What happened to the "game" in "video game"?

It seems like every gamer considers things like story and graphics and multiplayer to be the most important components of a good video game, when the game part seems to get left behind.

For instance, I love to play a good shooting game. Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, and Gears of War are amongst my favorites. But out of those, Gears is the longest, and it's a little over 10 hours on your first playthrough. Really? Ten years ago, ten hours was considered too short. Now, it's considered just right. The gameplay is great in these games, but it just doesn't last. Multiplayer does not, in any way, shape, or form, make up for a short game. No game should need to stand on multiplayer alone. I don't care if it's Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament, it ought to be against the law to concentrate on multiplayer.

So, in my quest to find a long game well worth my hard earned money, I bought (over a period of a few months) Fallout 3, both Mass Effects, Oblivion, and I'm looking at Dragon Age. Never before has an RPG held my interest, but that's because I’ve always associated RPG with "stand in a line and take turns punching each other with a menu button." This concept was one I hated, and still do, but the WRPG's that I've got are immersive, interesting, and expansive. But the actual game parts are still a bit lackluster. Out of all of them, only Mass Effect 2 could really work without any story or dialogue. I'm also having a hard time calling ME2 an "RPG" with a straight face, more like a story driven third person shooter. The "take cover" style of game play just doesn’t work anywhere near as well as it does in Gears 2. It isn’t bad, by any means, but if you’re going to rip off a game you might as well go all the way, and ME2 only half-heartedly does it. In Gears, you can roll away, crouch and run, crouch in cover, and the camera swings to the right or left of your character depending on where and how you are aiming. ME2 doesn’t have any of this, only the basic “back against the chest-high wall” maneuver.

What I’m saying is that nowadays, games are too focused on the “other stuff”. I’d like a game that’s as long as Oblivion, as polished as CoD4, controls as well as Gears 2, has a story as expansive and interesting as Mass Effect, and just drops any thoughts of “multiplayer” whatsoever. Any suggestions, and who agrees?



Sorry for the incredibly long question. I have one more - Is Dragon Age turn-based at all?What happened to the "game" in "video game"?
1. Halo: CE had the best story of the three primary Halo games and those you mentioned in the first paragraph. I understand that it's an arguable point, but I'm speaking from a strictly structural point of view.



2. Campaigns in video games are getting shorter because the plots in the stories are more interesting and, as such, need to be more condensed to maintain pacing and flow.



3. Agreed, multiplayer does not define the game experience. You should understand, however, that the casual gamer is the largest demographic to play video games and the competitive gamer is the largest demographic to purchase games when they are first released. Highlighting good multiplayer is a marketing tool, as well as an extension of a game's primary function.



4. The cover system employed by Gears and ME2 was pioneered by an underappreciated game called KillSwitch, which was then revolutionized by Ubisoft for Rainbow Six: Vegas. Gears is by no means original and ME is not copying Gears. RS:V2 was far more successful than either of those games. Cliff Bleszinski said himself he took inspiration from RS and made the cover system more like a game of paintball, which multiplayer strongly represents: People hiding behind cover until some one hacks you to bits with a chainsaw



5. A game can't have everything. I don't think, and hundreds of thousands of other people will agree with me, that a game like Oblivion is incomplete or lacking in any way. MW2 certainly has multiplay failings, and the character in gears 2 doesn't move quickly enough in multiplayer for my tastes. There are plenty of single player games out there that are interesting and have multiplayer, like MW2, RS:V2, and Gears 2, that don't hurt the experience of the story. Halo: Reach and ODST are great examples. Just don't let the multiplayer bother you.



6. I never experienced turn-based strategy in DA, and I don't believe it was ever marketed as such.
Whether the game stands on multiplayer, partially or alone, is dependent on what the game is. Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress 2 are amazing games. They are great games that are multiplayer. If you haven't played L4D 1-2 or TF2, you are cheating yourself out of fantastically balanced game play either in co-op or versus.



I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "actual game parts" or the notion that a game like Mass Effect 2 or any RPG would need to be judged without dialogue or story. RPG's are about telling stories. Games, though defined by interactivity, are frequently considered vessels for telling stories. If you don't want story, play Tetris. Or pong.



Gears of War did not invent cover systems, and utilizing a common mechanic does not mean that you are trying to rip off another game, or that you did not do it as well.



If you have trouble calling Mass Effect 2 an RPG with a straight face, that might be indicative of that fact that you do not know what an RPG is:



"A role-playing game (RPG) is a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playin…



Huh. Sounds an awful lot like taking on the role of Commander Shepard. Choosing Paragon, Regegade or neutral resolutions to various situations in-game to progress a narrative. Also, it has the common RPG elements of customization, party and equipment configuration.



No, Dragon Age Origins is not turn-based. Yes, it is an RPG. Lots of the aforementioned mechanics will be present. Not alot of ducking behind cover and shooting things.What happened to the "game" in "video game"?
If you buy Civilization V and set it on the right length, it could take days, if not weeks. Oh and If you are hoping for a FPS with no multiplayer? :) Good luck!

HAHAHA
I agree to an extent, but I think you're just a bit too picky lol. To me, the Mass Effect games aren't supposed to be like the Gears games. They're two TOTALLY different type games, and the "take cover" aspect isn't all that important in Mass Effect. And you can't completely drop multiplayer, but I get what your saying. But just think about Halo without multiplayer. It wouldn't be Halo. Sure, I'd like a better campaign gameplay, but multiplayer is SO much more important in a game like that. That's why people play it, because they wanna get together with their friends (whether it be in person or online). If they could package all those things into a game, that'd be awesome I'd definately buy it, but game makers focus on multiplayer because that's what appeals to the majority of gamers nowadays.What happened to the "game" in "video game"?
That may be your opinion. There are plenty of games that don't involve multiplayer if you don't want to use it. Multiplayer, and specifically online Muliplayer and MMORPG ensure that people will play the game for longer periods of time without moving on, so that game and console companies can make money from subscriptions and DLC.



Another part of it might also be that nowadays, Game Worlds are more open and have a lot more Eye Candy than they did long ago. There's more to explore, do, and see.