Video Game Length

[VicariousShaner]

I recently finished watching an old episode of Game Grumps, while usually only offering funny commentary, will sometimes offer some interesting opinions on game design. The conversation went a bit as follows:

 

"So, I was recently asking people on Twitter what they thought of Dishonored and they said "It's good, but it's a bit short." I don't get that! I mean, so many games just run way longer than they need to be. Can you think of any 60 hour game that has unique content every single part of the way, without making you backtrack through the game area, or repeat types of content? I think games need to not overstay their welcome."

 

I found this quite interesting, as I had never really thought of a game being long anything but a pretty good thing, as most of the internet also does. It seems almost like a quality/quantity sort of thing, in which a game can get much worse if the developers put too much padding into it, in order to put "30+ hours!" on the back of the box/steam page. Gravity Bone is probably a great example of a very, very short game that may not have worked at all if it was too long, and Devil May Cry 4 could be an example of a game that suffered mostly due to padding. I understand how some people buy incredibly long games just because they want to have something to do for quite a while, but I think the practice really doesn't fit a lot of games, and really hurts the industry as an artistic medium.

 

What do you guys think? Do you tend to not buy games if they don't have enough playtime, or are you more suited to shorter, more fulfilling experiences?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I'd rather play 3 hours of an amazing game than 30 hours of a mediocre one. These days, barely anybody does games of that length that are actualyl worth that much time to me.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Basically what FDS said.

[Mister Jack]

I would agree except for the fact that most games cost 60 dollars when they come out. Even if a game is good, if sixty dollars gets me barely more play time than an afternoon at the movies, I'd feel kinda cheated. I'm against padding, but I'm also against the idea that a short, simple game should cost the same as something huge like Skyrim or GTA.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, what Jack said. Games cost a lot more than other media and I feel like I need to get more time out of it to compensate. Now, there's obviously a balance, I'm not going to want to play a shitty game no matter how long it is, but I might feel that a 60-hour pretty good game is worth more than a 3 hour fantastic one.

 

On the topic of Dishonored specifically, I didn't think it felt too short. My first playthrough took me I think 13 hours. It could maybe have used one or two more levels, but any more than that and I think it would have started to drag, so overall I think they stopped at a good place.

[excel_excel]

I'm fine with short games, to an extent. I rarely buy games full price these days, and if its something that is around five hours then I'm even more unlikely to buy it on release day, but when its on sale, I'll have no qualms about buying something that's short but quality as much as I would a long title. Its rare that retail games offer that little amount of time because game length is such a variable these days anyway.

Jamestown, for example, is short in terms of level length but the amount of time you will play that content is far more then its game 'length'.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

I would agree except for the fact that most games cost 60 dollars when they come out. Even if a game is good, if sixty dollars gets me barely more play time than an afternoon at the movies, I'd feel kinda cheated. I'm against padding, but I'm also against the idea that a short, simple game should cost the same as something huge like Skyrim or GTA.

 

What if you removed price from it? To me that's a metric that exists outside of the game. Price changes over time. Game quality does not. Personally, I never buy games right when they come out. No point with a fuckton huge Steam backlog. I'm not even through my PS3 backlog.

[Mister Jack]

If money is no object, then I'm fine with games being whatever length is right for them. If a game is really short with no multiplayer or bonus features, though, I tend to either rent it or wait for a sale/price drop, regardless or whether it's good or not.

[Strangelove]

I figure if a short game is good enough to charge a regular price, it's infinitely replayable. Smb3 can be beaten in about 2 hours, but I've replayed it so much because it's so good that I've probably played it longer than fallout 3. I'd easily pay 60 bucks for that experience.

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, replayability is another factor beyond straight-up length. Dishonored may have been short-ish, but I played 3 three times in a row right after getting it, so it was really more like a 30 hour game for me.

[Mister Jack]

I factor replayability into game length. If a game is short but it has multiple paths or New Game +, that automatically at least doubles it for me.

[deanb]

I had a similar discussion on this topic a month or so back on Twitter. I feel that the quality/quantity stance can be pretty bad as it assume that games of 100hr+ lengths are shitty and a game 10 minutes long would let you see god. And that's clearly not the case. For one if games of long length were shit then people wouldn't play them for 100hrs+.

 

As I'm someone who has had somewhat limited funds for a while I can't really be splashing out for games that'll last 10hrs then be done with. And we're not really in a world where price is no object. And even then, if the games are £10 instead of £40, you'd likely still go with the longer game.

A game being "repetitive" is of no problem if the thing that is repetitive is good. Puzzle Quest is pretty much just a string of "battles" carried out through bejeweled-like puzzles with a spell system on top, the missions being "battle this person" "unlock this door" all through the same battle system. But the battle system is enjoyable. No game will be constantly unique throughout, and when they try it you'll likely find people dislike it; see the Tower Defense mode of AC:R and the love that receives. And filler is fine so long as it's not overly obvious filler. Like Borderlands 2 having you just go back to main mission areas to kill off a new boss there. That's shitty filler. But I'm currently having fun blasting about hunting wildlife to upgrade my items in FC3, and that's something that could be removed and just have my buy them.

 

About the only issue with long games to short games is they can be much harder to complete. Longest game I have that I've finished (as measured by Steam) is Witcher at 60 hours (followed by DOWII at 40 hours, but that's including expansions). And the shortest are the Sam & Max games, which I'm forcing myself to complete (whereas they should be around 60 times better than Skyrim).

[Hot Heart]

Like a film, I usually find it's about pacing. I could probably write a lot about it, but I'll save you the torture...

 

Generally, I'm drawn to games with some sort of narrative, so there's a real need for a decent balance there. There has to be enough to keep it interesting. For example, I don't think Arkham Asylum or Arkham City were particularly long games, but there's a well-planned feed of new ideas and locations or other changes so it never becomes dull. That's even without the side stuff (that I also loved).

 

My gaming habits have definitely changed though, as I find myself with less time (or inclination), so certain games appeal to me more. I can quite happily leap into Mass Effect 3's multiplayer for an hour or so, or do a few side missions in Borderlands 2. Just recently, I've been alternating between doing a mission of Halo 4 per sitting and some Assassin's III side missions or, again, the occasional longer, more involved mission. I wouldn't dream of starting a game like Fallout 3 or Skyrim, or many RPGs, really.

 

I can't remember where it was said (some gaming site), but someone said Arkham City felt like it was designed by people with children. As in, they understood how to keep the moment-to-moment, bite-size gameplay rewarding as well. It's a valid point, I think, and I can see where they're coming from. I remember there was the Bungie '30 seconds of fun' concept, but I never found that an accurate term (and that's without getting pedantic over exact timing). There's also the 'review factor', whereby reviewers gaming habits may be markedly different from a player. They will have sat down and played a game all day, finding it too repetitive or too short or whatever, whereas someone taking their time won't be bothered so much by certain things (AC3 would probably fit into this).

 

Anyway, I think it would be useful if people expanded on why they felt a game was too short or too long. In the case of the latter, it's easy to say that things dragged on, gameplay or storywise, but when it's short it's always related to cost which, as FDS already mentioned, will usually change.

[deanb]

Well I completed Runespell the other week, and that'd be a game that I would say was "too short", and its shortness was apparent rather early on. It's a game that would have thrived off being super long as it's basically Puzzlequest but with a sort of solitaire/poker instead of Bejeweled for battles. There's no leveling up system, so there's no reason to do any of the random battles. So it gets beaten in under 10 hours (And that's with my habit to alt-tab n make a cuppa/chat etc). If it had had a leveling up system of sorts it would expand replayabilty and given the player a reason to do the non-mission battles scattered around the map.

 

Sam & Max are games that I'm surprised were under 3 hours to beat because they felt much longer, they really drag on with the need to dash back and forth between two areas (with the loading screen and animations that entails) and the stupidly slow walking they have.

 

Probably one of the better paced short games is Portal. Beatable in under 4hours, if that, and it has really great pacing; combining tutorial with main game seemlessly, and providing plenty of variety in the levels. There's next to no story, just pure game.

 

There's also those games where the pacing just gets so frantic that the game suddenly endings and you're like "wait, credits?, but there's surely another half of the game still left!" I've done one like that in the past year and I can't quite remember which. Maybe SWFTU II....actually on closer inspection likely Deathspank. Only 11hours long for an RPG-ish game.

[TheMightyEthan]

Portal is a really good example of a short game that doesn't feel short.

[Thursday Next]

Portal is a really good example of a short game that doesn't feel short.

 

Also feel this way about Mirror's Edge. I'm sure you can blast through the campaign in a few hours. Just looked and speed run is sub one hour, but it still felt like a full length game to me (because I am not as good as this guy).

[TheMightyEthan]

Yeah, I'm not as good as him, but I did all the speedrun achievements and I think if you added them all together my time was something like an hour and a half. Obviously that was after I'd already played the crap out of the game.

[fuchikoma]

Short games make some of the best impressions on me. I'm ok with the length of Journey, Datura, The Unfinished Swan, Portal, Quantum Conundrum, Pixeljunk Shooter, arcade shooters that may run under an hour etc. Some people won't buy a game with less than a certain number of typical gameplay hours, but I've done the opposite and looked at some games that promise 40 hours or 60 hours and gone "yeah, that's cool... but I'd barely scratch the surface, realistically." Or other times, I'll buy a game with this much to it and after... a bunch of hours... I'm left wondering how far I've made it into the game. Am I 10 minutes from the end? 30 hours from it? It takes on a feeling of climbing a mountain you can't even see the top of, so it becomes impossible and I move on to something else that inevitably comes out in that time. I can't afford to sink like, 4 months into a single game unless it's really so good that when I want to play, I want to play that. Otherwise, it's like "ok, I can stick with this grindy, bland section and hope the game ends, or I could get to experience these 4 other games..."

[Cyber Rat]

If I want entertainment out of a game, the longer, the better. If I want to be engaged by a game, length is no factor. It can be as short as it feels the need to be. For example, I'd expect multiplayer-centric games like CS:GO or MMOs to offer me entertainment (so, more hours = better). I'd expect something like Black Mesa to engage me. It's interesting when it goes the other way around. Something like Spy Party would engage me despite being multiplayer. The single-player mode in Tetris would just entertain me.

 

Obviously, what is considered entertainment and what engagement varies from person to person.

[deanb]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-13-why-should-we-ask-how-long-a-game-is

 

Developer of "Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons", a 3-4hr long game, questions why people would care about video game length. What's worse is the way he has described his game is it sounds like a string of essentially mini-games. Also gone with the stupid logic of a sliding scale of "long but shit; short but orgasmic"

[TheMightyEthan]

"Who cares about value for money? You never question how long a movie was..."

 

Wow, what?  The reason people don't ask how long a movie is is because they don't need to ask; for the most part movies are fairly consistent length, in the neighborhood of 2 hours.  If I went to the theater and bought a ticket expecting a full-length feature film and instead got something 45 minutes long I'd be pissed the same as if I bought a video game for 60 bucks and it was over in 4 hours.

Edited March 15, 2013 by TheMightyEthan

[Mister Jack]

Also it doesn't cost 60 dollars to go to a movie.  Seriously, why do these people make the movie comparison?  It's almost like they never actually buy games themselves.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

 

"Who cares about value for money? You never question how long a movie was..."

 

Wow, what?  The reason people don't ask how long a movie is is because they don't need to ask; for the most part movies are fairly consistent length, in the neighborhood of 2 hours.  If I went to the theater and bought a ticket expecting a full-length feature film and instead got something 45 minutes long I'd be pissed the same as if I bought a video game for 60 bucks and it was over in 4 hours.

 

So the issue is perception and not if it's actually worth your money or not. Got it.

[deanb]

 

"Who cares about value for money? You never question how long a movie was..."

 

Wow, what?  The reason people don't ask how long a movie is is because they don't need to ask; for the most part movies are fairly consistent length, in the neighborhood of 2 hours.  If I went to the theater and bought a ticket expecting a full-length feature film and instead got something 45 minutes long I'd be pissed the same as if I bought a video game for 60 bucks and it was over in 4 hours.

Wouldn't even be allowed to call it a feature film if it was 45 minutes.

 

@FDS: Werne't you just over in the Games You Beat thread other day complaining on lack of length to Crysis 2 n 3?

[TheMightyEthan]

 

 

"Who cares about value for money? You never question how long a movie was..."

 

Wow, what?  The reason people don't ask how long a movie is is because they don't need to ask; for the most part movies are fairly consistent length, in the neighborhood of 2 hours.  If I went to the theater and bought a ticket expecting a full-length feature film and instead got something 45 minutes long I'd be pissed the same as if I bought a video game for 60 bucks and it was over in 4 hours.

 

So the issue is perception and not if it's actually worth your money or not. Got it.

What does that even mean?  The only issue with any kind of consumer satisfaction is what they perceive.  You're right, I will be unhappy if I perceive it to not be worth my money, because that's the only way to determine if it was worth my money.  There's no objective way of determining that.

 

That said, just saying I'll be pissed if the game is short and leaving it at that is an oversimplification.  I liked Journey and it was short, but it also didn't cost $60.  And obviously a bad game that's 70 hours long isn't worth anything to me, because it's a bad game.  The question is how much enjoyment will I get for my money, and if I enjoy the experience of playing the game (as in the moment-to-moment gameplay) then making the game longer will add to the value of the game and making it shorter will detract.  As dean likes to point out, people make a false dichotomy between short good games and long bad ones, as if those are the only options.  Long good games do exist, and have more value (to me) than short good games, because I get more enjoyment out of them.