• 66 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by LostRebel (111 posts) -

After over 20 hours of gameplay, I'm still at the very beginning of disk 2 of 4 for Final Fantasy VIII. And it has made me think, why aren't games long like this anymore? I mean even Mass Effect, which is a great game and everything, can be completed in about 20 hours, depending on the difficulty. And that's just length, it seems that a lot of these older games are a lot more fun than many of the newer one play charlies. Even genres like FPS games, which one would imagine would only get better, have only been dumbed down. Now all FPS games are about pseudo-realism, even then, if you want realism play some of the early Rainbow Six games or SWAT 3, they're far more realistic than Call of Duty or Bad Company 2. I also could help but notice that there seems to be hardly any innovation anymore. I guess these are just a few of the many negative side affects to gaming going mainstream and being dumbed down for the masses. Does anyone else feel this way?
 
@mangomonger said:

so are u saying games need to be longer or innovative? 

Both.
#2 Posted by mangomonger (67 posts) -

so are u saying games need to be longer or innovative? 

#3 Posted by Krisgebis (222 posts) -

I whole heartedly disagree with you. Gaming has overall only gotten better. 
It's like movies. Yes, there are the spotty classics from every era, but as the developers/directors get more possibilities they can make more stuff happen. They don't lose the ability to make them like they used to, they only gain more. 
 
There are modern examples of both better and longer games then FF8.

#4 Posted by Slaker117 (4843 posts) -

I disagree both that games have gotten worse, and that length makes them better. I rather have a well paced game than a long one.

#5 Posted by mangomonger (67 posts) -
Considering that games already cost millions to make, i don't  think developers want to increase costs for what they see as a gamble.
 
  @Slaker117:  I agree. i would rather enjoy every part of a game then have to grind for hours for money / respect / levels.
#6 Posted by Xpgamer7 (2398 posts) -

I think games have gone up in quality. Because it's not as simplified as it used to be designers can't make everything perfect but that's fine. Fallout is still fun with it's bugs, and DA is both innovative and long. It's what you're looking for in the game that decides your opinion on it.

#7 Posted by RoyCampbell (1096 posts) -

I find myself waxing nostalgia over how gaming was in the early to mid 2000s. A lot.

#8 Posted by MideonNViscera (2252 posts) -

I think games are fine. It's not the same as it used to be, but I'd say it's still just as good. JRPGs are way shittier nowadays, but suddenly Western RPGs are really awesome, so I find it balances out. Some genres have disappeared of course, but they've been replaced with new games. I mean I'd rather play GTA than Final Fight or Streets of Rage anyway haha

#9 Posted by PhatSeeJay (3322 posts) -

Granted, I go back to my oldies, like Theme Hospital, Dungeon Keeper and Max Payne, a lot more frequently than replaying Gears of War or Assassin's Creed. But I find today's games to be no less awesome as the ones from yesterday.

#10 Posted by AlisterCat (5711 posts) -

I disagree.

#11 Posted by probablytuna (3822 posts) -

Length of a game should not be a factor in determining whether a game is fun or enjoyable to play.

#12 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2699 posts) -

Nope. 
 
I wish games were shorter. I love it when a game is like four hours long because I can move on to the next purchase.

#13 Posted by Borodin (417 posts) -
@akiz_jack said:
Length of a game should not be a factor in determining whether a game is fun or enjoyable to play.
Plus it's not like every old game was 80 hours long and neither is it true that no games these days are 80 hours long. 
#14 Posted by Kjellm87 (1722 posts) -

Games are better, but it feels like fun gameplay has taken a serious hit.

#15 Posted by Wandering_Idiot (141 posts) -
Final Fantasy VIII wasn't that great a game, to my memory.  If you had made this thread after replaying Chrono Trigger, there might have been a point.
 
Game assets are a lot more expensive to make nowadays, hence it being harder to make them extremely long.  Still, if you're complaining about length, go play Fallout 3 and try to do all the side quests.  Problem solved.
 
Bulletstorm was about pseudo-realism?
 
ArmA, the new  Operation Flashpoint game, SOCOM, GRAW etc. are also more realistic than CoD, maybe you should play them.
 
Innovation I will maybe give you only in regards to mainstream titles, but that's pretty much inevitable in a maturing medium.  If you want innovation just look at all the indie titles, especially on PC.  
 
 
In short, you're pretty much wrong and have a bad case of rose colored glasses, or being too lazy to look beyond the top 10 titles to get what you want.
#16 Posted by mangomonger (67 posts) -
@akiz_jack said:
Length of a game should not be a factor in determining whether a game is fun or enjoyable to play.
this
#17 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

Yeah dude, I also notice that my parents have shrunk and that I have a lot less free time!

#18 Edited by Kibblez (702 posts) -

As much as I love ME2, twenty hours being the half-way point would be pretty ridiculous. Basically, what akiz_jack said

#19 Posted by FesteringNeon (2166 posts) -

If you can run around doing side quests etc. 20-30 hours is more than plenty.  10 or so for a main playthrough.

#20 Posted by Gamer_152 (14109 posts) -

I strongly disagree. I think games are in a better place than they've ever been right now and I also don't think length, complexity, or realism are necessarily deciding factors in the quality of a game.

Moderator
#21 Edited by ArchScabby (5809 posts) -

Your title should be, "I'm old and I let nostalgia cloud my judgement."

#22 Posted by nail1080 (1975 posts) -

Well perhaps you should stop bitching and play the 100s of great old games, which, if they last as long as you say they do, there should still be plenty for you to play?
 
Also saying there are no long games anymore is ridiculous. I'm sure I'm not the only one here with a huge back-log of games to clear and this is simply because they do actually take quite a while to complete.
 
Also there are plenty of 50+ hour JRPGs which have come out this generation so I really do not understand where these complaints are coming from....

#23 Posted by bearshamanbro (284 posts) -

Disagree. You can't cherry-pick one old game and then say all old games are better. A while ago, I hooked up my old SNES and fired up ~15 old games for it. It was amazing how bad most of these were. For every FFVI there were a million Batman Returns. I'd say there has never been as many good games as the present. I will say though that some some older games let you use your imagination more because of the simplified graphics and I think modern games miss a little bit of that. On the flip side, I just started Persona 3 (new to the series) and it's amazing how much that game draws you in despite how simple the graphics are (mostly just static faces talking & reused environments). So these games are still around and being made.

#24 Posted by TeflonBilly (4713 posts) -
@ArchScabby said:
Your title should be, "I'm old and I let nostalgia cloud my judgement."
It's FInal Fantasy VIII. That's not even old. Or worthy of nostalgia. 
 
You know why you've used so much time to get to the second disc? BECAUSE ALL THE BATTLES ARE NEEDLESSLY PROTRACTED BY HAVING TO DRAW FROM ALL YOUR ENEMIES WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN! 
 
Also: ALL DAT FMV!
#25 Edited by PenguinDust (12626 posts) -

I don't think a game needs to be artificially long, but I do believe it needs to be lengthy enough to provide a satisfying experience for the price paid.  In other words, long enough that I say, "yes, this was worth the 30, 40 or 60 dollars I paid for it".  This is one of the reasons I usually wait for sales and reduced prices on games.  I'm less inclined to be disappointed with a game if I pay less for it.  For example, I paid full price for Modern Warfare 2 but beat the single-player in an afternoon.  I know, I could have gotten a lot more play out of it if I was into online competitive play, but I'm not anymore so I didn't feel like I personally got my money's worth with the title.  On the other side is Borderlands which I also paid full price for; I ran through that one nearly twice and so it was worth the 60 bucks to me.  Now, Enslaved Odyssey of the West is a fun game but it is rather short.  I paid around $20 for it and I feel it was well worth that price and even would have been happy to pay $10 to $15 more.  What's most important to me is walking away from a game and feeling that the purchase was well worth the expense.  A 200 hour experience that isn't entertaining isn't worth even $5 to me.  

#26 Edited by GetEveryone (4458 posts) -
@Krisgebis said:

I whole heartedly disagree with you. Gaming has overall only gotten better. It's like movies. Yes, there are the spotty classics from every era, but as the developers/directors get more possibilities they can make more stuff happen. They don't lose the ability to make them like they used to, they only gain more.  There are modern examples of both better and longer games then FF8.


Exactly. The reason that games are more condensed experiences now, is that the developers have the ability to create various set-pieces of far greater quality. We'll be seeing far more 8-15 hour games (as has been witnessed over the last 5 years or so), and I for one don't think it's a bad thing. 
 
A tighter narrative, without artificially lengthening the game (by means of crawling interchangeable dungeons, or what have you), produces a far better experience. Consider Uncharted 2, with its leaner, more direct narrative there is the scope for movie-like set-pieces with a fairly brisk pace between locations, etc. Assuming that with this rise of quality in narrative and design, budgets and development times are always going to be inflated, which gives rise to the next issue. 
 
It seems (at least partially) ridiculous to ask for the experiences of yore. Had ME2 been 70 hours long, with a more expansive range of environments and set-pieces, we probably wouldn't have seen it until now. Dragon Age 2, on the other hand, had a rushed development cycle, but plays more like a title from 2 generations ago. It recycles fights and locations repeatedly, but offers a 30+ hour experience. 
 
With gaming quickly becoming mainstream, most people don't have the time to devote 30+ hours to one game. Working a full-time job, many players will have only a few spare hours a week; knowing you aren't going to finish a game isn't necessarily an appealing option either. Rather, something which provides an explosive, film-like experience is the most desirable.  
 
I'm not saying that this format is a recipe for success, nor do I think it should become the norm (if Darksiders 2 doesn't run me at elast 20 hours I'll cry). Given how far games have come, though, AAA-titles are effectively the modern blockbuster, and come with something of a pre-requisite for spectacle.
#27 Posted by Asurastrike (2173 posts) -
@LostRebel said:
After over 20 hours of gameplay, I'm still at the very beginning of disk 2 of 4 for Final Fantasy VIII. And it has made me think, why aren't games long like this anymore? I mean even Mass Effect, which is a great game and everything, can be completed in about 20 hours, depending on the difficulty. And that's just length, it seems that a lot of these older games are a lot more fun than many of the newer one play charlies. Even genres like FPS games, which one would imagine would only get better, have only been dumbed down. Now all FPS games are about pseudo-realism, even then, if you want realism play some of the early Rainbow Six games or SWAT 3, they're far more realistic than Call of Duty or Bad Company 2. I also could help but notice that there seems to be hardly any innovation anymore. I guess these are just a few of the many negative side affects to gaming going mainstream and being dumbed down for the masses. Does anyone else feel this way?
 
@mangomonger said:

so are u saying games need to be longer or innovative? 

Both.
I didn't like FFVIII, so your point is lost on me.
#28 Edited by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

 Pictured: Pseudo-Realism
#29 Edited by Icemael (6363 posts) -

I'd rather have 10-20 hours of intense, well-paced action than 100 hours of boring grinding. 
 
Also, innovative games are released all the time.

#30 Posted by BombKareshi (979 posts) -
@RoyCampbell said:
I find myself waxing nostalgia over how gaming was in the early to mid 2000s. A lot.
As this man's post implies, I suspect that this thread of yours is the product of nostalgia more than anything else. We all have favourites from "back then" whose place no modern game can ever take (and neither should it).
#31 Posted by redbliss (648 posts) -

Everything that you complain is vacant from games these days can be found in some game. You want length: Play Oblivion, Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, or Forza Motorsport 3. Hell, I have been playing the story of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood for what seems like the entire last week and I think I am only half way through the game (and loving the whole experience). Even if it is true that shooters have become less realistic over time, that doesnt mean the quality has gone down. Halo 3, Reach, ODST, Killzone 2 and 3, and many other shooters have all contained great experiences. And if you think realism in shooters is all that matters, you can still find games that are realistic. 
 
Bottom line though, realism and length do not make good games.

#32 Posted by ssj4raditz (1125 posts) -

Games not innovative any more? Portal begs to differ.

#33 Posted by JEC03 (919 posts) -

Gaming has been dumb down FPS wise mostly if  you are a PC gamer and played games like CS,BF2,Rainbow 6 ect,, games today  hold  your hand  like regenerative health run and gun no tactics gimmicks I mean perks , no recoil, no lean, sometimes prone silly achievements.There definitely not as challenging as they use to be but I really enjoy other games that aren't FPS's I think those are fine for the most part.But in terms of a FPS shooter they have been really dumb down for the mainstream casuals there just not made like they use to be Halo and COD started this awful trend.

#34 Posted by Bobby_The_Great (1012 posts) -

The Witcher 1 and 2 and the FIRST Dragon Age (not the second garbage) lasted me a long time and were great. Also, I put in more than 200 hours into Demon's Souls. So, I think gametime length is still there. Plus, FFXIII did last a long time, despite whatever most people think of that game.

#35 Posted by Cirdain (3140 posts) -
@Bobby_The_Great said:
The Witcher 1 and 2 and the FIRST Dragon Age (not the second garbage) lasted me a long time and were great. Also, I put in more than 200 hours into Demon's Souls. So, I think gametime length is still there. Plus, FFXIII did last a long time, despite whatever most people think of that game.
Yeah, Witcher 2 slaps his arguement across the face.
#36 Posted by laserbolts (5365 posts) -

Sorry I cant agree with you there man. Games have gotten so much better over the years in my opinion.

#37 Edited by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -

As an old-time PC gamer I think the FPS genre has specifically gone to hell, to be frank.  Modern FPS games just have nothing on the classics.  They have removed every aspect of gameplay other than shooting people from 90% of games, which is streamlining at its most excessive.  I loved shooting aliens in Duke Nukem 3D but I also loved finding secrets, solving puzzles and figuring out how to get where I was supposed to.  I never considered that annoying, I thought that was part of the gameplay.  Now-a-days you just walk forward and shoot people, which I find half as interesting.  Also the fact that FEAR still has the best combat and AI in any shooter and came out like 6 years ago is depressing.  How can a 6 year old game still be the best in so many areas?  Crysis, Bioshock and Farcry 2 are really the only interesting FPS games I can think of from the past 5 years, and that comes from someone who plays damn near all of them.  On top of all this every FPS is designed for slow-moving analog aiming and lack vertical combat, which bugs me.
 
On the RPG front I think games today are quite good.  Different, but good.  There is no Planescape Torment or Baldur's Gate 2 in recent years, and I do miss that style of game, but I'll take stuff like Mass Effect, Risen, The Witcher 2 and Dragon Age without complaining.  Dragon Age had a meh sequel but I expect them to turn that around with Dragon Age 3.  I think Skyrim will be better than Oblivion, which despite being disappointing was still excellent.  Personally I love the recent Fallout games as well, especially New Vegas which really felt like an old-school CRPG in a lot of ways (and somehow I never had a bug problem with that game even once in 100+ hours).
 
The only other genre I really play is Adventure games and while they really went to hell for a while there they've gotten a lot better recently.  Stuff like Machinarium, Gemini Rue and Tales of Monkey Island has kept me very entertained in recent years.  I have Gray Matter and Lost Horizon sitting here ready to be played at some point and I hear both are excellent.  I'm not really a big fan of Telltale though sadly, other than Tales of MI.  The rest of their stuff is just very boring to me.  Also I lament the fact that a lot of adventure game experimentation is going on like Heavy Rain and LA Noire but PC gamers are being left out in the cold.  It's a shame since adventure games were built on the PC and as much a part of our platform as shooters and Western RPGs, yet we're not getting these new styles.

#38 Posted by Cirdain (3140 posts) -
@StingingVelvet: I take it that Dead Space 2 was not to your liking.....
#39 Posted by HairyMike87 (1016 posts) -

I would much rather have a game that is able to be beaten in under an hour and be awesome than play a game that takes a week to beat. Where's the replayability in that? I don't like that games are getting more cinematic, but that's just the way of the times.

#40 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -
@Cirdain said:
@StingingVelvet: I take it that Dead Space 2 was not to your liking.....
Actually I love that game... is that a shooter though?  I guess it is.  I like a lot of modern shooters don't get me wrong, I just think if there is any genre I can say was better 10 years ago without a doubt it would be shooters.
#41 Posted by Cirdain (3140 posts) -
@StingingVelvet said:
@Cirdain said:
@StingingVelvet: I take it that Dead Space 2 was not to your liking.....
Actually I love that game... is that a shooter though?  I guess it is.  I like a lot of modern shooters don't get me wrong, I just think if there is any genre I can say was better 10 years ago without a doubt it would be shooters.
Oh yeah I'd say that Dead Space 2 was an action adventure. Except DARK!
You liked Batman: Arkham Asylum then as well. ...right  *Stares threateningly*
#42 Posted by StingingVelvet (574 posts) -
@Cirdain said:
@StingingVelvet said:
@Cirdain said:
@StingingVelvet: I take it that Dead Space 2 was not to your liking.....
Actually I love that game... is that a shooter though?  I guess it is.  I like a lot of modern shooters don't get me wrong, I just think if there is any genre I can say was better 10 years ago without a doubt it would be shooters.
Oh yeah I'd say that Dead Space 2 was an action adventure. Except DARK! You liked Batman: Arkham Asylum then as well. ...right  *Stares threateningly*
I freaking LOVED that game.  It helps that I was big into Batman after the original Tim Burton movie and the Fox cartoon.  Even just pure gameplay though it was a great game.
#43 Posted by Cirdain (3140 posts) -
@StingingVelvet said:
@Cirdain said:
@StingingVelvet said:
@Cirdain said:
@StingingVelvet: I take it that Dead Space 2 was not to your liking.....
Actually I love that game... is that a shooter though?  I guess it is.  I like a lot of modern shooters don't get me wrong, I just think if there is any genre I can say was better 10 years ago without a doubt it would be shooters.
Oh yeah I'd say that Dead Space 2 was an action adventure. Except DARK! You liked Batman: Arkham Asylum then as well. ...right  *Stares threateningly*
I freaking LOVED that game.  It helps that I was big into Batman after the original Tim Burton movie and the Fox cartoon.  Even just pure gameplay though it was a great game.
I'm pretty sure you forgot to mention the recent release of the dark knight at the time as well.
#44 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5818 posts) -

I miss the PS2 era.

#45 Posted by Oscar__Explosion (2402 posts) -

Length definatly does not make a game better. With all games, even the ones that I really like, if it doesn't start to wrap up after 30 or so hours then I start to get really bored and sometimes even just stop playing the game entirely. 
 
And no games are way better now then when they used to be. Even when I had all the time in the world and was able to play 100+ epics I still would rather have a nice 20-30 hour storyline focused game.

#46 Posted by BonOrbitz (2249 posts) -

As someone who has been playing games since the Intellivision/ColecoVision days, I respectfully disagree to a point. I think gaming is as good as it used to be (if not better), but in different ways due to better technology and more people taking it seriously as a mature media outlet (when applicable). Change and evolution is good and healthy. 
 
I do feel a bit worried occasionally about how development costs are increasing, but there are so many amazing games out there that don't have such large budgets and are incredibly entertaining. It reassures me that we'll always have something to play, regardless of the impact multimillion dollar budgets will have on the industry.
 
The part of me that thinks it's not as good as it used to be comes from me waxing nostalgic about my days with the NES, SNES, and Genesis and how much more time I had back then to play every game I wanted to. Come to think of it, I kind of miss using my imagination from back in the day to make up for the limitations of 8 and 16 bit graphics. I'm okay with where we are today and know that I can always go back to those days when I want to sit down with an old system in my den.

#47 Posted by Cirdain (3140 posts) -
@Cirdain: Grim Fandango and The secret of monkey island, Loved them
 
Also, I'm probably the opposite of you. I'm 16 and my friends are mostly console gamers.
#48 Posted by Brodehouse (10127 posts) -

A lot of people talk about how 'Marica and society was better in the 1950s.  Of course forgetting about how black folk had to drink from different drinking fountains.

#49 Posted by phish09 (1110 posts) -
@bonorbitz said:
As someone who has been playing games since the Intellivision/ColecoVision days, I respectfully disagree to a point. I think gaming is as good as it used to be (if not better), but in different ways due to better technology and more people taking it seriously as a mature media outlet (when applicable). Change and evolution is good and healthy.   I do feel a bit worried occasionally about how development costs are increasing, but there are so many amazing games out there that don't have such large budgets and are incredibly entertaining. It reassures me that we'll always have something to play, regardless of the impact multimillion dollar budgets will have on the industry. The part of me that thinks it's not as good as it used to be comes from me waxing nostalgic about my days with the NES, SNES, and Genesis and how much more time I had back then to play every game I wanted to. Come to think of it, I kind of miss using my imagination from back in the day to make up for the limitations of 8 and 16 bit graphics. I'm okay with where we are today and know that I can always go back to those days when I want to sit down with an old system in my den.
Pretty much everything this guy said.  I had a 2600 as opposed to a Coleco, but this is pretty much how I feel.  
 
No one is stopping you from going back and playing older games.  In 1989 I, personally, had about 20 games to choose from, and that was all I really knew existed at that point. Now, those games still exist and I can still play them whenever I want, but I can also play newer games.  If you're saying games now suck, you are also saying that games back then sucked, since all those games are still around, and available to play, today.
 
I could have never imagined a game like Mass Effect or LA Noire when I was a kid.  The thing I love about video games is that they are constantly changing and evolving, and if you don't enjoy that aspect of video games, than I would argue you just don't really appreciate the medium for what it is.
#50 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

It's all relative, anyway. I think it's worse in the sense that the shift is less on making awesome "games" and making hand-holding cinematic movies. I think this shit will kill the industry, trying to fully mimic another industry. I mean, that's why budgets are so fucking big. Studios are throwing so much money at top of the line graphics, and top of the line mocap, composers and actors and shit.