the 2 to 3 hour long game

A

Apossum

Guest
I was going to post this in a Portal thread, but I thought it might be worthy of gen discussion..

Somewhere along the way, some guy decided every game needs to be 80 hours long...now the average length of a game has shrunk, but there's still a lot of BS in current gen games. I think there's a lot of potential for the concept of making shorter, more concentrated games. They could take some cool element (like umm...the portal gun) and design a small awesome game around it, then charge a budget price-- devs are happy because it costs less time and money to make. consumers are happy because there are more higher quality, cheaper, playable, and shorter games. Of course, it doesn't have to be some gimmick like the portal gun-- it could be a concentrated action game or something like that where the gameplay doesn't let up or stop for long breaks.

To clarify, I don't mean XBLA or PSN games-- I'm talking about games with current engines, story lines, AAA developers backing them etc. So basically a regular game with the bullshit cut out (the anti-ps1 rpg.) No extended fetch quests, no taking 2 hours to get across a game map just to unlock some minor door for some insignificant item,no huge cutscenes.

Perhaps this would weed out the people who suck at making long games and re-direct their talent to something better. I realize this has been discussed before, but the industry hasn't changed--everyone still wants to make "the next [insert title here]"

anyway, just a little manifesto there. Thoughts?
 
I couldn't agree more. It's rare that you get a title the nears 40 hours that has little-to-no filler like Twilight Princess had.

TP was also an exception for me being able to sit through a game of great length. Even if it's really good, I don't have the time or patience to spend that amount of time on something.

People complained about Halo 3's length which I thought was absolutely perfect. 6-8 hours, I can beat than in 1-2 weeks depending on how much time I've got to play. I'm focused on the story or the gameplay, or whatever. Unless there's a huge glut of releases, there's little that's going to come out while I'm trying to finish it.

If a game goes above 20 hours, I have very little interest generally speaking. I'd much rather have a short game that I'll replay a lot than a game that is long through padding and I feel like I'm slogging through it, beat it, and then never play it again.

This underscores for me why MMORPGs make no sense to me what so ever. I could have played like 3 games in the time it takes to accomplish something in a game like that.
 
I love short games and would be happy to see more of them. But...

If you are using current technology and just cutting out the BS, is it really worth it? I assume that there are economies of scale when making games.

If they already have the enviroments, music, character models, etc., why not add length to the game to justify the price point?

For example, as a developer would I want to add fetch quests (which i assume don't take too much time to impliment) so that the game is 15-20 hours and can charge normal price for or leave them out for a 5-10 hour game that will be budget priced? My guess is that a company could make more $$ by adding the length and charging more for the game. I am assuming that a games length helps to justify the price point.
 
Unfortunately publishers seem to think lower price will (and may) give the impression of lower quality. As a result, 4 to 5 hour games get priced at $50 or $60. Which is probably why they'll go on downloadable platforms instead. I'm curious to see what Squeenix does with the new $15 Crystal Chronicles game on WiiWare.
 
I'm totally with you, but in the same turn... I think shorter - more full games are coming out more and more. But its really the quality that pushes games into the mainstream, especially the shorter games. Look at Bioshock... Prolly 10hrs ish with an awesome game. Ninja Gaiden, 16-20hrs first time played... now about 8. Gears - prolly 10ish hrs. The really long and drawn out games are getting old... I just now beat Forza 2 on career... shit took me FOREVER. The really long games kinda suck out your desire to keep playing... the reward vs. time being put in isnt really there.
 
[quote name='Lupuri']I'm totally with you, but in the same turn... I think shorter - more full games are coming out more and more. But its really the quality that pushes games into the mainstream, especially the shorter games. Look at Bioshock... Prolly 10hrs ish with an awesome game. Ninja Gaiden, 16-20hrs first time played... now about 8. Gears - prolly 10ish hrs. The really long and drawn out games are getting old... I just now beat Forza 2 on career... shit took me FOREVER. The really long games kinda suck out your desire to keep playing... the reward vs. time being put in isnt really there.[/quote]They're getting shorter, I'm not sure they're getting denser though. Even the revered Bioshock degenerates into fetch quests in the latter 1/2. Short games that use traditional padding methods are the worst of both worlds.
 
[quote name='kell']I love short games and would be happy to see more of them. But...

If you are using current technology and just cutting out the BS, is it really worth it? I assume that there are economies of scale when making games.

If they already have the enviroments, music, character models, etc., why not add length to the game to justify the price point?
[/QUOTE]

If we're going to get all economic about it, then they shouldn't add too much artificial length because of diminishing returns. You can only get so much mileage out of art assets before the game starts looking all same-y.
 
There's a company who has said things about this in the past, but I think they got a lot of shit for it.

I can't...seem to remember which company it was though....
 
Come to think of it, I think this may be why I love handheld gaming so much. Not only are the games easy to pause / save, etc. but they tend to be shorter, more explosive experiences.
 
I've been meaning to start a thread about game length.

I always see it stated as a gaming axiom that games are getting shorter, but are they really? I don't remember the games in the, Atari, NES and SNES generations being longer on average than the games today, if anything I remember the games being shorter back then. Games really started getting longer when the storage medium increased during the PS1 era. That is when I remember the transition to longer games with more involved narratives occuring.

Narratives and stories are really what I see as a driving force behind artificially lengthening games. Gamers demand "Epic" Storylines, every game has to be epic, and so developers are giving gamers what they want. The game gets infilled with repetitive gameplay, so they can feed you a few tidbits of the epic story every hour or so. Whacking the same monster over and over, the same exact way feel epic enough for you? I guess it does for a lot of gamers as long as it's followed by the sweet CGI cutscene carrot, where your character shows off everything you can't actually do in the game. Most games I play only have enough gameplay innovation to generally fill a few hours, but the game gets stretched out significantly to meet a length expectation.

I think the length expectations come from the gaming press and gamers. I wish the industry would move toward shorter more focused games, but I don't think gamers are expressing that. I can't count the number of times I have read reviews or forum posts that cite soley the short length of the game as its fault, but I rarely see games get knocked down so much for being too long. I guess its just much easier to use length because it is quantifiable and you can quickly associate the length to cost ratio as the value of the game, rather than address whether the game length is appropriate for its gameplay variety.

It's funny that the original post mentions Portal though. I'm on level 17 and I'm already thinking, even though I know the last few levels are the longest, that I'll be left wanting more when I finish. This feels like one of the few games where the gameplay is new and fresh enough to warrant some more length.
 
[quote name='kell']I love short games and would be happy to see more of them. But...

If you are using current technology and just cutting out the BS, is it really worth it? I assume that there are economies of scale when making games.

If they already have the enviroments, music, character models, etc., why not add length to the game to justify the price point?

For example, as a developer would I want to add fetch quests (which i assume don't take too much time to impliment) so that the game is 15-20 hours and can charge normal price for or leave them out for a 5-10 hour game that will be budget priced? My guess is that a company could make more $$ by adding the length and charging more for the game. I am assuming that a games length helps to justify the price point.[/QUOTE]

I'm basing part of this on the "blue ocean" idea. Take out the obligation that comes with extended length and you have something more people might want to play.

I don't know about scale, I don't know that much about development, but I was imagining that instead of spending all the time extending the game, they could dedicate a shitload of resources to make a smaller game look and run a whole lot better.

[quote name='msdmoney']
Narratives and stories are really what I see as a driving force behind artificially lengthening games. Gamers demand "Epic" Storylines, every game has to be epic, and so developers are giving gamers what they want. The game gets infilled with repetitive gameplay, so they can feed you a few tidbits of the epic story every hour or so. Whacking the same monster over and over, the same exact way feel epic enough for you? I guess it does for a lot of gamers as long as it's followed by the sweet CGI cutscene carrot, where your character shows off everything you can't actually do in the game. Most games I play only have enough gameplay innovation to generally fill a few hours, but the game gets stretched out significantly to meet a length expectation.

I think the length expectations come from the gaming press and gamers. I wish the industry would move toward shorter more focused games, but I don't think gamers are expressing that. I can't count the number of times I have read reviews or forum posts that cite soley the short length of the game as its fault, but I rarely see games get knocked down so much for being too long. I guess its just much easier to use length because it is quantifiable and you can quickly associate the length to cost ratio as the value of the game, rather than address whether the game length is appropriate for its gameplay variety.[/quote]

I think they have shortened a lot, especially this gen. More games are hitting the 10-15 hour mark. I don't think the call for longer games and cutscenes is as uniform as it used to be (though it's still there in reviews.) Something like Heavenly Sword will definitely get bashed for that, especially since it's a $60 game that took damn near forever to make. but it seems like as the gaming population grows up, the less popular the 80 hour epic RPG will get (and the amount of those games is dwindling.)
 
[quote name='Strell']There's a company who has said things about this in the past, but I think they got a lot of shit for it.

I can't...seem to remember which company it was though....[/quote]

Cliffy B has said that games should cost $20, and be 5 hours long.

Of course, then he delivered a game that was $60, and 5 hours long.


I dont mind a long game if its legit, like TP's 40 hours, or RE4's 20 hours.

The problem is that most games that contain '40 hours of gameplay' are just 10 hour games artificially stretched with fetch quests, backtracking, and collect a thons.

I can understand being pissed about spending $50-60 on a game you can beat in 10 hours or less, but an artificially lengthened game is even worse imo.

When I was younger, and had more time, I used to thing that longer = better. Now Im married and I really apreciate a 10 hour game that I can beat in a week or two.

If developers want to add extra stuff to do after the game is over, or an online component, Im all for that. But dont add unecessary length to the story mode of a game cos you think your adding 'value' to the game.

Hell I dont even like 3 hour movies anymore. Tell your story in 90 minutes or stfu! lol
 
[quote name='Apossum']I think they have shortened a lot, especially this gen. More games are hitting the 10-15 hour mark. I don't think the call for longer games and cutscenes is as uniform as it used to be (though it's still there in reviews.) Something like Heavenly Sword will definitely get bashed for that, especially since it's a $60 game that took damn near forever to make. but it seems like as the gaming population grows up, the less popular the 80 hour epic RPG will get (and the amount of those games is dwindling.)[/QUOTE]

It seems like RPG's are always brought up as the standard when referring to game length, associating all games with RPG length the past few generations. Sure we had some really long RPG's in the previous generations, but most other genres have always been in the 10-15 hour mark. Go back more than a couple generations and they were much shorter than that.

The reason it seems like there are less RPG's this generation, is because the companies who specialize in RPG's like Atlus, haven't moved on from the PS2 yet. Eventually you will see more big RPG's hit the next gen consoles.
 
I like good games. If I'm entertained for 40 hours then great, if I'm entertained for 6 then great.

That being said, if I have a choice between a 40 hour game and a 6 hour game, and both are good, then I'm going with the 40 hour game.
 
I think Portal is a very rare case of a top tier developer working with top tier technology and incorporating their great story telling technique into what's really just a puzzle game.

But I agree with your point. It's like episodic gaming without the promise of more episodes.
 
Oh how I long for the good old days when I could pop in a Resident Evil and beat it comfortably in one sitting. While my patience has grown a bit since then, I still prefer 10 hours or less for a game. My time and attention span is are both somewhat limited, and if I have to spend 4 hours doing unimportant tasks and weeding through filler in a quality game, its not worth my time and I lose interest. From the entire last generation, the only two games over 20 hours that I finished were FFX and FFXII. Likely going to stay that way for a while too. Please, more short games!
 
with the amount of games longer than 10 hours left unbeaten on my shelf (with many others just traded in)... I really dont mind paying $$ for a game that is beatable AND high quality.

Halo 3 surprisingly goes into that category, especially with the amount of fun I've been having since I found the skulls. Multiplayer has just been a big bonus.
 
[quote name='SpreadTheWord']I think Portal is a very rare case of a top tier developer working with top tier technology and incorporating their great story telling technique into what's really just a puzzle game.

But I agree with your point. It's like episodic gaming without the promise of more episodes.[/QUOTE]


Episodic is good too. Half Life 2: Episode 1 is a great example. It takes all the best aspects of HL2, improves on them, and packs it into a game that can easily be done in 2 sessions.
 
I think a 15-20 hour main storyline can suffice (like Bioshock), but I think games like Halo 3 Online, Sports Games, or Sandbox Games which can have near infinite replay value are where it's at. Who wants to pay $60 for 2 hours of fun?

It's a different time now then it was in the 80s/90s. I gladly paid for those types of games back then (well my parents did), but it was the only thing out there, AND the difficulty was the challenge, not the gameplay or longevity.
 
I think the main offender these days is Japanese RPGs. They tend to have trite storylines that are made even worse by extending their length with drawn out, repetitive battle sequences, and reused assets.

I think a 10 hour game is worth $60 if it has a fun multiplayer mode that will keep you coming back for shorter sessions over a long period of time. Stuff like Heavenly Sword or Stranglehold have no excuse for being $60, though.

And if developers can't support development costs at $20 a game, then too bad. That means that these things just aren't viable and shouldn't exist.
 
I really hate the Halo 3 discussions in here. Sure, 6-10 hours is fine for that game, because everyone is buying it for multiplayer, and the average player will likely play the multiplayer aspects for more than 100 hours. So, from that logic, is Halo 3 really a 6 hour game?

Of course, I'm spoiled since I rarely spend more than $30 on a game anymore. Even my $20-$30 gaming is on the rare side. I really just wait for games to fall, and then play through them. I have so many to play still from the previous generation. Right now, I'm going through Pandora Tomorrow and Culdcept at the same time, which I got for combined about $15. After playing that, it's hard to justify anything but the best being $60.
 
i also prefer shorter games since alot of games wear out their welcome. okami comes to mind, amazing at first... then it goes on and on...

some of the best games i've played have been short. DMC1, ICO, Chronicles of Riddick: EFBB, Fable... to name a few.

on the contrary, i'm playing xenogears right now and i'm up to hour 48... and i'm loving every minute of it. my conclusion is if the game as a whole is good then the length is not an issue. but to create a good long game requires more skill to entertain through the extended length.
 
Ten-twenty hours is fine for me, console-wise. Portable games can run a bit longer (ecspecially RPGs), but only because I find it a lot easier to sit down and play an hour or two on a handheld because I can be watching TV or doing something else at the same time.

I would never, ever pay full price of a three-hour game, though. That's like, one night of me playing. Essentially, that's like paying 60 bucks to rent a movie.
 
[quote name='RESmonkey']Agreed with one exception: Metal Gear Solid series.[/quote]

RESmonkey, that may be the greatest sig pic ever. I hope you dont mind if I steal it to use as an avater on another, non game related board.
 
If anyone played Peter Jackson's King Kong then you should agree with this sentiment 100% There's a difference between long with depth and long with no substance whatsoever. That frickin game was awful because of how many times you'd have to repeat the same two minute-shtick again and again over the course of something like 10-15 hours.
 
Games under 20 hours are definitely my preference with 10-15 quality hours being just about right.

Aside from that, though, this thread got me thinking and I realized that multi-player is really what's been scratching my itch lately. I've been playing Rainbow 6: Vegas virtually non-stop since mid-August when I picked it up, and it's been almost entirely multi-player modes. I haven't even bothered to complete the single-player campaign.

It's the social aspect of this generation's gaming that has kept me hooked. I have no problem playing through the same levels again and again every night if there's a little variety in possible strategies and interesting people to talk with. It's great if I have friends on-line, but meeting new people from different parts of the country and world who I never would've gotten to know otherwise has been the absolute killer app.

So, I guess my vote goes to short single-player experiences and an accessible on-line component with some depth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top