Why I Rarely Complete Long Games

[Sarge]

Oh, you're definitely right, the times, they have changed. What's acceptable now and what was acceptable then is very, very different. I think of something like The Order 1886 that was raked over the coals for being a five-hour game. Yet it likely took far more development resources than any game in the 8/16/32-bit era. As games have gotten larger, longer, and more grandiose, gamers' expectations have risen in turn. Some are reasonable, others, not so much.

(You can see that there has been a slow progression of what is acceptable in terms of length over the years, too. Most PS1 games were longer than SNES games, which were longer than NES games, which were longer than Atari games.)

Of course, in a lot of ways, indies have stepped in to fill the shorter-game void. But even there, sometimes expectations are ridiculous. "Why, you've produced a five-hour game, and you have the audacity to charge $10! I won't buy it until it's $1!" (Of course, this ignores quality, and some indies are awful. For as much as we decry the AAA industry, there are very few actual stinkers in the bunch.)

Really, it's amazing how large the industry has become. It's both a blessing and a curse.

[Tanooki]

One of many reasons why I like retro games is due to the fact that you can beat many of them in an afternoon. I'm not sure when it happened but apparently if a game isn't 20 hours long "everyone" gets all upset. I on the other hand much rather have an awesome <5 hours experience and be done with it.

Seriously, a 20 hour game is like someone telling you there's this awesome movie in the theaters but it's 5 parts which are 4 hours each.

I love games and there are even games I think are amazing that I haven't finished due to this problem.

You're not alone, I've been there around 5 years now or so, excessively so in this period at least thanks to having a little kid. I even actually bought an aftermarket (retron5) console to help with it which just isn't my thing normally as I'm an OEM type of buyer only. I do and don't get that stupid argument of 20+ hours or it's time to get upset thing. When you're paying $60 for a game, if it lasts like 3-4 hours I'd be fairly angry too as I'd feel ripped off, but the way I combat that is waiting out for a price drop, clearance, or a cheap after market buy to negate that. You're right about the long game the 20+ hour title, it is much like trying to sit through something great but dragged out way too long -- like those Lord of the Rings movies, or worse the director's cuts adding like1+hrs to each...ugh. I want to watch them again, have since a year or two after the last (and still haven't watch hobbit) but the time...UGH. Same reason I will almost never buy a box set of movies/tv shows.

Games need to be easily saved, easily moved along in design to keep interest, and more of them need to be some 5-10 hour run. Sometimes less is more, and in that less you can get more because the game will be more focused on the content itself, not slogging out the story with menial garbage or fluff side crap. I recently sold Xenoblade on 3DS, at the 30 hour mark, and sat there for 6mo too before selling it only able to motivate myself once to use it in that time because of the slog. A game like that could have done without any of the side fluff and other garbage dragging it out easily cutting it down to 25-30hours.

I've got enough stuff I haven't finished, and I still get stuff which adds to it depending on the title if it's new or a repurchase I'd really love to tackle again (or never finished in the day.) It makes me all the more slow and choosy buying new games going forward and has for a year plus now.

[Exhuminator]

I would take a polished 5 hour experience over an artificially bloated 20 hour slog, yeah.

Still, I have played games that were over 100 hours long and I never stopped loving them the whole way through. Like FFXII for example. And in that regard, I don't think comparing the game to a movie is a proper analog. Rather it's more fair to compare it to an epic novel. If you're reading an epic novel that takes weeks to finish, but remains entertaining and rewarding for every page you read, does it really matter if it takes ten times longer than some short story collection? Sometimes less is more, yes. But sometimes deeper is more.

[ElkinFencer10]

I thought The Order: 1886 was fantastic. Yeah, it was short, but it told a great story in that time and had some fantastic character development and gameplay. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

[Erik_Twice]

Arcades featured tough games, because revenue was driven by quarters so more deaths meant more money.

While arcade games were harder than average, practically all games, no matter the platform or genre were significantly harder back then.

I actually wrote an article on this subject which explains my view on it called "The invisible hand of game design". It's a bit messy, but it can be boiled to two or three thoughts:

- Games of alll kinds, genres and platforms were significantly harder, more complex and took more time to complete than they do now.
- People are no less capable than they were before. So why has this changed?
- My explanation: Games were much more expensive and people could only afford a handful of them. So the drawbacks of very demanding games were diminished and the rewards became more important in the eyes of the buyer.

I also think that arcade difficulty is overblown and mostly has the worst of the bussiness in mind (Rail gun games, western quarter munchers) and ignores more clear examples of revenue enhancement like very short play times and multiplayer (Daytona USA, Street Fighter II)

[Sarge]

We should probably also be aware that most arcade games were even more brutal because the owners typically configured the dipswitches for the highest difficulty. Try playing Ninja Gaiden on the highest difficulty versus the default settings. I could 1CC clear it on the latter, but the former took me many, many attempts to beat.

[MrNash]

I'm in the same boat. As much as I like RPGs, finding time for them is tough at this stage in my life. I'm usually busy with other stuff now so when I sit down to play something shorter games are preferable. Nowadays I spend a lot more time on shmups, beat 'em ups, and arcade puzzle games and really enjoy them. Still terrible at the things, especially shoot 'em ups, but having a ton of fun and it gives me an opportunity to play some games without having to dive into one that necessitates a 30+ hour investment of my time.

[SonicTheHedgehog]

- Games of alll kinds, genres and platforms were significantly harder, more complex and took more time to complete than they do now.
- People are no less capable than they were before. So why has this changed?
- My explanation: Games were much more expensive and people could only afford a handful of them. So the drawbacks of very demanding games were diminished and the rewards became more important in the eyes of the buyer.

I read your article, and while the premise is interesting, I'm not sure I agree with it.

I still maintain the biggest difference is the size of the market. Master System/NES/TurboGrafx-16 combined to sell about 83 million units worldwide. The PlayStation 2 sold 155 million units alone. Wii/Xbox 360/PS3 sold a combined ~270 million units. There are way more people gaming now! The population today is 140% of what it was in 1986, and yet home console sales have jumped 325%.

I think the complex, arduous, difficult games you described appealed to original ganster gamers, but not to casual ones. For example, consider even Morrowind compared to Oblivion or Skyrim: I know many casual gamer friends that bought Skyrim day one that wouldn't touch Morrowind with a ten-foot stick -- it would be way too boring and bland for them. I think the driving force behind changes in a series like Skyrim is that they want to appeal to a wider audience to maximize sales. Dumbing down the skill system or adding quest markers just reeks of "mainstreaming" the game.

Demanding games still have a market though, don't you think? MMORPGs have like 25+ million active subscribers. I've never played WoW, but my friends that haved played since the beginning have complained that it's "not the same" anymore, because they keep dumbing it down and stripping it of its charm. There are a handful of private servers running off of old builds of the game that are targeting people yearning for the "glory days" of WoW (well, according to my friends).

Call of Duty churns out annual versions and it's one of the top-selling games every year; people don't buy that for the campaign, they buy it to play online, which has unlimited replay value... the thing about CoD though is the campaigns are usually short but unique -- story-driven, lots of highly-scripted events throughout levels, etc... again, it's not about skill/challenge, it's about the unique experience.

Skyrim is dozens (if not hundreds) of hours in length. WoW had 12 million subs at one point as in the ultimate time sink. Many people play CoD online (or zombie mode) religiously. These games are not short at all, and they are among the most popular. If anything, developers are criticized for making short games. Competition like Steam/Humble Bundle have made people feel entitled. If they're not getting what they think is good value, they hold it against games. I think cheap games has actually raised the bar/standards.

[Jmustang1968]

I think the difficulty issue has several factors.

1. Many games are looked at more as full gaming experiences with an emphasis on presentation, story, and immersion that used to not be there. Older games mostly focused on a set bit of challenges or in game skills to master.

2. Prevelance of game saves and checkpoints. Instead of starting from the beginning after a few deaths, you respawn at your last save or checkpoint. Less progress is lost.

3. Control. A lot of older games were artificially difficult due to frustrating controls.

I would also argue against the statement that games have become less complex. Some have, but some have become much more complex.

[SonicTheHedgehog]

I think the difficulty issue has several factors.

1. Many games are looked at more as full gaming experiences with an emphasis on presentation, story, and immersion that used to not be there. Older games mostly focused on a set bit of challenges or in game skills to master.

2. Prevelance of game saves and checkpoints. Instead of starting from the beginning after a few deaths, you respawn at your last save or checkpoint. Less progress is lost.

3. Control. A lot of older games were artificially difficult due to frustrating controls.

I would also argue against the statement that games have become less complex. Some have, but some have become much more complex.

I agree with all of these things.