Support NeoGAF

[Cathcart]

Finished Rez (for the first of many times) the night I got it. It was new and sold for fifty bucks and was worth every penny. Wario Ware was one of my favorite games last year. There are a ton of quality games out these days, I say bring on the short games.

 

[Mrbob]

Last year I was getting a bit burnt out on gaming, and I had a ton of games I didn't complete. I realized that I had been placing length of game over fun as far as buying decisions. So I figured whats the point in buying a longer game if I'm not having as much fun. Plus I really don't have time for many 40+ hour games anymore. This is why I've cut down and don't buy RPG games anymore except for the big ones. I think the sweet spot is about 12-15 hours for me.

Now, having said that, even though I'm not a big fan of 40+ hour games in one playthrough anymore (GTA:SA being the exception), I still don't think I should have to pay full price for a short game (2-5 hours). Take Katamari Damacy for example. 20 bucks, great price for the game at hand. It's a quirky fun game to play. Now if I paid 50 bucks for the game I wouldn't have been happy. Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure there may be a very short game sold at full retail price I may be interested in at some point and time. But I can't think of any right now or in the future.

 

[Die Squirrel Die]

Was this thread really necessary? The answer is so bloody simple, and doesn't require all the chest-beating and oh so sincere 'I just cannot understand this mentality because my gamer brain is so much more evolved over these pitiful casual gamers' posts.

 

[Unison]

Was this thread really necessary? The answer is so bloody simple, and doesn't require all the chest-beating and oh so sincere 'I just cannot understand this mentality because my gamer brain is so much more evolved over these pitiful casual gamers' posts.

What is the answer, then?

 

[Die Squirrel Die]

People like value for money. A lot of people aren't that discriminating about their games (cf. MK outselling VF or so many other numerous examples). Ergo they don't perceive it as 20 hours of averageness vs. 5 hours of greatness, just 20 vs 5 for their money.

 

[Unison]

People like value for money. A lot of people aren't that discriminating about their games (cf. MK outselling VF or so many other numerous examples). Ergo they don't perceive it as 20 hours of averageness vs. 5 hours of greatness, just 20 vs 5 for their money.

But gaming hasn't always been like this, to this extent. Do people suddenly see money as more important than they once did?

 

[borghe]

DSD didn't even answer the question. the question was WHEN, not WHY.. :lol

 

[Link316]

DSD didn't even answer the question. the question was WHEN, not WHY.. :lol

when? always

 

[borghe]

that isn't true.. people weren't complaining back in the nes and snes games because they could beat contra or Super Contra in under 2 hours..

 

[Unison]

Pitfall had a twenty-minute time limit, and people thought it was the best game ever.

 

[Link316]

it was always a factor, NES & SNES RPGs were always more expensive than action games like Contra and they used the gamelength as the excuse, remember Phantasy Star II? Sega tried to sell that for $80 because of its gamelength

 

[Unison]

it was always a factor, NES & SNES RPGs were always more expensive than action games like Contra and they used the gamelength as the excuse, remember Phantasy Star II? Sega tried to sell that for $80 because of its gamelength

No, cartridge size was the excuse. These games cost more because they cost more to manufacture. There were more expensive short games too.

 

[Unison]

 

[kaching]

Hellrazaih asked multiple questions...one of them happened to be a why question.

Personally I thought the question in the thread title was rhetorical.

I agree with DSD's general sentiment - the hand-wringing thus far has been overblown for what is typical of any successful leisure activity/hobby. You will always have hardcore enthusiasts, casual afficionados and various shades of both whose respective interest levels simply won't be the same and so therefore their priorities will be different.

Still, that's not to say you have to take a question like, "How long is this game?" strictly at face value. As others have pointed out, this is typically an attempt to make a basic value for money estimation. If you address the core question they're trying to answer - is the value for money good - then I suspect that you'll generally find that game length isn't their only measure of value, it just happens to be one of the easiest things to quantify.

 

[SolidSnakex]

There are more casuals now who have a completely different view on whats worth their money than hardcores. A hardcore gamer sees it as ok to pay 50 dollars for a game that can beat in a rental, a casual doesn't. So nothing has really changed for those gamers that bought Contra, it's just gamers have since come in that never played games like that and started off playing games that have 20-40 hours play times. So that's what they use to gauge what's worth their money.

 

[Ranger X]

I think Kaching had the answer.

What's funny now is how many people want a long game VS the number of people that actually finish the game... lol

I'm sure the casual doesn't finish his game. Even more times than hardcores. That's where it's funny for them to ask about the lenght first.

 

[Amir0x]

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?

First, let me compliment your nickname... I like Immortal Technique a lot, so props for good taste.

As was already stated in this thread, part of the fun of any game is not knowing what comes next. That's the simplest way to put it. When you already know what's coming, at least a chunk of the fun you had when you played the first time is diminished. Now, the amount of fun that is diminished is directly affected by replay value. Does the game offer you new secrets to find on a second playthrough? What about a secret character? Some subplots to explore that you might have ignored? These expand the replay value, and by the end it might be enough to warrant another playtime. And of course, multiplayer is another key to great replay value.

I don't even know what to say to someone who has completed a single game hundreds of times, but I will say that's great for you - it simply isn't the case for me. I need a reason to retrace my steps in a [singleplayer] game, either by the lapse of time or the lure of new secrets within the game I just beat. That's just me, of course, but replay value and thus length of time I will be playing the game directly affects my purchases, because I do not have fifty or thirty dollars to spend whenever.

And it has nothing to do with PSX.

 

[Unison]

I don't even know what to say to someone who has completed a single game hundreds of times, but I will say that's great for you - it simply isn't the case for me. I need a reason to retrace my steps in a [singleplayer] game, either by the lapse of time or the lure of new secrets within the game I just beat. That's just me, of course, but replay value and thus length of time I will be playing the game directly affects my purchases, because I do not have fifty or thirty dollars to spend whenever.

What about stuff like PacMan or Dead or Alive or Outrun 2? Do you only play this sort of game once or do you just not play this sort of game?

 

[rawk]

I've actually noticed less of this online lately. I think it reached its peak in the DK64 era. But that's just me.

 

[Amir0x]

What about stuff like PacMan or Dead or Alive or Outrun 2? Do you only play this sort of game once or do you just not play this sort of game?

I despise Dead or Alive and have not played Outrun 2, but I love Pacman. And the reason I love Pacman is because the replay value in this particular game stems from the rush it gives you from beating your own personal best [score]. That sort of game design is rare in todays world, and even when something like that is around (such as beat your best time in a racetrack), it simply does not recreate that feeling that Pacman does. Similarly, Pacman manages to stay fresh because its gameplay is so simple, yet resonates so well. No matter how many times you play it, you still jump for joy when you narrowly dodge that last ghost to complete a level. It's just good game design, simplicity over complexity.

Anyway, that's my stance.

 

[Link316]

No, cartridge size was the excuse. These games cost more because they cost more to manufacture. There were more expensive short games too.

that's all it is, an excuse, NES Dragon Warrior was only 80K but it wasn't any cheaper, it still sold for $50 when most games coming out at that time were 256K to 512K in size, even if you don't think that gamers cared about price and gamelength back then this still isn't some new complaint, the MGS games for example have constantly been criticized for its short gamelength, so stop treating gamelength like its some new "conspiracy" that was just fabricated now to use to trash DS games

 

[lachesis]

I would much prefer if games are shorter, cheaper with much more re-play value, rather than drawn out...

lachesis

 

[Unison]

that's all it is, an excuse, NES Dragon Warrior was only 80K but it wasn't any cheaper, it still sold for $50 when most games coming out at that time were 256K to 512K in size, even if you don't think that gamers cared about price and gamelength back then this still isn't some new complaint, the MGS games for example have constantly been criticized for its short gamelength, so stop treating gamelength like its some new "conspiracy" that was just fabricated now to use to trash DS games

I don't think it's some new "Conspiracy" :lol

I posted in this very thread:

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.

I just don't think it's ever been the practice to charge more for a game because it was longer.

Of course people would always complain if they didn't feel they didn't get value out of a game, but the idea of quoting how many hours every game takes has definitely escalated post-FFVII.

Also, you bring up the MGS games as an example... What about the old Metal Gear & Snake's Revenge games? I don't remember many NES gamers complaining those were too short.

 

[Unison]

That sort of game design is rare in todays world, and even when something like that is around (such as beat your best time in a racetrack), it simply does not recreate that feeling that Pacman does.

I respect that... Still, I get that Pac-Man type thrill from lots of new games... For example: Donkey Konga, Outrun 2, Super Monkey Ball, WarioWare, Katamari Damacy, Sega Superstars, Neo Contra, Mario Kart etc. etc...

Those are the sort of game I like, primarily...

 

[Fafalada]

If you address the core question they're trying to answer - is the value for money good - then I suspect that you'll generally find that game length isn't their only measure of value, it just happens to be one of the easiest things to quantify.

Still, isn't it a subjective quantification?
I've seen some people talk about ICO being 2-4hours game. It took me nearly 10hours on first playthrough, and I'm completely sure that if I ever DID make myself rush through it in 2 hours, I wouldn't enjoy doing that. (unless I was playing for some kind of "beat the time" competition with Jessica Alba as the main award, but that's another issue).

 

[Amir0x]

I respect that... Still, I get that Pac-Man type thrill from lots of new games... For example: Donkey Konga, Outrun 2, Super Monkey Ball, WarioWare, Katamari Damacy, Sega Superstars, Neo Contra, Mario Kart etc. etc...

Those are the sort of game I like, primarily...

Oh, see, but Katamari Damacy also costs 20 bucks, so even its short length would be quantified by its value. Hehe.

But anyway, I agree on Katamari Damacy and also on WarioWare GBA (and WarioWare also only costs 19.99 now). Super Monkey Ball is too frusturating at times to recreate that feeling for me, and Mario Kart has great replay value due to multiplayer so that's a bit different. I despised Donkey Konga and haven't played Outrun 2 or SEGA Superstars or, heh, Neo Contra.

But that's one mans opinion

 

[GhaleonEB]

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 ?

I like games that provide both. One of the benefits of this generation is that games are giving more for the money. I bought Halo 2 for the campaign, but I'm getting XBox Live for multi. That will actaually reduce the number of games I buy by at least three next year, since I'll be happy with multiplayer Halo 2.

 

[User 406]

My personality, the increasing numbers of good games being published, and longer game length have put me into a horrible bind.

I just don't get bored with the basic styles of gameplay that I enjoy. A new game can do a type of gameplay better than a previous one did, and thereby supercede it, but I won't get bored with it outright. So over the years, I've become a completist. I get all the secrets, all the items, max out all the characters, explore everything, etc. The thing is, it's not a chore since I'm enjoying the gameplay. Rather, getting 100% on a game I'm enjoying is the signal that it's okay to stop. If I didn't have other games I wanted to play, I'd start over and replay my favorites. However, I can't really do that anymore.

See, I also have rather broad tastes. There are always new games coming out that look interesting to me. I want to play them too. But I don't get bored with them. I want to keep playing whatever I'm currently playing, because it's fun. So then it's back to the 100% completist bullshit. I don't run out of excuses for why I don't just put the game DOWN until I've done everything. Sometimes I'll manage to tear myself away and start something else, but then I'm always looking back at it on the shelf, wanting to play it some more because it's so damn FUN, and hell, I haven't actually finished it, have I? But the next three games I really want to play come out next week!

Pretty sick.

If I could 100% a typical game over the course of 20-30 hours, I could keep up. But nowadays a game that short is rare. Typically I'm getting at least 50 and as much as 300 hours or more out of games. I'm putting more time into single games now than I did into games I replayed dozens of times decades ago. And there are far more of them that I want to play than there ever have been.

So I figure that the increase in game length is divine punishment for this behavior of mine. Gaming is better than it's ever been and it's only going to get better, and I'm completely SCREWED.

 

[Tsubaki]

It's easy.

Mainstreamers enter the gaming market. Mainstream mentality takes over.

Only enthusiasts would replay their finished games. But before, enthusiasts were the bulk of the population.

 

[Immortal Technique]

First, let me compliment your nickname... I like Immortal Technique a lot, so props for good taste.

As was already stated in this thread, part of the fun of any game is not knowing what comes next. That's the simplest way to put it. When you already know what's coming, at least a chunk of the fun you had when you played the first time is diminished. Now, the amount of fun that is diminished is directly affected by replay value. Does the game offer you new secrets to find on a second playthrough? What about a secret character? Some subplots to explore that you might have ignored? These expand the replay value, and by the end it might be enough to warrant another playtime. And of course, multiplayer is another key to great replay value.

OK. Thanks for the explanation. I guess we are just wired differently. What makes me want to play a game is how engaging the gameplay is, not so much the lure of what is next. What you described is pretty how I feel when playing a RPG, but not really in other genres.

 

[kaching]

Still, isn't it a subjective quantification?

Sure, it's still subjective, but I think it seems less subjective than other aspects of the gameplay to many people because its easiest to quantify, even if that number may differ for different players.

 

[vitaflo]

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.

Agreed. I think this is missing from games today. Games that take you a while to beat, but then once you do, you can breeze through again quickly. SMB3 was an awesome game that took me quite a bit of time to beat, but once I did, I can now breeze through it fairly quickly, which for me ups the replay value. Today games just seem to be drawn out, and even after you beat them it still takes several hours to go through them again, negating a reason for doing so.

A lot of this had to do with there being no save feature in early games. They had to allow you to beat the game in one sitting by their very nature, but getting to that point would take a lot of time and practice. Honestly, I miss these sorts of games, but perhaps I'm a bit nostalgic.

 

[Parallax Scroll]

There are different reasons for replaying different kinds of games. If you're trying to beat your speed record in Metroid or your point total in Metal Slug, getting a new high score can be more fun and satisfying than the first time you played the game.

 

[Future]

-------------
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.
--------------

It's about length of playtime, which doesn't always mean length of story or amount of levels. It's just that many games gotta be kinda long to be satisfying IMO. Some games are designed with a series of scripted events that can be beaten the same way every time. Others have rpg elements that build character attributes through repetitive tasks that you may not want repeat. Others focus heavilly on story with many many cutscenes that you won't feel the need to play through to see ever again. I usually don't like to repeat shit I've done in these games, so if they are short I feel burned.