edstein

I usually play my games on normal difficulty and then replay the game (if I like it) on hard and the hardest difficulty settings. That way I get my money out of the game. Then the multi-player half of the game is gravy.

Noonan

I've been playing Vegas for probably about 20-30 hours and I haven't even started the campaign yet...

msdmoney

Wow, 4 hours for Gears, that is pretty fast, are you sure you aren't underestimating the times? It was short but more like 8 hours short than 4 hours short.

Actually I prefer games that are 8-10 hours, most games really only have enough variety for that many hours, once you hit 10 hours it becomes repetitive and I am ready to move on to the next game. I think Gears was absolutely a complete game with an 8 hour single player and multiplayer too. I think a lot of games artificially add time by leveling or fetch quests, very few keep up the momentum and variety for 40 + hours. It is the main reason I don't play many RPG's, I like them, but they are just too long for me.

Games have actually gotten longer IMO, back in the NES/SNES days games were not so complex, sometimes games could be beaten in a matter of an hour or two. Now games are more story driven and I think in general games are longer.

Another thing to consider is you probably wanted more out of the games since all the ones you mentioned are new and probably full price. If you wait and stay a little behind the releases, and buy them cheaper you probably won't feel so burned. Since I buy most games for $20, I don't mind if I only get 5-10 hours out of it, if I paid $60 I might care more.

KurrptSenate

eh

everyone exaggerates how fast they beat games. If the game itself doesnt keep track, I always add about 125%-140% of times quoted

taffer

I was just thinking: I think the reason games seem shorter nowadays is because game difficulty has gotten easier over the years.

Back in the NES era, most games were hard as hell. There were quite a few games I never could beat. Most games back then only had maybe five or six levels, but they were so hard it would take weeks of aggravation and throwing controllers across the room to finally get past one level.

Like I said in my previous post, Super Mario Bros can easily be beaten in 15 minutes, but it took several months of playing to get that good at the game.

Today's games are much easier. You can beat most games today without much dying or starting over.

KurrptSenate

i think older games just have a steeper learning curve

once you get over that initial hump, the are all pretty darn easy

dvd182

Walkthroughs are also hugely popular for first runs through games now.

First there were congregations of friends huddled around a machine trying to figure out levels.

Then there were those weird Nintendo Power maps and tips, and official strategy guides.

Then came light walkthroughs online, which were okay to use after you already beat the game once and just wanted to find all the stuff.

Then came full on walkthroughs that you can use from start to finish to get it all the first time through.

I'm not saying that using walkthroughs is wrong or anything, but they are VERY popular nowdays.

fumanstan

I thought Gears of War length was just fine. The ending kind of came sooner then I expected, but I attribute that more to bad pacing storyline wise. Still, the 8-10 hours or so it took to beat it was perfect as it wasn't so long that you get annoyed/bored with the gameplay.

Ralph Wiggum

Play games for fun, not to "win". I've gone through Gears three times already because it's so damn enjoyable and not padded. On the other hand, I won't touch Twilight Princess for another 5-10 years because it is padded to the point where extended sections of the game are anti-fun. Give me a terse, well-paced, and replayable game over hitting some arbitrary length that makes for a good PR soundbite.

Michael Corvin

That's a bold claim from someone who hasn't played the game. TP has been praised for being the exact opposite of what you describe. It is a 45 hour game with no repetitive sections.

ben12

It sounded to me like he HAD played TP, but won't REplay it for years, unlike Gears of War, which he's constantly replaying.

I like TP, though. Gears of War gives me a headache.

DodgingCars

I use them. If I didn't I would never finish games. I can't stand being stuck. I get incredibly frustrated. I remember once I got stuck on Syphon Filter 2 for about a week. I just gave up and never played again.

Now.. If I'm stuck for more than an hour, I go online a read the walk-through. I don't care if it's "cheating" -- I want to enjoy the game, and I don't enjoy it unless I'm progressing. I hate being stuck and frustrated.

Giantrobo

Agreed.

Plus, I can't play the same game for more than an hour/hour and a half in one sitting. I have to switch games or turn the system off and do something else or I go nuts. Perhaps some of you should just play a couple levels at a time or jsut for a set period fo time then force yourself to finish it later....

Josh H

Oh, I think few people have any problems with the use of walk throughs only when stuck. I do the same if I can't get past something I'm stuck at for 30 minutes to an hour. Just don't have the time or patience.

What people question is the people who print them out before the even start (or buy a guide) and play with it beside them reading it every step of the way.

Michael Corvin

I'll never understand that either. I use them to find remaining things that I may have missed the first time through. Like fruit in Kameo or Heart Containers in Zelda. There are just too many great games to play to sit and wander for hours looking for a few little things like that anymore. When I was younger I didn't mind, it was a challenge, but now, with time at a premium, I have no problems looking up little stuff like that.

I did have to crack open my Zelda guide for the first time a few weeks back. I hadn't played it in over a month and forgot what I was supposed to be doing so I used it to get back on track.

Lastblade

Same here, I use FAQs and guides sparingly, but I don't want to waste alot of time trying things either. Just a compromise so I am not cheating myself out of a fun experience while minimizing frustration and too much time wasted in a particular puzzle/section.

taffer

The thing that puzzles me is why people still pay money for guides when you can just download a free walkthrough on GameFAQs.

argh923

No, because they have sequels. The other games mentioned never ended up with sequels released.

Lastblade

For the most part, GameFAQs suffice but once in awhile, the pictures and additional info in a printed guide is worth it (like Doubleday guides, and the Oblivion guide is pretty nice). Most of Brady guides are pure crap tho.

Michael Corvin

No, but Halo 2 proved you can end on a cliff hanger and still sell a gajillion copies, leading the pack for other companies to try the same thing... and fail.

boredsilly

I can't speak towards TP (haven't played it yet) but that is exactly why I don't play RPG's. They almost all seem padded in some for or another. Kingdom Hearts is the exception for me because just when I'm starting to get tired of the game a new world opens up. Plus it's an action RPG, so I feel more involved in whats happening. But turn based rpgs? Never again.

But give me tight fun games like Riddick, Beyond Good and Evil, and the Spider-Man games any day of the week...just not at full price

gimmepilotwings

Do you ever go to the movies? $8 for a ticket, another $10 for popcorn and a drink, comes out to nearly $20 for 2 hours of entertainment, and that's if you do not invite a date. Gears is a bit different (due to its online play) but video games overall have a pretty good value, for the length of entertainment that you get.

Josh H

Meh, can't factor in popcorn and a drink as you don't need that shit to enjoy the movie.

If you're going to add that in, you might as well factor in all the beer, soda, chips etc. that you're going to drink and eat while playing the game you just bought.

But yes, games are generally cheaper on the $/per hour of entertainment ratio even without food included. But of course other factors matter besides the $ value--i.e. I weigh it differently as I enjoy a trip to the theater more than a 2 hour gaming session most of the time.

Josh H

Totally. That's why its near the top of my all time favorites list. Other than the first couple of hours in the village (which sucked) the game was fresh and never repetitive. You were always doing something new. Maybe the one exception would be hunting for the light bugs before each of the first 3 areas, but they were in such varied environments each time even that didn't feel too redundant.

V-ism

I think Gears of War and R6: Vegas are just about right. It took me much longer to beat R6, but that is probably because I played on realistic from the start and I suck pretty much. With Gears of War, I think it took me 6 hours or so, but I've played it many times on various difficulties. And you can pretty much play the online multiplayer matches forever. The games are full fledged games, you just need to make use of what's given to you. There are some people who just want to beat the game, and to some it doesn't matter if they skip cut scenes or use cheat codes. As long as they get to the "end" of the game, they are done with it. To those, they should just rent the games. For me, I can make the game worth my while. Especially with achievements and online play.

However, I have a problem lately getting into those long games. I stopped playing Final Fantasy 12 because I know it's too long. I know I've spent enough time on Gears of War that I could have finished FF12. But it's just the thought of how long the game is going to be kind of turns me off. I used to be a RPG buff, but I haven't really played one through since FFX. And the only exception since then was Oblivion, cause it was a new thing for me and was awesome.