Support NeoGAF

[Dilbert]

Over in that f?cked up mess of a thread about Fable, there were some interesting comments about game length that I thought merited another topic:

I'm 39. And if I really get in to a game, I tend to hate to see it end. Like I said before, as long as I can save whenever I want and the game makes it easy for me to keep track of my progress and objectives, I can play it in small chunks of time over the course of a couple months if need be.

I am the anti-Steve (which is funny because we've known each other for years). All good things must come to an end - especially becasue other good things are just around the corner. A game that takes 100 hours to complete will either never be finished or will be your ONLY game for a long long time (especially at the free time rate that I have for games.... hell I haven't even finished DOOM3 yet). There are MANY games that I just don't even consider buying because I know that there is no way I would ever have a chance to finish them. I think a good statistic would be 'out of all of these absurdly long games, what percentage of people actually FINISH them'. About 5 years ago I throttled back on game purchases because I literally had stacks of games that I'd purchased that I'd grown tired of, didn't have a chance to play, or simply didn't get into enough before something more appealing hit the shelves.

A game has to be beyond incredible to sustain my interest for really long periods of time - which is why I can't pick up any of the new FInal Fantasy games anymore.... they just go on and on and on forever to the point where you're just pleading with the game to end so you can do something else I played a Front Mission game (believe it was 3) that was the same way.... just when it looked like the game was over, it just pulled you back in for more madness.

These are the types of things that lead gamers 'with lives' to cease to become gamers anymore. There aren't many games that are really designed with 10-20 hour gameplay in mind these days. Its fine to be able to save a game whenever, but when a project creeps up at work and I come back to the game 2 months later the game needs to have the ability to 'bring me back up to speed' so I can get back into it. This is one of the reasons I believe retro gaming is very popular in this particular demographic. THe games are short and disposable... you can play it, finish it, and move on to something else.

Its really funny to read these responses because Steve and I discuss this at least once a month. Good to see a relatively large number of people in my camp...

Although I agree with SteveMeister's point, I lean more towards Phoenix's point of view. I'm 30, busy with work and life, and although I enjoy the hell out of gaming when I have time...I frequently don't have that much time. As a result, my backlog of games has grown tremendously, and from a certain point of view, I have totally wasted money on games that I haven't even started yet! I know that I WOULD enjoy them if time permitted...but I keep saying that to myself, and the situation never changes.

I strongly prefer games that can be played enjoyed in short sessions -- one or two hours at the most, sometimes as little as 20-30 minutes -- since my gaming time is rarely uninterrupted. I also find that I tend to focus on one game at at a time per system, since I have a hard time remembering game controls when I switch from game to game, and my skill and coordination drop off sharply when I don't play often enough. I'm usually in pretty good "FPS shape" on the computer since ALL of my main computer games are of that style, but if I move between games -- say, UT2k4 to ET and back -- I revert to n00bishness while I readjust to the new tempo again. GBA games are ideal because there are at most four buttons to deal with, and many of the games are even simpler than that.

My gaming time -- or lack thereof -- has also influenced the kinds of games I buy and enjoy. Although I never was a big RPG person to begin with, I wouldn't even THINK about buying one now. There is no WAY that it would be finished. A high difficulty level is a MAJOR turnoff -- sorry, but I don't have the extra time to do the necessary practice or repetition to get past a certain point in a game. Games without a frequent save system are also annoying -- sometimes, the phone rings or it's time to leave, and I need to be able to end the game right then.

Although I understand the concept of wanting to get value out of a game purchase, I personally feel that a long game length is unappealing to me at this point in my life. I would much rather have a somewhat shorter game which had a high replayability factor. (Case in point: I've barely scratched the surface of GTA3, but I've replayed Rez about a million times.) Computer games with online play are ideal "play extenders" -- even if I were to beat the single-player ladder in UT2k4, there are SO many play modes and SO much competition online, it would be hard to imagine EVER being "done" with that game.

What are YOUR feelings about this?

 

[Matlock]

I can't really say there's a rule of thumb for any of it. It just depends on my mood, and the quality of the game. Length and replayability be damned.

 

[Tsubaki]

While I understand both points of view (I'm working-class, so very little time for gaming), my gaming philosophy stays the same.

What I value are not long games, nor short games, but good games.

My favorite game of all time is Grandia, a 70 hr game on my first completion. Is it long? Oh yeah it is. But is it fun? Every minute. And I would rather replay Grandia because it's enjoyable to me despite its gamelength time than to play most other games.

And then there are games like Treasure's best (Sin & Punishment, Ikaruga, Radiant Silvergun) or Mike Tyson's Punchout or Megaman 2 or Thunderforce V that I would just pick up and play, because they're good games. Some of them I've beaten over 10x. Others I still haven't beaten, at least not on a single credit.

So I do place a high expectation on replay value. But it's not the replay value where a game superficially makes you replay just to unlock special things. It's a replay value where it's so fun that you don't care if you've beaten it. You just want to play it again. As for whether one has the time to, that's a different question... but I expect the same out of all my games.

 

[PhatSaqs]

What I value are not long games, nor short games, but good games.

Winnar!

 

[seismologist]

I'm not into replay value unless it involves skill or high score.

I'm not going to play through Riddick again to collect all the cigarrete packs.
Or try to fid all the trinkets in Wind Waker. That stuff seems tedious to me.
Games like that I prefer them to be long on their own.

 

[Prospero]

I'm 29, with a 40-hour/week job. I wish there were more games that were made to fit into the lives of adults, who don't spend so much time in front of a console.

I wish there were more games like Prince of Persia, at a $20-$30 price point. That game seemed to have been designed for working adults. When you sat down in front of it, you knew that you were in for about a 30-40 minute session--there'd be some platforming, some combat, a little entertaining dialogue, and then a save point.

I don't care about length, so much as I do about content. A game like Tales of Symphonia isn't made for me, though ten years ago when I was a student I would have eaten it up and begged for seconds. It's not just that it's long, but that it's shamelessly repetitive, and absolutely requires repetition of rote tasks in order to advance. I gave that game 20 hours before I put it down--any more time would've been good thrown after bad. If I only have an hour to spend playing during a day, I don't want to spend that hour mashing out the same easy combos I did during the last hour I played, a couple of days before.

For me the best game for my money would be one that's long, and continually delivers new and interesting content, and has frequent save spots (and the importance of save spots can't be overstated). Unfortunately, very few games do that--FFX, Disgaea, and Combat Mission 2 are the only ones I've come across recently.

 

[IJoel]

As I said before:

I guess my point is that a great game is a great game regardless of length. This is, for me to consider a game great, it doesn't have to be long, it has to be of good enough length for the specific game. To make it clearer, let's put a couple of examples:

1. Prince of Persia - I really loved the game but thought it was too short. By the end of the game, I was left wanting more and there just wasn't anything else to accomplish. The game was completely the same experience regardless of how many times you played it.

2. Chronicles of Riddick - Same as above.

3. Tales of Symphonia - This is the opposite case. I haven't beaten the game. I'm at hour 32 and the storyline is simply being stretched too thin. I would've preferred the game to be shorter (I expect it to last for 10-15 hours more) with a tighter storyline.

4. Ninja Gaiden - This is the best case I can imagine. A big part of the game is the learning curve. By the time you're 30% through it, you've most likely mastered the combat engine and are just whooping all sorts of ass. After that, you have many more hours of fun, and it never seems like it's dragging along. The variety of enemies and locales help a lot in doing this. I've gotten more than 50 hours out of this game. It's just fantastic.

5. Max Payne Games - These games never feel either too long or too short. They are admittedly short, but they don't seem to extend the game at the cost of quality. They are short, effective games.

I wasn't expecting Fable to be too long, but I did expect it to be about 30 hours long and possibly 35-40 hours including all the quests. From what I've read, it seems that 20-25 will be the average completion time including all the quests. I'll be certainly pleased with it if the game has good pace and doesn't seem rushed during any parts, but nowadays, that's the exception and not the norm.

 

[Baron Aloha]

I don't care how short a game is if its fun. Case in point: Luigi's Mansion. Its a short game that can be beaten in roughly 3 hours the first time through but I'll be damned if those weren't 3 of the funnest hours I've had playing games this gen.

I'm not big on the whole replayability thing either. I tend to beat most games only once. I'm having a hard enough time as it is playing what I have. If I played my games more than once I'd almost certainly miss out on a lot of good stuff. Thats why the only games that I tend to replay are fighters and puzzle games.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

While it might seem like a deficiency (to some) of the game itself, I, myself, have started to lean more and more toward more quick 'n' tidy experiences... However, when it comes down to it, if the game is compelling enough, it doesn't matter how long it lasts, I'll finish it.

I do agree with whoever mentioned the problems of games not allowing the player to more easily be reminded of the current and past missions/objectives/progress status. Sometimes, it'll literally be a matter of 6 or more months before I return to a game in progress...and when I do, as much as I really want to get back into it, I can't because I've lost my place in it. Part of that cannot be avoided, much like returning to a book after being away from it for too long...you just have to start over with it or give it up. Of course, with a book, you can always skim and refresh your memory and, consequently, your attachment to the content in order to quickly get back into it.

Bottom line for me: length doesn't matter if what happens during that time is satisfying and fun.

 

[buck naked]

In my opinion, most of the backlash about games not being long enough is derived from the fact that they are $30-$50 a pop.

Paying $50 for an 8 hour game can be hard to justify, especially without any redeeming multiplayer features that significantly extend the products life. The negative word of mouth surrounding short games is one of the most ill-found criticisms around.

I LOVE short games! Well designed, tightly scripted games with good pacing are MUCH more enjoyable to play than the typical 12+ hour garbage out there. There is more chance that I'll give them another play through, heck, more chance I'll actually finish it the first time!

 

[pilonv1]

In my opinion, most of the backlash about games not being long enough is derived from the fact that they are $30-$50 a pop.

Paying $50 for an 8 hour game can be hard to justify, especially without any redeeming multiplayer features that significantly extend the products life. The negative word of mouth surrounding short games is one of the most ill-found criticisms around.

Most people don't finish them anyway. You might get to 5-6 hours through a 10 hour game that you paid $50 for.

 

[DarienA]

I don't have any qualms about game length... I have a huge backlog of games and will continue to purchase stuff... I don't give a crap because I know there will be time periods where I will have lots of time and I always want to be able to walk over to my collection and say hmmm what am I in the mood for....

 

[DSN2K]

I think the last time I sat down and played a game for more then an hour was for Kotor or Wind Waker. I just dont have the patients anymore.

When it becomes work I stop(morrowind for example)

 

[Prospero]

In my opinion, most of the backlash about games not being long enough is derived from the fact that they are $30-$50 a pop.

Paying $50 for an 8 hour game can be hard to justify...

Especially when that same $50 could buy you an entire season of a television show, or four novels.

It seems like the rapid price drop that's become common in gaming is instituting a two-tiered system similar to book publishing--early adopters pay $25 for the hardcover, while everyone else waits a year for the $12 paperback. Short games are almost always $20 purchases for me, but at that price I don't hold their length against them. Right now I'm playing FFX-2, which is looking to be pretty short (with 75% recycled content to boot), but at $16.88 I don't feel the need to complain.

 

[SKluck]

Anything longer than 10 hours is fine by me. I hate paying $50 for a game no matter how long it is.

 

[speedpop]

I like both long and short games and length has never been an issue for me. However, people need to be reminded whether a long game can constitute as a short game; i.e. do you play through "such-and-such game" hardcore style during one week or do you play through it taking your time and not complete it for 1-3 months.

Then there are those ignorant to the facts, those that bitch and whine about a game's length without even playing it themselves.

Personally I see game length issues depends on what is going on in your current life situation. I work, I sleep, I eat and I game. Although not as much as I used to when I was younger, I still enjoy great games. Was I ever pissed that Unirally on SNES lasted for a few hours and then be dismayed by the fact that Breath of Fire II lasted 5 times that length? Fuck no. Why? Cause I was a kid without any critical opinions whatsoever other than the fact that Mario could butt-stomp Sonic's arse.

 

[Vennt]

My own fairly basic rule of thumb: (And yes, purchases are based upon it.)

Linear Games, i.e. Single player FPS's, RPG's and Adventures, need to be fairly long, 20-40 hours, as I never replay linear games.

Non-Linear games, such as Puzzlers, primarily Multiplayer FPS's, Racing Sims etc. need to be replayable for at least 30-50 hours, preferably longer. (I've probably put over 500 hours of laps into GPL for instance)

For the first catagory I'll see what others are claiming as play length & double/triple it to account for my dwindling gaming skills & gaming time, for the second catagory it is entirely subjective and I'll usually try a demo if I can before purchase.

If a game has number of play hours in the single digits I'm not remotely interested, I expect value for money.

 

[impirius]

Total playtime and replayability are becoming more important to me as I get less free time. I've all but given up on RPGs (KoTOR being an exception), and exploration-based games have to be exceptional for me to play them while classes are in session.

I first played Ratchet & Clank 2 about ten days ago, and I've already purchased it. The game really hit a sweet spot for me in terms of playtime and replayability. You can spend eight hours or fifteen minutes playing, and you'll have fun either way. The worlds are set up so that you can spend half an hour or so on completing one objective and save your progress if you're running out of time. The arena battles and races are good, quick fun, and kudos to whoever decided to make them available via menu. Even if you just want to blast monsters for fifteen minutes, R&C2 has you covered. The weapon upgrade system rewards you for just wandering around and shooting everything you see. The result is that you can putz around for a short amount of time and still feel like you accomplished something.

 

[Alex]

It doesn't really matter to me, as long as quality is maintained, pacing stays intact, etc. Some sort of value, be it length, replayability, extras, etc, should be present. There are exceptions though, of course.

As far as taste goes, Valkyrie Profile would win my design award. Of course, considering it's basicly the RPG ever made, that goes without saying.

 

[User 406]

I also care more about whether a game is good than how long it is. However, I'm much happier to see a short good game than I am a long one. I tend to be a completist, and I don't typically replay my games. I've often wished that I could simply get bored with a long game and move on, but I just can't. If I enjoy the mechanics of a game, as long as there is something more to do, I'll keep playing, and I'll be having fun the whole time. In all too many cases, getting 100% in a game is the signal I use that means it's okay to stop now, and I find that to be more than a little disturbing.

That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact that I also enjoy a wide variety of games, and that there are so many interesting new ones always being released. And more and more I'm finding that the average completion time is going up. There's just more stuff to do in every game. So I end up falling behind on new releases. :/ I know this is compulsive greed on my part, but I can't help it. ;_;

 

[Flynn]

Any good media, be it games, books, movies or whatever are supposed to leave you wanting more.

It's foolish to think that an audience's hunger can really ever be sated. No matter how much you give them, be it fan service or length or replayability, there will always be those who crave more.

 

[Pimpbaa]

I only like short games if they are replayable. If I don't feel like replaying a short game after I'm finished, I feel ripped off (especially if it's a full priced game).

 

[Dice]

I don't really care about length as long as it is a quality experience. Some games need to do their one thing really well, others need more variety to keep things fresh, developers just need to have a good sense of what they are good at and what they are bad at. MGS is a good example of that and one of the best games I ever played, it was short and kept moving to new things to keep from getting old. Then MGS2 was just about the same thing but I didn't like it because of the repetitive and boring design and it took too long. If the whole game was like the tanker it'd be awesome, you gotta keep things fresh.

Then there are some games like Jak & Daxter, where they are short but you feel cheated because of it, but only because the game sucked in the first place. Making games like that longer may kind of give you the feeling of getting more of your moneys worth, but if the game sucks then you're worse off playing it longer, and you realize they ripped you off in quality not length. Games are for fun, they shouldn't feel like a chore that you are working through to get the big "win" or to unlock some useless stuff. Heck, they shouldn't even feel like a chore to unlock good stuff and get to "the fun part". The fact is you are buying them to play and have fun, if they aren't fun then you are working hard for money to purchase more work. That is the opposite of what games should be, they should always be fun and then if anything is unlockable it should only be as an added bonus of fun on top of the regular fun.

As for session length, I don't like being forced to play a certain amount of time in any game, sometimes I'll even pop in Street Fighter just to play 4 fights or so. So if it's in a genre where you make progress through the game, I think you should be able to save any time you want. This is of course with modern game designs in mind, if something follows old-school design like Shinobi it's ok to work in sections like that. As for replay, I don't want gimmicky things to try and bribe me into playing a chore of a game over again. If developers spent as much time making the experience itself fun as they did creating a bunch of useless collectables/unlockables or stupid multiplayer features (when nobody is even buying the game for multiplayer) we'd all have a lot more fun. This concept applies to RPG's as well, since some of the best RPG's I've ever played were short (Lunar, Valkyrie Profile).

I dunno, I just remember MGS, which I only played twice but it stays in my mind as a really great game even though it was short. And I think of games like Pac-man or puzzle games that just do one thing really well and I play them forever, and I think people just need to know what they are good at and then the rest doesn't matter. Though I will say that length, sessions, replay, etc only seem to be issues with games that are desgned to be "beaten". I've come to dislike those kinds of games, as well as games that have "objectives" through the levels. I typically like racers, fighters and other arcade games, they do what they do well and are made to always be fun coming back to them. The only games that are designed for you to "finish" tend to follow an old-school design like Crash 3 or the aforementioned Shinobi.

 

[Future]

-----------
Then there are some games like Jak & Daxter, where they are short but you feel cheated because of it, but only because the game sucked in the first place.
-----------

That line sums everything I was about to say, which is good because I'm pretty damn lazy and wouldn't have bothered saying it.

If a game ends and it feels short, then for me it usually means that the developer missed that little extra something that should have made the experience worthwhile. It usually boils down to me not being entertained enough the first time through, and not being fun or varied enough to make me want to ever touch the game again. A game can be too long for similar reasons, because then I'm not having much fun over an extended amound of time which can be even worse. Either way I feel cheated if I paid full price.

Usually no matter how long the game is, if I'm having a great time it'll seem kind of short and I won't want it to end. But that's just the sign of a good game and usually means I'll be preordering the sequel.

There ARE a select few games that feel like they "should" be a particualar length IMO. Playing Silent Hill 4 now and am enjoying it even though I know it'll probably end pretty soon...but that's ok cuz I got it for that short thrill and may not like it if it were longer. With rpg's like Fable you usually expect some pretty drawn out storyline with lots of quests and party/equipment management (which is a big part of the "gameplay" in this genre), so I'd expect that on purchase and may be a little dissapointed if it didn't deliver.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Firstly, I think a big issue with all of this is indeed game prices. For modern entertainment media, games cost too much. Far too much. This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it - I've already been through all the requisite discussions on videogame economics.

Okay, having said that, I'm 30 going on 31, and have a pretty much full time job as a freelance illustrator and am in a pickle. I grew up on those 30 - 60 hour RPGs and I do like them. I also grew up on games like Super Ghouls & Ghosts where I must have played through the game 40 times or more over the years. I view games that you buy to build a library like any library - of music, movies, or books. It's not just about a one-shot playthrough. You may be pulling that volume off the shelf to re-read or thumb through for 20 years. I don't have that much time for 60 hour RPGs though these days. Gods only know why I'm trying to keep up with FFXI on top of everything else.

Currently I have to come down on the side of replayability. A great movie is infinitely re-watchable. I think game design needs to mature out of the paradigm of servicing only children who may get 3 games a year, or bored college students who have so much free time on their hands between classes. I want to see more games that focus on playability, replayability, and integrity of storytelling (be it a movie-like story for an RPG or the "story" made up of the actions in an action game). I think Ninja Gaiden is actually one game that really gets it right in this area. For all the insane argument and flaming over it, I also think Fable could ultimately fall into this balance as well.

 

[MrPing1000]

all I know is that i still play civ2

 

[MaddenNFL64]

I would like all games to at least be about 20 hours in length (mostly because i'm paying $40-$50 for them), but I won't pass up a short game if it's good. Luigi's mansion, and the RE games don't have that length, but they're great, fun games, and that's what matters in the end.