In less than 8 hours of game, I already have 90% of Uncharted done, finnished Resistance Fall of Man in 5 days and also in Heavly Sword I´m in the last level. Do i play really fast or the games are really short?

 

Both  

 

I suppose they're still in their infancy.

After all, most corporations are going to stick with PS2 until PS3 is more readily available (i.e: costs less!).

 

Welcome to the world of Videogames today. Most companies seem to be catering to the "shorter game" crowd. It's not a bad thing. There are plenty of folks who prefer it that way, as they don't have 40 hours to blow on a single game.

I just wish there were more of a happy medium.

 

The flashier the graphics, the less space they have on the discs. While some companies don't mind splitting the game up to tell an epic story, a majority of them won't and make short games (although some can have an awesome story).

It's why I don't buy too many games anymore, since it's hard to justify spending $50-$60 on a game that is only going to last 10 hours.

 

10 hours is the sweet spot.

 

<--

 

I wish I knew how long it took to finish Ratchet and Clank. It sure seemed like a while.

 

I do agree that some games are a little too short, but I understand trying to draw in a larger number of people. Personally, I think the best game I could say was a a happy medium has to be Resident Evil 4. It's a lengthy game by action game standards, but clocking at about 20-25 hours the first time, if your relatively thorough, it's also no major RPG. Perfect length for anything BUT an RPG.

 

Games today are definitely too damn short. Forced replayability be damned (collectible crap, etc...), if your game is good/diverse enough the first time through I'll definitely play through it again. 10 hours is too short for what games today cost. If your game is 10 hours long it better be budget priced ($20-$30).

 

You're picking inherently short games though. It doesn't have anything to do with the PS3. There are long and short games on PS3, and there are long and short games on 360 as well.

I'm with Twist though, 10 hours is the sweet spot. Too much more and I get bored. I don't have time anymore to trudge through several 25+ hour games a year.

 

Games today are about the same price they've been since the NES. Hell, most N64 games were way more expensive than most games today.

NES games were 50+ dollars and some of them were 10 minutes long.

 

I don't think space on the disc is an issue.

Its more like creating 3D worlds in high definition with uber poly count takes massive development teams which costs lots of money, which means either shorten the game to save development cost, go bust, or join forces with other big companies (Square-Enix) to save yourselves.

 

Quoted for absolute truth. If a game is going to sport a next gen look, a lot more developement has to go into individual environments. People won't settle for copy and past trees or textures. It shows up like a sore thumb, and was very evident last gen. Games like Uncharted wouldn't look as good if they copied and pasted folliage elements.

Back in the Nes, Snes days levels were comprised of duplicated floor tiles and wall tiles, so one could make levels as big as they wanted and mazes and complex because no one was paying attention to those details.

Hell, even Mass Effect and Oblivion, incredibly long games (if you play all of the missions on Mass and not go straight through) are made up of duplicated interiors (with mixed up crates here and there). The exterior planets are just Bryced up land masses, hense the game can be as long as they choose to make it, since the real length comes from the missions given in those particular repeated locations.

Oblivion though has a huge organic overworld, but that game also took a hellovalot more to develop.

 

i love Final Fantasy games, but damn, i don't have the attention span, the free time, the research time, the wear and tear of leaving a PS2 running nonstop for days it seems as i am reading the player's guide (by the way, my PS1 should have been dead a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago b/c of FF games on it.

10-15 hours on a game is good with me. if the game is unique and fun, i will replay it. Beyond Good and Evil i have played through 4 times. and i consider that game a long one.

 

10-15 hours is fine for most console games for me. I have this thing called a job, and even after work I have other stuff to do besides turn the ps3 on. So even at 15 hours, it could end up taking me a couple of weeks to beat a game unless I go on some lazy weekend gaming binge.

And except for some RPG's and racing games that take forever to get 100% completion, most console games for years and years now have fit in the 10-15 hour mark, or less. Anything that hasn't, is really more of an anomaly, or it has an exceptionally high replay value/repeated content if it doesn't fall into the genres I mentioned previously.

Castlevania games <10 hours
Metroid games <10-15 hours
Zelda games <10-15 hours
Mario games <10 hours
Megaman <5-10 hours
Sonic <5 hours
Metal Gear <10 hours
God of War <10 hours
Ratchet & clank games <10-15 hours

And those are series that have been around for years, with some starting on the NES and having some version in every generation since then.

Besides, you also have to think about how much it costs to be entertained in general. 2 hour movie? 10-11 bucks. 10 hour videogame that's actually interactive, 50-60 bucks. There's nothing wrong with that at all.

Now it is total crap when a game is 5 hours at the most, if you're playing it slow your first time through like heavenly sword.

 

hahah, all true, except I can complete the first Zelda in 45 minutes.

 

I usually never finish games that are over a weeks worth of play(about 2 hours a day/5 days) I just lose interest and put it back on my shelf because I am ADD.  So I am very happy with games like Heavenly Sword, theres a decent story, some cool play mechanics and an ending that I actually see, what more can I ask for.

 

The only real long game I played was FF7 and though I enjoyed it, Im glad that most of the games I have can be done within a week (2-3hrs at a time).

 

QFT! I don't know why people forget that NES games were $50 and up. Also, since there were hardly any game specialty stores you ended up always paying full price and they hardly ever went down. Game prices actually went down for the PS1 to most being $40, and now they finally have gone to a lot of them being $60, so a whole $10 increase in 30 years doesn't seem bad to me, especially for the amount of work and time a game takes nowadays. Fortunately the market is large enough to keep these prices decent and still have high quality products.

Also, NES games were certainly shorter then a lot of people remember for the most part. Yes, broken controls and the fact that there was a lot less out and we were all kids meant that we played through games a bajillion times or redid a part a million times- not something I would consider fun these days.

I've also "recently" played through Zelda (54 hours), Mario Galaxy (30 hours), Metroid Prime 3 (20 hours), Mass Effect (65 hours), and Bioshock (20+ hours). I know those aren't PS3 games, but I'm just trying to say that there are long current gen games and you just have to do some research to find out which ones are long and match your playing style.