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 concerning the lenght of videogames.
[img align=right width=200]http://images.bit-tech.net/news_images/2008/06/warren-spector-100-hour-games-are-on-the-way-out/article_img.jpg[/img]At the Games Education Summit (Dallas) in July,
Warren Spector (known for games like Wing Commander, Thief and Deux Ex; see picture) 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 the costs are getting higher. 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?
Note: I've reposted this on the forums because I wanted to make a poll about it. You can find the poll
here.
|
Shorter videogames have less bang for buck and less replay value. Who wants to pay $60 for a 10 hour game?
|
|
@c2595:
Me. I honestly don't care about the cost of the game. I care more about how much enjoyment I get out of it.. I'll take a 10 hour game in which every second is fantastic over a 100 hour game that's just ok.
|
|
@Tondog:
If I was going to pay someone $6/hr, they had better be washing my car, doing my chores AND entertaining me with a good game LOL.
|
|
@Tondog: Agreed. I can't help but laugh when people get through a 2 or 3-hour game and complain about it being "too short".
|
|
I understand that development costs are increasing but it still has to be a compromise. They can't just charge us the same or more money and start giving us less for it.
Zelda for the DS was 15-20 hours long and cost $35, that's fair. Oblivion cost $70 for 60+ hours, that's fair. Firefly was $19.99 for 14 episodes, Stargate SG-1 was $40 for 25, that's fair.
Just because I think Zelda PH was as good as Oblivion doesn't mean I want to be taken advantage of and charged $70 for it. My enthusiasm for gaming & Zelda only goes so far. Games, books, movies, music, tools, houses, cars, it's all the same.
How much enjoyment/usage is directly related to how much you pay for it. 2 hour game? Sure if it's only $5 or so. Some serious gaming on Saturday and Sunday afternoons that totals $100 or more per weekend? No thanks, I can find a lot better things to do with $100 on a weekend than that.
|
|
@c2599:I know what you mean but there are people who think that videogames are actually too cheap and want us to pay more ($80-90) for the same game. Their arguement for this is that the price is too low compared to the production costs.
As I gave an example in my post about the 2D RPG; companies should realise that we don't always expect state-of-the-art graphics in order to enjoy a game. That way they can make games that cost considerably less to make, are still long but maybe sell for a bit cheaper. (like $50?) With good marketing, there's a lot of people who'd buy these games I'm sure.
|
|
Some companies still make 2D RPG games or just lower scale graphics. The problems with these games though is that they are niche or fanboy games. The games companies cannot make the big bucks from these type of games so won't take the gamble.
I don't think the problem lies with the game developers, it lies with the consumers. A large portion of gaming is still dominated by younger gamers who receive their games from the unknowledgable parents. A heavy marketing campaign will always make sure that game does well whether it be a good game or not. There is a demand out there for childish drivel and the developers provide it. Hopefully this concept will die a death but whilst the Wii is as popular as it is this won't happen.
|
|
@AndyC:What you say about these 2D games being niche or fanboy games is completely true.
I'm however convinced that it should be possible to make these games profitable if they'd be a bit more mainstream and advertised.
Another thing maybe: Why is it "forbidden" for big companies to develop for a past-gen console?
With the switch to the next-gen consoles it's markable how Square-Enix switched focus from PS2 to Wii/DS. And with good reason, too. Making an RPG on the PS3/360 is expensive as hell compared to last gen.
My proposition: instead of making these RPGs for handhelds, why not just make them for PS2? It'll still be affordable and there's like 100M PS2s sold, so alot of potential buyers.
|
|
I've actually been talking up the idea of shorter (and cheaper) games for awhile now. I think that it's a detriment to a serious critical understanding of video games that the vast majority of them (especially big important blockbuster games) take so long for most players to complete, but really most of the benefits of the shorter, tighter game can be summed up in one word: PORTAL.
|
|
In my opinion, its not the length of the game but the quality. I have no problem playing a game for 10 hours or 100 hours (as long as i can save the 100 hour one !!) if its that good it wont matter how long it is you will want to keep playing it. Isnt it similar to replaying a short game you love many times?
|
|
@Skellionz:That's the thing: a short but good game that you play several times gets the same playtime from gamers but costs less to make 
|
|
Really i think its the same its always been if the game is short but goood you will keep playing (Call of Duty 4, Uncharted:Drakes Fortune) if a game is long and good great!
The thing is some games afre too long, as i in some rpgs just seem to go on and on and on, and for what? i finished Zelda Phantom Hour as it was short but i dont think i will ever finnish Baulders Gate as i know its weeks of playtime.
|
