games are long enough. quit complaining

im sick of this attitude that every game needs to have a "fallout" length and the condescending attitude people have towards shorter action and adventure games.

even though a game may only have a 6 -8 hour campaign, that doesnt mean you will only play it for that long. for example, with the uncharted games, I always beat them once on normal, hard, and crushing (with uncharted 1 I went straight to hard). I also go through again to sweep up treasures and trophies. so overall that is around 20-25 hours. that is more than long enough for me to be satsified with my 60$ purchase.

thats not even taking into consideration multiplayer and co-op within these types of games and how they can extend replay value indefinitely depending on how much you enjoy it. so you could be looking at 50+ hours with these games.

regardless, lets say a game is only 6-10 hours long with no MP or co-op. will I begrudge a game for that or give it a weaker score? not if its a great 6-7 hours. i personally buy a lot of games. so, I dont need every single one of them to be a 30 hour investment of my time and i dont need a single game to last me a month.

I absolutely hate it when a game drags on.

Well people have to have something to complain about.

What do you suggest they complain about now? :P

Games as long as the average one now used to be a rarity and in many cases would get marked down in reviews for 'only' being 8 hours or so. I don't know about you but I'd like to get as much bang for my buck as possible, and that doesn't just mean the tacked on CoD multiplayer we see everywhere now.

I expect a lengty gameplay if I pay the full price for the game...

I dont need every single one of them to be a 30 hour investment of my time and i dont need a single game to last me a month.

arbitor365

That's wonderful, but unless they require a lot of time to get good at and 1CC or something a short experience is a negative for me.

I'll complain all I like if I feel it's justified. My perception of value is different from yours. You think every PS3 owner should buy Resistance 3, so that right there shows we aren't on the same page when it comes to gaming.

being honest paying £40 for some games with 4-6h campaigns and tacked on Co-op and in some cases tacked on multi and no replayability in the SP..yup thats really worth every penny.

Some games are worth the cash for coop (CoD spec ops survival looks good for me) or competative (BF3) but then theres homefront threw down the cash thinking it would be halfway decent and was greeted with cookie cutter tack on.

what amuses me is when people complain about the length of certain military FPS ... its like they started playing FPS in 2007 or something ...

they've always been short for the most part, and if they dragged on for longer than 5 hours they would become tedious.

There are several factors why I see 6-8 hours as a negative.

• You mention trophies and treasures. I dont give a crap about those. Heck, I dispise the use of trophies and achievements.
• Many games are not built towards being played over and over again like many older games were.
• A movie is about 2 hours, and the cinema costs like 15 dollars. But here is the thing, 2 hours in the movies would give me more enjoyment and a more enjoyable experience than a lot of these games.
• Here where I live games are 80 dollars.
• A lot of these modern multiplayer components are boring, Invasion mode? I would rather play Killing Floor. Competitive? Give me Quake Live.

To be frank, I dont feel like I am getting my money's worth from these 6-8 hour long games. I would forgive them if the game has good replay value, but with the increased emphasis on cinematic gameplay and set pieces, I dont see a big reason to replay many modern games. But I dont complain about them. Why? I just ignore these games and play other games. Zeldas, Mount and Blades, Drakensang, King's Bounty, Xenoblade, Rune Factory, Super Mario and quality mmos easily give me my moneys worth.

what amuses me is when people complain about the length of certain military FPS ... its like they started playing FPS in 2007 or something ...

they've always been short for the most part, and if they dragged on for longer than 5 hours they would become tedious.

rasengan2552

While it is true that FPS have always been short, many of these older FPSes had far suprior replay value to games like CoD.

Various games this gen can be beaten in a day, lol.

what amuses me is when people complain about the length of certain military FPS ... its like they started playing FPS in 2007 or something ...

they've always been short for the most part, and if they dragged on for longer than 5 hours they would become tedious.

rasengan2552

Half Life 2 +Eps

Halo 1

Halo 3

Halo Reach

STALKER

all FPS games from recent memory with good pacing and fairly lengthy single players.

a game should be a minimum of 8-10 hours for there SP campaign any less than that, the game belongs in the bargin bin regardless of how good it isreaver-x

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

what amuses me is when people complain about the length of certain military FPS ... its like they started playing FPS in 2007 or something ...

they've always been short for the most part, and if they dragged on for longer than 5 hours they would become tedious.

razgriz_101

Half Life 2 +Eps

Halo 1

Halo 3

Halo Reach

STALKER

all FPS games from recent memory with good pacing and fairly lengthy single players.

Well you can have fun with your short games. I'll be over enjoying games that have actual substance and things to do for 20 hours SF_KiLLaMaN

this is the pretentious BS im talking about. how aparently a game can only have substance if its over 20 hours long.

Game length is, generally, not a factor. The quality of the game is what matters. I've replayed U2 many times, but have only finished Fallout 3 once.

For me, U2 had more overall value because I played it for more hours, even though that isn't the only factor. If I hate a game, it may as well be 1 million hours in length because I'll never finish it anyway.

Achievements/trophies are stupid and I hope they DIAF. In game unlockables provide immeasurably more replay value than some silly little gamertag token.

Also, a lot of older games had insane difficulty based on memorization, and you only replayed the the game because you had to until you beat it. Those same games were only like 10 minutes long if you beat them in one sitting.

I think there is such a thing as too long, but great companies like Rockstar can keep that from happening. Ubisoft kind of went overboard though, Assassin's Creed was only about 20 hours average or so (which isn't much for an open world game), but it was stuffed with repetition in the same 3 activities. If they minimized that and kept the best parts in only, it would have been half as long, and I would have been totally fine. Same with Far Cry 2, the game was HUGE, but doing fetch and assassination quests over and over for 50 hours is a bit excessive.

Games like GTA and Fallout can keep that minimal though, so it isn't forced on you. You can fast travel and avoid side quests, while the biggest time wasters tend to involve just exploring or screwing around, while Dark Souls is long simply because of the challenge and need for patience (the whole game can be beaten in mere hours I hear with some skill and not exploring at all). Its great to have long games, but not if it means repetition and grinding. then its better to have a shorter, standout experience then a long, repetitive and less memorable experience.

That said, I despise the direction some games are going with 4 hour long campaigns like Homefront, Medal of Honor and Battlefield 3. Crysis 2 wasn't open world, it was semi open and ended up delivering just as many awesome thrills and great pacing as any 6 hour Call of Duty game in its 12 or so hours. Plus the Rainbow Six Vegas games keep a constant stream of new levels in the campaign, with some freedom and are around 10 hours. I definitely can't understand how some games are 6 hours and completely, unbreakingly linear when these games exist and still have some great multiplayer and variety.

When you pay 60$ for a game you beat that same day, something is wrong...

That being said most games dont really have that problem, and if they do they have a good multiplayer to make up for it.

It really depends on the type of game and the experience I have with it for me. >.>

I absolutely hate it when a game drags on.

freedomfreak

I absolutely hate it when a game drags on.

freedomfreak

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

what amuses me is when people complain about the length of certain military FPS ... its like they started playing FPS in 2007 or something ...

they've always been short for the most part, and if they dragged on for longer than 5 hours they would become tedious.

razgriz_101

Half Life 2 +Eps

Halo 1

Halo 3

Halo Reach

STALKER

all FPS games from recent memory with good pacing and fairly lengthy single players.

if you are talking campaign wise, halo reach's campaign took me exactly 5 hours to beat (counting cutscenes) playing solo, on normal mode. that is not a long campaign. and really, the campaign was incredibly dull too. so it was short and tedius.

i dont remember exactly how long it took me to beat halo 3, but it wasnt more than 7 hours.

Longer > Shorter. That is a fact.meetroid8

oh really? so "narrow-minded opinion = fact" now

L.A Noire is surely taking me a long time to complete, that game is long. Action Adventure games like Uncharted, InFamous, Assassins Creed which take 8-12 hours to complete are fine by me.AgentA-Mi6

How did you beat AC so fast? Can't remember how long the first one took me, but the second and BH were both evenly 24 hours.

Very good thread! We need more intelligent posts like this!

Longer > Shorter. That is a fact. Just like any other fault, I'll "complain" about the length.meetroid8

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]Well you can have fun with your short games. I'll be over enjoying games that have actual substance and things to do for 20 hours arbitor365

this is the pretentious BS im talking about. how aparently a game can only have substance if its over 20 hours long.

You see, the problem is, many modern games are not only shorter than 8 hours, but also lack substance. Sonic 2 is like an hour long. Yet it is forgiven because that game has a lot of substance as well as replay value. There are plenty of 20+ hours long games that have much more substance than your typical 6 hour shooter.

[QUOTE="meetroid8"]Longer > Shorter. That is a fact.arbitor365

oh really? so "narrow-minded opinion = fact" now

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"]Well you can have fun with your short games. I'll be over enjoying games that have actual substance and things to do for 20 hours Maroxad

this is the pretentious BS im talking about. how aparently a game can only have substance if its over 20 hours long.

You see, the problem is, many modern games are not only shorter than 8 hours, but also lack substance. Sonic 2 is like an hour long. Yet it is forgiven because that game has a lot of substance as well as replay value. There are plenty of 20+ hours long games that have much more substance than your typical 6 hour shooter.

what is an example of one of these substance-less short games? because if, for example, the uncharted games are on your list, than we will have a problem, because those games are full of substance and re-playability.

The game is as long as you want it to be, it's the story that the estimated times tell you about. Personally i like all games but shorter games (up to 8 hours) suit me fine else i start forgetting previous bits :? CoD 4 gave me around 20 hours of fun in the single player, shame the arcade modes aren't found in many games any more, i spent a few hours running through single missions over and over trying to beat mine and my friends scores.

[QUOTE="meetroid8"]Longer > Shorter. That is a fact.arbitor365

oh really? so "narrow-minded opinion = fact" now

It depends on the game. Some games can pull off longer campaigns like Zelda and some games can't like Okami. I think some games should be longer though like MADWORLD and Uncharted which in my opinion aren't long enough and definitely not worth full price for what they offer.

[QUOTE="Maroxad"]

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

this is the pretentious BS im talking about. how aparently a game can only have substance if its over 20 hours long.

arbitor365

You see, the problem is, many modern games are not only shorter than 8 hours, but also lack substance. Sonic 2 is like an hour long. Yet it is forgiven because that game has a lot of substance as well as replay value. There are plenty of 20+ hours long games that have much more substance than your typical 6 hour shooter.

what is an example of one of these substance-less short games? because if, for example, the uncharted games are on your list, than we will have a problem, because those games are full of substance and re-playability.

With the exception of UC1+2 Demos and the UC3 beta, I havent touched Uncharted. But what I did see there was a all flash no substance shooter. With heavy emphasis of set pieces killing replay value, insulting linearity, terrible level design, ect. Once I got done with the demos I had no desire to even touch them again. Pretty much the definition of all flash no substance.

But what came to mind are the Gears of War campaigns, Halo (2 and up) campaigns, CoD, and heck, pretty much every cover based shooter I had the misfortune of playing.

Though short games can still be excellent, game length is an important factor for me. I'd rather play a long awesome game than a short awesome one.

6-8 hours for SP is pathetic, except for games that overtly focus on MP (like BF3, or some RTS games... though RTS campaigns can be pretty long).

These days, I just refuse to pay full price for short games. If that's the case, I wait 6 months / 1 year to get a Steam sale or something. The good long games are enough to keep me busy that long!

No way. It does depend on the game, but I expect more than 6 hours. Games like CoD or Battlefield are focused on the MP component, so it doesn't matter, but Uncharted 3 was 8 hours, 3 or 4 hours shorter than Uncharted 2, and I'm going to complain about that!

6-8 hours isn't very long. If a game is in a genre I absolutely adore or really attractive I'll buy it at full price if I'm intending on playing it within a short time frame. The idea that 6-8 houts is long enough though is a personal thing, I don't think its fair to act like you can define it.

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[QUOTE="rasengan2552"]

what amuses me is when people complain about the length of certain military FPS ... its like they started playing FPS in 2007 or something ...

they've always been short for the most part, and if they dragged on for longer than 5 hours they would become tedious.

rasengan2552

Half Life 2 +Eps

Halo 1

Halo 3

Halo Reach

STALKER

all FPS games from recent memory with good pacing and fairly lengthy single players.

gonna give you a complete mind blow here, why cant a "military" shooter not have a good lengthy campaign with good narrative, Rainbow Six games were lengthy 3 was good and modern and essentially military.

But why should a stigma be attatched to military FPS games because of a few in the genre, i for one would love to see a good lengthy thought out campaign from a military shooter longest so far for me has been BC2 clocking in at bout 7h long.

im sick of this attitude that every game needs to have a "fallout" length and the condescending attitude people have towards shorter action and adventure games.

even though a game may only have a 6 -8 hour campaign, that doesnt mean you will only play it for that long. for example, with the uncharted games, I always beat them once on normal, hard, and crushing (with uncharted 1 I went straight to hard). I also go through again to sweep up treasures and trophies. so overall that is around 20-25 hours. that is more than long enough for me to be satsified with my 60$ purchase.

thats not even taking into consideration multiplayer and co-op within these types of games and how they can extend replay value indefinitely depending on how much you enjoy it. so you could be looking at 50+ hours with these games.

regardless, lets say a game is only 6-10 hours long with no MP or co-op. will I begrudge a game for that or give it a weaker score? not if its a great 6-7 hours. i personally buy a lot of games. so, I dont need every single one of them to be a 30 hour investment of my time and i dont need a single game to last me a month.

arbitor365

I have absolutely o interest in tropihies of achievements, and I hate treasure hunting. What I want to play is a good campaign, and it should last a while. $60 for 6 hours? Yeah, that's a ripoff.

UC3 has an eight hour campaign. Latest game with a really short campaign. KC_Hokie