Quake3World

There's an interesting article on Eurogamer in which the author shares his views on games that last for only 2 or 3 hours but look extremely rich in detail (think Killzone 2 video or better here), do have deep gameplay, but generally only take 2 or 3 hours to complete.

In the article, the author states that this would also solve a growing games development problem. The more detail is put into a game, the more time it takes to develop. A game with the detail of the Killzone 2 video is technically possible, it would just take so much time to create a full length game with that amount of detail, that it's not realistically possible.

The idea is to sell those games at DVD prices as well (for $20 or so). If people buy DVD's which they're done with in 2 hours, maybe less, then why wouldn't someone shell out the same amount of money for a game that lasts that long?

I find it an intruiging idea. It might actually work. And when people shell out 60 dollar for a 10 hour game, then they could buy 3 games of 3 hours each for the same price as well.

What's your thoughts on this? Are long games automatically better or are short games at a really low price point the way to go?

Games already last shorter than that, so as long as the price matches the game length, i'm happy.

£30 for a game that lasts me a good while is great. £30 that lasts me 2 hours with no gameplay to go back to, sucks ass.

That would be nice, if the pricing would be accordingly adjusted.

Long games aren't automatically better.

I like short single player with good multiplayer support.

They wouldn't sell much, I don't think, because people would just rent them at a quarter of the price and beat them overnight.

But you don't have to buy $300+ video cards & CPUs, and $150 motherboards every two years to watch the lastest DVDs.

To have such a graphically rich game, you need an expensive PC. If I'm going to have that, I'd rather pay twice as much for a "full length" game with good multiplayer. I rarely buy games when they're the full $50-55 anyways, usually $40 at most. So the savings isn't even that good for the software, and you're still paying just as much for hardware.

edit:
Now if it were console games...maybe. One $300 console (or $200 if you wait a year to buy it like I did with the PS2 & XBox) every 4-5 years aint so bad.

interresting idea.

but i would not want to miss epic stuff like final fantasy.

Psyche911 wrote:Now if it were console games...maybe. One $300 console (or $200 if you wait a year to buy it like I did with the PS2 & XBox) every 4-5 years aint so bad.

We were talking about console games.

I hate that idea. I hate short games.

If the core gameplay is enjoyable, then you want more of it. It'd just be frustrating to go, "Wow, the gameplay on this is amazing! HANG ON WHAT HAPPENED?"

I think I'd go from picking a couple of "AAA" titles to just not bothering with gaming altogether.