Gamer Limit writes: "Today I was struck by a notion. A particularly powerful notion, rather uncommonly potent for something of this sort: why aren't there any two-hour games?"
That's as long as a movie is and for 60$? Worst idea EVER! Article - Fail.
Well he never really specified what sort of pricing scheme he had in mind for these shorter games. The problem as I see it is that it generally takes about 45 minutes to really get comfortable with the controls in a new game. That sort of leaves a lot less actual gaming time after you get familiar with how things work. Also the type of game he's describing where you control every little movement, etc, sounds a lot like an extended quicktime even rather than a "game" as we've come to know them. What would happen to games like Ninja Gaiden that require a lot of practice if his idea came to fruition? Probably nothing since there's room for all sorts of games out there, but it bears consideration.
Well he does have Fallout III as the article pic with a time clock of 2 hours.
Did you read the article? He didn't say anything about paying the same amount for the shorter games.
And he also didn't say anything about not paying the same amount for the shorter games.
Yes but it would be pretty daft to take that assumption.
Seriously, half of these articles are being written by people who lived in some cave for the past few years. For one, we have Siren and R&K on PSN both are around 2-4 hours, and are episodic.
Terminator Salvation is just under 4hrs and is utter trash. EASY platinum though...
it's because games don't tell their stories the entire time you play. at least most don't. most games have you involved in a lot of story-less killing and puzzle solving. yes action is great in movies. but i can think of a prime example of wher emovies have taken it too far. pearl harbor. that movie had like 45 minutes of planes bombing boats. after about 5 minutes i was satisfied, 10 minutes i was bored, 20 minutes i wanted to kill myself. when you watch action, it can only offer so much. when you get to play the action, it has so much more versatility. fact is, movies are passive entertainment. and most ppl don't have the attention span for long sit downs of watching other ppl do things. i'm still baffled professional sports do so well with viewers. then, of course, there's price... when it comes to most games, i say let them be as long as possible. games like bioshock, fallout, and mass effect are great. but i never want them to end and i do everything i can to get the most out of the experience before finishing them. sometimes i even stop playing just to delay the climax (the game's climax, not mine (most of the time)).
Portal is no longer than 2 hours. Ratchet and Clank: Quest for Booty is about 2 and a half. (longer on hard mode) But these games were not full price. I paid I think about $30 for both of them.
This is a neat idea, as long as the gameplay is diverse. Madworld was 2 hours long, and was a cool game. Although, if you have a short attention span and love short games, I'd suggest getting a Wii.
Also think about it. What would happened if Haze was a 2 hours episodic chapter instead? So much less frustrated gamers. Companies can save money with this. They can release a chapter and keep on going or close the project. No more 5 years buried on bad games or non sellers. Think about RPGs as books. Monthly, weekly or daily basis. Also gamers would enjoy a much bigger variety of games. As you could grab a 1st chapter for a few bucks. The game sells? Keep it rolling. They can keep bringing content for 5 years instead of raise the project that same time. Would get revenues in basis. Cya.
While I think that, trying to make the 1:1 analogy of video games and movies is a bad idea - thus, trying to make games shorter just to be more like movies would be bad - I still enjoy the concept. I've always believed that a game usually suffers from being long. When I hear that someone groans over finishing an FPS in eight hours, all I can think is, "You really wanted to play the same game for longer than eight hours!?"
I agree - Some games are far too padded out, with useless parts involving backtracking/sewer levels/repeated bosses just to push the game out a few hours. Shorter games could work well if they were very refined and removed every bit of fat. Obviously - RTS, RPG and other games that require length are the exceptions.
Well, for a game to be only 2 hours long, it would require loads and loads of replay value if it wants to be anything more than a PSN or XBox Live release (of which there are plenty of ~2 hour long games).
this guy was high on crack when he wrote this.
Well depends what kind of game this writer is talking about. There are alot games that are around 2-3 hours into the game. lol according to this writer games should be very short like films.
Very short, but very high production values. Which should work.
lol when I look @ this article from the Homepage I Laugh.. I was like WTF are you talking about...but yea we already have 2 to 4 hour game's...
go make a 2 hour game but it must fill a whole 50 gig bluray! id love to see them try do that, its like they would have no choice but to make the graphics and sound INSANE
I think there´s too many games today that are only like 5 hours long, like most of the fps´s. I usually only like the single player side of the fps these days which give me like 5 hour of game play for 60 dollar. Battlefield bad company is the only fps that I like too play the multiplayer part in. This is because that game has variation in the multiplayer, something most other fps lack.
This little article was aimed more at RPG-type games that emphasize storytelling. 2-hours wouldn't necessarily be the total length of the game, just the amount of story content. Ideally, it's the kind of game you could derive 60 hour from, like a normal RPG, only there would be actual story paths and branches. So that each time you play the game, you're getting something different. It's something like the epitome of the RPG genre that all these developers are sort of half-assedly reaching for, but is impossible due to budget constraints. A better title would have been, "Where are the 2-hour RPGs?"
On the PC, especially among the modding communities, you can find a whole heap of indie games that are cheap/free and easily fit into the timescale. I think in terms of high production values + short game times, they need to recoup their investment, and pricing would probably be more than people would want to pay for such a short game to meet.
psn and xbl games any one
Episodic and Downloadable titles are cool and I for one wouldn't mind some shorter RPGs(not necessarily 2 Hours) because I don't have anywhere near enough time to finish them all. It's another reason why I liked Echoes of Time, it only took a week of casual playing when I had some free time to finish the story but there's a whole lot of other stuff to do as well.
City Interactive makes them.
I remember paying $60 for the original Smash Brothers on the N64, and beating the single player in under 15 minutes :P But then again, that game had crazy replay value.
"Imagine a game with a truly branching storyline, where you control every action the protagonist takes. He or She could be a hero, or a villain–even a victim. The story could play out dozens, or hundreds of ways. Imagine watching a movie where you could decide exactly what the protagonist does (or says) at every opportunity? " END QUOTE Heavy Rain much?
So you can't win if you do, so devs don't worry about it for the most part; they just dump 'em on XBL/PSN.
If there is a game that is only 2 hours long I will expect to see it in the $5.50 bin at walmart. In my opinion, if it is a game I like, it ends too quickly, if it is a game I think is a slogfest, then I DO want it over in 2 hours so I can try to sell it on ebay or something. But 2 hour games is what XBLA were made for. And apparantly he didn't play the watchmen game.