Same Engine? Same Gameplay? Same Basic Features? In a New Game?

[Ataraxias]

ph4nt said:

The only time I hate sequels is when the game is short (HELLO every single action game on the PS360).

Modern Warfare: $60 Ok for the first dip.
Modern Warfare 2: Modified online and only 6 hour campaign? COME ON
Gears 1- 6 hours, Gears 2-6 hours. Gears 3? probably 6 hours.
If Gears 3 follows this trend, thats 18 hours of game for $180 with the same online component slightly modified across each game. Meanwhile I can get games like Mass Effect (35 hours for me) and other RPGs. or Zelda (60+ hours) Mario (20 hours+) that are longer than an entire trilogy of these games. And when they make a sequel to these games, they are very long too and worth the purchase.

I'm sick and tired of 6 hour shooters.

I think a good way to put into perspective how ridiculously short these games are.

Take Zelda.

Now it costs $60

has three dungeons and thats it

The multiplayer included 10 maps across hyrule.

Additional maps at $10 for a pack of 3, two packs.

Sequel comes out.

three dungeons included

8 new maps, 3 pack of previous maps "updated" for $5, 3 pack of new maps for $10

and it keeps going

 

I hate the idea that multiplayer somehow gives the developers an excuse to make absurdly short games.

Except it does for certain games,  there are polls and research out there that show that over 50% of people that played CoD4 and Halo 3 NEVER even touched the single player once.  I'm sure there's many other games out there in similar situations.