Amarok:
Games aren't getting shorter. Back in the day, games merely gave the illusion of length by simply not allowing you to save. Come on, Sonic, Mario, all the oldies, can be done in an hour, two tops.
System Shock 2 is only like 3 hours, a lot less than Bioshock (ok not a lot less but still)
What I have noticed though, through playing modern and retro games very closely together recently, is that older games are often much much harder, harder game = takes longer to beat, but once mastered, you can see 'em for the short little fuckers they truly are ^^.

I'd have to go with this and this makes the most sense. To add on to that however is that video games being produced are BIG BUDGET now more than ever before and it shows by having our industry of passion be bigger than music and I think movies as well. Their costs now rival that of movies with the amount of people needed to hire to work and produce the product. I'm also pretty safe saying that the Human resources department did not need to really work that hard compared to what they have to do for each game company.

Also games are shorter in terms of difficulty, they are easier to go through the first time compared to the trial and error days from the nes/snes and genesis. Games today hold your hand more than ever before compared to the tough love from the nes days of figure it out. When mastered however you will find in terms of length that the nes games are shorter than one would ever realize. Why do you think we have youtube videos of speed runs through these old nes games? Compare those speed runs to those of modern games and you will find that today's games are longer even when played by a master.

I really think the good balance was in the previous gaming generation or the N64/PS1. Sure there were tutorials and they started to show their ugly head but overall they were still pick up and play games where graphics started to grow but the attention to the games quality overall was still the focus. The games have speed runs and can be beaten in a short amount of time by a master but they were still beatable especially with the introduction of memory cards.

Games shorter? Not at all. Games used to be much shorter in the NES days, but took long to beat due to their high difficulty level.

Better graphics means more space is needed on the disk = shorter games.

And because shit-hot graphics are so important to most of you, you'll be forced to buy a new console every other year to accommodate this problem and play the modern medium.

DannyDamage:
Better graphics means more space is needed on the disk = shorter games.

But storage mediums are becoming far more substantial: you can fit more on a Blu Ray disk than a NES cartridge. Surely the balance between space and content will remain pretty constant as technology continues to evolve? I have noticed that games with multiple disks are becoming increasingly uncommon though. Perhaps developers think that multi-disk games give an impression of poor technical ability? Like they couldn't fit everything they wanted to on the available space. It sounds ridiculous but maybe disc changing really is that much of an issue for some gamers (although I find it hard to believe).

[It's interesting that the majority of posters in this thread don't think games are getting shorter but the majority of poll voters think they are... almost 60% in fact. Don't suffer in silence folks!]

harhol:

DannyDamage:
Better graphics means more space is needed on the disk = shorter games.

But storage mediums are becoming far more substantial: you can fit more on a Blu Ray disk than a NES cartridge. Surely the balance between space and content will remain pretty constant as technology continues to evolve? I have noticed that games with multiple disks are becoming increasingly uncommon though. Perhaps developers think that multi-disk games give an impression of poor technical ability? Like they couldn't fit everything they wanted to on the available space. It sounds ridiculous but maybe disc changing really is that much of an issue for some gamers (although I find it hard to believe).

[It's interesting that the majority of posters in this thread don't think games are getting shorter but the majority of poll voters think they are... almost 60% in fact. Don't suffer in silence folks!]

Did you read the rest of what you quoted? I said that the new machines will have to accommodate the disks.

I personally don't have a problem with multiple disks. In fact, some of the multi-disk games that I have look really nice in the boxes with all the artwork and such. HAVING to a single disk with a simple case/cover is the gaming equivalent to cheap pop music\chart dvds where costs are kept as low as possible because they're nothing but superficial art that's there to make money and provide entertainment in the most moronic form possible.

(Obviously not saying all 1 disk games are like that, but I like a little effort when it comes to artwork etc.)

EDIT: The PC version of XIII comes to mind for awesome presentation, as does the X-Files PC game (the OLD OLD one) that was on about 9 disks.

DannyDamage:
Did you read the rest of what you quoted? I said that the new machines will have to accommodate the disks.

Sorry about that. I must have misread what you posted. In my mind I probably thought you were making a general point regarding the increased importance of graphical muscle in the success of modern action games. It is interesting that the X360 still uses the same medium that the PS2 was using six or seven years ago though. That must have an effect on the amount of space developers have to work with.

zee666:
Games feel shorter, its not whether they are shorter but they do feel shorter and i don't really give a crap about multiplayer modes, I play a game for the single player and so am incredibly disgruntled grrrrrr.

Some developers have (partially) shot themselves in the foot in this regard. Resistance 2 is an obvious recent example: the singleplayer is routine and somewhat entertaining but the multiplayer is obviously the heart of the game. However, read any negative review and I guarantee it will solely discuss the singleplayer experience (understandable since servers won't be very busy at the time of review). We all know how some gamers take high-profile review scores to be the gospel so I can't help but think that the various sixes and sevens will have harmed sales somewhat.

Fightgarr:
A good deal of SNES games were like a half hour long. Games are getting longer in some categories and staying the same length in some. Some games (like Oblivion and Fallout) try and cram so much gameplay in that it becomes monotonous because 300 hours of gameplay that is all the same is NOT good game design.

Exactly, I liked ES3, but it was too big for its own good it got way to repetitive.
Not to mention most gamers plow through games like HALO and GEARS OF WAR and GOD OF WAR just so they can say they beat the game in less than a day. LEARN TO TAKE YOUR TIME PEOPLE! I'm not paying $60 just so I can beat it in 5-8 hours, I took my sweet time with HALO 3.

Tenmar:
Games today hold your hand more than ever before compared to the tough love from the nes days of figure it out.

That's very true. I can't remember getting stuck in an action-adventure or FPS for ages, whereas back in the day I would need to hints all the time. Perhaps it was because I was younger and less accustomed to the tricks of the trade? Things like Soul Reaver and Tomb Raider took ages to finish.

I guess checkpoints are more forgiving now since you only have to walk a few steps before each auto-save. Regen health helps with difficulty too. Are games more linear? Possibly. The correct path is always obvious, at least.

Of course it could just be that games are more competently designed than they were before. Nobody likes getting stuck, after all.

The games would be "longer" if the players didn't devote every waking hour to playing them.

You can imagine how non-entertaining entertainment can be when it's no longer entertainment and instead an absolute necessity.

All I know is that Minish Cap was definitely shorter AND easier than any of its predecessors.

It's the only game I've actively compared.

I think video games are shorter than usual but now a days a game can be super short if it has an online mode and pepole will says its good like halo 3 short story mode with online play and that is the only reason all the video game magazines gave them 10/10 or 9/10 i think it is so stupid

DannyDamage:
I personally don't have a problem with multiple disks. In fact, some of the multi-disk games that I have look really nice in the boxes with all the artwork and such. HAVING to a single disk with a simple case/cover is the gaming equivalent to cheap pop music\chart dvds where costs are kept as low as possible because they're nothing but superficial art that's there to make money and provide entertainment in the most moronic form possible.

(Obviously not saying all 1 disk games are like that, but I like a little effort when it comes to artwork etc.)

I have to say I agree with you. I don't see why gamers should have a problem with multiple discs if it means a longer game.

And I doubly agree on the artistic comment, I recently got the special addition of Prince of Persia, comes in a nice box, a little artbook given background on one of the enemies, a bonus content disc and then the game, and I'm seriously gonna treasure it for ages now because I also loved the game.

As for my opinion, see the following :

MurmurTwins:
The games would be "longer" if the players didn't devote every waking hour to playing them.

I honestly have to agree, and thats because I'm one of those people.

games have always been this short... its just the difficulty that needs work

Sandbox games are getting deeper and providing more for the player to do before the "OK, I've done everything, time for a new game" factor sets in. Civilization IV includes a deliberate slowdown in the form of "Marathon" mode, and the expansion pack for Medieval 2 provides four (count 'em, FOUR) full campaigns that could probably stand on their own as games in the hands of a lesser developer---the install took up almost 5GB, and that was an x-pack for a 2006 release.

I find I'm getting a LOT more play out of my games than I used to before needing to go out and buy a new game to keep up the novelty factor.

Fragamoo:

MurmurTwins:
The games would be "longer" if the players didn't devote every waking hour to playing them.

I honestly have to agree, and thats because I'm one of those people.

There are too many good games to waste time doing other things.

:)

I don't know, it's taken me 3 days of playing in total to get 2 thirds of the way through COD 5 on normal. That's not all that short!

I don't think games as a whole have gotten a lot shorter, but with the release of the now 'last gen' consoles, and the introduction of more action oriented games which eventually came with it, such as the Halo series, the length of gameplay was shortened significantly from, say, the 50 hours or more many of us spent on our first playthrough of Ocarina of Time.

I remember when San Andreas was critically acclaimed for having 20 hours of gameplay time even when rushed. I think it around there was when the length of games hit an all time low, and developers started to clue in that when they deliver a game which lasts under 10 hours for the regular gamer isn't giving people their money's worth.

So now we see either games such as (regretfully) Call of Duty 4, with a somewhat long but below average length. and instead is more multiplayer oriented, and games like Mass Effect, which focus solely on singleplayer and deliver a long, engaging experience. Oh, not to mention the increase in free-roam games such as Fallout 3.

Reap3r:
Developers started to clue in that when they deliver a game which lasts under 10 hours for the regular gamer isn't giving people their money's worth.

But most of the examples you listed as lengthy games are RPGs (Zelda, Fallout, Mass Effect). I was talking about pure action games. Was there ever a period where action games regularly topped the ten hour mark? I say no.

It seems to me that some gamers think all games are a waste of money unless they perform exceptionally or demand substantial play time the first time through. This is hardly ever going to be the case with most action games, so you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

I think that the quality is more important, because i was running around smacking random monsters forever in Final Fantasy XII when I noticed that game clock hi over eighty hours, then I decided to go beat it and I haven't played it since.

Amarok:
Games aren't getting shorter. Back in the day, games merely gave the illusion of length by simply not allowing you to save ... Older games are often much much harder, harder game = takes longer to beat, but once mastered, you can see 'em for the short little fuckers they truly are.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. This, along with a heavy dose of teary-eyed nostaliga, is probably the main reason why so many people think games are shorter now. Still, about twice as many people in this poll think games today are shorter. Maybe we are wrong. I guess the lesson to be learned is that everyone is very confused.

Pyronox:
Heh, it's all relative.

This thread is worthless. I apologize.

=(

I wish games were longer not super long but just long enough. Developers think they make a short game and just add online to make it longer.

Yes, games are shorter. That's really not a bad thing most of the time.

There was once an interview with the bungie team regarding Halo 2. One of the developers commented that their goal was always "30 seconds of fun". By their reckoning, in all of the original halo there were only a total of 30 seconds worth of unique activity that was fun (sticking a plasma grenade to someone for example, blasting people with a tank shell and so forth) stretched out over the many hours it takes to complete the game. If you look at a lot of games in the past you'll find that many of them have even fewer seconds of fun and yet drag on the game for dozens if not hundreds of hours.

HL 2 is a great example - it's notably shorter than the original and yet is regarded by many as being vastly improved in every area. While it is perhaps only 1/3 the length of the original game, there were no elements that seemed to overstay their welcome (anyone else get tired of jumping puzzles long before the xen world was completed?)

Eclectic Dreck:
There was once an interview with the bungie team regarding Halo 2. One of the developers commented that their goal was always "30 seconds of fun" ... If you look at a lot of games in the past you'll find that many of them have even fewer seconds of fun and yet drag on the game for dozens if not hundreds of hours.

Xenogears is horrifically boring for the first fifteen hours but is still one of the best games ever made. I've never been a fan of the 'cheap thrill' kind of gaming. I'm not saying that in an Escapistian attempt to sound sophisticated, either; I genuinely don't like those types of games.

Eclectic Dreck:
HL2 is a great example - it's notably shorter than [HL1]...perhaps only 1/3 the length of the original.

It's been a while since I played HL2 but I'm pretty sure the two games are roughly the same length. The original only takes seven or eight hours.

I think that the quality and quantity of games has gone down greatly in the last 15 years. A good example is in the Metal Gear series I own the original MG for the NES and I have finished it only once and it took me about 2 weeks of religious game play. Now I got MGS4 last year and finished it in 8 hours of religious game play on extreme difficulty the first day that I owned it and I have finished it a whopping 25 times. If that's not a testament to the degrade in quality of games I don't know what is.

I want a developer to design what I've been calling the "Worthwhile 5 Hour Game" it's a 5 Hour Game with about 20+ hours of replay value, basically the idea is that you present a fast, fun, no frills experience that noticably changes in response to the players actions with changes in both Storyline and Gameplay. Hence every playthrough can be a notably different permutation of the 5 Hour Game. Hence the person who has no time gets their fun 5 Hour experience, the hardcore player gets more if they look for it.

Miyamoto says games are too long, and I'm inclined to agree with him. People have to know when they've stopped being entertaining and started being annoying, and too many games fall over that line these days.

I havent been playing much of these years game but i picked up res 4 one day and it took me aobut a week jsut to save the presidents daughter and ive been stuck at the part stuck in the house for like 3 months (havent played much wii in that time)

They are definitely getting shorter. Nowadays, RPGs have you killing the final boss summoned by the main bad guy before you even have enough time to let it sink in that you're the chosen one!

Seriously though, Final Fantasy VII took FOREVER (granted, I was about 8 years old), but still! I have trouble spending $50 on a 10-hour game. I just won't do it anymore.

Longer, but its truly great games that are short, Resident Evil 4 for example...
15-20 hours, yeah but can anyone say it was long enough?
More please.

they are getting shorter because of online play :\ which is unfair on the xbox 360 for those of us who can't afford gold, but great us ps3 users :)

Contrast: Baldur's gate series
Morrowind

to

Mass Effect,
Fable II

or any game released recently claiming to be an RPG. Although Mass Effect was one of the games that offended least at this, it was still no way near as long as Baldur's Gate 2.

Western RPG's are certainly shorter. And possibly shooters too.

I finished Mirror's Edge in about 8 hours, which is just pathetic, but I remember spending a total of 42 or so hours on Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. GTA IV was also kind of long. So I guess some are longer and some are shorter.