It's about time

[Ed Oscuro]

There's more important things to worry about in a game than what the clock says at the end. If length comes as a result of cheap lengthening, then it's not worth it, and I think most long games can't justify their length.

Right. The question is what your money's paying for.

The fact that we're even having this discussion is an indictment of the lousy replayability of most modern games. ('course many oldschool ones have little replayability as well, especially those that are too easy / don't have variety.)

Also that list of games for the 360 is hilarious. Looking at Condemned, it makes me sad to think how little gameplay some of the awesome-looking areas in that title actually provide. Hell the only reason I ever bothered replaying it was to try to find the hidden crap.

[Skykid]

I haven't even found time to look at this thread in four days.

Interesting to hear a lot of people feel similarly about modern games. I am aware that there are some who thrive on mining achievements, and as Ed said, have enough time to play through a game even if they know it's kind of half-assed.
For me, current-gen games fall into these categories:

1: Good, playable, well made, offers nothing original, I could bother but should I? (Yakuza 3)

2: Original, playable, lacks direction, stuffed with padding, the repetition starts to wear me down and eventually I'm distracted by something more appealing (Bayonetta)

3: Just another competent FPS, Battlefield, Army of Two, The Darkness (most 360 releases, take your pick)

4: Genuinely gripping, fat free, exciting and absorbing experiences (Gears of War, Super Mario Galaxy, Sin & Punishment 2, and although it dragged its heels a little at the end, Resi 5.)

Even though 1-3 can be perfectly well made games which will please most, they just don't hold my interest long enough for me to battle through. I'm not adverse to playing a game that takes over 8 hours as long as it's gripping. JRPG's in the 16-bit era (with a distinct lack of cutscenes) used to feel far leaner and progressive than the cut scene injected, gilt laden behemoths of today, and as such I had no problems dedicating 30 hours or so to finish them.
I feel as though it's easy to see through a lot of modern titles after just a few hours play - you know where it's not going to take you for your efforts.

But as Taylor said, it's a catch 22, as most customers demand games with at least 10+ hours in there, even if they are padded to death.

[professor ganson]

To put a different spin on the topic at hand: I'd actually say that things have improved a bit for overly busy gamers this generation thanks to the huge leap forward in handheld gaming. The hardware and software options are both HUGE improvements over the last gen, and there's no question that handheld gaming is designed with the busy guy in mind. Even the crazy-long rpgs tend to offer generous saving options.

[Skykid]

To put a different spin on the topic at hand: I'd actually say that things have improved a bit for overly busy gamers this generation thanks to the huge leap forward in handheld gaming. The hardware and software options are both HUGE improvements over the last gen, and there's no question that handheld gaming is designed with the busy guy in mind. Even the crazy-long rpgs tend to offer generous saving options.

That's true, I spend a lot of time with handheld stuff - even if it is mostly GBA these days.

[Pirate1019]

GBA was the shit. I wish the D-pad on mine hadn't completely broken down. VisualBoy Advance is always a viable place to turn if I get bored and have a laptop with me.

[Enhasa]

I completely agree with all of you who wished games were shorter (no surprise on a shmup forum). But most people vehemently disagree and say that modern games suck because they are too short. And they're closer to the truth, modern games are a lot shorter (but not short enough) and this thread would have resonated more a couple generations ago. Most gamers care more about money than time (they are either kids with limited funds or once were), whereas I care more about time than money. People complain about stuff like Portal being too short because they want more value for their cash, while I seriously thought it was too long if anything (ideas were already stretched too thin).

The problem is while more of a good thing sounds nice in theory, in practice it turns into more of a not-as-good thing. Film editors go through hell to cut their movies of cruft and get to a manageable length. Game devs don't throw nearly as much of anything out and it shows.

Even if you skip the cutscenes (is there really someone who does this?

I do. And really, it doesn't take much time at all this way. Takes probably less time than in between stages in many arcade-style games, which nobody complains about. (Although I'm so impatient I always fast-forward like a maniac in MAME between stages.) JRPGs and other cutscene-based games are actually far less annoying than the popular western integrated into gameplay style, precisely because you can skip them. I've never understood why people who complain about cutscenes are such hypocrites and don't just go ahead and actually skip them.

JRPG's in the 16-bit era (with a distinct lack of cutscenes) used to feel far leaner and progressive than the cut scene injected, gilt laden behemoths of today, and as such I had no problems dedicating 30 hours or so to finish them.

Many 16-bit JRPGs and even 8-bit had hella cutscenes (FF6 is the #1 nightmare this way I guess), and are actually much more annoying since you have to mash A A A A A instead of being able to skip them like in modern games. Don't get me wrong though, that was my favorite era though, even though most of the best games were Japan only (another thing that sucked back then, I'm definitely not wearing the rose-tinted glasses).

[Pirate1019]

I've never understood why people who complain about cutscenes are such hypocrites and don't just go ahead and actually skip them.

Because some devs are still forgetting to implement a skip command.

[Shocky]

Even if you skip the cutscenes (is there really someone who does this?

I do. And really, it doesn't take much time at all this way. Takes probably less time than in between stages in many arcade-style games, which nobody complains about. (Although I'm so impatient I always fast-forward like a maniac in MAME between stages.) JRPGs and other cutscene-based games are actually far less annoying than the popular western integrated into gameplay style, precisely because you can skip them. I've never understood why people who complain about cutscenes are such hypocrites and don't just go ahead and actually skip them.

Just to make sure; I meant skipping cut scenes every time, including the FIRST time you encounter them. So Enhasa, you'll never actually watch them? Or do you even play these "spectacle" games (MGS, Bayonetta, GoW...), or just quick arcade stuff? I'm asking because those cutscenes are a pretty integral part of many games, and it's harsh to skip them altogether.

Anyway, I'm not complaining about the existence of cutscenes, just their quality/length/implementation. For example in MGS 4 the quality was tops, so I could accept the (ridiculous) length of them, but the implementation was bad (no indication of how long they will take). In Bayonetta the quality was slightly above average, and implementation bad: the cutscenes take considerable time even when skipped, because the fucking game loads them every time even when I'm just trying the same fight over and over again. They really think someone wants to watch the same cutscene dozens of times? In Okami, even the quality was crap so I eventually skipped the mindnumbingly boring, ugly flash-graphic style intro altogether.

Unskippable cutscenes are (naturally) a crime against humanity, Gradius V being the worst offender. The combined electricity that is used when all the players across the world just wait for them to pass could be used to feed millions of hungry consoles. And the wasted time and frustration, immeasurable. I wonder if it could be possible to somehow patch the game image allowing to skip them, or replace them with one-second videos..

[Vexorg]

Given my notoriously short attention span (oh look, a bunny!) I quite frequently skip cutscenes, no matter what type of game I'm playing (although I will be much more inclined to do so in action oriented games.) For the most part we're not talking big plot-intensive games here, we're talking throwaway plots and unnecessary filler. And yes, I will skip cutscenes the first time around too. Unskippable dialogue (Disgaea 1 is a particularly bad offender on this, although 2 and 3 provide skip options) is another one that annoys me, especially when you get into games where you go through some dialogue, manage to die and get sent back to a checkpoint before the dialogue and have to go through the whole thing again.

[Skykid]

Enhasa: I suppose I found the cutscenes (if you can call them that - dialogue scenes is more apt) in 16bit JRPG's easier to take because of the timing, pace of the game and the storyline. After a lot of battling I used to enjoy the opportunity to see a little plot development and that made me compelled to not tap 'A' and miss out on anything.

I blame Hideo for a lot of todays bloated cutscenes - in no way was it ever 'ok' to go beyond MGS's cutscene/codec dialogue lengths. At the end of the day, we're here to play a game - save the flashy cutscenes for end sequences, I'd prefer them as a reward than as filler.