How I Used to Complete Games

Back in the day, I would buy a game and play it until completion as soon as possible, but these days I find myself incapable of finishing most games. This is ironic given the fact that modern games are generally a lot shorter than their predecessors are. I would say that the average modern FPS campaign seems to range between 5 and 6 hours, whereas older shooters often exceeded 10 hours. Most other genres have also suffered a decline in length. Since the focus of many RPGs is now on action rather than hardcore role-playing “main” quests are shorter (think Fable). Moreover, since online gaming has gained massive attention with the advent of Xbox Live and Halo 2, a deep singleplayer campaign is no longer the core focus of all games.

Of course, I am making some rough estimates, and there are exceptions (online gaming was always big on the PC before XBL and there are a few new age 40+ hour RPGS), but many people have noticed this shortening trend – I am not alone! Hell, developers have even gone on record to acknowledge this reality. They often associate the shortening with the higher production costs of modern game design. Games were probably relatively cheap to produce back in the day, but some modern games have now exceeded the 20 million dollar mark and that number is bound to increase as games become more advanced. Whether or not this is the main reason behind singleplayer shortening, I do not know, but that is what they say.

When thinking about the decline in videogame length I also assume that my earlier mentioned shift in focus from singleplayer to multiplayer has had a bigger impact than some people may believe. Since there was no online gaming on the older consoles (N64 and PS1) the bulk of games was typically composed of singleplayer with low to moderate attention on split-screen multiplayer. But things have changed. The success of mega-hits like Call of Duty 4 and the earlier Halo 2, have proven that multiplayer is now a main attraction for many gamers, both “casual” and “hardcore”. And I feel that with this realization has come the idea in some developers’ heads that a lengthy singleplayer campaign is no longer necessary since most replay value now comes from a quality multiplayer component. Why should they make an extremely complex singleplayer experience when developers can make easy, pick-up-and-play multiplayer? Still, the singleplayer in both the Halo and Call of Duty series has received critical acclaim, but I feel that most of the “staying power” and recognition comes from their online components.

So what’s the big deal? Why can’t I finish many modern games if they are now commonly shorter? I feel that the quality of singleplayer campaigns has declined over the years and this is probably the main reason why I cannot get through most games without risking a painful death via intense boredom. Now, when thinking about why I no longer finish games I must consider the fact that I am not going to middle/high school, and so my priorities have shifted over the years. However, less free time did not prevent me from recently completing Deus Ex within 20.8 hours (according to my STEAM profile), nor has it stopped me from taking on the lengthy quest of The Witcher. So once again, I must fall back on overall quality as the source of my “handicap”.

I might be flamed for saying this, but I remember “playing” through the Resistance: Fall of Man campaign and just barely escaping with my sanity – it was just that damn boring. The same goes for Call of Duty 4 and some other games, which I cannot even remember their names – they were just that bad! Similarly, whenever I try to replay Crysis or Half-Life 2, I can never progress beyond the first three or four missions. Now these games were fantastic the first time I played through them and I would expect a game with as many gameplay variables as Crysis (the whole strength, stealth, and speed thing) to have endless replay value, but I guess once I went through the whole experience the initial mystic wore off, and so replay was out of the question. On the other hand, sometimes games are just too damn long for what they offer. I beat Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, but I never got past 34% completion in Grand Theft Auto IV and Red Dead Redemption. These two games were astonishingly high in terms of production quality, but the story missions quickly became redundant, which left me free-roaming most of the time rather than focusing on the campaign. Unfortunately, the free-roaming also became redundant overtime.

To me, the ideal game addresses both the singleplayer and multiplayer experience with equal attention to quality. In some cases, both components are not necessary, but when each is present, I expect both to be fantastic. I do not want to have great multiplayer with crappy singleplayer – if a developer put it in, it should have a reason for existence beyond satisfying the status quo of the “complete” game. As I said, the problem I am finding is not the necessarily the length of singleplayer campaigns, but the originality. After recently watching the movie Inception, I was blown away, because it was not the standard superhero movie – “now in 3D!” – or a love flick featuring vampires and werewolves. It might not have been a perfect film, but it was undeniably original and all the film’s elements were top-notch.

Likewise, I want a videogame singleplayer experience to have the same impact on me. I want to be blown away, and that will not happen with some sort of gameplay gimmick, but instead, overall uniqueness. And this “uniqueness” or “innovation” alone cannot make a game great – like Inception everything else needs to be intact and respected. So, “quality” needs to extend beyond the premise. The graphics should be acceptable; sounds should be mind-blowing; gameplay addictive, and glitches/bugs at a minimum. I am not asking developers to completely abandon the typical “aliens invade Earth” or “Russians bombed the United States” plotlines, but if they choose to use these, I want them to add more flair and thought to their storylines. If they did this then I would be interested and willing to complete their game because it is fun, and not because I felt obligated to get my $60 worth.