Games are becoming shorter now, post comments here

i like RPGs Though i've noticed them getting shorter. when i can sit down 2-3 times and beat the game, while not doing a speed run.. it's sad.

Fable is a big offender in this category, M&L aswell...

Final fantasy started short, Got longer, and are now getting shorter

Oblivion killed Elder scrolls length....

Dude, Mega Man has been ALWAYS reusing sprites. I mean even FROM the start of the first games they have been doing that. Infact, they are reusing the sprites less often now. Nes megaman games = Reused sprites like 11 times (counting the GB games)

The MMBN series made sprite updates since mmbn4. And Mega Man X's sprites were usually reused like 3 times (1-3 and 4-6).


Also, am I the only one here who can care less about sprites being reused? Actually nevermind what I've wrote, I read you wrong.

MMBN5 does have a story. If anything, MMBN4 is the one that lacked the story :P

I wish more people thought like you.

I endorce this post, and i am against X7...


Oh hey.... BUBBLE BAT

Yeah, X7 was horrible :P

I don't have a problem with short RPGs. Games like Final Fantasy 10 were arduous because of their length, as to where games like Chrono Trigger and Earthbound were great because they lasted just as long as they needed to be.

Anyway, I don't think this argument holds that much merrit. There are so many video games, and you (the topic creator) seem to only be comparing two. Games these days are much longer than their NES/Genesis/SNES/N64 counterparts.

Actually, games these days are only "shorter" because of their difficulty.

WHOA. Sony is just trying to compete against the Xbox 1.5 360. I'm pretty sure they know that there are idiots out there who only care about graphics. That's (one of the reasons) why they're using Blu-Ray for their PS3. See, their focus is to KILL MICROSOFT, not entirely to dazzle us with graphics. Besides, they're showing us what the PS3 can do and it'll be expensive because its manufacturing is costly.

Sorry for going off topic. I felt this had to be said.

my beautiful work of trolling art has gone undetected :(

Games seem shorter because you are having fun.

I think this would be a better example of games being shorter:

Super Mario World: About 90 levels
Super Mario 64: About 15 levels

7 stars each. So, 105 "levels".

This post has been edited by Joey on May 30 2006, 07:09 PM

video games are supposed to take a chunk of your life thats what they did do and thats what they are supposed to continue doing but they wont!!! like mario and luigi 1 it would have been beatter to continuely beat the game to death then make a sequle

This post has been edited by Derrike G. on May 30 2006, 07:13 PM

I thought you weren't even a sperm cell before those games were released.

But anyway, if you think Super Mario Brothers was somehow just as non-linear as Super Mario 64, you're on crack.

save for the fact that mario world's level are basically short sprints from beginning to exit, while mario 64's are more involving with exploration and nonlinearity and multiple goals and such

Honestly, it doesn't really bother me much since I don't really have time to spend 12 hours a day playing video games anymore. My gaming intervals have become a lot shorter as I got older, and now even a short game lasts me a while.

As for replay value, I'm weird and like replaying games even if they have no real replay value outside of "replay the main story for kicks". Heck, I've played some games over so many times I can do them with my eyes closed (Super Mario RPG for example- I almost know the dialogue by heart) and I'll probably replay them again sometime in the future.

Though I think some games like Sonic Adventure 2: Battle and Eternal Darkness* could have been even better if their replay value went beyond 'replay the same levels only do something slightly different". If you're just gonna do something like that, just use the extra space for another level!

Speaking of short games, I'm starting to really like the idea of episodic games (like Telltale Games is doing with BONE and Sam and Max, and Valve with Half-Life 2). Instead of making one giant game, a company breaks it up into portions and releases them one by one over time. This way you can get one episode of a game for relatively cheap and decide whether or not it's worth getting the rest instead of blowing 50-60 bucks on a mediocre game. And for someone like me who doesn't have a lot of time for gaming anymore, short 'episodes' of games are pretty appealing.

*Don't get me wrong, though- SA2:B and ED are favorites of mine, but I wish choosing between Ancients in ED yeilded more differences in the game than slightly different monsters and cutscenes for each path (like rearranged chapters or completely different characters), and SA2's missions are a total game lengthening cop-out- replay every level FIVE times? Yeesh.

Comparing games' length on the basis of number of levels is disingenuous. Different games have different structures; 'levels' in Mario 64 are completely different from those in Mario World, in size, function, scope for messing around with non-goal-oriented action... Just doesn't work, unless you're dealing with near-identical games (Like Super Mario Bros 1 and Bros. 2, Japanese version).

Attempts to measure and compare game length by playing time, in hours, is also misguided. Playing times vary greatly depending on the player and their experience, skill, motivation (I mean... some gamers will spend more time pissing around while others will head singlemindedly straight toward the Ultimate Goal). This ignores a game's replay value, and completely breaks down when dealing with endless multiplayer. And what of games that you get bored of before they're even over? They still have playing time left in them. But who cares. They've already failed.

I propose that it more useful to look at a game's long term longevity. I mean, real long term. Years. The old games that we still play and talk about today (and have persisting fanbases) are the 'longest' ones in a more meaningful sense. Like Tetris, Doom and 2D Mario, to pick some widespread examples. Of course this measure is highly subjective; it will depend on what games YOU are still playing, discussing and giving a lasting damn about.

But as for the games of today? Are they 'shorter'? We'll have to wait a few years to find out. How's that for a question dodge :D

From what I heard, NSMB does a good job of capturing the feel. Sunshine also has a ton of replay value, mostly because playing around with the water is just fun (the game was a pretty good length too).

YES finally someone who understands! ^_^






Now I feel that I should add that it doesn't even make sense to complain about a game's length. If you really enjoyed a game that is "too short," would it really hurt to play it again, and relive the enjoyment? If you enjoyed a "short" game that much, why wouldn't you want to play it again, honestly?

Super Mario World was my first game, either that or Donkey Kong Country.