Do you feel like games are getting shorter in length

Of course they are, look at the length of time it took to beat Call of Duty 2, now look at how long it took to beat Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Call of Duty: World at War.

I think games are getting shorter in length, but better in quality, and I enjoy that tradeoff!

Not particularly.  For every Call of Duty 4 or other similarly short game, there are other games that more than compensate for that short amount of time.  And most short games nowadays have either multiplayer components or artificial hooks to rope you in for multiple playthroughs.  For example, a game like Disgaea 3 could be finished reasonably fast if you were just playing for the main quest, but when you delve into the Item World, start maxing out characters and weapons, and discovering new skills and the like, there are hundreds of hours of gameplay.  Not to mention, you've got the continued strength of sandbox or open world games like Grand Theft Auto, Saint's Row, and The Sims, which beg far more time in exploration and ingenuity than actual story length.

Well yes, I think if you took a measurement of the average length of games, and did some fancy-shmancy math, you'd find that the average length is probably down by about 1/3.

Clearly they are getting shorter

Yes, because they are also getting easier.

" Clearly they are getting shorter "

" Yes, because they are also getting easier. "

depends on what game you are talking about. 

Games in the 80's and 90's were HARD, so they took forever to complete. Games today have to be glossy and short seeing as the average American youth's attention span (thanks in part to the new form of television shows like Big Brother and American Idol) has gone down the shitter.

All I've been playing this year are RPGs and they don't feel any shorter.  I'm still putting in 50 to over a 100 hours on each game I've played.

Not really. Easier, yes, but not shorter.

Well it's some and some really, if they are, I'd say it's due to increasing dev costs and the inability to up game prices within a single generation (though MW2 seems to be bucking the trend).

" @Oriental_Jams: I agree, its down to the dev costs. But I don't see that as a problem. The way forward is a sharp, polished 10 - 15 hour campaign and then DLC to keep you playing after release. "

" @girdz said:

" @Oriental_Jams: I agree, its down to the dev costs. But I don't see that as a problem. The way forward is a sharp, polished 10 - 15 hour campaign and then DLC to keep you playing after release. "

Same here, most games until this gen I never got around to finishing anyway. "

The only game I thought was too short was Fable 2. Loved the game but I feel like I got ripped off for the $60 price tag.

When were games longer? Most NES era stuff can be completed in anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour, and the same can be said for a lot of SNES/Genesis stuff. There are still plenty of massive games hanging around, and that's only counting single player...

Yeah..but they're getting more online / other stuff to collect, unlock, max out or things of that nature

I played the Original mario and it took like 10 mins and it took me like 70 hours to get through Fallout 3 so no.

yes, i think that they are getting shorter. soon games are going to be online only with a story line. sadly it will happen, some of the older gamers are going to be sad about it. i kind of hate it that games are like this. i want a great game that is long instead of short and brings to online play.

Yes, that's why I don't feel so bad that I only have money to rent games now and that I only purchase occasionally.

I absolutely feel that games are getting shorter, and I'm conflicted.

On the one hand, I no longer have the patience for traditional JRPGs, since sinking a bajillion hours into one game on a single run-through doesn't sound that appealing. Making RPGs shorter allows me to see the storyline and get the powerful weapons without devoting weeks of my life to the game.

On the other hand, the same thing applies to action games, and action games can be beaten in a matter of hours. Think about it: last generation, a first person shooter would be criticized for being too short if its campaign only lasted 9-10 hours. These days, a six hour campaign is par for the course. And when you get right down to it, the quality doesn't matter. There are innumerable gameplay improvements, sure, but a shooter is a shooter. When you get right down to it, the biggest difference in the way Halo 1 and Halo 3 feel while you're playing them is that Halo 3 is much shorter. And I don't like that at all.

" Games in the 80's and 90's were HARD, so they took forever to complete. Games today have to be glossy and short seeing as the average American youth's attention span (thanks in part to the new form of television shows like Big Brother and American Idol) has gone down the shitter. "

" I played the Original mario and it took like 10 mins and it took me like 70 hours to get through Fallout 3 so no. "

I don't think they're shorter compared to the last generation. 3D games haven't been around for that many generations and they've only gotten better. Different genres add different lengths, but I do have expectations. FPS... 10 to 12 hours is cool, but some buy it for the multi-player, so it could be shorter for them. One of the reasons I never bought Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. RPG... 35 plus gameplay hours is cool. Third person games, Dead Space took me about 11 hours to complete and Assassin's Creed about 14 hours. All good in my book.

So, no. I don't think games are getting shorter.

" Games in the 80's and 90's were HARD, so they took forever to complete. Games today have to be glossy and short seeing as the average American youth's attention span (thanks in part to the new form of television shows like Big Brother and American Idol) has gone down the shitter. "

Shorter, easier and less variety.  I have never liked FPS or 3rd person open world games yet that seems to be all that's released anymore.  The only games that appeal to me anymore seem to be games you get on Xbox Live because they are usually different and are actually fun.  For the same 60 bucks I could buy a shooter that I'll play through once then play multiplayer for a day or two before moving on and lasts 6 hours I could buy Castle Crashers, SF2THDR, 'Splosion Man, Worms 2, and Monkey Island or many other combinations of arcade games that would equal many more hours of play time and have variety to them.

Of course, but that is only because alot of developers seem to care more about online than single player.
They are also getting much easier.

I don't think so. With games like Gears 2, Halo 3, Modern Warfare, and so on, they couple a average length single-player game with some awesome online. Now, games like Assassin's Creed which are average games with average length and an average storyline don't get the same praise. Sure, it was an OK game, but not one that I would go back and play again or anything. Most N64 games are the same length as the average games of this generation. Most were of decent length: 10-15 hours to complete. Then you had the games like Donkey Kong 64 and Jet Force Gemini which ended up in the 30-40 hour time frame. Of course there were still RPGs that would take 50+ hours or whatever but that hasn't changed.

Really, I just think that games are getting a lot easier. No more game overs, no more continues, autosaves after every 10 minutes, quicksaves for every PC game, run-and-gun gameplay (not to mention smart players who make good use of cover mechanics can make it without getting hit for basically the entire game), and simply lower difficulty levels are making the games shorter. I'm sure that time constraints, budgets, and manpower are all major factors in this generation, but it doesn't mean that all games are shorter now.

They are getting much shorter, and more expensive. I feel that the overall quality has increased though.

it's a balance between yes and no.

Yes, modern games are getting shorter but the amount of time and effort it takes to create that shorter game far exceed the time and effort to create a much longer game with the previous generation of technology.

However, at the same time, when you go even further back in time to the NES, SNES etc, games were horrendously short, sometimes even 25 to 30 minutes, the only thing that made them longer was the fact they were so difficult.

I honestly don't mind when a game lasts for about 6+ hours, but any less than that and I begin to feel ripped off REGARDLESS OF MULTIPLAYER. I don't give a fuck about multiplayer, I would rather they put that time and money into the single player and developed and sold the multiplayer seperately.  That's for full retail games anyway.

Yes I suppose they are getting shorter, at least the more well known games, but i'd say the actual majority of games on average are about the same length they've been since the beginning of the PS2 era. PS1 games I don't know about, it had a lot of longer platformers, and a lot of RPGs, and it also had a lot of difficult shorter games. I wouldn't be surprised if it was roughly the same.

For my money I prefer a game to be around 7 or 8 hours long on my first playthrough, any less and i'm dissapointed unless it was astoundingly high quality, and I realise any more is just an unrealistic expectation given the current focus on multiplayer and the sheer amount of time it takes to develop the art resources people demand today. Heck, an artist can spend 200+ hours on the main characters FACE for gods sakes.

In general, yes, but mainly because most games tone down the difficulty. Thankfully, many of these same games include some ridiculous hard mode that can extend the life of a single-player game by a lot if you're into that kind of stuff.

RPGs though, I'm really not feelign a change in length. I'm playing Hand of the Heavenly Bride right now and it feels pretty long. Multiple endings and a fairly long plot to begin with keep me from feeling ripped off by a lack of content.

Nope.

Infamous was where it should have been (20ish hours). Heck I've played it twice and it was sweet both times.

Killzone 2 had a short story mode (Honestly, I don't think it needs to drag on any longer than it did), but has long online legs.

Valkyria Chronicles was a nice length, also I occasionally play it again when I want to relax.

Fallout 3 isn't Oblivion length but it is a time sink.

Motor Storm 2 had a lot of races in single player. Not to mention online play.

A lot of my very recent DS and PSP games clock almost over 100 hours.

I've spent at around 50 hours on SF4. Around 40 on SC4.


So far... It's been pretty much the same as my PS2 era.Now if they'll just reduce the price by 10 bucks... I'd probably play more games... Game corporations should understand they are making less money off of me... And I'm pretty sure others also buy a bit less.

Incidentally, my handheld gaming time is increasing due to its price point.

It depends on what games you are talking about. The standard for shooters is about 8 hours, but they usually come with online play. All other genres have stayed about the same. RPGs are still hella long. Most platformers have gotten longer. Fighting games now have online play. If you look back some of the best games of the 80s were shorter than the standard shooter. For  example I can beat Mega Man 2 in a about 4 hours and that is one of the best games ever made.

I still feel sad about how blasphemously short MGS4 felt :(
(especially compared to MGS3)

Do I feel like games are getting shorter in length? No.

Do I wish games would be shorter in length? Yes.

Games that know their time and pacing and use that are usually excellent, and by that, justify a second or third playthrough.

60 bucks for 10 hours of entertainment is a good price. Anything below that in cost or above that in length is just bonus.

its a combo of shortness and diffculty. for example the karate kid on nes had 3 levels yet that game took months to beat which i never did beat it.

They're getting easier that's for sure.

Not really, back when I was a kid games were short as hell, they were just difficult. I feel like games now are way more accessable they are just longer because of the side-quests etc.

Yes, because of a trade-off. The better games have to look, the more work goes into the title which might result in less time and lots of content they have to cut.

This question is too subjective. Are we talking shooter's, puzzle games, jrpg's? It makes quite a difference. If we're talking games in general then they have obviously gotten longer since the old school days. Yeah, they were harder, but that doesn't make them longer compared to majority of games these days.

I think they're getting shorter because the developers spend so much time fixing every little thing to make it perfect and it distracts them from the overall length of the game. Example: God of War (hopefully they change that in the  upcoming God of War III)

I think the games have gotten easier for you, so they would be shorter.  Plus, if you are young, live at home, & don't have to work 40 hours a week, then you have oodles of time & that means you'll finish more games in a shorter period of time. For me, even a 5 hour game can be stretched into 3 months.

Also, their quality is dropped so I'm glad about it.

Mercifully, yes. As devs figure out which parts of their games are good to play and give balance, and they strip out filler, their games should get better.