Game Length vs Looks

jackbanditdude01 · Apr 2008

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?

ImSlightlyBored · Apr 2008

I dont think either element is exclusive of the other but working with the idea/theory they are, then I'd go with which ever played nicer. And often, graphics/presentation and a robust system aid this (Crysis for example was fun to me because it allowed for different solutions, even though it was fairly linear.)

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.

MoP · Apr 2008

I'd rather buy Oblivion! Looks alright, bloody huge game.

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

jackbanditdude01 · Apr 2008

Good point MoP, a good looking game that is just beyond imaginably huge. And I know there are faults to my question, but in the strictest sense of the question is what I'm asking for. But lets assume both games are fun, although not necessarily as open as Crysis or other games with their solution system.

Marine · Apr 2008

i'll take replayability over pretty graphics. hitman blood money has stolen countless hours of my life. bought a second copy when i got my 360 too.

Slum · Apr 2008

COD 4 was the perfect length for me. Just enough to stay engaged in the story and not get bored. I played through the singleplayer 3 times, and it was always just as fun. It also has unlimited replayability with one of the best multiplayer experiences ever.

ElysiumGX · Apr 2008

I put appealing visual quality (not realism) and unique gameplay functions over anything else. I don't care for length of play. I try not to listen to it. I often avoid games that make a point of marketing game length, because you'll often get what equates to grinding or boring gameplay. I do enjoy replay value.

danr · Apr 2008

i don't mind a short game, even if it looks shite but plays well ... but by god, i better be know beforehand how short it's going to be. There's not much worse than a game unexpectedly ending on you while you're enjoying it or just getting immersed.

Rhinokey · Apr 2008

so you are weighing looking great versus being a long play experience

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

Vitor · Apr 2008

If long is due to highly repetitive quests, same enemies different colors, random landscapes, same strategies.... then I go for the spectacular art

It's been ages since I enjoyed a game to the end.

aesir · Apr 2008

Im tired of long games. I prefer 5-10 hour single player games these days. For multi I put in hundreds of hours though

Slum · Apr 2008

I really dont have the attention span it takes to play long games anymore. If its over 8-10 hours, i'll probably never finish it. I put in a healthy amount of hours in the old final fantasy games, and about 200+ on Legend of Mana.. but I just cant do that anymore.

Ott · Apr 2008

Even as an artist, give me something that says "Hellz yeah that was FUN".

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.

Lord McMutton · Apr 2008

I would rather have a game that's frighteningly long than one that takes me a day or two to finish.

rooster · Apr 2008

hmm once you're working and theres no more summer holidays, games like oblivion seem less appealing. I mean yeah it was ace, but I never came close to finishing it and I'd poured in a huge number of hours.. COD4 was ace, perfect imo. Give me a short blast of insane fun that is great to relive and doesnt require a hefty investment

Joshua Stubbles · Apr 2008

If I pay $50 for a game, I want a bare minimum of 8hrs of gameplay even on the easiest setting.
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.

Thegodzero · Apr 2008

I think of it this way, if a movie sets you back $20 for 2hr of entertainment then a game thats $60 should at least give you 6hr. I love good looking games, but i play them as an artists so a 6hr game to me is a 18hr game because i do stop to smell the roses. I also love a good RTS or RPG but don't expect me to ever finish an RPG.

flaagan · Apr 2008

I just beat God of War for the PSP in about 5 hours. I've still got the challenges and "god mode" to go through, but it boils down to the whole game being only 3 'zones' long. However, the game is freakin' fun to play, and looks visually great. I wouldn't mind it being a longer game, but that was a solid 5 hours of gameplay.

bounchfx · Apr 2008

one thing ive noticed is that 'quality' games (ones that are fun) are usually the ones that look best as well. I think this is mainly because of the effort the developer. If you look at top top teir games on systems they generally have the best graphics on that given system as well (for the time they were released). in terms of length - the game should be as long as is appropriate. For action titles like GOW 8-10 hours is perfect - any longer and it might start to drag and get even more repetitive.. however they keep it fresh for the entire time by adding new moves and skills and such.

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.

IronHawk · Apr 2008

Slum wrote: »

COD 4 was the perfect length for me. Just enough to stay engaged in the story and not get bored. I played through the singleplayer 3 times, and it was always just as fun. It also has unlimited replayability with one of the best multiplayer experiences ever.

seconded.

I really enjoyed the length of this game and the art was fantastic.

sonic · Apr 2008

I don't really care either way as long as the game is great. Portal was very short, but amazingly fun and high replay value.

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.

Michael Knubben · Apr 2008

It entirely depends on the game. Some games can feel stretched to their limit at 8 hours, others you can play for much, much longer. I do have a special fondness for short but strong game-experiences lately, having a lot less time to spend on them. I liked Portal for this reason (among other, obviously), and hated as it is, I liked Quake 4 for this reason, although I'd never stand up to defend it, as it's not a standout game at all. I stopped playing Bioshock halfway through because I wasn't enjoying myself anymore, and had someone tell me the rest of the story. Bioshock's atmosphere and story appealed to me much more than the gameplay, and it got old for me. Had it been much shorter, I might have looked back on it more favourably.

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.

Game Length vs Looks

Replies