Be a Supporter!

Game length not everything

  • 583 Views
  • 22 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Carbon64
Carbon64
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Game Developer
Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 02:48 AM Reply

So recently a big factor in how great a game is in reviews and even among my friends is how long the game is. Now I completely disagree with this concept as I believe if a game is really enjoyable it can keep you playing over and over for a long time. Plus most video games that sport 40 hours of gameplay or more usually have loads of stuff in the game that waste your time (fetch quests, long travel, ect.) I might be a little more biased towards short games because I grew up playing at the arcades where games were short but, achieving a high score kept you playing even after you finished the game. Plus the extreme difficulty of some arcade games could easily leave you with not enough money to continue a game if you were to die. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with long games, I just feel some games are forced to be longer than they should be. I can understand as a consumer to want to get the most for your money especially if your spending $60 but, if companies made shorter games that cost less wouldn't that be okay? I guess this theory is already successful with digital downloads but, I wish not all games at stores needed to be $60.

YenMuffin
YenMuffin
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Audiophile
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 03:59 AM Reply

I believe that any game that brings you even the slightest amount of enjoyment is worth playing no matter what the length. The problem with short games is that people want to feel like they truly got their money's worth because let's face it, games are not getting cheaper.
I don't particularly care about the length but I'm more likely to play a game that's 20 hours in length rather than 8 or 12 hours; it offers me more things to do even if I'm playing a huge game and I'm just doing fetch quests. Shorter games take less time to complete and after you complete it you aren't going to play it quite as much. Game length isn't everything but it's definitely a major factor. Some short games, however, have a lot of replay value.
Making smaller games doesn't necessarily guarantee lower prices. Developers and publishers will view it as a way to make money...charging the same amount for less content.


Gamertag: YenMuffin || Minecraft ID: YenMuffin || Noticing a pattern? Pikachu.

BBS Signature
Carbon64
Carbon64
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Game Developer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 05:57 AM Reply

At 1/6/13 05:22 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:
At 1/6/13 02:48 AM, Carbon64 wrote: So recently a big factor in how great a game is in reviews and even among my friends is how long the game is.
It's about getting the most out of your money.

So if you pay less I guess there is no problem is there


Now I completely disagree with this concept as I believe if a game is really enjoyable it can keep you playing over and over for a long time.
Not true. I recently got Homefront for $10, and had alot of fun with it, but there's no way I'm going to re-play the same 5 hours repeatedly when I could be playing something I haven't finished yet.
Maybe Homefront is not a very good game. I replay my copy of House of the Dead and Resident Evil Darkside Chronicles often. Not to mention MadWorld and Shadow of the Colossus
Plus most video games that sport 40 hours of gameplay or more usually have loads of stuff in the game that waste your time (fetch quests, long travel, ect.)
You mean substance?
fetch quests is substance? Now that's funny.
Give KOTOR a play, then come back and bitch about how long games "waste your time."

I have played KOTOR it bores me after a while. Funny after playing for a long time I felt I was wasting my time.


I might be a little more biased towards short games because I grew up playing at the arcades where games were short but, achieving a high score kept you playing even after you finished the game.
I'd rather have my game skill measured in a little more than just "score."

Why? Most games on Newgrounds are measured in score, that and achievements.

As Extra Creditz pointed out, there were racing cabinets specifically designed with dials that let the owners decide how often they would "let" the player win. In other words, they would give the player easy wins at regular intervals, punctuated between several Kobayashi Maru situations where you just had to keep feeding quarters for another go.

First of all every game I played at the arcade never cheated. Metal Slug is hard but, never impossible. Maybe that was an isolated incident.


I'm not saying there is anything wrong with long games, I just feel some games are forced to be longer than they should be.
Name one.
The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker. Triforce quest in Wind Waker. Long boat rides in Wind Waker. All time wasters.
I can understand as a consumer to want to get the most for your money especially if your spending $60 but, if companies made shorter games that cost less wouldn't that be okay?
Again, we're back to Homefront. $10 for 4 hours isn't the worst deal in the world, but I'll be damned if every game I buy has the same value.

Homefront is a bad example as you have said it has little replay value.

Ragnarokia
Ragnarokia
  • Member since: Sep. 29, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 22
Writer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 07:08 AM Reply

Quality is better than Quantity, but you still need both.
An example being Portal and Portal 2, the first was superior despite being shorter as it didn't prolong itself with unnecessary things. But if Portal was shorter still than it was then it wouldn't have been a good thing as you wouldn't have been able to get into it.

A good game length should be at least 12 hours worth of content. RPGs should have 20-30+ hours of content for new players despite usually being speedrunnable in perhaps 5-10.


When this post hits 88 mph, you're going to see some serious friendship.
Let's Player, Artist, Pony writer, Cuteness!

BBS Signature
tyler2513
tyler2513
  • Member since: Jan. 6, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Gamer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 11:20 AM Reply

While game length is definitely not everything there are certain cases (LIKE MAFIA II) where I dearly wish the game were longer just because I enjoyed it so much.


BBS Signature
robotking98
robotking98
  • Member since: Nov. 8, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Gamer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 11:37 AM Reply

Depending on the type of game it is (Free to play, purchase only, etc.), I do factor in the length of a game. I'm not paying $60 for a game that I'm only get 10 hours of gameplay out of, because that's just a waste for something I'm likely to not replay. What really impresses me with a game is replay value, if it's got that, time for gameplay is pretty much unimportant, at least to me.


Seriously, who even reads these things anymore?

BBS Signature
Entice
Entice
  • Member since: Jun. 30, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 13
Blank Slate
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 11:49 AM Reply

At 1/6/13 02:48 AM, Carbon64 wrote: So recently a big factor in how great a game is in reviews and even among my friends is how long the game is. Now I completely disagree with this concept as I believe if a game is really enjoyable it can keep you playing over and over for a long time.

I agree. Replay value is one of the most important things in a game for me. It doesn't matter if the games is chock full of content and takes 40+ hours to complete if it doesn't keep me coming back.

Length is still important though. Who isn't disappointing when a game can be beaten in a day the first time through (COD)?

Plus most video games that sport 40 hours of gameplay or more usually have loads of stuff in the game that waste your time (fetch quests, long travel, ect.) I might be a little more biased towards short games because I grew up playing at the arcades where games were short but, achieving a high score kept you playing even after you finished the game.

A lot of games now are easier so gameplay time is extended by adding a lot more content, which isn't necessarily a good thing. I also feel that a lot of content now doesn't really add anything to the game other than chores. However, it can be a good thing depending on the type of game. Look at games like Fallout 3 and Minecraft. I wouldn't play either of those games if there wasn't large worlds full of things to find and do.

An example of when it's bad is COD. Three submachine guns that are essentially the same and 5+ attachments for every weapon is neat at first but it's not implemented in a way that contributes to the game, it's just more fluff.

naronic
naronic
  • Member since: Sep. 1, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 12:34 PM Reply

At 1/6/13 02:48 AM, Carbon64 wrote: So recently a big factor in how great a game is in reviews and even among my friends is how long the game is. Now I completely disagree with this concept as I believe if a game is really enjoyable it can keep you playing over and over for a long time.

Not really, I'm not really into mainstream reviews so much but even I can tell you got the wording wrong. People like games with decent length and content, length and content that makes sense for that game and lets you get the full amount of fulfillment you can achieve out of it; especially if it costs 40$+. Any big or open-ended game of your choice will be more replayable than a linear game regardless;
that's a small portion of the "good" equation.

For instance the Half life games had great length, they used all their resources wisely, the story and characters managed to flesh themselves out in that time, great variance of gameplay was achieved without the game overstating it's welcome. It was as long as it needed to be.

By contrast Dishonored (which I finished recently) I would consider malnourished due to only having 9 missions, levels that were too cramped for the blink mechanic to really shine, levels that only got variance towards the end of the game, levels that could be finished within' a minute;
And overall the game relying too much on scattered collectibles, a leveling system and a moral choice system to provide extra packaged candy to this lunchable.


BBS Signature
VoidForce
VoidForce
  • Member since: Dec. 18, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 01:35 PM Reply

I think that it's a matter of having either a good amount of length to it or a replayability factor. A lot of games have both and some games have none which really bugs me. I think it's very important that you can come back to a game or get a good amount of playtime out of it.

kakalxlax
kakalxlax
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 01:53 PM Reply

when you are playing a good game, you are always afraid of it suddenly ending, or it not lasting more than a day. so it lasting weeks always represent a positive reinforcement

so yes, does a good game being long makes it better? absolutely no doubt


Its only rape if you say no.

Say no to rape.

HipnikDragomir
HipnikDragomir
  • Member since: Dec. 2, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Melancholy
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 04:45 PM Reply

I don't really mind the length.

Like OP said, if it's good enough, I'll keep coming back now and then. Also, games with short campaigns (Ratchet 3 and 4) make up for it by having New Game+. I go through the game 3-5 times just to get all the extra stuff.


This is my signature. It is a nice signature.

BBS Signature
Auz
Auz
  • Member since: Feb. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 56
Movie Buff
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 06:29 PM Reply

Of course game length is not everything. If you take Portal for example, it has only about 5 hours of content but I consider it a much better game than plenty of much longer ones I've played.

However, in the end, I do always want to feel like I have gotten my moneys worth though. I've played games that were pretty good but left me unsatisfied in the end because they just weren't long enough. A recent example for me would be Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time which I've beaten in 8 hours.

I pretty much agree with Ragnarokia's numbers in what I usually expect of a game. For normal games I'd expect about 12-15 hours of main story if I play through it at a normal pace. For RPG's at least 20 hours excluding all the sidequests and without much level grinding.


[Forum, Portal and Icon Mod]
Wi/Ht? #36 // Steam: Auz
The Top 100 Reviewers List (Last updated: 12 July 2014)

BBS Signature
Carbon64
Carbon64
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Game Developer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 09:57 PM Reply

You can't do that in short games.
Mad World had challenges you could do and after you complete the game you got a new weapon and that game is short.
The only reason arcade cabinets were difficult was so that you would keep feeding quarters into them. Even the ones that played fair were still made difficult only for that sole purpose. The "win switch" was just the logical extreme of this issue.

:Arcade games were designed to eat quarters but, they were just fair enough to keep you wanting to come back. If the games were unfair why would I keep playing? I think games today lack true difficulty that was achieved at arcades.

The Legend of Zelda Wind Waker. Triforce quest in Wind Waker. Long boat rides in Wind Waker. All time wasters.
If I'm not mistaken, the boat rides in that game were basically just poorly-masked load screens. Shameless padding like that isn't what I was referring to. show me any game that would have been better if it had less content.
What about in Okami when you have to grow trees to move the story forward? Or in any game when you need to talk to every NPC to move the story forward. Video games often waste time and without the padding they couldn't boast a long length.
Carbon64
Carbon64
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Game Developer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 6th, 2013 @ 11:41 PM Reply

I think games today lack true difficulty that was achieved at arcades.
It's called a difficulty setting. Use it.

difficulty setting settings are not available in all games and usually it only makes enemy do more damage or have more HP. The game doesn't actually become harder which for me is no fun

What about in Okami when you have to grow trees to move the story forward? Or in any game when you need to talk to every NPC to move the story forward. Video games often waste time and without the padding they couldn't boast a long length.
Padding =/= content.

I am saying some longer games are just padded they're not actually long.

You are not making a case for short games, you are making a case against shameless padding.

Levels, sidequests, and other fun things all count as content.

So I ask you again, what game would be made better if it had less content?

No game is better with less "good" content. The whole point is some games are padded to add to the play time. They're not actually long. If 50 hour games have new and interesting concepts all throughout the game I would have no problem. However, this is not true and longer games often get monotonous.

Carbon64
Carbon64
  • Member since: Aug. 21, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Game Developer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 04:14 AM Reply

I guess I can't make everyone understand me. Maybe when I make a game that refelects my views and you play it you will understand.

kakalxlax
kakalxlax
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 04:04 PM Reply

At 1/7/13 02:53 AM, RightWingGamer wrote:

Take Call of Duty 2, for instance. The entire game is basically just 10-15 hours of shooting Germans in the face.

But it's fun to shoot Germans in the face.

well, game length isnt that important in games that are meant to be multilayer, as is almost every case the campaign is just a large tutorial

but in games where the main focus is in single player, the game length takes an essential role


Its only rape if you say no.

Say no to rape.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 06:15 PM Reply

Length is very important a game that isn't 50+ hours isn't worth playing, (just released price) I need length for in-depth character development, story plot etc. I just can't play a game and get it done in 30-40 hours. now if you play Mass Effect those are long games 40-50 hour games if you want to get everything including the DLC, hell it takes 50 for ME2 because I have all the DLC and I do all the minor missions to

Hikky-Dikky
Hikky-Dikky
  • Member since: Dec. 28, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Gamer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 10:09 PM Reply

At 1/7/13 06:15 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Length is very important a game that isn't 50+ hours isn't worth playing, (just released price) I need length for in-depth character development, story plot etc. I just can't play a game and get it done in 30-40 hours.

But not every game is an RPG.

HeroSindrome
HeroSindrome
  • Member since: Jan. 7, 2013
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Gamer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 10:25 PM Reply

Game length really shouldn't be what makes a game incredible. Perfect example of a really short, but incredible game (Be it all based on opinion, however) Dishonored. There was so much about that game that made it great. Ofcourse, like any other game - It had its flaws. Most people, however, claimed the game was too short, that it wasn't enjoyable enough for them. Honestly, suck it up and just play the game.

We'll bang, okay?


PSN - mgs_mike677 | Steam - Hero_Sindrome | Xbox Live - Hero_Sindrome

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 11:17 PM Reply

You seem to measure difficulty differently then many of us do. If a game is longer with content instead of fluff it is better. Your argument that some "long" games are padded. Some games don't even need to exist. You are making a case against some games instead of long games.

Witcher 1 & 2, Fallout 1,2, Vegas, More then half the FFs,(FFI, FFIV, FFVI, FFX being my favorites) Fire Emblem series, KOTOR 1&2, DA:O, TES series, Arcanum, Divine Divinity, BG series 1 & 2, PS:T, Persona series, The World Ends With You, Golden Sun, DQ series, Shining Force, Dues Ex, Super Mario RPG, FFT.

These are all games I wouldn't mind buying for full price (most of them I did)
Now notice a pattern? Yeah, time sinks and ones I deeply enjoyed. People want bang for their buck.

CoD? Waste of time and the single player, doesn't even need to be there.
Most arcade games? Dull games that rely more on reflexes then thinking.

TheMajormel
TheMajormel
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Game Developer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 12:15 AM Reply

At 1/7/13 04:14 AM, Carbon64 wrote: I guess I can't make everyone understand me. Maybe when I make a game that refelects my views and you play it you will understand.

I think that comment right there shows how brainwashing indie games are.


BBS Signature
SubparTony
SubparTony
  • Member since: Mar. 30, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Gamer
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 01:39 PM Reply

Game length is important for me. I wouldn't buy a new game which I would finish in one day, as it would cost a shitload of money and eventually wouldn't pay off its price. I usually find myself searching whether a game takes long enough to be completed or not and then I decide if I'm going to buy it or not. For instance, I bought Splinter Cell Conviction for about $13. For such a price (and having never played any franchise of the SC series) I found the game quite enjoying although it was too short. I would be really pissed off if I were to buy a new game of the same length.
I would "forgive" a game for being short if it had replayability,but it's not like I would really enjoy it.


"I felt like an avenging angel, what I looked like was a fat bald guy with a bad temper." - Max Payne
Dean is a winner Also, stop whining for the chat and go check this out ▾▾

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Game length not everything Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 07:29 PM Reply

A long is fine. The problem is when they artificially lengthen games to make you feel like you're getting the most for your money.