It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionWhy do people still commonly complain that games are "too short"?(127 posts)(127 posts)
(127 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 06, 2015
I'm curious, which $60 at launch games are only two hours? I'm seeing that mentioned a lot, but I've yet to play a AAA game (the only ones priced at or anywhere near $60) that was only two hours long or close to being that short. I think the shortest AAA game I've played was around six or seven hours long, but to be fair I missed out on most AAA games in the Ps3/Xbox 360 era.

I've played some games that are just below AAA like Zeno Clash that are around four hours long but they weren't priced $60 at launch (to be best of my knowledge).
Posted July 06, 2015
Another thing I want to say is that the people playing videogames and what's expected of the art form/hobby are changing.

Used to be videogames were the providence of tinkerers and tech affiliated, children, and those who just like to spend their time with games.

Now, videogames are turned to increasingly for their effects of escapism and narcotic. They are not so much intellectually appreciated and enjoyed in good humour as they are eaten or drank or had sex with.

Publishers are only too quick to try and exploit these elements for profit but a junkie always follows a particular path. They always get more irritable and crotchety. There isn't any actively biological addicting component here beyond outlying cases (I guess these so-called whales) to offset that, however. This is probably made worse by the fact that kids were a major part of that early audience. Some of them, probably a good portion, became the engine of the more exploitative videogames and less-healthy ways to appreciate videogames. But maybe not.

Basically I think the honeymoon is over in videogames. Over-commercialization is I think the main reason, followed perhaps by those who got into it for the wrong reasons.
Post edited July 06, 2015 by johnnygoging
Posted July 06, 2015
Ah, yes, the "time played per money spent" problem.
If you find a game, that is so awesome, that you can play it for thousands of hours for years to come, then you are set. You found your one game.
In the pursuit of hour hedonistic tendencies, finding that one game can be considered as the best possible outcome.
With the potential time you can spend on that one game the time-played-per-money-spent-coefficient goes towards 0. With that the money spent for that gaming experience becomes negligible.

Finding that one game is the difficult part, because there is the possibility, that no game ever will be you one game. But you can't know that beforehand. So you have to play as many games as possible.
Now, the cost per game comes into play. For every 50€ game you can buy 3-5 or even more games. Naturally, you want to buy as many games as possible, to play as many as possible. This results in a "I want it cheaper" mentality.

If someone gives the verdict of "too short", they don't do it as a statement of quality, they do it as a sign for other people on the search for their one game, that this game is too short to be your one game.
Posted July 06, 2015
avatar
USERNAME:jefequeso#Q&_^Q&Q#GROUP:4#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:80#Q&_^Q&Q#If you don't appreciate short games, then don't buy short games. They Breathe says right in its description how long on average it takes to beat. Or is it "special treatment" to expect people to read the game description?

People like you don't speak for all gamers. Some of us actually prefer short games, and are happy to pay a measely few dollars for an interesting experience.#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:80#Q&_^Q&Q#
avatar
Wow, I'd forgotten this thread even existed.
Posted July 06, 2015
Don't know if anyone brought that up, but we can also say that a game is "too short" if the game wasn't long enough to develop everything properly, be it gameplay wise or story wise ; potential wasted or the feeling there's something missing.
Posted July 06, 2015
avatar
johnnygoging: People do not pay $60 a movie.

The execution in narrative, character-development, graphics, and sound design (this one can be debatable depending on the title) of a film all far exceed a videogame.

The presentation and experience of movies far exceeds a videogame. (You don't go out and get popcorn and tacos and play the new release in an IMAX theatre.)

Videogames are not movies. People want to play them. Not being very long means not having much time to actually play with the mechanics. Games are not movies. Videogames are not movies.

I do think you make a good point. Though there are plenty of complaints about game length and not completing games. There's a lot said in favour of a shorter, tighter experience. There are both sides to the argument out there. You do make a very good point about backlogs vs. length complaining.

But one thing you didn't account for is that those backlogs weren't obtained at full price. Nobody is gonna take issue with a AAA release that is short that sells for $15 or so (see almost universal praise of Far Cry: Blood Dragon). The games are much more expensive than that and people cannot buy a new $60 game every 1-2 days. The more narrative-focused a game is the less replay-friendly it is. The flipside of that is that AAA games are increasingly narrative-heavy because it interests people.

Backlogs aren't obtained with a focus on playing games in acquired order. Often, the big release get played with cheaper titles peppered in. Most people buy those smaller games for various reasons like wanting to collect things from their hobby, wanting to support a developer, or by being optimistic with the idea that they will play it.

On top of all of this, there is a malaise building. And it's this that makes it worse and amplifies the resentment around length. Games are monetized and broken up and twisted for profit in ways movies never were. It's the most commercially distorted and capitalistic of all the art forms. Which, I guess, is kinda fitting as it is the most nascent. Its early days were now and in the time near modern day. But people do not generally shortstop these things, and so gaming has been carrying this for a while. The consequences of that though is that people start to just get irritable about things and start to lump one thing in with the other, and start becoming resentful of anything that looks affiliated with what they're beset by. I do not understand the fixation around length, when DRM, shoddy porting, day 1 patches, and DLC are all horrendously bad, but it is all related. It's the over-commercialization of the art form and medium that's contributing to the game-length noise.
all THIS, exactly...
Posted July 06, 2015
avatar
johnnygoging: People do not pay $60 a movie.
People pay $60 for a long video game and People pay $60 for a long TV series on blu-ray.
People pay less for a two hour movie, obviously, so that should also apply to video games.

I've never heard of a $60 title that is only 2 hours long but some people even complain if the game is cheap.

Since I am a gamer and I would be completely fine with a short game if the game doesn't feel incomplete I assume that the people who are complaining are not the target demographic of short games. :)

avatar
johnnygoging: Videogames are not movies. People want to play them. Not being very long means not having much time to actually play with the mechanics.
That is not true for every game.
I am a person who would even pay for half an hour of gameplay (obviously less than $60) and I don't accept that developers make games artificially longer just because some people think that under no circumstances a game may be short.
avatar
Yunnlith: Don't know if anyone brought that up, but we can also say that a game is "too short" if the game wasn't long enough to develop everything properly, be it gameplay wise or story wise ; potential wasted or the feeling there's something missing.
Completely correct. This is far more important than actual game length.
The question is if the game is too short.
avatar
NoNewTaleToTell: I'm curious, which $60 at launch games are only two hours? I'm seeing that mentioned a lot, but I've yet to play a AAA game (the only ones priced at or anywhere near $60) that was only two hours long or close to being that short
Me, too. In my opinion this $60 argument is worthless. :)
Post edited July 06, 2015 by 0Grapher
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWhy do people still commonly complain that games are "too short"?(127 posts)(127 posts)
(127 posts)