Ben-DutkaDuring the course of this generation, many gamers have called out the decreasing length of video games. But as the industry grows and caters to an increasingly older demographic, one has to wonder- isn't shorter games a good thing?
Hey, this isn't coming from your typical 30+ gamer who just doesn't have enough time to indulge in his favorite hobby. Firstly, that isn't really true and secondly, I was one of those people who were very disappointed if their selection didn't last at least 40 hours. Granted, I'm referring to my RPG-exclusive days in the original PlayStation era, but the point is that at one time in my gaming career, my mantra was, "the longer the better." 120 hours into SaGa Frontier . Yep.
And I still love my games. However, while my job and simple bachelor lifestyle allows me to play almost as much as I want, I've caught glimpses of reasons why older gamers would prefer shorter adventures. For instance, all my friends tend to have even less time than I and as a direct result, most have become casual gamers. They still enjoy this form of entertainment, of course, but they no longer have the time – or indeed, the motivation – to play a long, involved game that takes 20+ hours to complete. And me, even with the time I have, I have yet to complete Dragon Age II .
Now why would that be? As I said, it's not really a matter of time… Essentially, my tastes are more diverse these days, and I think this is an inevitable aging occurrence. I like to read more than ever; I like to take up other hobbies and projects every now and then, and in general, I like to relax in different ways. Before, my relaxation basically revolved around games but now, it just seems like there's so much more out there. I'll finish DAII (very soon, in fact), I'll still complete a fair amount of games each year, and I still adore my favorite hobby and my growing collection.
But really, a 10-hour campaign for anything is enough for me these days. And as I've just illustrated, I'm someone who not only still has the chance to indulge in lengthy gaming sessions, but often did in the past. Others, who have even more interests and less time, will likely agree. And the average age of a gamer continues to rise. …see where I'm going with this?
You know, I have to say that I'm pretty much where you are now Ben (I believe we're both roughly the same age), but I'm just curious why most games need to be this short, due to our other leisurely activities. Don't get me wrong, there are some games that are considered short that I absolutely loved, but I wouldn't be turned off by it being longer.
Basically, I look at it like a book. A really good book, is still a really good book whether it's 300 pages or 1000. Are you turned off by it, simply because it's 1000? Do you want all of your leisurely activities to be timed events, you know what I mean? With some spectacular books, I will sit there and read it cover to cover. I've done the same thing with some games (admittedly none recently…games that is, I read the most recent Wheel of Time book cover to cover heh), but I'm not adverse to having to put it down for awhile…to either pursue another activity, or work. Ya know?
I think, as always, as long as the game conforms to the developers original ideals, then the game, no matter the length will be all the better for it. Short, Medium, Long, it doesn't matter, it's what's inside that counts. Same with books.
Last edited by Mornelithe on 5/1/2011 12:32:26 PM
I do not fit the mold at all…I'm a 43 y/o gamer started with pong in 1976 and haven't stopped. I can't afford every game that comes out. I typically only buy games rated 8 or higher by multiple sources and I want tons of content. I just finished Red Dead first I wen to 100% completion all the outfits and most of the trophies and still want more! I live and breathe a game and then am a little depressed when the experience is over. I drug my feet on Read Dead because Rockstar stuff is typically an Fbomb fest and I don't see the value in having expletives flung into my ears every few seconds. I was pleasantly surprised with Red Dead that profanity and sex were limited.
In summation (thank you Lord right?) I'm an extremely picky gamer that wants quality games am willing to $60 IF I'm getting my money's worth in both gameplay and content.
If I can finish a game in just a couple of evenings then to me it isn't worth $60, no matter how exciting and deep the story is intended to be.
For my $60 I expect to be playing for weeks if not months.
If I'm playing a game for a month however then I'm not buying new games. Not something the shareholders want.
I also find that it's the longer games that get me coming back to replay. Short games are over so quickly that I get bored and they go on the trade-in pile.
DA2 took me 61 hours on my first playthrough and I immediately started up my 2nd of which I am 10 hours through already.
I'd rather my games be longer than 6-7 hours. 9-10 is usually a good time, and if they can get up to 12 (Uncharted 2) or even 15 (Dead Space 2) then that's even better.