Games: Is there a reason they're getting shorter?

So, by now, I think we’re all pretty aware of the fact that games ARE getting shorter and shorter. If you weren’t, a trip to most video game forums would probably sort that out. But the matter brings up a question, and a good one at that. Is there a reason that games are getting shorter?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Hands Up For Games2909d ago

Is there a reason there getting shorter?

Yip, they cost more to develop, produce and market.

Give me a solid 10 hour experience any day though.

Quality over quantity.

Yi-Long2909d ago (Edited 2909d ago )

... right now I'm playing the original Uncharted, cause I'll be getting Uncharted 2 for Christmas, and TBH, I actually feel I would have preferred it a bit shorter, cause it's just very repetitive, which quickly gets me bored. I'm now at chapter 14, so I still have quite a way to go...

I thought Batman AA did it perfectly. Not too short, not too long, bringing in new gameplay-elements along the way, using the EXCELLENT 2D Scarecrow levels to mix it up, etc etc.

Now, when it's all over, it might turn out the length for both games is around the same. However, the difference is that Batman AA never got 'old' on me, yet Uncharted already feels it's just repeating itself over and over again.

TheBossMan2909d ago (Edited 2909d ago )

I prefer both, to be honest. Bioshock, Ratchet & Clank, and Mass Effect are prime examples of this. I don't see why we should accept a shorter game or one with lower graphical fidelity just because the developer doesn't put in enough effort to maximize both aspects of the game.

Side note: I'd rather some of the games on the market have multiple hours tacked onto the campaign than have useless throw-away multiplayer experiences that I will check out and abandon after a really short period of time.

Ducky2909d ago (Edited 2909d ago )

I remember Half-Life's expansions got criticized for being only 6-hour long... which was deemed short even for an expansion.
Now there's 6 hour long full-fledged retail games.

I don't see much quality in it either. There's a few well-paced games such as Portal, but overall, I haven't seen improved quality over what was offered in the previous gens. It's just getting shorter and prettier. Even replay value seems to be lower due to most games being easy. =/

... also, the article is a bit flawed with the space limit of physical media. GT5 only took around 20gigs, the poorer models were a time constraint. Audio is a bigger space hog than textures in most cases. The actual models, landscapes, etc, don't take up that much space.
Consider Crysis, it is one of the best looking games, yet only is 8gig in size.

Open-world games have poorer graphics since the hardware can't render the scenery. Although space is an issue, it isn't disc space, rather it's the shortage of memory that's the limitation. The hardware can't load all the heavy taxtures along with the various NPCs and dynamics of the game-world.
Prettier games are shorter because it takes more time to create the visuals. They could prolong sequences in each set-piece, but that would ruin the pacing. Making more set-pieces would take more time.

Vortex3D2909d ago (Edited 2909d ago )

Most games today are released with so many bugs and broken.

It's more like "quantity and quantity" where former quantity refers to rush to release and later quantity refers to sell as many copies as possible before the game goes to the bargain bin.

Quality is more of a hope today in games after multiple patches later.

dalibor2909d ago

Well you have to remember it's just not the length of the game that makes it short. It's also the difficulty of it. Back in the day games hardly had save points and you even had to use codes to start off where you left off, good old Castlevania games to name one. That made it seem like a lot longer of a game. This gaming generation seems like games are not as hard as they used to be.

AWBrawler2909d ago

Well, I'm big on RPGs and gothic styled games, so My castlevania's and DragonQuests are actually getting longer.
and as Hands up said:
its cost, hence why the Wii and DS has the longest games of this Gen. I know, because I played them. Monster Hunter demands 100 hours just to get the good stuff, and DragonQuest 9 took me over 90 hours cause Corvus is a beast (literally)

regardless a good game is a good game. I just hope games don't have to get shorter always, cos if HD zelda is going to be 6 hours only, keep it!

sp1deynut2909d ago

...but the Wii and DS don't have games that can touch the likes of Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout:NV, GTAIV, or Demon's Souls. Games that force you to grind, just to "get the good stuff", don't count toward longevity. If that's what matters, Borderlands kills those games, in that category.

Kee2909d ago

@sp1deynut Pokemon springs to mind.
I have over 60 hours in Heartgold and still don't have all of the badges.
I agree with Demon's Souls and Oblivion etc, but we're calling GTA IV a long game now? San Andreas was long, and kept it interesting. But IV was not a long game if you just played the story missions.

AWBrawler2908d ago


Thank you. It seems someone knows what I mean.And Monster Hunter isn't grinding as much as it is Joining clans and kicking a$$ online to make weapons from dead carcasses.

those games you mention (except GTAIV, Vice City is the only good GTA in my opinion) are all great games but the argument was longevity. If I was arguing Great games, I'd have said No more Heroes 2, Mario Galaxy 2, Smash Bros Brawl, Goldeneye 007, and games of that nature.

For those disagreeing with the truth, I dare you guys to name a PS3 or 360n game with longer MANDATORY play time then Monster Hunter, DragonQuest IX, Opoona, Arc Rise Fantasia, heck even Fire Emblem, Metroid Prime Corruption, and Tales of Symphonia:Dawn of the New World is longer that your average HD game.
It cost less to make Wii games, so developers are able to make longer games. That is my belief. Its all about cost, Why else would the 2nd longest RPG I played this gen be on DS?

AEtherbane2908d ago

Totally agree, and don't forget that there's a much larger focus on multiplayer and DLC.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2908d ago
scar202909d ago

They are getting rushed out the door a great example would be COD every year it's the same crap laggy matches overpriced dlc etc. this will continue until you stop giving developers you're hard earned money.

dantdj2909d ago (Edited 2909d ago )

I suppose so, but I've still known many a gamer that's felt cheated out of their money because the game is so short. Vanquish is a good example, most people I know completed it in about 6 hours, and they felt a bit cheated at the short length. 10 hours does tend to be OK, but you have to also remember that open world games have been wildly successful, with little to show off about graphics, and much longer gameplay than the standard of around 10 hours. Maybe I've become jaded with my devotion to RPG's.

Aimed at Hands Up For Games.

dantdj2909d ago (Edited 2909d ago )

Duplicate comment.

dantdj2909d ago (Edited 2909d ago )

Duplicate. Grr.

Sorry about that. Must have clicked a few too many times on the "add comment" button. :(

Show all comments (45)
The story is too old to be commented.