Actually I believe the lessening of content is more due to DVD size limits. The console version has to be limited to a single DVD. The more complex the scene becomes the more disk space is needed for it. I believe this is what limits the content as it makes no sense to use different content for the PC version.

ANd of course, you can always spend your dev time making a great game with a short campaign, then add DLC for more money and duration if it's a hit.

The size limit is not a factor because most games don't even use more than 3gb out of the 4.38gb limit of the disc. Even in the past, the entire size of the media is not the limiting factor. Games must be shorter in order to have room to make a sequel. Also, the company may have advertise a release date and the development team must make it within the release date. The rule is: competition causes the companies to bring out lower quality games with cuts in order to make it in time or leaving room for improvement.

Some team even finish the sequel before releasing the first game of the series.

The limitation is "Competition." Any company that try to compete will make negative decisions to the quality of the game. The teams should get as much time as they necessary need to develop games of high quality, but as we all know illusory superiority is a problem with development. Illusory Superiority is cause by competition, and to remove this burden of overestimation of one-self in the case of the individual developer, the team as one, or the company as a whole, the sensation of competition has to be ignore.

Ignoring both the sensation of competition and the comparison to others is necessary to improvement.

Quote:

D- Developers should consider longer development cycles so that they can maintain a high level of content quality and increase campaign length and the amount of content/features available. I'm willing to wait another six months to a year for the game's release if it means I get a large and long campaign in addition to having excellent visual, audio, AI, and gameplay standards.

But are gamers willing to subsidize such increased production costs?

Waiting is one thing, but time is money, and publishers have production costs to account for. Either they will pass this increase directly to the customer of the game...Or they will distribute it amongst some/all of thier releases inorder to net profit.

As somebody who doesn't have a lot of time to play video games I'd like to say I prefer longer games. Even if I can't sit down for hours a day to play I want the game to have more content because whether or not I spend 12 hours a day or 1 hour a day playing a game I want to look back on it and think that the content of that game was worth the money I payed for it, as such I rarely buy games anymore because few of them offer the quantity(or quality) of content I'm looking for.

Quote:

Original post by MSW Quote: D- Developers should consider longer development cycles so that they can maintain a high level of content quality and increase campaign length and the amount of content/features available. I'm willing to wait another six months to a year for the game's release if it means I get a large and long campaign in addition to having excellent visual, audio, AI, and gameplay standards. But are gamers willing to subsidize such increased production costs? Waiting is one thing, but time is money, and publishers have production costs to account for. Either they will pass this increase directly to the customer of the game...Or they will distribute it amongst some/all of thier releases inorder to net profit.

Obviously, this development strategy will cost more than a typical production cycle. If improving the quality and scope/scale of content in the game results in the game going from receiving an average rating of 7 or 8 to a 10 on a 1-10 scale then this may have the ability to sway consumers who are on the fence about the purchase to actually buy it.

Depending on the numbers of the converted this may justify the higher production costs if the developer/publisher is able to move more units at the same price. In all likelyhood the first title developed using this approach would probably not meet its full potential in terms of profitability as a result of straying from the current business model. However, this strategy would seeemingly have a long-term payoff of increasing costumer loyalty.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage ANd of course, you can always spend your dev time making a great game with a short campaign, then add DLC for more money and duration if it's a hit.

I can't tell if this is a semi-sarcastic statement or if you're being serious. I personally don't have a problem with DLC (having worked on some myself and having thought of the idea back in the days when I used to play F-Zero and hope for more vehicles and tracks) but fear that it can be exploited and used as an excuse to ship a less than full-fledged game.

I think MW2 had a pretty good length campaign. Took me two or three nights of gaming to finish it up (probably five or six hours total I think). That's pretty good for me. I don't want to spend much more time than that to finish a game. Going back to my "relating prices of games to movies" system I like, MW2's campaign lasted the length of about three movies so that'd be about $30. Only half of the full $60 price tag, but MW2 does have more than just the single player and I'm likely to spend way more hours playing multiplayer than the single player.

I don't think campaign modes need to get longer, necessarily. If the game is just a single player mode, then it might be nice to have it be longer or offer some legitimate replayability. If the game also has some multiplayer stuff, I think shortening the story a bit is just fine.

Quote:

Original post by WorldPlanter Quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage ANd of course, you can always spend your dev time making a great game with a short campaign, then add DLC for more money and duration if it's a hit. I can't tell if this is a semi-sarcastic statement or if you're being serious. I personally don't have a problem with DLC (having worked on some myself and having thought of the idea back in the days when I used to play F-Zero and hope for more vehicles and tracks) but fear that it can be exploited and used as an excuse to ship a less than full-fledged game.

I'm worried that game companies will stop providing modding tools just so they can charge $10 for a DLC that consists of two multi player maps, a new gun and a recolored character skin.

Gawd, I leave for a year (bet you didn't notice) and when I get back, you're all making lame excuses to value financial gains over artistic merit. In case you couldn't guess, I choose B/D. The state of mainstream games has got worse and worse over the last few years, in my opinion. I understand the reason why: "Developers want to be certain they make a profit", but I don't like it. Then again, as a left libertarian, that has more to do with political ideology (and that damn capitalism) than anything vaguely related to the topic.

I don't feel sacrificing unique content is a valid way to approach the development cycle; typically one would want at least a somewhat different experience for each level. Otherwise you may as well make the original level twice as lengthy and provide more interest that way. Although games are a product to be pushed, they are, nonetheless, a creative product and should be treated accordingly. Does an artist sell a portrait before it's finished? No. Could you sell a novel without an end to a publishing house? Not unless your initials are S.M. Would you watch two films of a three-film series, where the third was cancelled, giving no closure?

Games are a culmination of every artistic element in conventional media, with the additional merit that they allow the user to manipulate certain aspects of the scene - gameplay. While I enjoy a good war film as much as anyone else, I wouldn't sit and watch every single one I could find over and over again, nor would I count an incomplete film as anything other than a novelty and a display of wasted potential. Every time a publisher cuts a section from a game, a kitten dies.

Ultimately, one has to decide whether they play the game as a mindless form of enjoyment akin to a typical action film - masturbation, as the game industry's favorite critic, Jack Thompson, would put it, or whether they rather appreciate a game based on its artistic merits. If games are just another product to be consumed and tossed aside, feel free to release them with ever-shorter campaigns. If they're a form of art, don't.

I wonder why I prefer indy games?