Video Games: Time not Included
whatisnoise.com
whatisnoise.com
Game designers have created this logic that you must do X before you can see Y. If you haven't done X then you don't deserve to see Y. Yes, it can make it 'too easy' if you can skip anything, but I'm the one here making my own entertainment. If I've already read a novel and want to skip a chapter that was boring, I can skip it with the turn of a page. No author tries to stop you from doing that. Same with a movie. Just press Fast Forward.
If you ask me, the best driving game of all time was Outrun. It plonks you in a Ferrari at the start line of a race, and you drive as far and as fast as you can in the time allotted. The more you play the game, the better you get, and you're rewarded by being able to see more of the world, but it doesn't reward you for just slogging through.
Unfortunately, there is a very vocal minority of gamers who scream this idea down. These are the people from which the "game-playing loser" stereotype comes from - the people that really do spend nearly every waking moment churning through long game after long game.
They flood forums and Amazon reviews, screaming at how a fantastic 6-hour game was a "rip off".
I think there are a lot of adults who lead productive lives and would love to be able to play games that are finishable in a normal person's available free time. But they're not nearly as visible.
An unfinished game is far less likely to be returned. You know, maybe some day you'll get around to finishing it.
I am on mobile right now, but search TIGsource for full links.
And to add to the discussion: games that I play the most are either online, procedural, or score-based. But games that I have enjoyed the most have all been highly focused, incredibly polished single player experiences. 10 years ago, these were long (30+ hour) games. But the cost of producing content has risen so much lately that you can only obtain this level of polish if you keep it short.
Since that is not going to happen, I have a hard time agreeing with your wish that developers make shorter games. I mean, I'm not exactly in the poor house, but I'd balk at paying $60 for four to six hours of gameplay, even if that was a pretty amazing four to hours.
Also, cf. movie theater prices.
I mean, how long was Pac Man? A few minutes, perhaps, but people would play it for hours.
How long was Sonic The Hedgehog or Super Mario Bros? Maybe half an hour once you got good at it, but you'd have to play it a fair few times before you got good enough to beat it -- even once you had though, it was fun to play through again.
Modern games are mostly just one long hard slog that you play through once and forget about. Nothing wrong with some games being like that, but it'd be nice to have the other type of game back as well.
I've spent 2 months trying to play through Dragonage, but can't find enough time to actually sit down and enjoy it, and any actual free time I do have I have priorities elsewhere, like trying to keep my writing skills exercised so I don't become an illiterate troll.
I very rarely play games, but if I do, I like to play for three days straight (with sensible drinking, eating and sleeping). There are just not that many games that are good enough, or so it seems. But I admit that I have stopped following the announcements, too.
There definitely was a time when few good games emerged, but it might have changed for the better now. You know, when selling points were "50 different weapons, super-blaster-bazooka. Very realistic blood effects".
Last game I enjoyed was Risen, Fallout 3 is in the backlog.
How can you play a game like Half Life & successors and not be hooked?
The wife and I instead opt for those shorter, hidden object with mini memory games that take 2 to 4 hours to complete. We play these together, taking turns who is mousing.
The service we currently subscribe to gives us a game each month for $7.00 - Much less than the popcorn and sodas, let alone the admission of a movie these days. And the service makes out, too: We end up buying one or two extra each month when we find we have the odd evening off. The service gets the steady revenue and a minor cash till ring here and there.
Due to the nature of the game engine, nothing happens unless you issue a command or make a move. It only reacts to your input. Therefore, you can keep a long-running game session open, not even needing to save, and just tab over to it and play, here and there, when you have a moment.
That, or strategy/sim games that are designed to be challenging. Rollercoaster Tycoon and Capitalism come to mind.
I'm getting old.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillacs_and_Dinosaurs_(arcade...
How about OpenTTD?
It definitely doesn't fit your first criteria, as it is phenomenally complex and took me weeks to get the hang of using signal lights to route trains without collision. I found it pretty engrossing, though, and easy enough to play in spurts when time allowed.
Something like Machinarium would be great, where you have many, many short puzzles. For an adult, what you can fit in "in a spare moment" becomes very attractive.
Usually, the only other games I play are ones recommended by a friend in the gaming industry. He introduced me to Braid. Sometimes, I'll play a game which gets a lot of coverage in nerdy, non-gaming channels, like Portal.
(by the way, I'm currently fighting the urge to run out and buy Red Dead Redemption)