Support NeoGAF

[Hellraizah]

I just thought about this while reading the Feel The Magic review thread.

I'm working in video games retail, and took notice that the #1 question people ask about a games is not "Is it fun ?" anymore, it's now "Is it long ?".

Now, I truly don't understand this mentality. People seem to prefer huge boring games over quick fun games.

I don't like to say this, but I'm really with "the Nintendo mentality" on this, meaning that I would love to go back to basics when games where more about score and competition than a solitaire affair where the only thing that matters is to go from A to B.

Who got this "How long is it ?" mentality here ? and why do you care so much about lenght ?

 

[ferricide]

easily translates to value for money. when you have a limited budget, buying longer games feels like a better value.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

I believe you meant The Sega Mentality

 

[Unison]

Outrun 2 is one of the top 5 games so far this year, imo... I beat that in 5 mins.

 

[neptunes]

It also depends on the type of game.

 

[Deku Tree]

I care about fun and replayability more than length. But a short game, which was probably much cheaper to make, shouldn't be sold at full price.

 

[Hellraizah]

easily translates to value for money. when you have a limited budget, buying longer games feels like a better value.

Yeah, but you know, quick and above all, multiplayer games, tend to have more replay value. I'm pretty sure people are playing Madden each year a lot more than they play their favorite adventure game or platformer. But, they have been playing Madden for years, and it's still always the "same thing", but it has replay value.

Replay value > Long games

 

[ferricide]

Yeah, but you know, quick and above all, multiplayer games, tend to have more replay value. I'm pretty sure people are playing Madden each year a lot more than they play their favorite adventure game or platformer. But, they have been playing Madden for years, and it's still always the "same thing", but it has replay value.

Replay value > Long games

i'm not saying that i agree -- just the most obvious rationale.

i don't think most people really end up playing a ton of multiplayer, but i could be wrong. hardcore fans certainly do (the xbox live crowd) but average people, i dunno.

 

[Kon Tiki]

easily translates to value for money. when you have a limited budget, buying longer games feels like a better value.

Exactly. Since there are no release dates in NA for games other than the launch window games, you want it to last for awhile. Tapping scorpions and undoing buttons DOES get old.

 

[Wario64]

I hate it when people think a longer game length will somehow make the game better. It's not the length that counts, it's the replayability and gameplay. If the game is long but has dull gameplay, there's no way I'm gonna go back and play it again. I've probably spent more time playing games like Zone of the Enders 2 or Viewtiful Joe, games that can be completed in single digit hours...than a game that takes ~30 hours to complete.

And for a handheld, I never expect a game to last over 20 hours to "complete" or whatever. Handhelds aren't suitable for games with long length

 

[Pimpbaa]

I don't mind short games as long as they have a lot of replayability. If they have no replayability, then they better be long games. A short game with no playability is utter shit.

 

[Unison]

I only finish like 40% of the games I buy, so I don't really care about game length at all. I am definitely more about play mechanics above all else. I guess I am more about simple, skill-based challenges than storylines and realism.

My top five this year would probably be:

Half-Life 2
Legend of Zelda: 4 Swords Adventures
Mario Power Tennis
Ninja Gaiden
Outrun 2

Obviously, I can enjoy a game like Half-Life or Ninja Gaiden which is more conventionally constructed, but I'm definitely more likely to go for something that I can pick up and play these days. It's probably a function of having a job...

That's part of the reason the DS has me psyched in theory...

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

Meh, I'll take a game of a decent length over this "replay value". Doesn't really apply to a multiplayer game anyhow. When I played Smash Bros Melee for umpteen hours, that wasn't replay value, just play value, which is often determined by the amount of options and extras, which is akin to length in my book.

I almost never replay a single player game, so a nice sized one of 15-20 hours or so is more worthy of a purchase to me.

 

[Amir0x]

The most obvious answer is the one already stated in this thread - amount of time directly translates to bang for your buck. For instance, a great long game feels like it's worth more than a great short game. Now, games are not cheap. At fifty dollars a pop, you don't want to pay for something you'll beat in 2 or 3 hours not counting cutscenes. If a game charges you this much, it can be fun for those two hours... but it directly effects overall appeal, because unless it has replay value of some sort (i.e. multiplayer) it's not worth fifty dollars imho.

That's why games like Katamari Damacy are such a great value. It's super short, but then again it also only costs 20 dollars and includes a rudimentary multiplayer mode. Namco knows what it's doing with that sort of thing.

But, you should know that length of game can also be equated with replay value, since the more you play something the longer a game will last. So obviously if a game has great multiplayer the length of the time you spend with a game is increased, and thus the value becomes better.

I'd love to just buy every game I could and not worry about money, but unfortunately that's just not so. Therefore, length does deserve at least some place in determining overall quality. At the very least, it should be considered when looking at replay value.

 

[Unison]

I have a lot of disposable income, which helps skew me in this argument, I suppose, but the idea of a game like GTA:SA which does so much and is so huge, yet has some fundamental playability issues is a huge-ass turn off to me. I like the game well-enough, but I know I will never come anywhere near finishing it, much less delving into all of those stupid, half-assed minigames, because there are games like WarioWare, Dance Dance Revolution, or Dead or Alive Ultimate to distract me from that stuff.

It stops being bang for the buck, I guess, when your time is more valuable than your money. Quality becomes greater than quantity.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

I believe there's also a direct link between changes in game design, such as allowing gamers to save their progress instead of starting over from scratch, that has made length / playtime more of an issue for people. Seeing as how you no longer have to start over from Level 1 with none of your power-ups and the like, people want a longer game.

See also adverse reactions to Shinobi, which harkened back to heavy penalty game design.

 

[kumanoki]

I am of the opinion that the "How long is it?" mindset is the direct result of a 'consumption' mentality perpetrated by the gaming industry on its consumer base. Constantly keeping up with the Jones' is a drain on the wallet and the enjoyment of the gaming medium, but that's what gaming has become. Companies are pumping out games at an astounding rate, and it's the 'responsibility' of the player, especially among his peers, to remain 'current'. That's why I think so many gamers get burned out on it. Too many games, too many systems, not enough money, and certainly not enough time to enjoy it all.

I can affort a great many games a year, but only choose two or three that seem the most interesting. Yeah, I'm not up-to-date, in fact, I'm late to the party on a whole hell of a lot of gaming, but I prefer not to get in the exercise wheel and run to keep up. i just like playing games.

 

[Grubdog]

I prefer games with beatable high scores over games with boring drawn out stories, i've spent far more time playing Wario Ware than Wind Waker, despite taking 20+ hours to get through Wind Wakers story and storming through Wario Wares in just over an hour, and had more fun playing Wario Ware because I just never get tired of it (still haven't! ). WW > WW!

I also hate when people say they've "completed" a game when they really mean they've found out the ending of the STORY. Does finding out what happens in the end of the story make the game not worth playing anymore or something? I've finished Luigi's Mansion and Resident Evil heaps of times, knowing what's going to happen next in the story hasn't stopped me, with games every time you play through them you ALWAYS approach things at least slightly differently.

 

[Belfast]

Because I usually don't replay games a second time. There have been a precious few that I've done that with over the years. Sometimes I'll try to restart other games for a second time, though, and get bored with it 20 minutes in. You know, been there, done that, don't need to do it again.

 

[speedpop]

I've seen this mentality transition over and sadly it is running rampart with the whole damn industry.

People complain about short length but are they so forgetful that one of most insignificant games of the most popular console last gen happened to be under 10 hours in length? Which also quickly cuts down to 5-6 hours without the need of conversation (and I am pretty sure those already run through MGS for it's bonuses can finish it 2 or 3 hours flat). If people are judging a game by it's length will lose out on their choices and there's nothing we can do about it but :lol Of course I could bring up ICO but how many mainstreamers are willing to pick up that damn thing?

Another funny thing, I was re-reading very old RPG reviews for the PS1, each stating how long they last for. Is it just me or did this "judge an RPG by it's length" issue start around then or was it running rampart in even old NES/SNES RPGs? As far as I recall, length was never ever an issue when I was playing every RPG I could get back then. It was all about "holy shit there's a new RPG coming out in 6 months time! I hope it gets out of Japan!"

 

[Unison]

I remember them trumpteting play times of RPGS back in the NES / SNES days... even on the back of the box.

It always used to reflect badly on a game, too, if you could beat it in two hours or so (see reviews of old school arcade conversions w/ no extras & unlimited continues).

The situation is most certainly exacerbated now, but it's not a completely new phenomena.

I think mostly it has to do with so many games moving from well-defined genres, where you don't really have expectations of length, into pseudo-RPG-platformer-action-adventure hybrids... I really am burning out on this sort of game.

 

[Unison]

Oh yeah, remember just about every non-fighting Neo Geo game review? It was a total bitchfest about the perceived value of the short game...

 

[rastex]

I think people just play a lot more single player games now. If you think about the classic arcade games I'd say almost every single one of them has a form of multiplayer. I mean you did have the Lucas Arts adventure games, but those weren't too mainstream and well, look at them now. With the booming success of games like FFVII and Myst, millions were introduced to the captivating stories and worlds that single player games can offer over their multiplayer counterparts. Both of these games (which were released within a couple of years of each other IIRC) were both rather long games and really set the standard.

But honestly, it's more of a marketing thing than anything. People equate bigger numbers with being better, simple as that. Even if most of them don't complete the game (how many of your casual playing friends ever beat FFVII? Out of the 5 or so that started it, only 2 actually finished iti), they still fall into the marketing hype that the industry perpetuates. And now that you have people hyping game-time as a fun-factor, you have developers looking for artificial ways to increase that game-time, through backtracking and fetch quests.

Personally, I think it should be all about satisfaction. Does the game provide a satisfying experience? Length is a factor in this, but it's not a large factor.

 

[snaildog]

I don't like games that are more points-based than goal-based, but I do think that a lot of games are too long. I want to play it as long as it's fun; Prince of Persia is the perfect length for that type of game (a couple of hours more and it would've got old), as are most Zelda games.

Basically every Japanese-style RPG I've played (only exception that comes to mind is Lunar) goes far too long; if it's gonna be 40 hours then the mechanics and challenges should evolve throughout. Has anyone ever played a JRPG where, by the end, you do not get annoyed by random battles featuring enemies with higher stats?

 

[mrklaw]

I'm playing Minish Cap at the moment, and have probably spent a couple of hours each evening this week, and last weekend playing it. I should finish this weekend.

It was a lot of fun, but still a bit long for me. I have a small family now, so don't have a lot of time to play games. Playing a game with a continuing story is very difficult.

So 10-15 hours is fine for me. Or something like advance wars that you can dip in and out of.

Which is why I'm getting PSP/maybe DS. Handheld is a lot easier to slip into my schedule

 

[pilonv1]

It's just a pissing contest for fanboys. Besides review scores, game length is really the only other tangible "number" they have on the game.

There's an easy formula to use as well - (favourite publishers game)x2, and (hated game publisher)/5.

 

[Jonnyram]

Outrun 2 is one of the top 5 games so far this year, imo... I beat that in 5 mins.

I beat DOA:U quicker than that

 

[etiolate]

I've always been abnormal, but fun equals worth to me more than length. My longest PS2 games aren't my favorites. Katamari and Ico aren't the longest games, but I still like them more than a majority of games. I replay games just because they are fun. Not because they have multiplayer or extra levels or anything like that. I replay them because playing them is fun to begin with.

 

[Immortal Technique]

Now, games are not cheap. At fifty dollars a pop, you don't want to pay for something you'll beat in 2 or 3 hours not counting cutscenes. If a game charges you this much, it can be fun for those two hours... but it directly effects overall appeal, because unless it has replay value of some sort (i.e. multiplayer) it's not worth fifty dollars imho.

Seems like a lot of people feel this way. It is such a foreign thought process to me.

If the game is fun to play, how does it not have replay value??

If it's NOT fun to play, why play it? Just to see how it ends? It's not like these games have amazing storylines.


I just don't get how finishing a game completely saps the value of it. I own games I've played through dozens of times, if not hundreds.


Is this just the new breed of gamer, spawned by the PlayStation?

 

[Eggo]

I have a lot of disposable income, which helps skew me in this argument, I suppose, but the idea of a game like GTA:SA which does so much and is so huge, yet has some fundamental playability issues is a huge-ass turn off to me. I like the game well-enough, but I know I will never come anywhere near finishing it, much less delving into all of those stupid, half-assed minigames, because there are games like WarioWare, Dance Dance Revolution, or Dead or Alive Ultimate to distract me from that stuff.

It stops being bang for the buck, I guess, when your time is more valuable than your money. Quality becomes greater than quantity.

IAWTP. I'm in the "lot of disposable income/little time for gaming" category. I prefer my games to be shorter so I actually have a chance to finish them. As gamers get older, I think this faction of people who strongly value their time over game length will continue to grow. Isn't the average age of a gamer 29 now? I read something ridiculous like that before.

One of my favorite games of all time is Mickey's Castle of Illusion, which can be beat in an hour, but it's fun. So I have no problem with it. I wish more games were like that. Put the fun up front, not buried beneath 40 hours of existential cutscene gibberish.

 

[snaildog]

Seems like a lot of people feel this way. It is such a foreign thought process to me.

If the game is fun to play, how does it not have replay value??

If it's NOT fun to play, why play it? Just to see how it ends? It's not like these games have amazing storylines.


I just don't get how finishing a game completely saps the value of it. I own games I've played through dozens of times, if not hundreds.


Is this just the new breed of gamer, spawned by the PlayStation?

Haha, you don't need to sound so elite about it. Of course it's nothing to do with the Playstation. Can't you understand that part of a game's fun is not knowing what's gonna happen next and that some people don't feel entertained or challenged by doing exactly what they've already done?

 

[Timedog]

I believe there's also a direct link between changes in game design, such as allowing gamers to save their progress instead of starting over from scratch, that has made length / playtime more of an issue for people. Seeing as how you no longer have to start over from Level 1 with none of your power-ups and the like, people want a longer game.

See also adverse reactions to Shinobi, which harkened back to heavy penalty game design.

The correct answer.

 

[DDayton]

I think replay value of games has dropped since saving games was introduced. As games became too long to finish in a single session, the length of the game was stressed as it was now possible to BEAT a long game (on a console). The problem was that as games got longer and longer, it became less and less practical to replay a beaten game. I'd gladly replay SMB 1-3 dozens of times... but replaying ALL of Super Mario 64 takes a lot more effort.

How many "modern" games have most folks on GAF really replayed several times? I'm not talking about -short- modes in games (arcade ports, fighters, deathmatches, or puzzle games) -- I'm talking about replaying the 5+ hour main game.

 

[speedpop]

I'd gladly replay SMB 1-3 dozens of times... but replaying ALL of Super Mario 64 takes a lot more effort.

Know what you mean, although I will add that the first four worlds in Mario 64 were champion and sometimes I'd rush through them to get all the stars in 30-40 mins flat now and again.

As for the other question, the only games that I have gone through multiple times recently are probably Legend of Zelda (just because the N64 ones are so refined) or Metal Gear Solid (purely for bonuses, after the 4th time it gets dull). Even then I sometimes just arse around for a half an hour then quit.

 

[evilromero]

I don't like long games. I just don't have the time to sit through today's RPGs and for the most part they aren't nearly as fun as other games. I'm like you, I'll take the wonderfully designed and whimsical platformer over the 80 hour RPG quest.

 

[Baron Aloha]

Question: When did games become all about how long they are to complete ?

Answer: Shortly after Final Fantasy VII was released. Think about it.

 

[Goreomedy]

Isn't the answer more simple than you guys are making it?(even though I've enjoyed the arguments)

I believe most gamers outside of the hardcore set only want to buy games that they can't beat over a rental period. So, of course you're going to get this question at the retail end.

 

[Unison]

As gamers get older, I think this faction of people who strongly value their time over game length will continue to grow. Isn't the average age of a gamer 29 now? I read something ridiculous like that before.

One of my favorite games of all time is Mickey's Castle of Illusion, which can be beat in an hour, but it's fun. So I have no problem with it. I wish more games were like that. Put the fun up front, not buried beneath 40 hours of existential cutscene gibberish.

Heh, I actually just re-bought a SNES / Genesis / Nomad a few months ago, with a bunch of old favorites, including games like Castle of Illusion (which holds up stupendously) and Quackshot, precisely because they can offer me a fix that I wasn't getting from modern games.

I suppose the question will be whether our sort become retro gamers or whether the market adjusts to accomodate our kind.

I think a lot of people like to discount retrogaming as pure nostalgia, but games were fundamentally different ten years ago than they are now.

 

[Unison]

I believe most gamers outside of the hardcore set only want to buy games that they can't beat over a rental period. So, of course you're going to get this question at the retail end.

They wacky thing about this question though is the implication that once beaten people assume they won't want to play a particular game again! They use the amount of time it takes to play through the game once to determine its value. They can't even fathom a second playthrough, which suggests they don't even expect to have a great time with the game!

I don't see anything wrong with doing that with an RPG, where most people probably won't play a second time, but if you try doing it with something like NeoContra or Outrun 2, you are truly daffy.

 

[borghe]

Answer: Shortly after Final Fantasy VII was released. Think about it.

this is true.. even though ironically there were plenty of long games before FFVII..

the fact of the matter is it has to do with marketing and perceived value. if one game had 40 hours of gameplay and the other game had 50 hours of gameplay, which one would seem more "valuable".

I agree that length of gameplay should not be used when evaluating a game unless it is truly and noticeably too short or too long. Of course this is a subjective thing, so there that thought goes...

In the case of Feel the Magic, I genuinely question on whether I will think it is too short or not. If it is just a question of me wishing there was more because I had so much fun with what was there, well, frankly that sounds fine and just means that there is great gameplay. If on the other hand I don't feel that I really got $30 worth of fun out of the game, then it is probably too short.

The NES and even SNES and Genesis were FILLED with games that could be beaten in under two hours. You know them. Golden Axe, Sonic, Super Ghouls and Ghosts, Mega Man, Rush N Attack, Contra, Street Fighter II, etc.. all of these games have replay value. having a game that doesn't last 20 hours isn't a detriment.. having a game that you don't feel you got your money out of because it was short and had no replay value is....

if Feel the MAgic has replay value, it's short length shouldn't have been considered a negative.

 

[Lord Error]

I just thought about this while reading the Feel The Magic review thread.

I'm working in video games retail, and took notice that the #1 question people ask about a games is not "Is it fun ?" anymore, it's now "Is it long ?".

Now, I truly don't understand this mentality. People seem to prefer huge boring games over quick fun games.

Amen to that. Even on this forum, I've noticed this mentality with some people, and I don't like it at all. I remember when Fable got ragged because it was announced to be shorter than your usual RPG, bah, the examples are actually too numerous to count, but Ico also comes to mind, definitely. I just could never understand why would anyone care if the game takes 10 or 20 hours to complete as long as it's fun, the most pointless examples being people who complain that games like Contra or Gradius V take such short time to complete.

 

[Goreomedy]

I don't see anything wrong with doing that with an RPG, where most people probably won't play a second time, but if you try doing it with something like NeoContra or Outrun 2, you are truly daffy.

Am I daffy for not playing Ico and Max Payne 2 a second time? Or was the initial play experience so profound and satisfying that revisiting it is just not required?

 

[PhatSaqs]

IAWTP. I'm in the "lot of disposable income/little time for gaming" category. I prefer my games to be shorter so I actually have a chance to finish them. As gamers get older, I think this faction of people who strongly value their time over game length will continue to grow. Isn't the average age of a gamer 29 now? I read something ridiculous like that before.

One of my favorite games of all time is Mickey's Castle of Illusion, which can be beat in an hour, but it's fun. So I have no problem with it. I wish more games were like that. Put the fun up front, not buried beneath 40 hours of existential cutscene gibberish.

Double dap, cosign.

 

[Unison]

Am I daffy for not playing Ico and Max Payne 2 a second time? Or was the initial play experience so profound and satisfying that revisiting it is just not required?

I would think that these are games that you're playing more for story / novelty / frills than for actual gameplay. If the actual gameplay was awesome, you'd have no problem playing it again.

 

[Goreomedy]

I thought the gameplay in both titles was pretty damn tight.

But what do I know? I'm daffy.

 

[Unison]

What the heck? Is Max Payne 2 like Neo Contra? No.

 

[Folder]

When did games become all about how long they are to complete ?

When the Internet was invented.

What happened was, people liked to argue about games. Often they couldn't really find anything specific to complain about when locked in an argument they had already had eighty times. So game length became the natural choice.

In all seriousness, the latest utter shocker on this front has to be Eurogamer's Minish Cap review. There are many gamers, like myself, who have to ballance a normal life with playing games. I think that if single-player gaming makes up most of your social time, it's an important point. I usually wish games were shorter...

 

[dog$]

Answer: Shortly after Final Fantasy VII was released. Think about it.

No way... I remember how Ultima was advertised back in the NES era, among other RPGs that were supposed to be cool just for how long they were.
The Dragon Quest series is also renown for taking forever to complete.

Really I think the best answers are part percieved value and part "only worth buying if I can't beat it on a rental" mentality.

 

[Sysgen]

I usually wish games were shorter...

IAWT - There are so many games that when I have to invest too much time in them then it's not a good thing. The exception to this is a really outstanding play experience otherwise WAM BAM etc....

 

[borghe]

this is a great question. how many of you would be happier if games were SHORTER, thus allowing you to commit the same amounts of limited time to them but actually coming away with the satisfaction of beating them....