Do We All Want Longer and More Difficult Games?

Which would you rather, playing a game that was developed in the year 2000, or 2010? I think most would say the latter, and for obvious reasons. In the year 2000, our 3D graphics were rather primitive compared to what we see today (even so, our minds were blown back then), so as long as the gameplay lives up, then why not opt for better graphics?

But graphics are one thing, and gameplay is an entirely different ballgame. Take a look at games like those from the Final Fantasy series. Gamers have the best of both worlds there, with fantastic graphics and gameplay, along with an incredibly long time-to-completion. But today, casual games are on fire, and many gamers, even those who play “hardcore” titles, don’t mind sitting back to chill out with a modest game every so often.

Which would you prefer, a long game, or a short one? The general consensus is that gamers prefer longer titles, and when a game has under 10 hours of gameplay, it feels like a total rip-off. So what is it, a game with fantastic gameplay that lasts 10 hours, or a lackluster title that lasts 20? These are all interesting questions, some of which are raised in a recent GamePro article.

The article has essentially discovered that for the most part, gamers don’t want ultra-large and difficult games, but rather titles that they don’t have to dedicate their lives to. One example I feel is good one is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. I cleared through that game in about 8 hours, and it was only a rare occasion when I found myself getting a little frustrated by the difficulty. When it was over, I didn’t really have any spite towards the developers for delivering a short game (multi-player in part helped make up for that).

The reasons GamePro and the companies it interviewed have come to the conclusion that gamers prefer shorter games is thanks to systems developers have been putting into place that monitors how a player plays a game, from tracking the time to completion, parts of the game they get stuck in, whether or not they even finish it, and more. Interestingly enough, more than 90% of gamers apparently play a game for no more than four or five hours. Ouch… that’s a lot of money being thrown out the window when you think about it.

What do you guys think? Are short but sweet games the best solution to this “problem”? Or would you rather continue seeing massive games that require a lot of time to complete?

Conventional gaming wisdom thus far has been “bigger, better, MORE!” It’s something affirmed by the vocal minority on forums, and by the vast majority of critics that praise games for ambition and scale. The problem is, in reality its almost completely wrong. The vast majority of gamers don’t need more. They don’t have the time or the inclination to invest enormous amounts of time and effort with a game. This isn’t the kind of conclusion that can be reached through surveys or questionnaires, because when it comes to our behavior we all have far too much pride, we’re all greedy, and we all lie.