The Fate of Modern FPS Campaign Length As the expectations for improved graphics, audio, effects, AI, physics, etc. for FPS games continues to rise with each generation it becomes increasingly more difficult for developers to produce games at the scale and scope that we've seen in years past when pertaining to single player mode. If developers want to acquire positive marks from reviewers and players alike this often requires dedicating most of their resources on a smaller chunk of content compared to previous generations in order to reach the desired quality bar. Some would say that the emphasis is on quality over quantity. However, as an environment artist and a gamer who loves exploring, part of having a quality experience for me is having a large quantity of content to explore over a fairly large but manageable duration of time. It's difficult to think of a blockbuster FPS such as KillZone, Halo, or CoD that has had anything near a 20 hour campaign in the last 5 years. Half-Life 2, which came out just a little over 5 years ago was the last big FPS game to have a single player mode any where near this figure. There have been FPS games such as Dead Space with slightly longer campaigns but this is accomplished primarily through limiting the variety of the environments and content, and overly repeating gameplay elements. I'm not opposed to re-use of assets (see below) but I think it can be taken too far. ________________ WHAT ACTION, IF ANY, SHOULD DEVELOPERS TAKE TO IMPROVE THE DIMINISHING LENGTH AND SCALE OF SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGNS FOR FPS GAMES? A- Developers don't need to change their strategy. Modern FPS games have achieved an ideal balance between campaign length and overall quality. B- Developers should be willing to sacrifice a little bit on the graphics, sound, physics, and AI front in favor of more content and longer campaigns. I want a longer and larger campaign experience even if it means less focus on fine tuning content to the cutting edge. C- Developers need to focus on pushing the envelope for graphics, sound, physics, and AI even if it means even shorter campaigns and less overall content. I want the most engaging and realistic experience no matter how short and small it is. 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. E- Developers should adopt new development strategies such as relying more on asset re-use and modular systems. This allows developers to increase quality, quantity, and campaign length without over extending the development cycle, but at the cost of reducing the number of unique environments and assets. I don't mind playing through two or more levels that share similar visual styles and content if it adds more length and scale to my campaign experience. F- Other. I have another solution I'd like to suggest (please reply with explanation if voting for this). I couldn't seem to find a poll ability in the forums so if every visitor could please reply with their vote (A,B,C,D,E,or F) and perhaps a little justification I'll try to update the tally as often as possible. ____________________ I tend to lean toward solutions D and E. I believe developers need to be willing to accept the fact that games of this generation and next are going to take longer to develop if they desire to push the quality bar in visuals, audio, AI, physics, and gameplay while still maintaining the scale and amount of content delivered in previous generations. I also think that there are strategies for creating content, and environments specifically that can increase the amount of content and length experienced in an FPS campaign without drastically lengthening the development cycle. Rather than creating a custom palatte of shaders, bitmaps, effects, objects, architectural, and landscaping concepts to make each level completely unique it seems that establishing a few unique "environment schemes" or themes that can be used on multiple levels would be an effective approach. This strategy has been used in the past and it seems negligent that so many FSP developers have completely abandoned it. I think FPS games could adopt this strategy as exemplified in games from other genres such as adventure games, action games, and platformers. Take SMB3 for example. It has eight worlds, each themed (an environment scheme) so that the levels within each world are unified by similar elements though feel unique as a result of their custom compositions and gameplay challenges. I could imagine in an FPS game that you could establish 4-6 different environment schemes or themes that could be used 2-4 times each giving a range of 8-24 different levels. If each level is about an hour this seems like an ideal range in terms of campaign length. Having 16 levels based on 5 different themes would seemingly be easier from an art production standpoint than 10 levels, each having there own unique environment scheme. Thoughts?

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.

Good luck going to a publisher with that.

Dev: We'd like an extra year to increase the length of our campaign.
Pub: That pushes our release back to 2012, what will we bring out in 2011 now?
Dev: But, the game will be much better!
Pub: We can spend that $5,000,000 on marketing and get more sales than your "extended campaign" will give us.
Dev: Can we pleeeaaaase have $5M and an extra 12 months?
Pub: No. Actually I think we'll move your deadline 6 months earlier so we've got some good hype material for marketing. Also, that should mean we don't have to pay you as much because it's a shorter deadline. Have fun crunching you shmucks.

So I guess I'd vote [E], but that requires great planning and management. And also assumes the publisher doesn't pop their head in 6 months before release telling you that you've got to add an Antarctica level now, and drivable vehicles, and a space mission.

Two words:

The Library.

G - There isn't a problem. (Similar to your option A, except that I wouldn't say the balance is necessarily ideal, and would also suggest that there is a large portion of gamers willing to accept a lesser quality (as long as it is still good rather than bad) gaming experience if the price is right and the experience is fun.)

I know you're probably more looking for ways to increase length for those players who do want a longer campaign, but I'd just like to briefly weigh in with the alternative view that 10-20 hours of gameplay (preferably broken down into smaller, easily consumable chunks that can be finished in 30-60 minute sessions) is enough.

I work. I have a couple of casual jobs, and I'm working towards creating my own games to sell. I also do some freelance coding and web development.
I socialise -- karaoke night once most weeks, and usually another night or two out for dinner, a movie, visit the pool-hall, go to the beach or whatever.
I volunteer some of my time to this site.
I have other hobbies - I play several instruments, write my own music, and have a weekly (roleplaying) gaming night.

Amongst all that I like to play videogames as well, but I simply don't have a lot of time to do so, and when I do it's usually in small chunks rather than for extended periods. I like games like Halo that provide a campaign I can finish without having to dedicate a lot of time to.

I think what I just said also represents a large and growing portion of the gaming market. Shorter campaigns -- hopefully with additional optional content in the form of secrets, achievements, multiplayer modes, etc. -- tend to really appeal to this market, and so in many cases it probably just isn't cost effective for game companies to invest in solving the "problem" you've identified.

I'm sure however that others will share your point of view and may be interested in ways to achieve increased campaign length.

F, but close to A. I think that the long single player campaigns of yesteryear represented a lack of content, in terms of AI, physics and map design. Dozens of hours of gradually escalating grunt hordes, backtracking key/door gameplay and spartan, repetitive environments made for a few noteworthy FPS titles (The Marathon franchise really did well in my mind) and loads and loads of less excellent games. Nowadays the actual gameplay experience can be profoundly rewarding in shorter bites. I read an interview with some Bungie dudes who were talking about Halo, and they explained that the Halo experience is pretty simple, you go into a place with enemies, maybe score a few stealth kills, stick a grenade on the first guy who sees you, then go through the shoot/melee/reload/grenade/shoot cycle a few times, using the environment and some strategic hopping to stay alive, then wait for your shields to come back and do it all over again. That core experience lasts about thirty seconds at a time, but they worked hard to polish it and make it feel intense and rewarding. Adding in long walks and more and more fights fluffs up the game but doesn't necessarily enrich the experience (The Library is a good example of where they did it wrong).

In terms of fun per hour, I probably got more out of the F.E.A.R. demo than the actual game, because it was just a showcase of the first-person-shooting and atmosphere, without all the dialogue and checkpoint hikes that filled up the rest of the campaign. I rarely get into story, and a compelling narrative won't save a game that I'm not delighted by in that "zone" of gameplay immersion. Call Of Duty games do not float my boat, but I'll spend hours with a buddy playing the Nazi Zombies mode in World at War.

So campaign length matters less to me because the campaign is no longer the meat of the game in my mind. I want tight controls, visually interesting environments, entertaining enemies, good game dynamics and replayability more than I want epic story arcs and sprawling environments. I think they're doing a good job currently with the short campaigns and a focus on multiplayer, co-op and revisiting old levels with "score mode" or the Halo skull effects to help me spice up and customise the experience to fit my mood.

If they change anything, I want them to dedicate more dev time to ensuring that the game is impossible to "finish", give me ways to go back through the game, skipping cutscenes entirely and blitzing past dialogue sequences so that I can get right down to brass tacks and play the video game. Also, make sure that playing the video game isn't just a means by which to access the next level or unlock the next cut scene.

Pure FPS games seem to all be a fairly short set piece tour but theirs a few FPS/RPG games out with 50+ hours of play for completionist types.

A. B, with reservations. (Never aim for "more" but "more that is worthwhile".)

When you've got a good short FPS, what are your options?

1) Release it.
This is perfectly valid. Most people have quite limited time for recreation. They want to get to the good stuff and leave the bad stuff. No one complains about movies lasting only two hours. A blockbuster rail shooter can be made even shorter than the current ones and the resources spent on cramming more stuff into that shorter experience. That's fine.

2) Add filler and grind.
Don't. Just don't. The exception are the games that are all about the grind, like Diablo and WoW.

3) Churn out worthwhile extra content.
This can take a lot of forms. In a rail shooter FPS, piling on new levels, enemies, weapons etc. means roughly linear work effort at roughly the same standard of quality. (Though you would actually want to plan for this from the start so that the pacing and plot do not go out of whack.) In comparison, creating alternate play modes, challenges and achievements has potential to entertain a great deal for a minuscule amount of development hours spent. The work just needs to be *good*.

4) Make it harder so it takes longer to play through.
Tried, tested and valid, but use with caution. Good difficult games are not just good easy games that have been made harder, but originally designed to be hard. Because the player will fail often, the designer needs to be very careful e.g. about never being unfair. A lot of stuff that's acceptable in an easy game is completely unacceptable in a hard one.

Modular use of content (E) is an implementation detail. Everyone does it the best they can, anyway. It's not a game design choice as such.

As for B, I would like to see more games ditch photorealism, plot and pompousness, and go for novel and satisfying mechanics instead. We don't really have "thinking man's FPSs", nor do we have "scoring" FPSs, or tactical fantasy FPSs.

[Edited by - Stroppy Katamari on November 27, 2009 8:07:10 AM]

Quote:

Original post by RaydenUni Two words: The Library.

QFT.

No game should add filler content just because 'we need a longer campaign'. The Library has no reason for existing - it adds nothing to the storyline and it is a straight run through identical passages, with identical textures, identical opponents, even identical AI behaviour...

I think the current balance whether perfect or not is an economic one.
The visual quality, game play, campaign length... all together minimized
vs. a crowd big enough who are willing to pay 50 bucks.

If their is no economic constraints like games are not mainly developed
for the money. I am sure we would see a lot more innovations and such.

Quote:

Original post by Hodgman Good luck going to a publisher with that. Dev: We'd like an extra year to increase the length of our campaign. Pub: That pushes our release back to 2012, what will we bring out in 2011 now? Dev: But, the game will be much better! Pub: We can spend that $5,000,000 on marketing and get more sales than your "extended campaign" will give us. Dev: Can we pleeeaaaase have $5M and an extra 12 months? Pub: No. Actually I think we'll move your deadline 6 months earlier so we've got some good hype material for marketing. Also, that should mean we don't have to pay you as much because it's a shorter deadline. Have fun crunching you shmucks.

This is probably closer to the truth than most would admit. Well established developers do have a bit of push-back with their publishers though. In the end it's the publisher's call but dev's can definitely influence their decision.

Quote:

Original post by RaydenUni Two words: The Library.

Yes, this is a good example of unnecessary filler, which is not what should be expected when extending campaign length.

Quote:

Original post by jbadams G - There isn't a problem. (Similar to your option A, except that I wouldn't say the balance is necessarily ideal, and would also suggest that there is a large portion of gamers willing to accept a lesser quality (as long as it is still good rather than bad) gaming experience if the price is right and the experience is fun.) I know you're probably more looking for ways to increase length for those players who do want a longer campaign, but I'd just like to briefly weigh in with the alternative view that 10-20 hours of gameplay (preferably broken down into smaller, easily consumable chunks that can be finished in 30-60 minute sessions) is enough. I work. I have a couple of casual jobs, and I'm working towards creating my own games to sell. I also do some freelance coding and web development. I socialise -- karaoke night once most weeks, and usually another night or two out for dinner, a movie, visit the pool-hall, go to the beach or whatever. I volunteer some of my time to this site. I have other hobbies - I play several instruments, write my own music, and have a weekly (roleplaying) gaming night. Amongst all that I like to play videogames as well, but I simply don't have a lot of time to do so, and when I do it's usually in small chunks rather than for extended periods. I like games like Halo that provide a campaign I can finish without having to dedicate a lot of time to. I think what I just said also represents a large and growing portion of the gaming market. Shorter campaigns -- hopefully with additional optional content in the form of secrets, achievements, multiplayer modes, etc. -- tend to really appeal to this market, and so in many cases it probably just isn't cost effective for game companies to invest in solving the "problem" you've identified. I'm sure however that others will share your point of view and may be interested in ways to achieve increased campaign length.

You're statements are actually very much aligned with my opinion on the matter. I too work many hours, have a wife, dabble in writing on the side, go hiking, and have other responsibilities that make it difficult to make a big committment to a game. That's why I believe 30-60 minute chunks or levels is an ideal duration of play for most gamers. This is also why I enjoy multiplayer sessions.

My ideal campaign length would probably be 10-12 hours if it was engaging enough to have a high replayability factor. What concerns me is FPS's trying to squeeze by with less than a six hours of campaign. When I get a new game I typically play 1.5-2 hours each night and then 30-60 minute sessions as its "newness" dwindles. If I complete a game in 3-4 days I feel let down a bit.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage F, but close to A. I think that the long single player campaigns of yesteryear represented a lack of content, in terms of AI, physics and map design. Dozens of hours of gradually escalating grunt hordes, backtracking key/door gameplay and spartan, repetitive environments made for a few noteworthy FPS titles (The Marathon franchise really did well in my mind) and loads and loads of less excellent games. Nowadays the actual gameplay experience can be profoundly rewarding in shorter bites. I read an interview with some Bungie dudes who were talking about Halo, and they explained that the Halo experience is pretty simple, you go into a place with enemies, maybe score a few stealth kills, stick a grenade on the first guy who sees you, then go through the shoot/melee/reload/grenade/shoot cycle a few times, using the environment and some strategic hopping to stay alive, then wait for your shields to come back and do it all over again. That core experience lasts about thirty seconds at a time, but they worked hard to polish it and make it feel intense and rewarding. Adding in long walks and more and more fights fluffs up the game but doesn't necessarily enrich the experience (The Library is a good example of where they did it wrong).

I too agree that filler shouldn't be added simply to extend the game's length, however if you can continue to use captivating experiences that continue to build upon the mechanics of game play without exhausting the types of situations where a player can challenge their skills I think it's something worth pursuing.

Too often I'll play a game and be introduced to a new mechanic, vehicle, weapon, piece of equipment, or tactic and only get a brief taste of it before moving onto something different. I wouldn't mind playing through a level that introduces me to a new vehicle and allows me to learn how to utilize it then having the opportunity to play it again later (not necessarily the next level) with the chance to really have fun with it because I've already been familiarized with it previously. When everything is a one-off experience it begins to feel gimmicky and as if I'm being cheated of opportunities to really exploit and master the experience, whatever it may be.