Are videogames too long? Should smaller videogames be encouraged?

[Sirgin]

After reading a very interesting article in a Dutch games magazine I would like to know what you guys think that should be done in the future.

At the Games Education Summit (Dallas) in July, Warren Spector (known for games like Wing Commander, Thief and Deux Ex) stated that 100-hours singleplayer games are a thing of the past. He also said that only 2% of the people who have played GTA4 actually finished it. If he means by "finished it" getting 100% complete, I'm sure it's even less.
RPGs are probably the "worst" kind of games when it comes to being overly lengthy. Recent games like The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion or Final Fantasy 12 come to mind. They often take up 60 hours to finish the main storyline alone and go well over 100 hours if you want to finish all sidequests, defeat all monsters and get that strongest weapon. (Don't get me wrong, I love RPGs )

As you all know, making videogames is no longer cheap. Especially with the next generation consoles and their fabulous physics and visuals, production times get longer and longer. Spending $40.000.000 to develop a videogame isn't anything spectacular anymore and companies are strugling to make a profit like they used to do 5-10 years ago. Especially when your game stands in the shadow of a Triple A title, sales can't always make up for the costs.

If most gamers stop playing GTA4 at 40%; that basically means 60% of the game's content is money down the drain.

Would you like to see shorter games, knowing that most (read: the not-so-hardcore) gamers don't finish these games? Wouldn't it be great if companies could make games for less money and therefor take some more risks? It would mean more diverse games for us for sure.

Do you really want the Full HD graphics and 7.1 surround? Maybe some gamers do, but the rest of us are forced to walk the same path. I wonder why nobody seems to have the guts to make an HD 16-bit style 2D RPG for Xbox360 or PS3. If the story was good and the gameplay rock-solid, wouldn't that make for an amazing game?

Please note that you can vote twice because there might be multiple choices that you agree with.

Please share your thoughts and let us know how you feel about this subject

[Crabmaster2000]

Do you really want the Full HD graphics and 7.1 surround? Maybe some gamers do, but the rest of us are forced to walk the same path. I wonder why nobody seems to have the guts to make an HD 16-bit style 2D RPG for Xbox360 or PS3. If the story was good and the gameplay rock-solid, wouldn't that make for an amazing game?

I completely agree with you. I dont feel the need to have every game coming out with 3D graphics or state of the art sound. I'm hoping games like Mega Man 9 sell like crazy so that some companies will put at least a bit of thought into making games that have graphics and sound quality take a step back in order to produce a solid intriuging game that doesnt break the bank. I would however prefer Mega Man 9 to come in some sort of physical media rather than just a download, but ill take it.... for now.

[Sirgin]

I would however prefer Mega Man 9 to come in some sort of physical media rather than just a download, but ill take it.... for now.

Same here.

Although I didn't mention it, changing to online distribution is another area where publishers can save money to get more profit in the end. The production costs however are the same in terms of developing.

I hope that most games will keep on being distributed on physical media because if the whole industry would switch to downloadable games, collecting as we know it would be a thing of the past.

[Rajaat the Warbringer]

I feel that games are right where they should be, with a healthy mix of short and long games. I have no problem blasting through a 20 hour RPG, a 5-6 action game, or the 140 hours I spent on Oblivion.

But as to the second poll option... Gears of War's fairly short single player game left me feeling that they skimped on it simple to focus more on multiplayer, and needless to say, I'll be waiting for Gears 2 to hit the bargain bins before I buy it. I know that's some people's main thing, but if the single player part disappoints me, then when I'm done with the game, I'm disappointed.

And as for downloads, I refuse to pay for them, unless I can back them up on something permanent and use them at my discretion.

[hXd]

I personally like games that I can devote tons of time to, like Final Fantasys and what not. If I don't feel like spending the time on it, I play something else. :-)

[Beardcore84]

Should smaller video games be encouraged?

Personally, I like my small DS games. Those large clunky NEO GEO carts are waaay to big.

[blcklblskt]

Should smaller video games be encouraged?

Personally, I like my small DS games. Those large clunky NEO GEO carts are waaay to big.

He meant actual game content size, not physical game size 

Not sure if you're being serious or not

[Cobra]

Kinda mixed, depends on the game really. There have been really great short games I wish never ended, and then there are games that should end earlier.

In the end I feel I get the most out of short games with a lot of extra detail that I can play through over and over and always find something new. I refer to Snatcher when I say this, not a very long game but having beat it something like 20 times and always finding something new was incredible. Unfortunately I have played it to death and haven't fired up the game since the 90s

Bottom line, best game ever!

[Haoie]

2D would be great to us retro players.

But really, what casual modern player [and yes, that's most of them] would be interested?

This has all been discussed to death though, I'm sure.

[Cobra]

A game that was bleeding excellent, but felt waaaaay too short was the original Sam & Max. I wish there was more than just the one case to solve, like an additional two more after the 1st one.

[Sirgin]

2D would be great to us retro players.

But really, what casual modern player [and yes, that's most of them] would be interested?

A lot of things can happen, people don't always take the best graphics: look at the DS vs. PSP.

Also remember that the people reviewing games are most often older gamers who have some experience. When they are convinced the game is really good, the readers/viewers will follow.

Just imagine that your 2D RPG would cost half the money to develop than its 3D counterpart. (say $20M vs $40M) Then you'd be able to spend maybe $5-10M on advertising your game (which influences sales greatly; seeing how crap games that get much marketing end up selling well) and still be below the $40M production cost of the 3D RPG.

[phoenix1967]

I suppose the question really depends on the type of game.

Most of the shooters these days have a campaign about 8-10 hours long. However, the majority of them are focused on a multiplayer component to give it it's replay value. Further, though, a "shooter" like Bioshock (which is more of an action-adventure) takes about 15-20 hours, but has good replay value due to the variety of ways to play it and the AI.

RPGs, on the other hand, really do NEED to be longer due to the fact that if they were under 10 hours to play, most people would feel ripped off unless there was something really special about the game that inspired replaying it at least 3 or 4 times. Otherwise, most RPGs in the 30-40 hour range seem "about right" and those that have 100+ hours of content are really up to the player to play them that long because the main adventure in such games usually takes about 30-40.

I would say that most games are appropriately time-balanced. 

[Sirgin]

I would say that most games are appropriately time-balanced. 

I agree with you but the thing is that alot of games are too long for most mainstream gamers as they don't finish them.

[Tan]

2D would be great to us retro players.

But really, what casual modern player [and yes, that's most of them] would be interested?

A lot of things can happen, people don't always take the best graphics: look at the DS vs. PSP.

Also remember that the people reviewing games are most often older gamers who have some experience. When they are convinced the game is really good, the readers/viewers will follow.

Just imagine that your 2D RPG would cost half the money to develop than its 3D counterpart. (say $20M vs $40M) Then you'd be able to spend maybe $5-10M on advertising your game (which influences sales greatly; seeing how crap games that get much marketing end up selling well) and still be below the $40M production cost of the 3D RPG.

Your working from the assumption that 2D is automatically cheaper than 3D. That's like saying it would be cheaper to produce cassettes or VHS again. The fact of the matter is, for good 2D, you need training, the staff who can do it, the tools to downstep from 3D to 2D and better marketing to prove that this is still a high quality product. It's not like you can just click the "no 3D button" on your workstation and whip something up. 2D requires a different toolset and skills and in many ways, even more creativity to pull it off. All that for what many would consider a riskier project with anticipated lesser sales results.

The DS isn't a 2D haven any more than the PSP is. People choose the DS for it's price, control style and franchises available. Zelda Phantom Hourglass is a great example of all three while being a 3D game with innovative features. That the DS sells more only makes 2D gaming on it more appealing to recover those development costs hoping for higher sales figures.

Take Zelda Minish Cap for GBA and Zelda PH as examples. The GBA sold double or more what the DS has so far, but Zelda PH has sold multiple times over what Minish Cap has and they are both fantastic games. The difference being one is 2D and traditional, the other 3D and innovative. Even the LttP re-release on GBA coupled with Minish Cap still doesn't exceed Phantom Hourglass by itself. Seeing as this is a business, it's all about the numbers at the end of the day.

[Sirgin]

That's like saying it would be cheaper to produce cassettes or VHS again.

That's a fake argument; the specific case that we used to call "comparing apples with pears" in school.

And yes, I'm working from the assumption that it's cheaper to make a 16-bit style 2D (birdseye) RPG than a 1080p 3D FF13 style one. I'd be surprised if that's not the case.

What I said in a comment on my blog about the DS/PSP:

Handhelds seem to be a haven for RPG-developers who can't afford to spend all their money on making next-gen RPGs. Why do you think FF13 will be released on Xbox 360 aswell? The costs are just too damn high.

So yes, a company like Square will rather make a quick cash-in (like Dragon Quest Monster Hunter or however it's called) for the DS than a risky RPG for one of the main consoles.

That's all I was saying about the handhelds