I thought that too but then I realized that a good portion of the game's length is attributed to the inexperience you have.
For example, the first time I played Banjo-Kazooie it took me months to complete 100%. I didn't have the internet then... or friends who could help, I had to figure everything out on my own.
Then I revisted the game a few years ago... and I tell ya it took me only a few hours to beat it! Never died once. I was like: Wait? This game took me months to beat?
I realized I must be judt better, I never died, I was never cautious trying to jump or balance, I zipped through it casually.
There are a whole bunch of reasons why games are shorter nowadays, but I think its mainly the larger focus on the online multiplayer. That's not really a bad thing either in my opinion since I spend the majority of my gaming time in online modes.
i have 14 days of cod4 gametime
i think thats alot.
(10-23-2009, 06:51 PM)Champion Shawn Wrote: [ -> ]im mainly talkin rpgs. modern consoles are so much more capable than snes and psx, the fuck do we have 15 hour rpgs for??
I think were in the process in the gaming era, where developers are trying to experiment and seeing what they can get away with. RPG's especially, JRPG's will always be but some titles sneak in with the RPG stamp and you think: "ZOMG new RPG 40+ hrs is a must!" Then you play Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of a New World, Tales of Symphonia on your first play through will give you 120+ hours because you WILL play through it more than twice after wards. Then you look at a solid game like The World Ends with You, you don't HAVE to do anything that special for doing something different in the game, and it's not like you'll be rewarded anything big if you do.
Though both solid titles what's worth the cash? What will you hold onto? What will give you that itch to play again? There's too many factors to try and define really what's going on since after all, everything these days about choice, and like a lot of people have said you get a lot more out of something if you know nothing about it at all.
Sorry, did I even make any sense? Felt like I tangented there...
To be honest, I haven't played many modern games that haven't lasted as long as I hoped or expected, even when unfamiliarity is accounted for.
[rantmode]Except maybe Summon Night Twin Age. I got it thinking I could use a nice non-Mega Man/Pokémon RPG for my DS and that it looked at least a little entertaining, but I cleared one of the two characters' stories in under ten hours thinking "What? That's it?!". It felt so rushed, and even the bonus after-story missions don't help the case much.[/rantmode]
It could just be us looking at the past through rose-tinted glasses. It could also be me not having much experience with modern games, too, come to think of it... It's not easy keeping with the times when you're swimming in a sea of shooters and sports games and you're not exactly a fan of either genre.
Either way, though, I really don't think I'd like to play an RPG that boasts 100+ hours of gameplay only to spend at least a third of it wondering about the relevance of this quest I'm required to do or running around talking to every NPC ever (yeah, even the one hidden behind a building that no one tells you about) because the plot calls for it. Excessive padding is just as bad as having none at all. The proper balance has to be found.
yes and no
keep in mind, when you get older, your skills improve. you get better at games. a lot of the time spent playing games when you were younger was time wasted being bad at it, dying, or just wasting time doing stupid shit that you wouldn't do now
I would say that chances are the timespan for the average game has lessened slightly; but that's more due to a complete reinvention of game style; the substitution of arcade-difficulty with a more fair "keep the gamer playing" approach without necessarily sacrificing amount of content (actually compared to the fact that many NES era games had about 5-15 "levels", it can be argued that there is more content on average)
jak II and III for example cut out lives, and when you die you just reappear at the most recent of many "checkpoints"; usually situated just before really challenging parts where instant death is likely the first time through
and again, not all games suffer from these flaws
i've been playing Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne (although thats a 2004-2005 PS2 game) and I have 50 hours in it right now and I'm maybe 1/2-3/4ths through. Xenosaga episode III I had 40 hours in at completion without full completion.
Whereas, comparably - Chrono Trigger 100%'d, I had 30 hours.
i dont have a 360 or any shit like that though so i can't comment too much on any of those games (specifically, anyway), though.
I think game length is about the same as always. You still have your beat in a day games and your 100+ hour RPGs.
Yeah pretty much everyone is right in this topic. You get better, games are just naturally easier. With what Koopaul said about Banjo Kazooie is that exact same thing with me. That game took me forever back in the day, same with Diddy Kong Racing, but now I can beat them without even trying. Gobi's Valley in Banjo Kazooie, when I went back and played that level not too long ago, I beat it in less then half an hour, and a level honestly shouldn't take that long.
I'm still loving my RPG's though, like Final Fantasy and shit. Those are long lasting.
Games were just better when we were younger because everything was new and amazing, and felt longer. Now we can clear through a game in like a tenth of the time we used to because we're smarter and experienced. We don't just look at a game like SM64 anymore and go "wow" with ours eyes glued to the screen in amazement of this new world inside our tvs.
Go play anything from the Shin Megami Tensei series.