Video Games Are Getting Shorter, They Don’t Have Much Meat on Them

Non-Fiction Gaming writer Meztrov laments the cost of AAA titles compared to the amount of time it takes to enjoy them.

Focusing specifically on Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes.

[incendy35]

I agree, but I am not sure that I dislike it. Many games in my opinion are too long, at least the story/campaign parts. Would rather games focus and create a great narrative in a shorter time and flesh out the gameplay through additional challenges, kind of like what Ground Zeroes did.

RPG's where you make your own story such as Skyrim, Fable etc don't fall into this category but games like MGS, Ryse, Tomb Raider, Last of Us, Uncharted etc I think they benefit from having a great narrative much more than they do from extended gameplay.

[NFGaming]

I agree in part. We actually scored MGSV: GZ quite highly.

I think some of the issue comes in from the cost vs time issue.

[incendy35]

Yeah, I would love to see the costs of games come down across the board. Seems they would sell so many more systems and conversely games if they just made the content more reasonable. The biggest barrier of getting into gaming is the ridiculous cost of content. Personally I don't think length plays a part in costs of games, same as I don't care if movies are long or short but I do wish the average price overall would come down to a level that more people could afford the games.

If they can figure out a way to get rid of used games and piracy I do think it could happen as their margins of returns will increase exponentially "similar to what we are seeing on Apple's App Store".

[fenome]

MGSV: GZ was just a prologue to Phantom Pain though, it wasn't meant to be a full game. I skipped out on it specifically because of the cost vs time issue. I'll probably get it right before Phantom Pain releases to get me in the groove, plus it'll be a lot cheaper by then.

I'm sure Dragon Age: Inquisition and The Witcher 3 will have a full buffet of content once they release :)

[3-4-5]

$50 Million used to get you a good 20-50 hours adventure.

Now: * $100 Million gets you pretty good graphics & an 8 hour game.

Next Gen for me, is more about content and gameplay than graphics.

[thricetold]

Same here, I stopped being wowed by graphics long long ago when I realized that you aren't going to just stand there and drool over the pixels the whole time and eventually you have to play the game.

Gameplay matters more to me, I mean how many times are you going to stop and look at the damn grass blades?

[3-4-5]

Graphics "wow" me for like 5-10 minutes and then from that point on, the Gameplay needs to be really fun, or bring something else to the table like a great story or really likeable cast.

[Activemessiah]

Never thought i'd see the words "Many games are too long" from a gamer... wow.

[ThichQuangDuck]

This is again a silly argument to me. Ha one I am a vegetarian,but really the meat of what I am trying to say is. Let this MGS Ground Zeroes thing go. I paid 40$ for MGS subsistence on ps2 when it came out. It had a full singleplayer that took me between 10-20 hours and a multiplayer. Should I have paid more because of how long I spent with it? Kojima has offered many values. Originally Ground Zeroes was going to be the only Metal Gear Solid game at all then he decided to do Phantom Pain 20-30$ for an interactable experience that can be played multiple times in different ways and has a high production value is not a "ripoff". Games don't need to be "long" because that quite often leads to a lot of filler princess in another castle moments. Games simply need to be fun and evoke emotion

[Activemessiah]

Man, do you know how many times I've been playing a gaming realising it's near the end and I just felt really sad because I was enjoying it so much? I don't play games to complete them... I want an experience, the journey and if the princess is in another castle then so be it, I'll go there.

[fonger08]

While most 1st person shooters are realitively short, and are back loaded with MP, I think games are just simplier now. I am by no means one those gamers who plows through the hardest setting with ease, but it seems many action/western rpgs I can just breeze through without even trying (Dark Souls/Demon Souls being the exception). I breezed through GTA, Infamous, Tomb Raider, South Park, Ryse. I understand there's the obvious tacted on side-quest stuff, but it rarely seems to add anything to main game worth enough to add difficulty or depth. It may just be me, I just feel too much has been put into presentation rather than depth or challenge.

[Clown_Syndr0me]

Games are becoming shorter and easier, in my opinion.
Either that or I'm getting much better at them, and playing through them twice as fast.
I'm rather dissapointed though that an increasing ammount of games seem to be released with around 6-8 hour campaigns.
Call of Duty, Battlefield, Ryse, Tomb Raider, South Park, Knack (on easier difficulties) I'm looking at YOU!
But then other games I've played lately like Assassins Creed Black Flag have been good lengths.

[Ghost_Nappa]

In what univers does a cod campaign last over 6hrs?

[Clown_Syndr0me]

The first couple definately did, for me at least.

[NexGen]

Doing everything on infamous ss also takes about 12 hours per morality. I love the game, but it's very short.

[styferion]

actually, games of old time feels long because they made the difficulty hard, and there's way less handholding: no waypoint in map, checkpoints aren't every 5 minutes or so..
I remember in the age of PS1 you have to read the conversation and guess by yourself how to advance the story, not like modern times when you just have to simply go to the dot on the map, kill monster, go to next dot, etc..

games were pretty hardcore back then..

[Pancit_Canton]

Getting shorter? Wait wut? Apparently none of you guys probably grew up in the NES,SNES or Playstation era. Most of the games takes about 2 to probably 10 hrs to complete with the exception of RPG's being an average of a 40+hrs completion. Pretty much the same standard of todays average gaming.

[Clown_Syndr0me]

I remember PS1 games taking far longer, however I was between the ages of 4 and 10 when I played those and often wouldnt get far in them.

[goldwyncq]

Definitely agree. One of the reasons why The Last of Us is so widely praised is that it's twice as long as the average AAA game, which is about 8 hours. It was so disappointing that Second Son only took me about 9 hours to complete and that's an open world game.

[KinjoTakemura]

Games are getting shorter because developers are listening to whiney, casual gamers who think that great graphics equal a great game.

[ShaunCameron]

Games been shorter. It's just that now you're less likely to die a lot due to design choices that would invite cheap deaths.

[AgentSmithPS4]

A game better have enough meat or we'll never meet, not meat as in time I want an experience that's sublime.

[AaronMK]

There is a distinction to be made between the length of a game and the amount of time you will spend playing it.

Back in the NES/SNES days, there were a lot more platformers that would put you back at the beginning when you ran out of lives. Those games probably only had an hour or two of real content, but you'd spend countless hours getting good enough at the game until you could complete it with a limited number of lives.

Compare that to the typical game of today that will save your position and essentially give you unlimited lives. Also consider that you probably won't play the game again once you complete it. This will typically give you, say, 8 hours of play time, but that will be 8 hours of actual content.

So, if you want the "long" games of the old days, play the games like people were forced to play them in the old days. Limit your lives and pretend there is an actual "Game over" screen sending you back to the beginning if you die too many times.

(Not that I'd personally do that. ;) )