SO MANY SHORT CAMPAIGNS

Why do most games(I'm not talking about the obvious ones) usually feature a campaign that's 6-10 hours long?

I wouldn't mind a short game if they adjusted the price but we're getting games like Enslaved and they charge us 60 bucks( I just wait because that shit is STEEP).

What's up with that? Is it because it's expensive? Or is it because they're just lazy?

It's because the prospect of multiplayer always seems to make the game more attractive. The economy sucks and games are expensive everywhere (some places more than others). If you can only afford to buy one game, which sounds better? Enslaved, with a 6-hour single-player that doesn't offer much beyond that, or Call of Duty: Black Ops, which offers a six-hour single-player and potentially dozens of hours on multiplayer?

Black Ops sounds better because it offers more replay value which means you'll be less inclined to go out and spend another $60 any time soon. Developers know this so they tack on multiplayer to make it seem like a better deal. This, in turn, takes away resources from the single-player.

I've gotta respect Visceral Games, though. Even though they tacked on multiplayer to Dead Space 2, they at least had the decency to give us a full campaign.

Well it is really difficult to be able to pace a long campaign, especially if it is more linear like most of the 6-10 hour games are.

TRF wrote:

I've gotta respect Visceral Games, though. Even though they tacked on multiplayer to Dead Space 2, they at least had the decency to give us a full campaign.

And a lot of replay value like better to.

I agree. Campaigns should never be shorter than atleast 8 hours. KZ3 left me feeling empty after I beat it in 4 hours.

One of the things I loved about UC2 was the fact that it had a pretty lengthy campaign. It clocked around 13 hours for me on normal.

Well its not really that its lazy. Developers are more afraid. they don't seem to notice anymore what really appeals to the gamers of today.

Just think like a developer for a while. You want to make a game. Yet you will have to compete with the highly praised FPS's and games wih huge fanbases overall. So as a developer you want to do the same thing these FPS games do and make short campaigns and long multiplayer games because they think it appeals to the modern gamer and sadly....It does.

That's why I think the new generation of R&C games suck. Wayyyyyy toooo short.

Toxicmaniac wrote:

Just think like a developer for a while. You want to make a game. Yet you will have to compete with the highly praised FPS's and games wih huge fanbases overall. So as a developer you want to do the same thing these FPS games do and make short campaigns and long multiplayer games because they think it appeals to the modern gamer and sadly....It does.

Problem is that making a brand new FPS title can be easily be overshadowed by the bigger names of the FPS genre.

Reaper wrote:

If i were to think like a Dev...instead of doing the "safe" thing and just copying what the big FPS are doing i would be trying to out-do them in every department, make the game longer, the online more addictive, the dialouge more realistic, the gameplay more innovative, the sound better, the graphics better.

I think if every dev could do that then they would. Game development is expensive and development time is usually limited since alot of games are published by big-time companies that care way more about maximizing profits.

I think the only reason the COD games can even reach their deadlines is because of the fact that they have short campaigns (thus less dialog, set-piece moments, etc that have to be produced) and use the same dated game engine. Even then they still release with a shit ton of bugs and problems.

So "making the best possible game" is actually easier said then done. Not trying to defend COD or anything but it is true.

Alanski wrote:

Reaper wrote:

If i were to think like a Dev...instead of doing the "safe" thing and just copying what the big FPS are doing i would be trying to out-do them in every department, make the game longer, the online more addictive, the dialouge more realistic, the gameplay more innovative, the sound better, the graphics better.

I think if every dev could do that then they would. Game development is expensive and development time is usually limited since alot of games are published by big-time companies that care way more about maximizing profits.

I think the only reason the COD games can even reach their deadlines is because of the fact that they have short campaigns (thus less dialog, set-piece moments, etc that have to be produced) and use the same dated game engine. Even then they still release with a shit ton of bugs and problems.

So "making the best possible game" is actually easier said then done. Not trying to defend COD or anything but it is true.

that, and they switch developers each game and reuse the same engine for the past 5 years.

This is why I stick to generally RPG's now. Especially Bethesda and Bioware. The Mass Effects I have around 100 hours and Oblivion around 80. And the Fallouts (3 and NV) I have probably 50. And I am still playing all of those games.