games are becomng too short and easy

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for liojager
#1 Posted by liojager (310 posts) -

ok ive noticed how short many games have become fora while now ...it seems like only turn bsed games have a lot of play time to them

and ive just started to notice that games have become EASIER as well two games that i think could be much more challenging and better are prince of persia and fable two

you simply cant die in thm wich makes it way to easy for my taste....whats the point in trying to stay alive if the only consequene is the enemy getting more heealth or you become less attractive wich in fable 2 is extremely insignificant :/

Avatar image for SSBFan12
#2 Posted by SSBFan12 (11981 posts) -
[QUOTE="liojager"]

ok ive noticed how short many games have become fora while now ...it seems like only turn bsed games have a lot of play time to them

and ive just started to notice that games have become EASIER as well two games that i think could be much more challenging and better are prince of persia and fable two

you simply cant die in thm wich makes it way to easy for my taste....whats the point in trying to stay alive if the only consequene is the enemy getting more heealth or you become less attractive wich in fable 2 is extremely insignificant :/

Yeah that is what games are being now I think it is alittle crappy if you ask me.
Avatar image for Legendaryscmt
#3 Posted by Legendaryscmt (12532 posts) -
For the difficulty, I'd rather have it now than it was in the past. Anyone remember playing Metroid with no guide? As for the length of the game, it actually depends on what the game design document the designer makes up looks like. On paper, a described level of a game might sound like it will take an hour to beat, but when it's actually put into action, it takes only half an hour to complete.
Avatar image for mfp16
#4 Posted by mfp16 (4551 posts) -
I will never understand why people want to be frustrated.... I think games have hit the perfect area of difficultly for the most part. The vast majority of games have a hard difficulty settings for those who want them... Those of us who lived through the NES generation of games remember the punishing difficulty of basically every single title. I'm quite happy with the current state... just right.... Length could be an area of contention, being an adult with a career I'm actually happy with the trend of shorter games as well. It means I can actually finish some of them. I could see that being an issue for some folks though so I can't blame you there.
Avatar image for a55a55inx
#5 Posted by a55a55inx (4188 posts) -

More development time is being used to create more details in each level, better A.I., more content, multiplayer, etc... it's a comprimise that the producers must make... I prefer this over a lengthy game with less content...

as for the difficulty level in recent games, I agree that it's a shame for the hardcore, but as costs for developing games increases, the producers have to make more comprimises to attract the casual audience as well. If it's too hard or complex, the casual gamer will be turned away from the game. For many video game companies, it's about the money...

Avatar image for death919
#6 Posted by death919 (4724 posts) -
I dunno if they're becoming SHORTer (were there really 20 hour games for NES? Well I'm sure they were but that wasn't the STANDARD or anything like that). They are becoming easier though, but I wouldn't say that's a bad thing. Part of the reason that alot of old games were hard was because they gave you so little direction so you never really knew what to do next, but I like how new games give you direction. And besides, pretty much every game has a Hard option for difficulty in case you want to challenge yourself. So I don't think it's true that games are getting shorter and easier.
Avatar image for liojager
#7 Posted by liojager (310 posts) -
I will never understand why people want to be frustrated.... I think games have hit the perfect area of difficultly for the most part. The vast majority of games have a hard difficulty settings for those who want them... Those of us who lived through the NES generation of games remember the punishing difficulty of basically every single title. I'm quite happy with the current state... just right.... Length could be an area of contention, being an adult with a career I'm actually happy with the trend of shorter games as well. It means I can actually finish some of them. I could see that being an issue for some folks though so I can't blame you there. mfp16
i dont want to be frustrated i just want some sort of a challenge isntead of of being like oh he hit me whatver and its like oh you beat prince of persia? big deal theres nothing to kill you
Avatar image for Zweihand
#8 Posted by Zweihand (608 posts) -
I prefer games which are short and incredibly challenging. Gradius V, Contra, and Dodonpachi come to mind.
Avatar image for MMMDKS
#9 Posted by MMMDKS (25 posts) -

I think the biggest problem with games now is online multiplayer. I think it's a great thing to have(don't get me wrong I lOVE it for games like KZ3 and MW2 and etc.) but because all the systems have the abilitly to go online and play multiplayer they're constantly working on how to make the multiplayer a better expierence and to get people hooked on it that they're sacrificing the quality of the single player. :? AND the other interesting thing is that games that use to be soly single player type games(IE MGS,GTA ETC) are all getting little added multiplayer things to them(and it's usually online now) to also get people hooked. and because so many games are going for the online multiplayer and how to make it better(IE Zombies,60 player online death match, Create your own class etc.) that they're now sacrificing their single player games by making them shorter,less fun and also less interesting. Take for example Killzone 3: Awesome game loved the whole thing but how many people really played the single player past the first mission? or even ZBlack opps and the upcoming MW3 how many people will really play the single player? probably not many people. And I think that's also partly the reason that places have added that 'Online Pass" it's not because they want people to pay to play the online it's because they want people who buy the game to play more then just the MP. I bet you if you talked to every single person you knew that owned say Black opps or Kill Zone 3 etc. and asked them if they ever tried the single player that 9/10 of them would either say "No". or say 'Only once then I played the multiplayer" It's just this thing now. Companies are so pressured to make the multiplayer better and etc. that when a new game comes out THAT'S WHAT THEY PREMOTE. they will premote the single player ALITTLE bit but most of the comercials and etc. that you see they're promoting the multiplayer. the vast majority of people out their want the multiplayer now instead of single player so their voice is heard louder then the people (like us) that would either want a well ballanced single player and multiplayer or just a really good single player campaign. I personally would like to see more work put into the single layer aspect og games(IE more mission,better looking missions and etc.) and that they just keep them ulitplayer relativly the same as the last instead up making it bigger and bigger and making the single player smaller and smaller. If this keeps up it's going to get to the point where their will be NO SUCH THING as a single player campaign and it will all be either online multiplayer or online co-op campaigns.

Avatar image for Ballroompirate
#10 Posted by Ballroompirate (26014 posts) -

Think back to when you first started gaming, you were like probably 10 (I was 11), of course playing video game when you're younger it's gonna take more time than say when you're an adult like now.

I remember a few years ago I thought I would try a speed run through Resident Evil 2, which was a game I beat in around 10-15 hours back in 1998 (I was 12 then), I did that speed run and it took me 59 min and 35 sec to beat RE2.

Conclusion, games haven't gotten shorter, you've just gotten older.

Avatar image for firefox59
#11 Posted by firefox59 (4530 posts) -
I dunno if they're becoming SHORTer (were there really 20 hour games for NES? Well I'm sure they were but that wasn't the STANDARD or anything like that). They are becoming easier though, but I wouldn't say that's a bad thing. Part of the reason that alot of old games were hard was because they gave you so little direction so you never really knew what to do next, but I like how new games give you direction. And besides, pretty much every game has a Hard option for difficulty in case you want to challenge yourself. So I don't think it's true that games are getting shorter and easier.death919
This so much. Games have become "easier" because gaming has evolved. New graphics, gameplay, AI has changed gaming, it's just a different type of difficulty than what it used to be. And I never understood the length issue. Were FPS's really that much longer back in the day? And they for sure didn't have the 80+ hour RPGs they have now. It just depends on the genre and how these genres have grown and evolved.
Avatar image for YoungSinatra25
#12 Posted by YoungSinatra25 (4314 posts) -

****ing Casuals!!! Hate casuals!.. Aaahh.
Seriously casuals are ruining gaming and its the devs fault...

Need more games for core gamers.

Avatar image for Technomancer82
#13 Posted by Technomancer82 (215 posts) -

I actually enjoy the balance we have in games of today that allow players to play through most of the major titles in 10-15 hours on the normal difficulty.

If you really want your game to be more of a challenge or take longer, then most games offer a difficulty level setting that should keep you satisfied.

As an older gamer I find that I would simply being unable to have enough time to play all the games that I want to see, if I had to dedicate 30+ hours for every single title.

I actually wrote a blog post about this very subject and why I like it that you might want to check out:

Why casual friendly games are great for some gamers

Avatar image for El_Zo1212o
#14 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6057 posts) -
Why casual friendly games are great for some gamersTechnomancer82
You make some interesting points. I think the problem has more to do with the construction of a game, though- take, for example, my favorite short game: WET- WET had it all; a killer soundtrack, a badass heroine, jaw-dropping setpieces, and an utterly exciting campaign(which lasted between 5-8 hours). And that isn't even taking into account actual gameplay mechanics. Compare it to one of my least favorite short games: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2- an utterly generic 3-hour-long campaign with 1 truly breathtaking scene- the gulag escape. The only thing the game got famous for was 1. being the successor to the first modern, realistically portrayed FPS, and 2. it's multiplayer. And finally, "Casual" isn't an issue of length, it is an issue of depth- the difference between "casual" and "core" can be likened to the difference between flash games and PC games, mobile(iphone/android) gaming and handheld(DS/PSP), or something comparable on consoles(Fruit Ninja Kinect vs Gunstringer/Rise of Nightmares or Carnival Games vs SM Galaxy).
Avatar image for JusticeFromSeed
#15 Posted by JusticeFromSeed (336 posts) -

You can change the difficulty, mate. As for length, let's have this same conversation when you're trying to keep up with school and a 30-40 hours job. I'm afraid to pick up Skyrim because I know it'll take me 6 months to finish...

Avatar image for SaintJimmmy
#16 Posted by SaintJimmmy (2815 posts) -
I definitely agree its a trend i've noticed for awhile anymore They hold your hand for a few hours and thats it..
Avatar image for Ashley_wwe
#17 Posted by Ashley_wwe (13412 posts) -
Yeah, it's been like this for a while now. Some examples: Call of Duty. It stopped being long and hard after the first Modern Warfare (but then again, even that was slightly easy at times and not exactly the longest CoD game) Tomb Raider. It started to get easy when Legend was released, and that was the first one on the Xbox 360. Battlefield. My first Battlefield was actually 2: Modern Combat on the Xbox 360, but it's still a good example. Even though I didn't like the campaign of Modern Combat, it was still really difficult in comparison to the more recent Bad Company 2, which was pretty easy, to be honest. After CoD: MW3, I want to see (although it not happen) another CoD title similar to the original all the way up to the 3, but I don't see that happening again. Just think of it as still experiencing a generation of games. When you look back on it it will be "the easy generation" ;).
Avatar image for gagit811
#18 Posted by gagit811 (3632 posts) -

****ing Casuals!!! Hate casuals!.. Aaahh.
Seriously casuals are ruining gaming and its the devs fault...

Need more games for core gamers.

YoungSinatra25

I'm used to be as hardcore as they get, I had to complete every game I got 100%. Now I've got two kids a wife and Job I just don't have time to play like I used to. I don't go out and buy every game like I used to. I do buy a few games I know I will have time to play and enjoy, but if the game is a GTA type I know I'm never going to have the time to beat it, So the end result I don't buy games that are too big. I don't mind a 10-15 hour game thats just right for me. I will agree they have taken any consequence for dieing out of games. In the end when you never see a game over screen or run out of continues. Games haven't necessary gotten easier, it just the fact that they have infinity lives and you never have to start the game over when you die. Old games you would run through 5 or 6 levels die and have to start over, they weren't harder because with a infinity lives code you'd beat the game same as you would now.

Avatar image for TheRaiderNation
#19 Posted by TheRaiderNation (1653 posts) -

As far as games becoming shorter, its really tough to say. Compared to older generations like the NES, SNES and Saturn/dreamcast days, NO. But possiblely slightly shorter than last generation's (PS2/xbox/gamecube).

As far as easier, YES. On the default difficulty, I can usually beat games this generation without a problem. Of course there are exceptions like Ninja Gaiden 2, or Demon's Souls, but those games are rare. Personally I do like challenge when it comes to gaming, I find that most games, if I set the difficulty to Hard the challenge is perfect! Sometimes I even go for the Insane mode and really test my skills.

Avatar image for BFKZ
#20 Posted by BFKZ (1726 posts) -
The problem is the game companies don't care about the fans like before, they used to make games as an art which turned into a business, targeting everybody which = more money, that's why now in some games most enemies are waiting to be killed in a certain way (standing infront a breakable wall, standing at a ledge for a while waiting for an execution, etc..) Iam starting to believe that games arent getting any better, only advertising is and how people overhype a game. But there are still some games to die for.
Avatar image for Witchsight
#21 Posted by Witchsight (12143 posts) -

I think the biggest problem with games now is online multiplayer etc etcMMMDKS

Ugh... Bumping a 3 year old topic with a wall of text? Thats a paddlin'.

Avatar image for Jurassic85
#22 Posted by Jurassic85 (2191 posts) -
He bumped an old topic, but its a relevant topic. I think the real issue is that gaming has been made too convenient. You can save every time you blink. There are no consequences for dying or getting a game over. That is the main issue to me. Games that allow you to save before you get to a boss. Then we hear people complaining that missions in a game like GTA IV are too hard. You can't please everyone.
Avatar image for Witchsight
#23 Posted by Witchsight (12143 posts) -
He bumped an old topic, but its a relevant topic. I think the real issue is that gaming has been made too convenient. Jurassic85
Its still valid, but id like to be able to at least have a hope to respond to the TC, less of a chance when hes probably years gone :( Im curious as what he thinks the "old" standard length would be... He cant be talking about SNES, or PS1 era, and games have had an average length of around 7 hrs lately, which really isnt anything to scoff at considering how quickly older games sometimes finished. But as you mentioned, they do seem to hold your hand and baby you much more. To the point where they seem to be more of an interactive movie than a skill based trial of endurance. Between dead space's waypoint system, and the copious quicksaves in many games, when you get one that shys away from them suddenly they feel lacking or overly stressful. Funny isnt it?
Avatar image for SoAmazingBaby
#24 Posted by SoAmazingBaby (3023 posts) -
Thats how it is. Especially with FPS.
Avatar image for Jurassic85
#25 Posted by Jurassic85 (2191 posts) -

Between dead space's waypoint system, and the copious quicksaves in many games, when you get one that shys away from them suddenly they feel lacking or overly stressful. Funny isnt it?Witchsight

Dead Space is the exact game that I was thinking of, as I am working on it right now. Sometimes its nice to be able to save all the time, but it seems like thoses waypoint saves are everywhere. Sure, you could just not use them, but the game constantly autosaves for you.

Avatar image for yagr_zero
#26 Posted by yagr_zero (27850 posts) -
Please don't bump old threads.