Page 1 of 1

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 4th, 2014, 7:30 pm
by Segatarious1
http://kotaku.com/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-is-short-really-short-1516004297

Game Informer got their hands on a near-final build of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes for their March cover story, and they say they beat the game's main mission (not including side quests or special console-exclusive missions) in less than two hours. Less than two hours!

"Judged just by the core story mission, Ground Zeroes is short," Game Informer writes in the cover story (only available in the magazine, not online). "We completed it in just less than two hours."1

 the current-gen version is $30 digital and $40 physical.


A 2 hour game? Is that a joke? That is ridiculously short. That's how long it takes Link to get dressed and eat breakfast  in a typical 3D Zelda.


And then I see Titanfall - preorder for $60. NO campaign. NO single player. NO local coop of any type. Whats up with that? The game concept is Call Of Duty with Mechs, but only 3 Mech types in the game - more to come with pay DLC?  Game is limited to 6 vs 6 mulitplayer. Full retail price for essentially half a game?

Have the high cost of production values finally overwhelmed content of games?

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 12:29 am
by BrianH1
Hideo Kojima had already said that Ground Zeroes was originally going to be part of Phantom Pain but he had to split it up. I don't remember the exact reason but it had something to do with PS4 and XB1 arriving in 2013. Nevertheless, consumers are going to end up being charged $90-$100 for one game if we add up the prices of both Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain.
On the other hand, you can do finish any GTA in 15 hours or less if you only do story missions but the whole game is near 50-60 hours. Ground Zeroes has got a lot of side missions and other things to do. I think it is going to (at least) reach the 10-hour mark.

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 3:56 am
by Verm1
How long does it take to complete a classic game with an end (i.e to separate the classic games where one plays for score) these days?

It could be as much that the general skill of gamers has increased?

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 11:47 am
by Edward1
Actually, I think this is a good thing.  The one thing I hate more than anything in games is forced filler. It means the game is wasting my time.  I work and go to school, so my time to play games is limited.  I can understand that people are angry paying 60 dollars for a game, and getting a 3 hour game.  The solution to that problem is not to buy the game at launch.  Wait a year, and find it on sale at New Egg - Amazon Warehouse - Game Fly - Slick Deals -etc for $8-15.  Then a three hour game doesn't sound so bad.

Movies specialize in editing, removing content that doesn't help the story, which usually makes the film shorter, but better.  Many games need a good editor.  The worst offender I can think of Zelda Skyward sword.  The game had a fantastic amount of content and some great dungeons.  But it had a million fetch quests in between.  Why?  The game didn't need them.  The game would have been a fantastic 30 hour game (which IMO is still insanely long) but instead was merely a good but sometimes boring 50 hour game.  How can anyone say that's better?

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, games as a whole are too long, not to short.  I would like to see developers only put in a game what is needed.  One of my favorite games of the past few years was Need for Speed the Run.  All the reviewers (Except for thevideogamecritic of course) gave it bad reviews because it was 4 hours long.  But it was a fantastic and thrilling 4 hours that reminded me of the arcade racers of the mid 90s.  I wish more games had that mindset. That game was far more memorable than racers that were 10 times as long with padding where you have to race over and over again to unlock a mere Ford Taurus.

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 12:46 pm
by Segatarious1
[QUOTE=Edward]Actually, I think this is a good thing.  The one thing I hate more than anything in games is forced filler. It means the game is wasting my time.  I work and go to school, so my time to play games is limited.  I can understand that people are angry paying 60 dollars for a game, and getting a 3 hour game.  The solution to that problem is not to buy the game at launch.  Wait a year, and find it on sale at New Egg - Amazon Warehouse - Game Fly - Slick Deals -etc for $8-15.  Then a three hour game doesn't sound so bad.

Movies specialize in editing, removing content that doesn't help the story, which usually makes the film shorter, but better.  Many games need a good editor.  The worst offender I can think of Zelda Skyward sword.  The game had a fantastic amount of content and some great dungeons.  But it had a million fetch quests in between.  Why?  The game didn't need them.  The game would have been a fantastic 30 hour game (which IMO is still insanely long) but instead was merely a good but sometimes boring 50 hour game.  How can anyone say that's better?

I'm sorry, but in my opinion, games as a whole are too long, not to short.  I would like to see developers only put in a game what is needed.  One of my favorite games of the past few years was Need for Speed the Run.  All the reviewers (Except for thevideogamecritic of course) gave it bad reviews because it was 4 hours long.  But it was a fantastic and thrilling 4 hours that reminded me of the arcade racers of the mid 90s.  I wish more games had that mindset. That game was far more memorable than racers that were 10 times as long with padding where you have to race over and over again to unlock a mere Ford Taurus.[/QUOTE]


This is very very dangerous mindset.

Now I am one of the hardest critics of Zelda on this board - I mean, I made fun of the game in this original post....but - slows starts are one thing (and BAD!) but we really want to go to this extreme??? From hours of game play to 2 hours of game play?

No way - way too big of leap downwards.

Games are not movies - we have had that topic. This is about GAMEPLAY and content. 2 hours of gameplay for that expensive of a game is not enough. Now Titanfall, you MAY have a lot of gameplay, if it is a well made multiplayer exp. I just hate to see an erosion of single player campaigns, again seems like a lot to give up, with no concession is cost to you. Considering you are paying $60 ON TOP of an online subscription - where is the beef???

Why pay more for less content?





Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 1:03 pm
by weallmissedme1
There's a game called  Rust which looks great. BUT, I'm not buying it. Why? NO SINGLE PLAYER! What is with all these Multi-Player only games? I like playing games alone sometimes without worrying about some prick coming in and ruining my experience while I'm new to the game. Even MineCraft (A game I love), as multi-player heavy as it may be, has a single player.

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 1:22 pm
by Edward1
Segatarious, I would actually love to see more 2 hour games.  Portal, for example, was a fantastic game that did everything it needed to in a little over 2 hours. Infact, 2  hours was pretty much the norm until the N64-PS1 era, outside of RPGS and a handful of Nintendo first party games. I'm guessing you're a bit on the younger side and have more freetime to play games.  I'm glad I got a snow day from both work and grad school today.  However those days are rare.

There is nothing I hate more than a game that ran out of ideas 10 hours ago, but just keeps going and going, probably because the developers were told to make the game arbitrarily longer for marketing reasons.  Anyone who has a job, goes to school, has a family, etc can certainly understand this.  I can understand younger people wanting longer games, because games are investment to them on limited resources, and they have more free time.  However, if you wait a bit, games are dirt cheap, so they don't need to be seen as an investment.  When I realize there are hundreds of games out there that I may never have the time to play, it makes me hate arbitrary filler in games even more.  IMO a short fantastic game (Portal 2) is far better than a longer boring game full of filler (Far Cry 2).  I get enough repetitive "filler" tasks at work.


As far as Titanfall, I know little about it.  I can say Team Fortress 2 isn't any worse of a game because its multiplayer only.  I will wait and see on Titanfall, but multiplayer FPS's aren't generally my kind of thing.  If they wanted to concentrate on multiplayer, then perhaps they felt that it was pointless to waste time on an added on single player campaign.  I guess we will see what the final game is like.  If you think $60 is too much for it, than wait for it to be cheaper.

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 1:26 pm
by Bluenote1
[QUOTE=Segatarious]http://kotaku.com/metal-gear-solid-ground-zeroes-is-short-really-short-1516004297

Game Informer got their hands on a near-final build of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes for their March cover story, and they say they beat the game's main mission (not including side quests or special console-exclusive missions) in less than two hours. Less than two hours!

"Judged just by the core story mission, Ground Zeroes is short," Game Informer writes in the cover story (only available in the magazine, not online). "We completed it in just less than two hours."1

 the current-gen version is $30 digital and $40 physical.


A 2 hour game? Is that a joke? That is ridiculously short. That's how long it takes Link to get dressed and eat breakfast  in a typical 3D Zelda.


And then I see Titanfall - preorder for $60. NO campaign. NO single player. NO local coop of any type. Whats up with that? The game concept is Call Of Duty with Mechs, but only 3 Mech types in the game - more to come with pay DLC?  Game is limited to 6 vs 6 mulitplayer. Full retail price for essentially half a game?

Have the high cost of production values finally overwhelmed content of games?[/QUOTE]

This is clearly the exception, not the norm.  I don't know of any other current game that is only 2 hours in length.

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 6:11 pm
by darkrage61
That does sound like a rip-off, but for the most part, AAA games generally speaking are of a decent length, and as long as the side-quests in MGS: Ground Zeroes are plentiful enough I think it will make up somewhat for the short length.  Also it will probably take me longer then 2 hours to finish the story since i'm not exactly an expert when it comes to stealth games.

Are we seeing a loss of content in 'AAA' games?

Posted: February 5th, 2014, 6:22 pm
by darkrage61

To many people short length is a legitimate criticism, I know Angry Joe has ripped apart some games for being too short(I.E. Kane And Lynch 2, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows 1 and 2, though the latter two would've probably been even worse if they were any longer).

For me 5 hours or longer is the prefered campaign length, though less is fine(I actually liked Kane And Lynch 2, though it definitely would've benefited from being longer), for me Far Cry 2 was just the right length. Portal  and Portal 2's short length were admittedly a good thing, if there were any longer I doubt I would've had the patience to finish them.

I was intially excited about Titanfall when I saw the trailer, but the "no single player" BS really irked me, I really don't like being forced into multiplayer, something I truly could not care less about if I tried, so Titanfall is one game I will not bother spending my money on(I also avoided buying the new Shadowrun for being multiplayer-only).

I don't mind shorter games because I usually trade in older games towards new ones, that way I don't have to pay 50-60 dollars for a new game, so if it's a bit short I don't mind.