Game Length

[deanb]

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6324422/are-aaa-games-too-long

 

So this thread is inspired by this article covering a panel at the Develop 2011 conference going on at the moment.

 

btw if you're a fan of longer games then you have a nice list of studios to avoid

 

I massively disagree with many of the comments made by the panel. I personally think games are getting way too short. Especially when AAA console titles are asking you to cough up £40 a pop (Just to cut off certain people: Yes I know if you fish about, pre-order, use sites like CAG n be a savvy shopper you can buy for less, or wait a year and get it for £10. They regular price is still £40). It doesn't help that there's plenty of games that are recently coming out for quite cheap that can have near unlimited game time.

 

However I will agree that some games can drag on a bit too much and feel overly long. It's an issue of pacing. There are times I want a nice game to burst through for 4 hours or so and feel like I've "completed" something at the end of it and not just chipped off a small part of a larger game. Which is why their dig at LA Noire seems a bit off since from what I've heard of it's structure it does have a nice long over all narrative, but in bit size chunks that mean you've "finished" something after a 4-5 hr session. Heavy Rain plays out in similar chapters too. (Witcher also has Chapters, but they're 15-20hrs long each)

 

I'll bring up Medal of Honor just as a random example. Sure I've felt it's one of the best FPS stories I've played in a while (at least in the "Modern War" setting), but my god it was short. I would be extremely disappointed if I'd paid £40 for that. Sure it has MP on the side, but I feel that MP doesn't really get a look in on game length. Especially when most "MP only" games I've seen tend to retail for less than most titles. Usually £10-£15 on PC, and topping out at £30 on console.

 

 

So what are your opinions on both the panel, and the idea of game length in general, what's your comfort zone?

[Yantelope]

I think the question of length is directly tied to cost. If you're dropping $60, how much are you getting in return? A lot of FPS games can be blown through in 8-10 hours and that seems a bit short for $60 IMO. A movie costs about $8-10 for 90-120 minutes or so. By comparison, if you wanted 10 hours of entertainment from a theater you'd be spending about $50 for 10 hours or so. I suppose that's on par. I tend to factor in the multiplayer too though. I dropped over 13 days of online time with COD4 so I think I got my money's worth.

 

Now, do some games drag on for far too long? Maybe. I'm having a hard time remembering the last game that I wish was shorter. Generally people don't say "Wow, that was a great game if only it had been shorter!".

 

Also, developers need to stop shamelessly padding their games to make them longer. Scavenger hunts for 350 pieces of intel doesn't constitute another 10 hours of gameplay to put on your box so you can say "Over 100 hours of gameplay!". Most of the time I can overlook it but some games (Zelda Wind Waker, Darkstalkers) artificially pad out their game with back tracking and such because they clearly didn't have time to finish the game.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Totally depends on the game and genre. I played through New Vegas in 29 hours and loved every minute; I'm 36 hours into Dragon Quest IX and kinda wishing it would start to draw to a close.

[Strangelove]

I dont think every single game should be as long as a Bethesda game or a Bioware game.

I dont think shorter games should be cheaper.

 

Its quality, not quantity. 60 minute movies and 3 hour movies cost the same, and 44 minute cds and 60 minute cds are also the same. Videogames should be no exception, despite being more costly than the other choices.

 

Plus, great games are replayed. I played Dead Space 2 about 5 times back to back when I got it. It was completely worth 60 dollars.

Dont even get me started on how many times ive replayed Super Mario Bros. 3.....its an hour game that ive probably played for 100 hours...if thats not value, i dont know what is.

[Slagathorian]

Totally depends on the game and genre. I played through New Vegas in 29 hours and loved every minute; I'm 36 hours into Dragon Quest IX and kinda wishing it would start to draw to a close.

 

 

Actually, DQ9 is a pretty short game.

 

The actual "campaign" if you will can be easily done in under 12 hours.

 

 

 

 

Really depends on the game.

 

I loved every second of Heavenly Sword's 5 hour gameplay. And I put in over 200 hours into Morrowind.

 

I'm easy to please either way.

 

But I think we can all agree, that a short well made game, is better than a long poorly made game any day.

[Hot Heart]

I already wrote an article that touches on the narrative aspects they were talking about. When they brought up L.A. Noire and Heavy Rain they seemed to be talking about stretching a story across a game's length (and that's why they should be more like TV) since it can affect the overall pace.

 

I actually never felt that way with those two examples. Sure, L.A. Noire dragged a little in places but it was set out a bit more like a TV series, and Heavy Rain's story never felt too long or padded (just a little misguided), while the way it progressed kept you moving along comfortably.

 

It really does depend on the game though. Sometimes it's not about the 'length' but the actual content and replayability.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Totally depends on the game and genre. I played through New Vegas in 29 hours and loved every minute; I'm 36 hours into Dragon Quest IX and kinda wishing it would start to draw to a close.

 

Actually, DQ9 is a pretty short game.

 

The actual "campaign" if you will can be easily done in under 12 hours.

 

I'm sure it could if you went in trying to speed run or whatever, but How Long to Beat suggests my time is pretty average for the game.

[WTF]

Dean you lurk far too much on Neogaf even the thread titles bear similarities.

 

But generally it's a stupid thing. The issue isn't game length really, it's filling a game with fluff. If you look at the previous gen a lot of games required grinding which essentially increased the length of the game. Sidequests were not primed a lot in at least 80% of the games and it was just oh god get it over with. Games were just using fillers to increase their length.

If a game is long but doesn't feel long and is actually good there's no issue. The reason why some 'gamers' might complain about length is well fetch quests, trail quests and a lot of pointless faff which developers add just to increase the length of the game. if done well people don't complain. e.g. Resident Evil 4 was about 20 hours long. That's pretty long for an action adventure title. Did most people complain? No not really. In fact it's one of the best loved games in the series. Did it feel like it went on forever? Not really.

A good game with decent length is always good. But a bad game that just uses fluff to increase it's length is just rubbish and doing it no favours and likewise a good game with terrible side quests. Very few games have core stories that go beyond 10 hours and it's the truth particularly in this generation. I guess games like RE4, God of War 2 and some RPGs are an exception. But really most open world games are the biggest culprits when it comes to crap side quests. You don't need to fill it with crap to extend the length just give interesting long side missions. It's fine if they are fewer just stop cookie cuttering a dumbass formula. Of course it means budgets can be inflated but it always be DLC.

[Hot Heart]

Somebody just got statistic'd! Yes, that's a word.

 

Good site, huh, Kyle?

[deanb]

Dean you lurk far too much on Neogaf even the thread titles bear similarities.

 

 

Actually I got it off Slasdot.

I also submitted it to Reddit

 

 

I do agree it's a case of the content, not really the length. If it's good content you'll gobble it up forever. But if it's bad, and just really badly and artificially stretched out, then it will feel too long. It's like Star Wars is a butt numbing 16hrs long or something, but you'd happily sit through it for a day. Same with LotRs.

 

Assassins Creed, (2/B) has quite a few filler tasks, but they're enjoyable to do. Oblivion n Fallout are like 80% side-quests, and they're fine to do too. But then you have things like Prototype where the sidequests are like "kill as many people in 1 minute". And they get boring fast. I had to make up my own things, like getting from a-to-b by morphing from one person to another. Or hunting particular people down.

[WTF]

lol well I came across it via gamespot during my numerous tab sequences and yeah I usually have 200 tabs open which is fine since I do not edit on that machine most of the time.

And to be honest, even Oblvion and Fallout the sidequests are a bit shite. I do like New Vegas and liked Morrowind but Oblvion psh it was just whatever with the quests and stuff (long time TES player and I feel that it peaked with 3 and went down with 4 will see how 5 stats up).

And yeah most of them do have filler quests just to buffer up length but it's not really needed so long as it can be enjoyable. Honestly I found most side quests in RDR to be extremely annoying but I did finish them off in LA Noire despite them being similarish.

[Hot Heart]

RDR sidequest writing guide

 

You must:

1. Collect something for someone who is...dead/actually a bit of a lying bastard/really a horse

2. Go find someone who is...dead/actually a bit of a lying bastard/really a horse

Edited July 20, 2011 by Hot Heart

[WTF]

RDR sidequest writing guide

 

You must:

1. Collect something for...someone who is dead/a horse/actually a bit of a lying bastard

2. Go find someone who is...dead/a horse/actually a bit of a lying bastard

 

lol oh yeah. That probably explains why I couldn't do it after a while.

[deanb]

RDR was baaaadddd

[toxicitizen]

I find 10-20 hours to be the sweet spot for most games but I expect 40+ hours out of RPGs.

But I'd rather a game be great and only 10 hours long than 20 hours long but half of it is artificial length like boring side quests and padding.

 

Though it really varies depending on the game. The MGS games are notorious for lasting less than 5 hours when you skip all the cutscenes, but I don't mean that because for me a big part of the experience is the story and the first time you don't skip it.

 

Stuff like COD with its 6 hours short campaign, though, is a bit more irritating. And I'm not a huge online gamer, so I never include multiplayer into the equation. I haven't touched Black Ops in months and only played the MP for about 25 hours, which is actually quite a lot for me. Normally I'll play online for maybe 10 hours and then move on to something else. Hell, I never even tried Dead Space 2's online. That's why I normally shy away from mp only games like Brink. TF2 is the exception here, and I don't think I ever reached the 30 hours mark on it.

Edited July 20, 2011 by FLD

[Yantelope]

It would be really hard to beat any COD in 6 hours. 8-12 is probably more likely.

[toxicitizen]

It would be really hard to beat any COD in 6 hours. 8-12 is probably more likely.

MW2 took me about 6 hours on my first run... Maybe close to 7, but no more than that.

[Yantelope]

Here's IW's response.

 

http://www.psu.com/Infinity-Ward-defends-Modern-Warfare-2s-single-player-length--a008298-p0.php

[toxicitizen]

So they let a shitty story full of plot holes and nonsense dictate game length?

[WTF]

Hell, I never even tried Dead Space 2's online. That's why I normally shy away from mp only games like Brink. TF2 is the exception here, and I don't think I ever reached the 30 hours mark on it.

 

DS2 online was just not compelling enough. Hey we're a bunch of engineers, hey we're bunch of zombies. FIGHT! I mean really there can be mindless MP but if you can't relate you can't relate.

As for Brink, it's a bomba so you can buy it for dirt cheap or a steam sale and see how it goes if the community is still active by then.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Depends on the game. When I'm wrapping myself around the contours of a story, there is a time when things should come together, not be dragged along for buffer. But I play for single-player experiences, none of this social gaming bullshit. I'm not a jock looking to fortify my libido by hangin' with my bros. I'm looking to play a god damn video game. While I do play multi-player games, that content never factors into my judgment. Single-player experiences should hold up of their own substance, not by the pillar of multi-player promises. As such, these half-assed four-hour campaigns do not please me.

[CorgiShinobi]

Like others, it depends on the game.

 

Having just finished L.A. Noire, I wish I didn't feel rush having rent it and all because that game isn't like the typical AAA title. You actually have to take some time and think over a few steps. The game (in Statistics) says it took me 20 hours to complete, but I know I have like an hour or so more added to that given that I realized I screwed up somewhere or somehow.

 

Sometimes it felt slow, but then there were times that you found yourself in the middle of a car chase or pursuit. It's just that it had a mixture of different game types. You could say it was a mix of Grand Theft Auto and Phoenix Wright. You might be driving 88 MPH after a suspect, or thinking over whether you should choose Doubt or Lie if there might be proper evidence.

[Thursday Next]

Length definitely plays a part in the bang:buck perception. However, I consider replayability as a big part of that equation. Infamous (and its sequel) pretty much demand to be played through twice and it's not a short game. I played through Resi 4 several times and the Uncharted games, I could beat in a single sitting but thoroughly enjoyed each time.

 

I don't mind if BF/MoH/CoD have a short single player campaign as I consider them to be story based tutorials for the multiplayer game. It's somewhere to get a feel for the controls and learn how the gadgets work before taking to the battlefield proper. Similarly, Little Big Planet's single player campaign is more of an interactive tutorial than anything.

 

Oh, it's also worth noting that not all multiplayer interactions are a bunch of brosefs trying to validate themselves with high scores. I find that generalisation somewhat insulting. GT5 online sessions are a great deal of good clean fun and you will often find people apologising for running you off the road, not giving enough space in a corner for an overtake or tapping you from behind when they out brake themselves. It's just good manners. Many online games are civilised affairs, even in BFBC2, I have a regular squad we hook up, play a few rounds, generally do fairly well but we have the most fun when we get pushed right to the end rather than when we steam roll over the opposition.

 

I've definitely had more fun playing with others than in single player campaigns, just as I've had more fun watching films with friends than on my own. I get a different kind of enjoyment playing games on my own, I still like it, but on a more personal / emotional level.

[WTF]

I played through Resi 4 several times and the Uncharted games, I could beat in a single sitting but thoroughly enjoyed each time.

 

 

If I recall correctly, Uncharted 2 seemed much longer than could be finished on a single setting. I'm sure Uncharted 2 on crushing took some time (though easier than Uncharted 1 on crushing). But it's been a while I recall platinuming the game in barely 7 days since it was a lot of fun. One of the first to platinum it in fact for some reason. I remember some people were surprised that I was done so fast.

 

I agree that MP isn't a bad thing at all. it's just some games do not implement MP in an engaging way. If you plan to bring Multiplayer to a game then you should think about it from ground up and not just some random hobbled rubbish which annoys players and prevents a community from forming. I do agree about your points on MP though that it's not all just a bro thing.

 

I'd like to think that AC's multiplayer was done well because they had the concept down for the iPhone and all they needed to do was implement it for HD and it worked for them.

[Thursday Next]

I played through Resi 4 several times and the Uncharted games, I could beat in a single sitting but thoroughly enjoyed each time.

 

 

If I recall correctly, Uncharted 2 seemed much longer than could be finished on a single setting. I'm sure Uncharted 2 on crushing took some time (though easier than Uncharted 1 on crushing). But it's been a while I recall platinuming the game in barely 7 days since it was a lot of fun. One of the first to platinum it in fact for some reason. I remember some people were surprised that I was done so fast.

 

I agree that MP isn't a bad thing at all. it's just some games do not implement MP in an engaging way. If you plan to bring Multiplayer to a game then you should think about it from ground up and not just some random hobbled rubbish which annoys players and prevents a community from forming. I do agree about your points on MP though that it's not all just a bro thing.

 

I'd like to think that AC's multiplayer was done well because they had the concept down for the iPhone and all they needed to do was implement it for HD and it worked for them.

 

Dunno, second playthrough always seems to whizz past on Uncharted games. The length stems mostly from working out where to go / what to do. Crushing takes longer cos you need to be so cautious in gun battles, but I normally knock it down to easy to collect trophies / treasures, get my headshots up and such, then it is super short.

 

Which raises a good point. If I want to, I can blast through games rather swiftly, but, I tend to be a bit of a wanderer in games, I like to backtrack when I shouldn't (which paid off when I played through Limbo last night) so that adds some time, and complete side quests before continuing with the story. My infamous playtime is huge but that's because I always did all the side missions before the next story bit, then collected all the shards and dead drops before I went on to the endgame.