

Basically I would like to see games last a long time and get my moneys worth. That is what will make me sit up and take notice of the developer and its work. Its why I love SquareEnix.
Manorhowze | 03/05/2010 12:20
Driving God
3163 TSA Points | Member since: Dec 2008

Just Cause 2 had enough in it to keep you busy for days. I am on 76% completion and I am at 80 odd game hours. It is also a game that doesnt rely on multiplayer although it does rely on repetition a lot but it also manages to keep that varied enough to keep you interested.

I dont really have a preference on how long a game is, I am only interested in quality. If a game is fun to play I dont mind completing it several times if its short. So I still get lots of game playing out of it.

Its probably good to have variety in the length of games as it can depend on my mood as to what I want to play. If im annoyed I want something mindless that doesnt take too much effort (preferably something with a weapon). If i’m feeling creative then Music 3000 or LBP go on.