So I was just looking at new games and some older ones, and I've noticed in the games lately that greater graphics has led to shorter games. As in, the graphics are great, the world dynamics and physics are great, but the games seem to be really short. Maybe that's just because they are since the graphics take up so much time for a company and they don't have time or money to make longer games then. Or maybe they do it just to lengthen a franchise and make more money (Halo series, for example, although that's just the remarks of some players I know). What I want to pose is a question is everyone.
Would you rather:
A) Buy and play a game with graphics/features akin to say, Crysis, game play length on average of 4 hours, and pay $60 for it?
Buy and play a game with graphics/features like that of the low-poly character thread, game play length akin to that of Final Fantasy games (which could be days in my experience), and around the price of $15-$20?
Replies
In short, length doesnt matter so much to me, its the quality of whats there, first and foremost. I still think you could have a lengthy game with good presentation though.
edit: I'd buy a game I know I'm going to play for a long time (deep RPGs, fun online shooters, strategy games like Civ4 or Warcraft 3) - anything which has an aspect which either makes it very replayable (good multiplayer for example) or just having a very long/deep/replayable storyline (like Morrowind or Deus Ex).
I'll let the other people buy the fancy-looking games like Crysis and go and watch it for half an hour on their computer. I doubt the fun/replayability it might give me would be worth the expense, and my computer isn't really good enough to show it off in its best settings and still be playable.
Actually I tell a lie, I got Crysis for Christmas this year. Didn't buy it though
i go the opposite way
non spetacular art
+
short as hell play time
=
Portal
contains both the "bad" elements in your original statement
but one of the best games in years
I can look past the corner cutting for graphics for the most part in other games. As an artist I strive to do the best I can graphically, but I understand time / budget for a lot of these games coming out. Sometimes they bite off way more than they can chew, and sometimes you get a perfect balance of gameplay and graphics.
Looking to the future, my biggest expectation is simply more on screen (Characters and environments both) and tons more "stuff to do". If you mixed Oblivion with Assassin's Creed, I would never leave my condo.
Graphics don't have to be amazing, but decent. The GTA games are a good example. The graphics are good, not great. But the length of gameplay and replayability are really high.
theres good games for all lengths. RPGs are usually the longer ones like Final Fantasy and such which have GREAT graphics as well as length. Then there's stuff like ICO and SOTC which look amazing, play well, but are on the short side (5-8), but after you beat it, you feel fulfilled like it's a complete experience.
I forgot where I was going with this.
seconded.
I really enjoyed the length of this game and the art was fantastic.
I'll probably never play through Mass Effect's 30 hour storyline (with side missions) again, but it was one of the most pleasing games I have ever played.
God of War 1&2 were both around 12 hours long, but both were fucking epicly amazing and two of my favorites.
The point is: I don't have a preference, just as long as the game is amazing. It is, however, more convenient for a game to be decently short so that I can beat it without investing too much time.
edit: I should also mention that --if quality remains high-- I'm all for the idea of episodic content. The only game I played that featured this was Sam and Max though, so I can't really judge wether it works, as I didn't really enjoy them.