Topic: Games are too big and too hard

[idolminds]

Thoughts?

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. If someone asks us, collectively 'do you want more or less game?" it's fairly safe to say we'd all go with the former rather than the latter. Also, when someone asks us if we want to coast through something that's just challenging enough, we'd say "oh no, I'm a gamer - I need the challenge."

The problem is, the vast majority of gamers don't really behave the way they say they do. How do we know this? Because an increasing number of games incorporate telemetry systems that track our every action. They measure the time we play, they watch where we get stuck, and they broadcast our behavior back to the people that make the games so they can tune the experience accordingly.

Every studio I've spoken to that does this, to a fault, says that many of the games they've released are far too big and far too hard for most players' behavior. As a general rule, less than five percent of a game's audience plays a title through to completion. I've had several studios tell me that their general observation is that "more than 90 percent" of a games audience will play it for "just four or five hours."
---
The nature of the majority, as one developer told me recently, is that their preference is to "just dick around" rather than follow the structure. It's not just an occasional thing – in terms of behavior its pretty much pervasive. There's always a minority that plays things the way the studio intended, but as another developer told me, "sometimes, you just want to tell people that they're playing it wrong."

The thing is, we're not playing it wrong. What's happening is that studios are starting to look at the way they make games and concede that they're making them wrong. The vast majority of releases, even the most spectacular and successful, adhere to structural conventions that date back 20 years. As an audience we're getting bored of that, if we're honest. Right? Younger gamers demand something more sophisticated, while older gamers don't have the time or energy to play through something built around a punitive system for a bazillion hours.

I don't really know what to think. I'll give a personal example: Uncharted. I think the game could have been much shorter. As it is I'm basically cheating to get 1-shot kills on enemies since they took forever to kill otherwise, and the combat still drags on. I have yet to beat the game. Maybe it would have been better if it was easier or shorter. Or both.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy long games. The Witcher being a recent example. But at least there (and in other RPGs) there seems to be a bit of variety. I can go talk to people and solve mysteries, play the dice game for money, brew up some potions, or just go out and kill monsters. Uncharted has platforming (but not enough of it) and a shitload of combat, and you don't really get to choose which one you want to do at any given moment.

Then I got the thought of, well...is it just a matter of variety? No. Super Mario Bros popped into my head where you basically do the same things in every level, but I play those right through to the end. How could that be? I think its the level based format. If Mario was one long level through to the end you would get extremely tired and bored with it. But levels give you nice short-term goals: beat the level. So every few minutes you get to feel good since you beat something.

And finally the article mentions "value". Gamers want more value out of their games, which generally means longer games with more stuff in it. I don't think you can blame gamers for this, especially when companies want to charge $60 for a game. No one wants to buy a $60 and get only a handful of hours out of it. Honestly, I would love to have a gaming future where we have shorter, tighter games with $20-40 pricetags. Indie games and PSN/XBLA/WiiWare seem to be a great start.

EDIT:

One more thought. I wonder what the ratio of easy/hard/long/short would be? I guess the obvious would be short games should be harder and long games should be easier.

[Xessive]

I agree to a certain point. Games are getting grander, with bigger budgets almost rivaling blockbuster movie standards. I don't think they're getting more difficult. I went back to play some oldies (NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, and a few DOS games) and I am having a much harder time! haha

One thing that I take for granted these days is saves! With emulators you have the option to save state but looking back I sometimes wonder "how the heck did we ever finish any of these games?!"

With regards to difficulty ratios, I like having a variety. If a long game is easy all the way through it's just going to be boring and monotonous. That kinda one of the reasons I rarely ever finish any GTA game. Actually I've only ever finished GTAIII and San Andreas, and that was over a span of several months each. By contras, I played The Saboteur, enjoyed it, had some easy bits and some really hard times, and finished it in a matter of days. It kept me coming back.

The level of immersion makes a difference. Newer tech means it might be easier to bridge the gap between interface and experience but it's not absolutely critical. Sure, a big-name game ha to keep up with the times but I believe the single most important aspect is gameplay quality and not necessarily length.

I'm playing SC: Conviction now, while its singleplayer is relatively short it's quite varied and feels like a quality experience. To measure up to the price tag the game's other modes e.g. Deniable Ops and Co-op add some more value and variety.

[scottws]

Personally I'm finding myself disinterested in the major titles that garner the most attention.  I still never finished GTAIV, even though GTAIII is probably one of my favorite games ever.  But I liked GTAIII for the exact "dicking around" stuff that blurb talks about.  GTAIV was much more focused on the story and structured in general.  I never finished Fallout 3.  I did finish Bioshock, but one was through was more than enough and I'm not interested in the sequel.

I find that I'm much more drawn to the sort of oddball stuff with old school roots like some of the things you find on XBLA or on PC like Geometry Wars, Gish, World of Goo, Assault Heros, Heavy Weapon, Castle Crashers, and that recent tower defense game on XBLA (I forget what it is called).  First of all, they are easier to pick up and play for short periods, which is important because time has become a valuable commodity for me as I got older.  Also, rather that just being part of an experience, I do like the short term goals like finishing a level with more lives or no deaths or a higher score. 

[iPPi]

I don't mind difficult or extremely lengthy games as long as they hold my attention.  I've finished up Demon's Souls (extremely difficult and fairly lengthy), Dragon Age (long), Uncharted 2 (on Crushing), Gears of War (on Insane), Modern Warfare 2 (on Veteran), God of War III (on Titan).  As long as the game manages to hold my attention with great gameplay and/or story, I will likely finish it.

The one game I am having difficulty with right now is Final Fantasy XIII.  48 hours in, on the final chapter, it's just been endless grinding.  The story is still quite nonsensical, the gameplay is mediocre, and it is a chore to play right now.  But I am also close enough to the end that I want to see it through.

Idol -- regarding Uncharted, I totally agree.  The first game really isn't that good.  It looked phenomenal but gameplay was somewhat boring and the game felt like it dragged on as the set pieces were fairly uninteresting.  It's still a short game though -- 8 hours.  That said, get Uncharted 2.  It's a phenomenal game that improves on everything that the first one did wrong.

Some games that took me a long time to finish were Bioshock and Dead Space.  I lost interest in them a couple of hours in and I just couldn't find the time to finish them up until fairly recently.  They are good games, but they lack driving force to them to make me see it through to the end.

[idolminds]

I definitely plan on playing Uncharted 2. Eventually.

I find that I'm much more drawn to the sort of oddball stuff with old school roots like some of the things you find on XBLA or on PC like Geometry Wars, Gish, World of Goo, Assault Heros, Heavy Weapon, Castle Crashers, and that recent tower defense game on XBLA (I forget what it is called).  First of all, they are easier to pick up and play for short periods, which is important because time has become a valuable commodity for me as I got older.  Also, rather that just being part of an experience, I do like the short term goals like finishing a level with more lives or no deaths or a higher score.

I agree, and the bolded part made me think of something: Achievements/Trophies. They are a good way of adding optional difficulty and replay value for the gamers that really want it. Good examples:

-Pixeljunk Shooter: Get through a level without touching the walls.
-Mirrors Edge: Play the entire game without firing a shot.
-HL2 Episodes: One has you play the game firing only a single (required) shot, the other has you carry that garden gnome through the entire game.

I'm sure you can think of others. But they are difficult things to complete that don't actually make the game harder for everyone.

[Pugnate]

...that's what she said.

[idolminds]

haha, you bastard.

[K-man]

I'll say it.  Anyone who thinks today's games are overly difficult is a huge raging pussy.  Games today cater to us wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much to be considered difficult.

[TheOtherBelmont]

I'll say it.  Anyone who thinks today's games are overly difficult is a huge raging pussy.  Games today cater to us wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much to be considered difficult.

I agree with this.  I actually look forward to playing a game that is considered difficult and its rare to come across a game now that is truly hard.  I can understand the point about older gamers not having enough time for "big games" but that doesn't mean games should be made smaller because of it.  I like my long games, thank you very much.

[Pugnate]

Regarding games getting too hard, I just can't agree with that at all. Games were definitely significantly more challenging back in the day.

[MysterD]

And finally the article mentions "value". Gamers want more value out of their games, which generally means longer games with more stuff in it. I don't think you can blame gamers for this, especially when companies want to charge $60 for a game. No one wants to buy a $60 and get only a handful of hours out of it.

And then afterwards - oh, look, there's brand new DLC #4 out that you have to pay anywhere from $2-10 for. In most likelihood, this DLC is not going to be long, either.

Honestly, I would love to have a gaming future where we have shorter, tighter games with $20-40 pricetags. Indie games and PSN/XBLA/WiiWare seem to be a great start.

Games have their own length - and should be priced accordingly. There should be places on the market for long-ass 50-100 hour RPG and the short-and-sweet tight 5-hour game. A game should be as long or as short as the dev's want it to be - but, it should be priced accordingly. I think the problem is the pricing on the market - as it's just all over the place. Let's put DRM aside for a minute - as that's another battle entirely. We have these epic 40+ hour RPG's like Dragon Age and action games such as Modern Warfare 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction w/ a short SP campaign priced at $60? Surely, you've got to be kidding me - my money's going w/ the MUCH longer RPG. I am likely more interested in the SP stuff than the MP stuff - it's just, for the most part, the way I am.

Again, DRM matters aside here - pricing is the problem right now we're talking about. If I saw a game like SC: Conviction upon release at its short SP length cost me around $20-30, I probably wouldn't even think twice here on purchasing it.

One more thought. I wonder what the ratio of easy/hard/long/short would be? I guess the obvious would be short games should be harder and long games should be easier.

Games - for the most part - are A LOT easier than the OLD console days.

EDIT:

Personally I'm finding myself disinterested in the major titles that garner the most attention.  I still never finished GTAIV, even though GTAIII is probably one of my favorite games ever.  But I liked GTAIII for the exact "dicking around" stuff that blurb talks about.  GTAIV was much more focused on the story and structured in general.  I never finished Fallout 3.  I did finish Bioshock, but one was through was more than enough and I'm not interested in the sequel.

What I find funny about GTA4 is it's the first GTA game that w/ missions I get frustrated w/ failing over and over, I don't just always stop and shut the game off. I might quit out, or I might not. In other past GTA's, I'd just quit out to desktop and not tackle the side stuff.

Nope, the damn "girlfriend" side-missions are enough to keep me lingering in GTA4, even when frustrated w/ the main stuff. Do some bowling, pool, darts - just take a break from failing your typical GTA main mission.
GTA4 - LawChick Spoilers

(click to show/hide)

And if it wasn't for Kiki's "Clear Wanted" phone call, I'd have failed a handful of those GTA main quests. Thanks, Kiki!

[idolminds]

Well, sure they were. But videogames started off as arcade games which were made to be hard so you die and drop another quarter in. When we started getting consoles, thats basically what videogames were up to that point so thats what developers made. We all just put up with it because we honestly didn't know any better.

EDIT: refering to Ds "old console days" comment.

[MysterD]

Well, sure they were. But videogames started off as arcade games which were made to be hard so you die and drop another quarter in. When we started getting consoles, thats basically what videogames were up to that point so thats what developers made. We all just put up with it because we honestly didn't know any better.

EDIT: refering to Ds "old console days" comment.

Right.

And console games/PC games had to be become different in nature b/c gamers were not feeding quarters to keep playing. They were at home and wanted a good amount of time out of their $40-60 game.

I really noticed the major change in the length of development times for dev's and the length of games when the sudden change was made when things jumped from 2D to 3D. Now as games are getting fully voice-acted and major orchestral scores getting other MAJOR high production values - especially in the Triple-A area - yeah, things have even changed even more so.

[Cobra951]

I don't like overly hard games.  Frustration is the opposite of fun.  So I don't mind games getting easier, up to a point.  But I do mind very much games getting shorter.  Articles like this make my heart sink.  I get a glimpse of a bleak future with nothing but short downloadable diversions.

My favorite games provide rich open worlds to inhabit, explore and conquer.  They allow me to save at any time, so I can play for whatever length time I have for a session without missing or repeating a beat in the next session.  And I want them to deliver a huge amount of gameplay, the more the better.  If that is passe, well, then so am I.

[MysterD]

I don't like overly hard games.  Frustration is the opposite of fun.  So I don't mind games getting easier, up to a point.

I think that's why many games do have difficulty settings (where you select when you start the game up) or difficulty sliders (which you can manipulate at anytime during the game) - so the gamer can set the game's difficulty accordingly.

Games like the original Fable: TLC, as great as I thought it was - man, I wish the game had difficulty settings...

But I do mind very much games getting shorter.

 
I agree - b/c they ain't being priced according.

Articles like this make my heart sink.  I get a glimpse of a bleak future with nothing but short downloadable diversions.

If companies priced them accordingly, it wouldn't be such a big deal. I think this is the problem on the market. This is why when I see things like SC: Conviction's SP and Modern Warfare 2's SP are so short, I just refuse to spend that new release price-tag ($40-60). I don't know - I just don't seem to be into the Multiplayer portions of these kind of games as much as the old Quake 2 days - as I don't feel MP in general has evolved enuff over the years (for the most part) to keep me playing for quite the while. While other gamers might get tons of hours out of MP, I just don't seem to, for the most part. I think the whole storytelling element is lacking in many competitive MP games, which I think might be why I actually have an interest for even Bioshock 2's MP - I'll let y'all know what I think of Bioshock 2, once I get it.

When I see games like Fallout 3, Oblivion, Dragon Age: Origins that will give me the gamer w/ 30-plus hours or so - these games, I might be willing to part w/ the full price-tag (as long as they ain't riddled w/ performance issues and bugs) b/c I know I am going to get that long game that'll be plenty bang-for-the-buck.

My favorite games provide rich open worlds to inhabit, explore and conquer.  They allow me to save at any time, so I can play for whatever length time I have for a session without missing or repeating a beat in the next session.  And I want them to deliver a huge amount of gameplay, the more the better.  If that is passe, well, then so am I.

Amen, Cobra - I love these open-world games, as well. I hope we keep seeing this made. I think we will see these open-world games and long 30-hour plus RPG's keep on trucking. I mean, there will be a Fallout: New Vegas; Dragon Age 2; Mass Effect 3; SWTOR MMO looks ridiculously HUGE; Two Worlds 2; Witcher 2; Drakensang 2 is out in Europe (and there's already talks of Drakensang 3 coming); we know for sure there'll be a GTA5, in due time; etc etc.

And, yes - I also like these short games, too. I mean, there are times when I just don't want that 40-100 hours epic and just need something to play for a short time for that quick satisfaction. But, like I said - these short games need to be priced more appropriately for me. $20-30 or less is quite fair - as short 4-6 hour SP games is really the cost of what expansion pack sized games offer up.