oh okay.  i'm glad you made a separate topic!

i think hl2 is a fairly good example of a game that didn't need to be any longer than it was.  the campaign mode was brief, but well-paced, and didn't feel rushed.  also, it had expansion packs, so that's a plus.  but!!  as good as hl2 is, if i paid $50-60 for it and it alone (no expansions), i'd be a little irritated.  it comes with extensive multiplayer, though, so i feel that length isn't necessarily as much a factor as it would be in a regular game.  as far as ffxii goes, this is just the other extreme of the problem; length doesn't equate with quality one way or the other.  i don't want some gay short game that feels rushed, but i basically NEVER EVER want to play a 100-hour rpg either, so yeah.  if games just stopped going beyond 40-50 hours, you probably wouldn't hear a single complaint out of me, because i can't think of a single 50+ hour game i've played that didn't feel like it had a pretty large amount of filler and pointless bullshit simply for the sake of "-180 hours of rich, fulfilling gameplay" on the back of the box in it.

another thing is replay value, which different people have different definitions for.  my definition, for example, does not include an obsessive need to unlock every weird achievement, or secret uniforms, or most of the shallow bullshit developers throw into games in a weak effort to give them replay value.  a game with really strong replay value in my mind was starfox 64.  that shit was great; no unlockables (that i remember), no other silly shit, just HIGH SCORE.  the game was like $50-60 and took under an hour to beat.  typically, this would be pretty fucked up, but as a shooter goes, i think you can have some room to breathe when, at under an hour from start to finish, if you're into the game at all you'll probably play it many more times trying to get a higher score or whatever.  i probably played it over 30 times, so it felt it was a good investment, based on replay value alone.

but here's the thing about your point on game stories: most games don't have especially well-paced stories to begin with, so i can't see the effect of adding more content (ps you would do this by rewriting the story in some way, not by just THROWING DUNGEONS IN.  i don't even know what you mean by "artificially increasing their length."  as opposed to what?) being much more than minimal.  there are few games i play that are short and end with me thinking "ah... a perfectly paced storyline."  it's usually either rushed, or dragged out.  but yeah, the notion isn't to lengthen the game to go beyond the story, just to lengthen the game and adapt the story to it.  i'm not in favor of this at all if the story quality takes a serious hit, and would never have suggested it for a game like hl2, but i honestly don't think it will, most of the time.  if your game REALLY feels complete at like 8 hours, then there's not much that i can say, other than that pricing it at $60 is kind of ridiculous and, unless there's some sort of online component or high replay value, no one really has a reason to actually buy it.

but yeah, i don't like the direction they're going in with extras.  multiplayer is fine, side quests are usually pretty gay and boring and shallow, and i'll never even come close to understanding collectibles.  aside from multiplayer, extras just don't appeal to me.  beat the game, and then do other, insignificant shit?  why?  the idea of adding more content is to give players more to do, and to make the shit they're doing feel like it has some sort of impact on the overriding story, and the world.  the idea is to make the overall experience of the campaign last longer.  COLLECTIBLES do not do this, and neither does multiplayer, but it has other redeeming qualities.  side quests i'm on the fence about, because while in theory they'd allow you to have continuing adventures in the world that might have some impact on it even after you complete the main quest, usually they're so stupid and superficial that it's just a thin excuse to keep running around.  if you had GOOD, meaningful side quests that served as viable alternatives to the main quest, that'd be cool, and i would be totally okay with it.  it's something of a rarity, though!

also, i don't particularly think it's fair to compare nes to xbox 360, because i've really been talking almost exclusively about last generation to previous generation, although i admit it's kind of really difficult to get a good idea of the big picture, because i've played a very, very small fraction of the games from last generation, and i'm basing my opinion solely off those.

so i guess i do think games are too short.  or, more appropriately, my problem is that they're very rarely what i see as being the proper length; they're either way too short, or way too long.  you've either got something like ffxii that just overreaches itself and throws so many stupid meandering dungeons and areas at you that you kind of get pissed off and spend maybe 30% of your time playing the game actually enjoying yourself, or you've got something like assassin's creed, where you beat it in about ten hours, and afterwards you can... maybe kill people in stupid, difficult ways to unlock achievements and get microsoft points to do whatever the fuck with.  at least, this has been the impression i've gotten from the games i've played/read about this generation, and it's definitely not the ideal!  but, regardless of your experiences, mine has been that, maintaining the same basic gaming habits i always have, games like gears of war and bioshock and ac take me noticeably (5 hours at least) less time to beat than games like shadow of the colossus or god of war or prince of persia.  this is kind of gay!

I don't think games are getting too short and I really don't judge a game based on its length, it's much more about the content. A game can take less than 10 hours to beat but can still be a fantastic experience and worth the $50-$60 you invest in it. Uncharted, for example, took me less than 10 hours to beat on normal but it was an awesome experience. I seriously wanted to start playing it again right after beating it because it was so well done. I don't actually care too much about its lockables (though they are a nice addition) but playing through the game was such a blast that the game has enough replayability without them, and I'm sure a lot of people who beat this want to do it on harder difficulty setting as well. Like marcus said in the other topic, it felt like a rollercoaster ride and was just simple and pure fun from the beginning to the end which is why it's such a fun game to play and has good replay value. The first experience is of course the best since the game is cinematic and has really nice cutscenes but even so, playing through the impressive landscapes and levels and watching the cutscenes again wouldn't bother me. Also, I just want to point out that this game could take a whole lot longer to beat if it wasn't for the fact that whenever you die, you practically don't have to replay any older parts. If you had to, it could easily take 15 hours or more to beat.

Point really is that whike Uncharted might only take 8 hours to beat, it didn't feel too short at all. Uncharted felt like a complete game and when it ended, it didn't feel like the game ended too soon. Now, I have played games which take around 8 hours to beat but really feel too short. A good example would be Crysis. The reason it felt so short is because we didn't know it was going to be a fucking trilogy. It got a story which is presented really well and when things really start to get interesting, you get CONTINUES IN NEXT PART. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you Crytek. It wasn't even done well like HL2, it just ENDED. In a really awkward place. Honestly, I did feel like I was cheated a bit but I can forgive Crytek because despite being short, the good really outweights the bad here. Crysis has impressive technology. Impressive graphics, impressive physics and the AI is easily better what you see in most FPSes. The levels are huuuuuuge and while HL2 had one path to take, Crysis lets you beat the game in many different ways. The best example would be the second level. There's this semi-large village you need to infiltrate and it's completely up to you where you decided to infiltrate it and how. Crysis could have easily been a longer game had Crytek made it linear like HL2 and focused on creating more levels instead of creating huge levels. But they picked this style of gameplay over lengthier game and while Crysis feels way too short, it has more replayability than any other FPS I have played. Especially because the technology is so impressive and it's just such a blast to play. It even has a really nice multiplayer but I wouldn't mind even if it didn't. Crysis isn't the best example since it has replayability but what I am trying to say here is that the difference between Crysis and Uncharted is that one of them didn't feel like a whole gaming experience while the other did, despite taking as long to beat. Uncharted felt longer even though it wasn't.

It's true that majority of games are getting shorter due to them being more and more expensive to make and the graphical standard of this generation. You know what's funny though? I think this is really becoming a problem in RPG's more than any other genre, and it started in PS2/Cube/Xbox generation already. Majority of RPG's still take that 30-40 hours to beat but many of them feel ridiculously small because they don't have that many locations and the developers try to forcefully make RPG's seem longer than they really are. And despite that it could take 30-40 hours to beat a game like this, the game can actually FEEL shorter than Uncharted or other games which take less than 10 or 15 hours to beat. That's because those RPG's don't actually have enough content. Or maybe short isn't the correct term here, saying the game didn't feel complete would probably be more fitting. And this is exactly the thing we should be worried about instead of length. Short games can be insanely fun for various reason and I don't care even if they are short, as long as they deliver.

I think most of would naturally prefer a good game to be long rather than short but they never were that much longer. FPSes have always been short and HL2 is actually one of the longest FPSes I have played. Platformers have always taken that 10-15 hours to beat at most. I said that majority of the games are getting shorter but truthfully said, there's not that much of a difference in my opinion. They are not getting much shorter and it's too early to judge if this is a trend which will apply to the whole generation. I'm not really worried about the issue of game's length at all. Some games feel too short but they did in the previous generations as well. It's funny that the one genre I'm most concerned about is the genre with the longest games. A short game can be incredibly fun to play, can have a lot of replayability and even if it didn't, the experience could still easily make it worth your money.

I was actually going to write a more thought out article about the whole thing concerning length, quality and content but oh well.

I agree with DS. I prefer quality over quantity, though a great game that is long is ideal. For example, Super Metroid. That game takes the average gamer about 6-9 hours to beat(excluding finding secrets, extra powerups, etcetera.) However, the general consensus would say that it is a great game. I would like RPGs to be a bit longer, but short RPGs can still be great, too.

I think I'm missing something here.  You obviously hate

Yet you love

What's going on here?

You keep spitting out "more content here more content there" but what constitutes MORE CONTENT?  More badguys to kill?  More obstacles thrown in your path?  More points to score?  When you have a game that's completely based around something arbitrary like shooting things (half-life, bioshock, call of duty) or jumping around swinging swords (assassin's creed, prince of persia, god of war, ico) how can you add more content without the game reaching the point of monotony?  There's only so many different ways you can stealth kill a guard, counter a monster's attack, and slide a block into a hole thus opening the portcullis so you can move to the next room and slide another block into a hole.

So wait, are you ACTUALLY asking this question, or are you just continuing the argument here?  I think the point I made was that a lot of these games are such oddly fleeting experiences that even adding MORE SHIT to them (not even necessarily the same shit as before, so I'm not sure about the monotony thing, although there's really only so much you can do when adding shit to a SHOOTER I guess) would probably improve the experience, not have the opposite effect.  What you see to be assuming is that the game already feels perfectly complete and wouldn't benefit from just not ending yet.

Anyway I would talk about the other shit said but I have to go to work and just wanted to make this small clarification!  I feel like it would take about ten minutes to clarify why I view POINTS as being more acceptable than other random shit, but even that view really only extends about as far as... rail shooters, and puzzle games, and not much else.

I think the longer the game the better. There is no too long. You pay 50 bucks for a game, you don't WANT the game to end.

As far as rpgs go, my all time fav is Final Fantasy Tactics. That game can be anywhere from 30 to 50 hours depending on how much extra stuff you want to do. And being that long hasn't stopped me from beating it 7 times.

If you really want long replay values, you should stick with fighting games. If you have a good fighter and can play it online you never run out of gameplay.

If you really want long replay values, you should stick with fighting games. If you have a good fighter and can play it online you never run out of gameplay.

This completely depends on the player because I tend to get bored with fighting games really fast. The few fighting games which have lasted more than 10-20 hours in my case are SSBM, Naruto GNT3, Bushido Blade and maybe Soul Calibur. Mortal Kombat too when I was young but nowadays I couldn't stand it for that long. I never saw the appeal in many beat 'em ups people orgasm over, Street Fighter in particular.

Games are obviouslly longer then back in the 8 and 16 bit days. Like Jester said, they, for the most part, were made for being beaten in 1 sitting because there was no save option. Then they eventually were able to make them longer because of the save systems they started to implement. Games are getting longer for the most part, because people want to get a bang for there buck when they pay 50 or 60 doll hairs for them.

I, personally, don't really care how long a game is, as long as I enjoy it. A game like Call of Duty 4 for example, I was able to beat in about 8 to 10 hours, and was not dissapointed at all. It was such a good game that I have beat in again on veteran, which takes more time, and have spent countless hours online. On that point, Games are adding extra content like online play, and even things like leaderboards, which add time to a game, because people take the time because they want to get on the board. Then your long RPG's and adventure games can take anywhere from 30 to 70 hours to complete. I'll use FF7 for example because I played that for 80 hours, got every materia mastered etc etc and never once felt like the game was dragging on for the sake of dragging on. (I can't say that about FF12 however.)

So really, it doesn't matter how long a game is, it just matters if I enjoyed they experience of playing through it. As long as I don't feel cheated or anything like that I'm happy.

I think I'm missing something here.  You obviously hate

Yet you love

What's going on here?

You keep spitting out "more content here more content there" but what constitutes MORE CONTENT?  More badguys to kill?  More obstacles thrown in your path?  More points to score?  When you have a game that's completely based around something arbitrary like shooting things (half-life, bioshock, call of duty) or jumping around swinging swords (assassin's creed, prince of persia, god of war, ico) how can you add more content without the game reaching the point of monotony?  There's only so many different ways you can stealth kill a guard, counter a monster's attack, and slide a block into a hole thus opening the portcullis so you can move to the next room and slide another block into a hole.

Okay, elaborating on what I said about the high score thing, I don't LOVE it.  In fact, outside of shooters like Starfox and shit like that, and puzzle games, I don't care about it at all.  But, when it comes to replayability, I think Starfox 64, because of it, was a much better game than it would've been had you only felt the need to beat it once.  Another difference is that I think there's sort of a differentiation between things like unlockables and a high score.  Unless it's really cool shit (an extra weapon, for example), I do actually think there's more to be said for the idea of building on your earlier work, and beating your own high scores, than just going through the same game again, not to set a personal best, but just to unlock some weird easter egg.  And even for high scores, I don't especially see any place for them in the way I'm talking about outside games that take like an hour to beat.

And I don't see ALL unlockables as fluff at all, because the idea of unlockable content, to me, isn't intrinsically shallow.  I'm sure there are games around that add some pretty cool shit that you can unlock, and multiple endings can be cool too (unless it is SO2 shit where every single one is gay and WHO WILL HE END UP WITH HEH), but the problem isn't that I view them as fluff, it's that the developers seem to, and the result is that instead of anything worthwhile, you get things like DarkNecrid mentioned: EXTRA COSTUMES and other things that, yes, while they technically contribute to replayability, are also kind of a trite way to do it.

okay.  i guess you just have a better view of pacing than i do???  i'm not going to sit here trying to convince you that most games i play aren't as well paced as you seem to feel that they are, so i guess this is......... the end.  but i would never want assassin's creed to be longer; i'd just want it to be better, and then maybe longer depending on how much better it is.  or else, just cheaper, because totally expendable hobby or not, they've really been stretching it lately.  did you feel it, too, when you bought ac?  sixty bucks, which isn't a TINY amount of money, spent on a short, subpar game?  this is how i feel for most games i play.  i'm surprised so many people still buy them, because i feel i have less and less reasons to justify not just renting them instead.  maybe it's because i'm not what you would call a "master of unlocking (extra costumes LOL)."