Looking back on the past year, it's clear that we spent far less time playing games than we realized. We would have liked to see more, and in some cases, we're even annoyed that we had to let things slide. The problem is that we get bogged down in games with completely irrelevant and time-consuming aspects. The solution: focus on what's essential!
The trend of recent years has been that games, for whatever reason, have had to become increasingly expansive. Even purely story-driven games now average more than 20 hours of gameplay. Naturally, as a player, you want every penny you invest to be worth it, while developers have had to become ever more creative to meet this demand. At the same time, publishers complain about rising production costs and high risks, the only solution to which seems to lie in ever-increasing game prices and additional revenue streams.
If this is supposed to be the solution for the future, the industry is probably right to be worried, because at some point everyone will reach the end of the line and prefer to say: I'll do without it altogether.
Sometimes less can be more.
Personally, I've always found story-driven games with a length of 10 to a maximum of 15 hours to be very enjoyable. Within that timeframe, it was quite possible to tell a fantastic story that was exciting, epic, or thrilling, but also allowed room for more subtle elements. The first Uncharted-Games, for example, were perfect, the last installment at 25 hours actually far too long. The first God of WarGames could be mastered within a few hours and still offer an epic experience, whereas in God of War: Ragnarok It's stuck at almost 40 hours. Who really needs that? Time is an increasingly valuable resource, one that is limited and which we want to use as optimally and, above all, meaningfully as possible.
Often, games are filled with such pointless content that serves only to pad out playtime. Adding value to the core gameplay is rarely apparent. You're sent across the entire map and back between missions, and essentially unimportant characters are invented who are relevant for perhaps only one mission and don't develop over the course of the entire game. And to take it to the extreme, every encounter in the game dumps its pseudo-problems and feelings on you, which you're then expected to deal with. Thanks a lot! And don't even get me started on the collection quests.
Such approaches also contribute to the fact that the actual story is often no longer fully discernible. Players are bombarded with so many details for over 20 hours that it becomes difficult to pinpoint the true and extraordinary experience. Much is merely registered, ticked off like everything else, and ultimately lost in the sheer volume. The focus has become increasingly blurred: is the goal simply to tell a good story, or is it to be a classic and more expansive RPG experience where the player consciously engages with all these details?
It would be desirable to have a return to the way things were before.
If all these essentially unnecessary elements were simply eliminated, it would likely solve many problems that have been created over the years. Games would reach the market faster and probably be more polished, production costs would be significantly lower, consumers would have more choices, for which they would also have the time, and the desired features would likely be achieved. Game prices of 100 euros not always necessary.
I hope the developments of recent years don't lead to even stranger outcomes, as seemingly intended by Sony, which Marvel's Spider-Man 3 under all the cost and production pressures, probably to be published in several parts Do we really have to wait a year for the story to end?
There's nothing wrong with filling your game with one or two details, but please do so in a meaningful way so that you don't afterwards wonder how much time you actually wasted unnecessarily, just to get the essentials?
Personally, I've always found story-driven games with 10 to a maximum of 15 hours to be very enjoyable. —> But I'm not going to pay 70 euros or more for that.
I much prefer some 20-hour games to statements like "the biggest map ever in a game of this series", "the game offers 60 hours of gameplay for the story alone", ...
Today, a lot of things are just work, things you have to get done. I recently bought a PS3 and I'm playing shorter games on it, even though I "should" be playing Horizon including the DLCs on my PS5.
Get Dark Souls 1 and 2 for the PS3 hahaha
I loved the gameplay, lore, setting, and physics back then, and absolutely hated the graphics, hahaha. Fromsoft games aren't graphical powerhouses these days; the graphics are good, no question about it, but the PS3 era was sometimes an eyesore. By the way, you can also play PS3 games on the PS5 via PS+.
Yes, but only with the expensive membership. You don't own the games, and you can only play what Sony provides. They've really nailed it. Instead of offering backward compatibility, they force people to subscribe and play games they've already bought and sometimes even have lying around via an online service, since the PS5 doesn't play the discs. If you cancel your subscription, you can't play PS3 games either... great. They could have just offered them in the store for €10-20 per game, but no, then nobody would want to pay for PS+ anymore... It's all calculated and anti-customer. And then there's the meager selection... you play what Sony thinks you should play. You won't find any extravagant or niche titles.
The problem lies with the PS3's architecture. It was, so to speak, the last true, pure console. The PS4/PS5 are essentially PCs. That's why backward compatibility is more difficult, or rather, not easy to emulate. That's why you can only get PS3 games via the cloud.
I have no idea how Sony handles it, whether they emulate it or play it on a PS3 and make it available (similar to how MS uses the Xbox Series X en masse as a '''server').
I still have a PS3 at home, but somehow I don't (yet) feel the need to use it. I finished Max Payne 3 before Christmas, and it still looks and plays incredibly well on PC in 2023. I'm really looking forward to the remakes of Max Payne 1 and 2, some of the best games of all time (top 5).
Fairy tales about people managing to emulate PS3 games on the Steam Deck, and the PS5 is definitely more powerful than a Steam Deck. Besides, as a customer, you don't really care what the reason is. Android smartphones have countless hardware configurations, and apps like WhatsApp, to put it bluntly, could run on any toaster.
https://youtu.be/NuRcmZlJDps?si=ZssPHaw2X2MH6m8V
Sony uses blade servers with cell chips for emulation.
If backward compatibility with (x86 architecture) had been implemented like Microsoft, the PS5 could have been used as a server, or the games could have been offered digitally in the store, just like Microsoft.
Okay, what good is a PS Plus Premium subscription if I want to play Tekken Day 2? It's not included in the subscription service for whatever reason.
Every game is open world, every game has a thousand quests. Every game has poorly implemented RPG elements that only drag everything out and force you to level up just to, say, put on sunglasses. You just run around everywhere, playing servant to NPCs who all look the same, standing around stupidly or talking nonsense. You spend more time running around and looking at the map to figure out where you need to go than actually experiencing anything or having anything cool happen. There are hardly any exciting events like big battles, massive spaceships flying overhead, huge bosses, collapsing buildings, etc., and when there are, they're short, rare sections. The games are monotonous for 80+ hours and just plod along until most people get bored and buy the next €80 hype game. Hardly anyone actually finishes their games. The newest thing is the best, and no matter how good the older, technically superior titles were, they're old and have no chance. Generic everywhere.
The best games were definitely between the PS2/original Xbox and PS3/360 generations. And of course, a few great titles before that, back in the N64 era, etc. There were games like:
halo
gears of war
fable
morrowind
oblivion
Skyrim
real Zeldas
good Pokemon games
good Star Wars games (Jedi Knight!)
fear
bioshock
systems shock
deus ex (and that includes ALL of them!)
timeshift
singularity
Resistance
killzone (1-3)
silent Hill
Resident Evil (the only good game still available today that is being continued)
dark messiah of might and magic
Half-Life 1+2
Alice + Alice Madness Returns
tenchu
stalker
splinter cell
rainbow (this is a joke)
Ghost Recon (same as Rainbow)
beyond good and evil
Today's AAA games are a joke and a complete step backwards compared to what we used to have. Aside from fancy graphics and huge worlds with busywork, they offer almost nothing. The fact that actors are still doing their jobs everywhere is even sadder. They're just products now.
Games used to be shorter but harder. Compare a modern Spider-Man game to Carnage on the SNES; a modern gamer wouldn't be able to finish that.
In the past, there were games like Metal Gear Solid 4 that were more story/movie than game.
Bloodborne has endless lore, the best gameplay, and you can spend ages in the chalices. Similarly, GTA or Witcher: you can quickly breeze through the main story or spend hundreds of hours on other tasks. The article essentially just describes the Ubisoft formula well and is meant to hint at the need for more AA than AAA games, but unfortunately, most games of this type flop. Look at Alan Wake 2, a fantastic, brilliant story game, selling like hotcakes...
And Metal Gear Solid 4 was better than Phantom Pain in every aspect….
Gameplay, world design, and the freedoms of MGS5 combined with the story/depth of MGS4 would pretty much make for a 10/10 game, which we will probably never get.
I agree with you. That could be amazing, it's a shame it will never happen.
I can wholeheartedly agree with the article.
If I want extra extensive games, I'll buy a D&D, Witcher, or something like that.
These days, even Tomb Raider and similar games put me off because they've become far too long for a "simple" story-driven game. I want to be able to see an ending at some point, but somehow you just get more and more bogged down.
It's a shame how attention spans are decreasing more and more these days, and you can't even follow a "story" like Tomb Raider without being overwhelmed.
The story of Tomb Raider is the same in all three parts: Lara has a father complex.
I didn't say I couldn't follow the story, did I?
My time is limited, and unfortunately, I often lack the time for overly extensive games. Then I just give up on them altogether, which is sometimes a shame.
(I don't necessarily mean TR...it was just an example, as there are now countless side missions and RPG elements here as well).
Your time isn't limited. We all have 24 hours in a day. Your priorities are just different. When my kids were small and I had just started my business, I didn't play any games at all, even though I would have loved an endless session of Last of Us or Dark Souls...
You could put on a Mario Wonder or Call of Duty game and have some fun for a while.
PS: Can someone explain why God of War was pictured above this article? There are hardly any other games where story and gameplay are so perfectly intertwined, and with the Muspelheim Challenge, even hardcore gamers will find something to challenge them.
I decided to save myself the 99 ravens for the Platinum trophy; that would be one of my criticisms, that often it's not the skill that's important for a Platinum trophy, but rather ticking off a to-do list.
You get another useless piece of armor if you kill all the ravens and a boss. Gow Ragna could almost be considered synonymous with modern games. Yes, you're right, you experience the story through gameplay because the characters are constantly talking to each other, but my criticism is more about the pointless loot you collect, especially the armor.
You can only wear one armor at a time anyway, but they offer many to appeal to as many types of players as possible and don't want to commit to one.
Well, because of the challenge in Muspelheim or now Valhalla DLC.
What's the point of including a rough-like mode if you can set the difficulty to easy and you get the reward either way (it just takes longer on hard)?
I maintain that Sony games aren't prime examples of challenging gameplay because you can play on any difficulty level without penalty or sanctions, plus they have excessively restrictive accessibility settings. I know Bloodborne, but that was years ago, and Demon's Souls is a remake of an old game. The only games that are truly challenging are Souls games or Capcom titles.
Capcom stays true to its style: you want rocket launchers in Resident Evil, make speedruns, you want Super Dante in DMC, play it on Dante's level, you have to go through it. No compromise.
I completed SP2 on story mode and still got the platinum trophy, and also completed the Valhalla DLC on story mode and still got the legacy; it makes no difference.
Okay, then my priorities are different. You can call it what you want.
That doesn't change the fact that I want games that don't keep getting more and more sprawling. Especially if, historically speaking, they aren't RPGs or similarly extensive genres.
But thankfully, everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the matter. It would be boring if everyone thought the same way. 😉
Yes, they do exist/already exist and often cost a fraction of what big AAA productions cost. They are often referred to as indie.
I don't understand the idea of charging less or more for the same price as an opinion, and I must disagree. From a consumer perspective, more quality and quantity is the optimal solution.
And even in big productions there's a super easy mode/story mode where you can see the credits without having to invest time in the skill.
@Crydog Yes, the story mode dilutes the Platinum trophy, which is why I love the Fromsoft formula (even though there's still an easy mode in the game). I'm a child of the '90s and I like being challenged in a good game, where you have to earn/fight for the ending. That moment of unlocking a Contra after playing through it 1000 times was a defining moment for me as a kid. I have the Platinum trophy in all the new Fromsoft games, except for AC6.
The lore of Bloodborne is the most ingenious thing; without investing time, you'd think there's no story here.
Really, games from Software also have an easy mode? Okay, I knew that.
As I said, I need a reward that makes it worthwhile to sacrifice my playtime; a platinum trophy wouldn't motivate me. I think the PS2/3 generation had balanced difficulty levels, meaning you were well rewarded if you invested time.
Today, for example, SP2 has time-slowing effects for accessibility settings—just imagine that! In DMC 1 and 3, you had to defeat bosses or complete challenges to unlock these abilities. However, I also don't think the Souls development is a good counter-example. Extremes are never good; there's simply a lack of balance, and players have lost their sense of what a "normal" difficulty level means.
In Souls games (lies of P), you can either summon NPCs or get human co-op helpers online, and certain builds/weapons are considered easy mode. In Elden Ring, there are NPC summons (Ashes) that are incredibly powerful. I don't use such helpers; they don't exist in my world. I want to complete the game on my own.
I never thought the Souls games were difficult, but I can understand anyone who finds them too hard because they can't get into the game. For example, I struggle with Returnal; it's a cool game in itself, but the hurdle of getting past the second or third boss was just too long for me. I would have had 100 times more stamina/nerves for that in any other Souls game...
Yes, I also tried Returnal when I still had a Plus subscription. I was under time pressure and really wanted to get the katana there, but I didn't manage it. Maybe I should just buy the game and try it without pressure, but spending €40 (or the normal price of €80) on a game I only half like, especially with all the dying and then repeating the experience, I don't know, I guess I'm not the kind of player for that. I stuck with Ragnarök because it was a franchise I was interested in, because the reward was worth it (Legacy), and of course because it had an easy mode. Actually, I'm in favor of Souls games staying the way they are; my issue is just that Sony games are getting ridiculously easier and easier (with a few exceptions). Sony games are top-notch in terms of game mechanics and gameplay, but they'll never reach their full potential because there's no multiplayer and, as already mentioned, the difficulty levels are being diluted by pandering to the mainstream.
Then play it on hard mode 😉
I found Spider-Man 2 on hard still pretty easy; my son just barely manages it on medium (he's more of a mouse and keyboard player and plays ranked high in Valorant and Fortnite). Rise of the Ronin, which I'm really looking forward to, will also have difficulty levels 3, and for me there's only one, but I don't prioritize my taste and requirements over those of someone who says they don't want it.
Ghost of Tsushima on the hardest difficulty level was really tough; many would never have followed the brilliant character so far if that were the only difficulty level available.
That's why I find it all the more amazing that Bloodborne has sold almost 8 million copies. Many say Elden Ring was the first big mainstream Souls success, but look at Bloodborne (a PS4 exclusive without PC – the sales figures are incredible).
HELLO !?!?!?
A story can never be long enough.
After all, the games are getting more expensive too.
I find the 40h story more than perfect.
Franz is right, but it's also about the quality of the story. If you have to spend 40 hours carrying potatoes from point A to point B for an NPC for a reward of 20 gold, then it's just pointless exercise.
Then name me a few games where you get that much playtime dedicated to a good story. They don't exist, and if they do, they're riddled with 80+ minutes of pointless gameplay. Games are endlessly stretched out, the main thing being that you play forever. Everything is drawn out and watered down.
Mmmhhhh. It took me a long time to get to God of War. 🙂
I had about 120 hours of playtime in Division 2. It's not exactly great, but it does have a story. I loved it.
Sure. AC Valhalla was very long. But I still loved it.
I have no problem with the story taking longer.
I don't always have time to play. So it just takes a little longer to finish the game.
It doesn't hurt.
Division is like Destiny... the story is secondary...
God of War… yeah… okay. The story was just a lot of talk while sailing around in the boat. I found the story of God of War 2018 absolutely appalling and a clear example of how it should NOT be. Nothing happened the whole time; everything that could have been cool was just talked about and recounted because it had happened before. Instead of experiencing it yourself, you just listened passively.
I like AC Valhalla too, but it's so drawn out, and even though the stories were really well done, I agree with you there, they stretched everything out. It's busywork deluxe. Every armor piece is spread across five different versions. Hours of playing for one armor set that, if you're unlucky, has terrible bonuses. Few weapons, an in-game shop… The story itself is cool, sure… but if you don't want to miss 90% of the game, you can't just play the main story. So, another example of a failed game.
Happy New Year to all!
Yes, I partially agree. The first time around, it can be exciting to complete every NPC quest, but by New Game Plus, I skip all the dialogue and side quests. I only do side quests if they offer a lasting gameplay advantage, like an overpowered weapon or armor. What annoys me compared to earlier games is that every game has an RPG system. Take God of War and Ragnaros as an example. Before, you had one armor set that you used for the entire game, or offensive features like a category, say, rage. Now, Ragnaros has countless armor types and rage modes. While you can adjust your gameplay to some extent, I wonder if it's really about offering more variety, or if the developers lack the guts to decide and simply say, "Armor X is the best in the game." Or, even worse, the trend of having the best weapon only available in DLC, like in God of War, Horizon, or Calistat.
Pay to win
Something must have gone seriously wrong with you, and I don't even mean your spelling or sentence structure, but which game do you mean by "gow Ragnar"? No, I know which game you mean, but why are you abbreviating it like that? Is it laziness? Is it because you don't know how to spell Ragnarök?
Just imagine someone trying to read your strange drivel; at least put in a little effort. I don't care about your nationality; I'm a foreigner myself.
About:
If it suits the game, then a single-player game can easily last 250 hours, like Baldur's Gate. With Assassin's Creed, however, I prefer the shorter installments. Bigger and more doesn't work in every genre. Spider-Man 2 was just the right length, whereas the last Halo game dragged on endlessly, especially towards the end.
Sorry that I didn't immediately perceive what your comment was about.
It seems more about exposing my grammatical skills than about the actual topic. You know, and I don't care about you, especially your opinion on the topic; you put more effort into discrediting me than into saying anything relevant.
And as for my nationality, I don't care because, according to the authorities, I'm not a "real" German anyway, and socially speaking, you're clearly demonstrating that regardless of your background, you'll never be accepted. You're only accepted because you're writing something about me now, think about that ;)
And I've said it several times already: Advanced German course, I don't give a fuck. Anyone who wants to understand it can read it; anyone who doesn't want to understand it will always complain about my sentence structure.
What? Please write in a language that people can understand. You wrote half a novel and I didn't understand a thing you were trying to tell me.
Then just Google the word.
First I only wrote "musli", now it's too complicated for you, but you can't decide anyway ;)
Oops, you've misunderstood something. I'm not talking about the words you're using, but rather how you're using them. It all makes no sense. Even ChatGPT won't be able to help you with that.
My goal isn't to cancel you or embarrass you. My goal is simply to encourage you to put more effort into sharing your opinion with us. Nothing more, nothing less. I enjoy reading comments, and when they're full of gibberish, it makes my skin crawl. So please, put more thought into your comments. If necessary, use ChatGPT or another AI, but please do try.
I'm also less interested in multiplayer games these days. I loved God of War. The Last of Us too. I'm eagerly awaiting the update in January. Then I'll play it again.
I'm currently playing Elden Ring. It's just so much fun.