Are games shorter now?

[bluestarultor]

You know, I seem to remember people complaining because FFX had ONLY 80 hours of gameplay, which was apparently less than previous titles.

I couldn't help but think that 80 hours just to get through a game was still a hell of a lot. Even if you played it 8 hours a day and did nothing else during that time period, it would still take 10 days. And I'm sure that's WITHOUT all the grinding and sidequests many people are apt to do. Seriously, playing it 4 hours a day still gives you the better part of a month's entertainment, and if you play Blitzball and get the Celestial Weapons and all that junk, you're probably looking at a full month's enjoyment if you're dedicating actual, well, dedication to it. And most people are liable to change it up with other things.


That said, my research on Torchlight puts it as a short game, which is disappointing, because their solution was to put in an endless dungeon after you've won to try to keep you occupied, which assumes people are playing just to grind instead of to, you know, beat the game.




I think it's really less of games being shorter as a whole and more a proliferation of individual short titles. I know that doesn't seem to make sense at first, but what I mean is that people rarely say anything if they feel a game is long enough, the same way they don't report hundreds of ships and planes going through the Bermuda Triangle safely on a daily basis. There are plenty of games that are long enough for their genre. Assassin's Creed II is long enough on its own to be satisfying and lets you dink around after the ending to boot. Dragon Age: Origins almost feels too long due to the way it's paced, but in a way, that's a good thing, at least after you get past the beginning.

Basically, it all depends on quality and pacing. If the game is good, it will always leave the player wanting more. If it's paced slowly, it will feel longer. These are independent. Your standard FPS has neither because they're selling them on multiplayer, but in general, single-player games are largely as long as they ever were from the 3D era forward.

[Regulus Tera]

You just got better at video games, which is why you can finish them a lot quicker nowadays.

Back in the day you had to try and retry a stage until you beat it. A lot of classics are indeed quite short. Hell, I think a normal average run (no whistling) of Super Mario Bros. 3 takes about three to four hours.

[Azisien]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

You know, I seem to remember people complaining because FFX had ONLY 80 hours of gameplay, which was apparently less than previous titles.

80? Maybe my memory's faulty but I beat it in way less time than that. And I don't skimp on side quests much either, though I rarely do them all.

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Games don't seem as hard anymore 'cause you aren't playing them with mushy little 10 year old fingers, and the reflexes of a kindergartner. Not to mention the 20+ years of experience.

Super Mario Bros. used to be really hard for me to beat, especially without using warp points.

I picked it up at my sister's house a while back, after not touching it for something like 13 years, and was able to play it straight through, no warp points, no dying, in something like 20 minutes. At a fairly casual pace, while chatting with my nephews, mind you.

I then beat Super Mario Bros. 2 much the same way.

Games were not more difficult back then. At least, not legitimately. The "hard" quality people remember is often due to piss-poor design, terrible controls, faulty programming, and just all around shoddy work. For example, Deadly Towers. It is quite difficult, but not for any actual good reason. It's difficult because it has absolutely ludicrous level design and it hides the power-ups from you in stores in these insane 80-room mazes. If it were better thought out, it might actually be a pretty decent game.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Originally Posted by Azisien

80? Maybe my memory's faulty but I beat it in way less time than that. And I don't skimp on side quests much either, though I rarely do them all.

It's about 40-45 hours for the story, with fairly minimal grinding and a few quests here and there. But I've put in a good 190 hours and still not got everyone fully levelled or beaten every boss, though a good chunk of that was spent on Blitzball.

Still not as long as Dark Chronicle though, 210 hours was my last count in 1 save file, and again, not maxed out all the best weapons, invented everything, or completed every side quest.

Dark Cloud was big enough at 24 hours for the main story, and another 24 for ONE dungeon to unlock the best weapon in the game. And I played some of these over again, more than twice.

So yeah, there are still long games out there. But then there's God of War which takes maybe 9 hours on your first run through, and barely 5 hours the next time. I've played it about 10 times though, so I know it inside and out.

You can always try Darksiders, that's got a good 20 hours to fully complete everything.

[Sifright]

I think the longest game I've ever play was a party based rpg dungeon crawler on the Atari even after 400+ hours I've not completed the game although I've later learned it's basically impossible as the game goes on forever despite that the game is very good fun at least I find it so doubt any here would have heard of it though, for those who are interested it's called Captive and it was written by Antony Crowther. I don't think I've put as much time into any other game and i'm including mmos ^^

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Regulus Tera

Back in the day you had to try and retry a stage until you beat it.

I still do. :^(?

[Nightshine]

The games aren't shorter.


They're dumber.

[Tev]

Depending on the players, Dokapon Kingdom can literally take weeks to finish.

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by Nightshine

The games aren't shorter.


They're dumber.

Oh yeah Nightshine I almost forgot, here's that avatar I promised you.