The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Classic examples of games being too short are MOH, Soldier of Fortune 2 and RTCW. I personally don't think so. They fulfull their script and provide me with a lengthy enough experience that leaves me to think my £30 was well spent. I'll happily go alone with the likes of Blue Shift being too short. But this debate has got to stop. Games are generally not too short.
And yes some FPS's are short. Making a game such as Half-Life, and possibly NOLF, longer than it is could spoil the plot, but games with fairly dull plots - JK2, MoHAA, RtCW, SoF2, the list goes on - could easily have been longer. Developers seem to like to give games a nice clear easy beginning, fun middle and tricky end. Why they can't just make the fun section go on forever I don't know.
I don't think FPS games are too short, but they are obviously shorter than RPGs and adventure games etc. NOLF and JK2, Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint etc are hardly short, but on the other hand MoH:AA, Serious Sam and RTCW are. But overall they last long enough for me, that's taking a week or so as long enough. Here's a summary:
NOLF = a month of casual play
Deus Ex = a month
MoH:AA = jus under a week
JK2 = a frenetic saber-slashing week
Shogo: MAD = 2 days
Max Payne = 3 days
Project IGI = 2 months
Serious Sam = a week or so
They're some of my main FPS' I've completed, and most of them lasted long enough, but some were short, albeit not too short. I only payed a tenner for games like SS and Shogo, and MP was free, but if I payed £30 for any of these I would be dissapointed with the playing time. Some FPS games are short, and what is there is not of such stunningly superb gameplay comparitively to get away with short life. RCTW was too short, but I did not think a single level was up to the quality of say, Deus Ex or Half Life. I thought that JK2 was too short but not as much as some other games are. I didn't get the feeling of, 'that was a very short game' so much as, 'that game could have been longer'.
I think the general quality of an FPS seems to diminish the longer it goes on for, Deus Ex being the exception of course, so until developers are able to maintain a good level of gameplay, I say keep 'em short and sweet, unless it's just a case of shooting the more monsters you can every level, then I say let there be many levels and many monsters. Blue Shift anyone?, about 4-5 hours of play. Older games like Doom and Future Shock took ages to finish (and were great). New games seem to run out of ideas very quickly and hope you don't notice by throwing in multi-player.
I enjoy the Thief games, I really do. But I find I can't really be absorbed into a game concentrated in stealth unless it gives me the option to break away from stealth. For example, you could play in a stealthy manner in both DX and NOLF, but could break to pure action at any point. Thats not to say I don't think I could enjoy a game purely surrounded by stealth, I do enjoy the Thief's, but I don't think any game has done staelth so well to the extent you could play it in that fashion throughout the entire game without even thinking of breaking away from it. Though perhaps this may be due to 1 or 2 IMHO badly designed levels in both games. Thief 2 was better, but still not perfect.
One might argue how long you play the game. Like if you played say, 5 hours a day and the game lasts only 20 hours than it would be short. But if you played only half an hour a day it would last you a lot longer. As the saying goes ' good things always come in small packages'(?!). So here is what I say, take your time when playing the game. You're here to enjoy it. Not try to be the first to complete it. Complete it too early and you have blown a bit of cash.
Give me shorter/quality over SoF2-esque longer/boredom any day. I was one of the ones who thought Max Payne was a nice length - (no, I'm not a poor gamer) - any more levels and it would have become tiresome. How much time do we FPS players spend walking through samey corridors shooting samey enemies just so we can see that next 'special moment'? Half-life worked because it restricted bull. Developers pack their games with extra-non needed levels because of a need to give the consumer their thirty pounds worth. This is a completely mis-directed emphasis. Swap the expense of games for a shorter/increased quality experience. So no, modern FPS aren't too short, they're just not packed with enough good ideas.
Still, I tend to enjoy games based on content, not length. I'd rather play something short and sweet like Max Payne or Medal of Honour than something that is long and drawn out like Unreal. Even though less hours have been put into it, I feel I have my money's worth from a quality game. There's also the point of replay. I usually play a through a game I've bought more than once. Unreal is a much much longer game than Max Payne, but I've played much more hours of Max simply because it is a rich experience that I've revisted several times. Unreal I played through once and because it had become so repetitive near the end, I couldn't stomach going back to it.
Flux.
And yes some FPS's are short. Making a game such as Half-Life, and possibly NOLF, longer than it is could spoil the plot, but games with fairly dull plots - JK2, MoHAA, RtCW, SoF2, the list goes on - could easily have been longer. Developers seem to like to give games a nice clear easy beginning, fun middle and tricky end. Why they can't just make the fun section go on forever I don't know.
I don't think FPS games are too short, but they are obviously shorter than RPGs and adventure games etc. NOLF and JK2, Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint etc are hardly short, but on the other hand MoH:AA, Serious Sam and RTCW are. But overall they last long enough for me, that's taking a week or so as long enough. Here's a summary:
NOLF = a month of casual play
Deus Ex = a month
MoH:AA = jus under a week
JK2 = a frenetic saber-slashing week
Shogo: MAD = 2 days
Max Payne = 3 days
Project IGI = 2 months
Serious Sam = a week or so
They're some of my main FPS' I've completed, and most of them lasted long enough, but some were short, albeit not too short. I only payed a tenner for games like SS and Shogo, and MP was free, but if I payed £30 for any of these I would be dissapointed with the playing time. Some FPS games are short, and what is there is not of such stunningly superb gameplay comparitively to get away with short life. RCTW was too short, but I did not think a single level was up to the quality of say, Deus Ex or Half Life. I thought that JK2 was too short but not as much as some other games are. I didn't get the feeling of, 'that was a very short game' so much as, 'that game could have been longer'.
I think the general quality of an FPS seems to diminish the longer it goes on for, Deus Ex being the exception of course, so until developers are able to maintain a good level of gameplay, I say keep 'em short and sweet, unless it's just a case of shooting the more monsters you can every level, then I say let there be many levels and many monsters. Blue Shift anyone?, about 4-5 hours of play. Older games like Doom and Future Shock took ages to finish (and were great). New games seem to run out of ideas very quickly and hope you don't notice by throwing in multi-player.
I enjoy the Thief games, I really do. But I find I can't really be absorbed into a game concentrated in stealth unless it gives me the option to break away from stealth. For example, you could play in a stealthy manner in both DX and NOLF, but could break to pure action at any point. Thats not to say I don't think I could enjoy a game purely surrounded by stealth, I do enjoy the Thief's, but I don't think any game has done staelth so well to the extent you could play it in that fashion throughout the entire game without even thinking of breaking away from it. Though perhaps this may be due to 1 or 2 IMHO badly designed levels in both games. Thief 2 was better, but still not perfect.
One might argue how long you play the game. Like if you played say, 5 hours a day and the game lasts only 20 hours than it would be short. But if you played only half an hour a day it would last you a lot longer. As the saying goes ' good things always come in small packages'(?!). So here is what I say, take your time when playing the game. You're here to enjoy it. Not try to be the first to complete it. Complete it too early and you have blown a bit of cash.
Give me shorter/quality over SoF2-esque longer/boredom any day. I was one of the ones who thought Max Payne was a nice length - (no, I'm not a poor gamer) - any more levels and it would have become tiresome. How much time do we FPS players spend walking through samey corridors shooting samey enemies just so we can see that next 'special moment'? Half-life worked because it restricted bull. Developers pack their games with extra-non needed levels because of a need to give the consumer their thirty pounds worth. This is a completely mis-directed emphasis. Swap the expense of games for a shorter/increased quality experience. So no, modern FPS aren't too short, they're just not packed with enough good ideas.
Still, I tend to enjoy games based on content, not length. I'd rather play something short and sweet like Max Payne or Medal of Honour than something that is long and drawn out like Unreal. Even though less hours have been put into it, I feel I have my money's worth from a quality game. There's also the point of replay. I usually play a through a game I've bought more than once. Unreal is a much much longer game than Max Payne, but I've played much more hours of Max simply because it is a rich experience that I've revisted several times. Unreal I played through once and because it had become so repetitive near the end, I couldn't stomach going back to it.
Flux.
*Slaps self*
Oops :D
Oops :D
Max Payne wasn't first person you nonse!
First Person Shooter means shooting from a first person perspective - through the eyes of the character.
Anyway, people like games to be longer to get a better value for money.
FPS's can normally afford to be relatively short though, because they have difficulty settings so there's a challenge to come back to.
Goldeneye, for instance, was a game I beat within 5 days on the agent setting (and I didn't exactly play it to death!).
It took another month to beat secret agent and a whole 2 months to beat it on 00 Agent.
That way it was short enough to stay interesting the first time round, and still lasted me.
Also, harder difficulty settings normally added something to the mission to make it more interesting. I personally find FPS's the longest lasting games around because there's almost always a challenge to come back to.
And then there's that addictive multiplayer mode...
First Person Shooter means shooting from a first person perspective - through the eyes of the character.
Anyway, people like games to be longer to get a better value for money.
FPS's can normally afford to be relatively short though, because they have difficulty settings so there's a challenge to come back to.
Goldeneye, for instance, was a game I beat within 5 days on the agent setting (and I didn't exactly play it to death!).
It took another month to beat secret agent and a whole 2 months to beat it on 00 Agent.
That way it was short enough to stay interesting the first time round, and still lasted me.
Also, harder difficulty settings normally added something to the mission to make it more interesting. I personally find FPS's the longest lasting games around because there's almost always a challenge to come back to.
And then there's that addictive multiplayer mode...
Classic examples of games being too short are MOH, Soldier of Fortune 2 and RTCW. I personally don't think so. They fulfull their script and provide me with a lengthy enough experience that leaves me to think my £30 was well spent. I'll happily go alone with the likes of Blue Shift being too short. But this debate has got to stop. Games are generally not too short.
And yes some FPS's are short. Making a game such as Half-Life, and possibly NOLF, longer than it is could spoil the plot, but games with fairly dull plots - JK2, MoHAA, RtCW, SoF2, the list goes on - could easily have been longer. Developers seem to like to give games a nice clear easy beginning, fun middle and tricky end. Why they can't just make the fun section go on forever I don't know.
I don't think FPS games are too short, but they are obviously shorter than RPGs and adventure games etc. NOLF and JK2, Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint etc are hardly short, but on the other hand MoH:AA, Serious Sam and RTCW are. But overall they last long enough for me, that's taking a week or so as long enough. Here's a summary:
NOLF = a month of casual play
Deus Ex = a month
MoH:AA = jus under a week
JK2 = a frenetic saber-slashing week
Shogo: MAD = 2 days
Max Payne = 3 days
Project IGI = 2 months
Serious Sam = a week or so
They're some of my main FPS' I've completed, and most of them lasted long enough, but some were short, albeit not too short. I only payed a tenner for games like SS and Shogo, and MP was free, but if I payed £30 for any of these I would be dissapointed with the playing time. Some FPS games are short, and what is there is not of such stunningly superb gameplay comparitively to get away with short life. RCTW was too short, but I did not think a single level was up to the quality of say, Deus Ex or Half Life. I thought that JK2 was too short but not as much as some other games are. I didn't get the feeling of, 'that was a very short game' so much as, 'that game could have been longer'.
I think the general quality of an FPS seems to diminish the longer it goes on for, Deus Ex being the exception of course, so until developers are able to maintain a good level of gameplay, I say keep 'em short and sweet, unless it's just a case of shooting the more monsters you can every level, then I say let there be many levels and many monsters. Blue Shift anyone?, about 4-5 hours of play. Older games like Doom and Future Shock took ages to finish (and were great). New games seem to run out of ideas very quickly and hope you don't notice by throwing in multi-player.
I enjoy the Thief games, I really do. But I find I can't really be absorbed into a game concentrated in stealth unless it gives me the option to break away from stealth. For example, you could play in a stealthy manner in both DX and NOLF, but could break to pure action at any point. Thats not to say I don't think I could enjoy a game purely surrounded by stealth, I do enjoy the Thief's, but I don't think any game has done staelth so well to the extent you could play it in that fashion throughout the entire game without even thinking of breaking away from it. Though perhaps this may be due to 1 or 2 IMHO badly designed levels in both games. Thief 2 was better, but still not perfect.
One might argue how long you play the game. Like if you played say, 5 hours a day and the game lasts only 20 hours than it would be short. But if you played only half an hour a day it would last you a lot longer. As the saying goes ' good things always come in small packages'(?!). So here is what I say, take your time when playing the game. You're here to enjoy it. Not try to be the first to complete it. Complete it too early and you have blown a bit of cash.
Give me shorter/quality over SoF2-esque longer/boredom any day. I was one of the ones who thought Max Payne was a nice length - (no, I'm not a poor gamer) - any more levels and it would have become tiresome. How much time do we FPS players spend walking through samey corridors shooting samey enemies just so we can see that next 'special moment'? Half-life worked because it restricted bull. Developers pack their games with extra-non needed levels because of a need to give the consumer their thirty pounds worth. This is a completely mis-directed emphasis. Swap the expense of games for a shorter/increased quality experience. So no, modern FPS aren't too short, they're just not packed with enough good ideas.
Still, I tend to enjoy games based on content, not length. I'd rather play something short and sweet like Max Payne or Medal of Honour than something that is long and drawn out like Unreal. Even though less hours have been put into it, I feel I have my money's worth from a quality game. There's also the point of replay. I usually play a through a game I've bought more than once. Unreal is a much much longer game than Max Payne, but I've played much more hours of Max simply because it is a rich experience that I've revisted several times. Unreal I played through once and because it had become so repetitive near the end, I couldn't stomach going back to it.
Flux.
And yes some FPS's are short. Making a game such as Half-Life, and possibly NOLF, longer than it is could spoil the plot, but games with fairly dull plots - JK2, MoHAA, RtCW, SoF2, the list goes on - could easily have been longer. Developers seem to like to give games a nice clear easy beginning, fun middle and tricky end. Why they can't just make the fun section go on forever I don't know.
I don't think FPS games are too short, but they are obviously shorter than RPGs and adventure games etc. NOLF and JK2, Deus Ex, Operation Flashpoint etc are hardly short, but on the other hand MoH:AA, Serious Sam and RTCW are. But overall they last long enough for me, that's taking a week or so as long enough. Here's a summary:
NOLF = a month of casual play
Deus Ex = a month
MoH:AA = jus under a week
JK2 = a frenetic saber-slashing week
Shogo: MAD = 2 days
Max Payne = 3 days
Project IGI = 2 months
Serious Sam = a week or so
They're some of my main FPS' I've completed, and most of them lasted long enough, but some were short, albeit not too short. I only payed a tenner for games like SS and Shogo, and MP was free, but if I payed £30 for any of these I would be dissapointed with the playing time. Some FPS games are short, and what is there is not of such stunningly superb gameplay comparitively to get away with short life. RCTW was too short, but I did not think a single level was up to the quality of say, Deus Ex or Half Life. I thought that JK2 was too short but not as much as some other games are. I didn't get the feeling of, 'that was a very short game' so much as, 'that game could have been longer'.
I think the general quality of an FPS seems to diminish the longer it goes on for, Deus Ex being the exception of course, so until developers are able to maintain a good level of gameplay, I say keep 'em short and sweet, unless it's just a case of shooting the more monsters you can every level, then I say let there be many levels and many monsters. Blue Shift anyone?, about 4-5 hours of play. Older games like Doom and Future Shock took ages to finish (and were great). New games seem to run out of ideas very quickly and hope you don't notice by throwing in multi-player.
I enjoy the Thief games, I really do. But I find I can't really be absorbed into a game concentrated in stealth unless it gives me the option to break away from stealth. For example, you could play in a stealthy manner in both DX and NOLF, but could break to pure action at any point. Thats not to say I don't think I could enjoy a game purely surrounded by stealth, I do enjoy the Thief's, but I don't think any game has done staelth so well to the extent you could play it in that fashion throughout the entire game without even thinking of breaking away from it. Though perhaps this may be due to 1 or 2 IMHO badly designed levels in both games. Thief 2 was better, but still not perfect.
One might argue how long you play the game. Like if you played say, 5 hours a day and the game lasts only 20 hours than it would be short. But if you played only half an hour a day it would last you a lot longer. As the saying goes ' good things always come in small packages'(?!). So here is what I say, take your time when playing the game. You're here to enjoy it. Not try to be the first to complete it. Complete it too early and you have blown a bit of cash.
Give me shorter/quality over SoF2-esque longer/boredom any day. I was one of the ones who thought Max Payne was a nice length - (no, I'm not a poor gamer) - any more levels and it would have become tiresome. How much time do we FPS players spend walking through samey corridors shooting samey enemies just so we can see that next 'special moment'? Half-life worked because it restricted bull. Developers pack their games with extra-non needed levels because of a need to give the consumer their thirty pounds worth. This is a completely mis-directed emphasis. Swap the expense of games for a shorter/increased quality experience. So no, modern FPS aren't too short, they're just not packed with enough good ideas.
Still, I tend to enjoy games based on content, not length. I'd rather play something short and sweet like Max Payne or Medal of Honour than something that is long and drawn out like Unreal. Even though less hours have been put into it, I feel I have my money's worth from a quality game. There's also the point of replay. I usually play a through a game I've bought more than once. Unreal is a much much longer game than Max Payne, but I've played much more hours of Max simply because it is a rich experience that I've revisted several times. Unreal I played through once and because it had become so repetitive near the end, I couldn't stomach going back to it.
Flux.