Do gamers want shorter games? [News]

News Reader · Post by **News Reader** » July 8th, 2008, 11:00

Do gamers want shorter games? [News]
Developers like Charley Price, lead designer of Rise of the Argonauts, think gamers want shorter games nowadays. What do you think?

Category: News
Publish Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 10:46:46 +0100
Read more...

Source: bit-tech.net feed
Description: Computer hardware, games and technology reviews and news

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » July 8th, 2008, 11:14

I think he can fuck off.

If I enjoy a game, I'll play it through, whether it's 2 hours long, or 600.

Post by **Grimmie** » July 8th, 2008, 11:16

Just good games, please.
All I ask is that if you insist on selling short games, price the game accordingly.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » July 8th, 2008, 11:19

Grimmie wrote:All I ask is that if you insist on selling short games, price the game accordingly.

That.

Grimmie wrote:Just good games, please.

Not that, some of the best games I've played have been utter shit, broken, nigh impossible to complete, and fucking great fun, but they weren't, in any conventional sense, good.

Post by **Dog Pants** » July 8th, 2008, 11:22

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Not that, some of the best games I've played have been utter shit, broken, nigh impossible to complete, and fucking great fun, but they weren't, in any conventional sense, good.

Like SWAT 4 and Joint Ops. And AoC. And COD:UO.

I enjoyed Portal, I also enjoyed Mass Effect. The length should be appropriate for the game, and the price should be appropriate for the length.

Post by **Grimmie** » July 8th, 2008, 11:25

Depends on your definition of good, I guess.

Post by **Dog Pants** » July 8th, 2008, 11:29

We all know Berk's definition of good and bad are a little skewed. You only need listen to his radios to know that.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » July 8th, 2008, 11:30

Dog Pants wrote:We all know Berk's definition of good and bad are a little skewed. You only need listen to his radios to know that.

Not at all, All the stuff I play is bad it's not my fault if you like it

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » July 8th, 2008, 12:01

No I don't want shorter games, I'd prefer higher quality games, but I'd rather have decent sized games to keep me entertained for a period of time as long as they don't fall apart after the first few levels than just fuck loads of good but short games.

I'd have felt robbed if Portal, while excellent all the way through, had been the price of a "full" game (so, £35 in retail outlets).

Whereas paying say, £30 for FF7 as it's a good epic would be very good value for money.

Max Payne 1 just about got away with charging full price as although it was only about 12 hours of gameplay, it was full action all the way through with a goodish plot.
Half Life 1 is another example of a longish game, 50ish hours (I think), but well worth the full price tag, Op For was also good but possibly not a full price one, and blue shift really should have been 15-19.99.

Oblivion? Yeap, Fallout 1 and 2. Yeap. Long and good, worth the price.
Beef... Yeap, Spec horses...no.

Now, I need some new games to play.

Post by **Dog Pants** » July 8th, 2008, 12:38

buzzmong wrote:Now, I need some new games to play.

Harder than hard. Fucking summer drought.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » July 8th, 2008, 12:39

Dog Pants wrote:

Harder than hard. Fucking summer drought.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » July 8th, 2008, 13:04

Well if you will be PC snobs ...

I'm quite enjoying the new Beef game, in short bursts before Rage sets in.

MORDETH LESTOK · Post by **MORDETH LESTOK** » July 8th, 2008, 13:06

hmm...can't remember wtf the name was...but long ago (back when you could tell how good a game was by the weight of the manual), I bought a $40 game and finished in less than 4hours...I took the F'r back same day, got my money back and bought another game

I don't believe in short games...its like going to a short movie, its simple, there's no character developement and by the time it gets good...its over!

Maybe if they packed 4short games into 1 package?

Post by **Dog Pants** » July 8th, 2008, 13:12

spoodie wrote:Well if you will be PC snobs ...

I might have played one of the several Wii games I've only dipped into, but the TV is the domain of Mrs Pants.

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » July 8th, 2008, 13:16

spoodie wrote:Well if you will be PC snobs ...

I'm quite enjoying the new Beef game, in short bursts before Rage sets in.

So you'd not be pissed off if you paid £45 for say, MGS4 on the PS3 to find it was only 6 hours long?

I'd be pissed off quite frankly, as it's a complete take the piss.

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » July 8th, 2008, 13:30

buzzmong wrote:I'd be pissed off quite frankly, as it's a complete take the piss.

spoodie · Post by **spoodie** » July 8th, 2008, 13:40

buzzmong wrote:So you'd not be pissed off if you paid £45 for say, MGS4 on the PS3 to find it was only 6 hours long?

I'm guessing it's 6 hours for the cut scenes alone!

My post was directed at the lack of new PC titles on the market rather than the actual subject of the thread. Quote fail on my part.

buzzmong · Post by **buzzmong** » July 8th, 2008, 14:03

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:Pics

Love you too Berk

Post by **Dr. kitteny berk** » July 8th, 2008, 14:04

buzzmong wrote:Love you too Berk

Post by **deject** » July 8th, 2008, 15:07

I rather enjoy a good single player experience that takes a good 40 hours to finish, if it's good, I want more. If the game is just OK, then yeah 10 hours is fine. Bad games get the bin after 15 minutes though.