Does Videogame Length Vary By Territory?

asphyxiation_query writes "I've been looking at the relative length of videogames (in terms of overall gameplay, how long the game stretches out from start to completion) based on region. Can Slashdot Games readers discern any obvious regional patterns or variations in this information? For example, are games from Korea typically longer than Japanese? How do European and North American titles stack up in this respect?" Or is content similarly long if part of the same genre, regardless of country of origin?

Comments

Stupid question

[Kyouryuu]

This seems like a stupid question because you're asking us to compare apples to oranges. Not all RPGs are created equal, just as with RTS, FPS, and all of the other genres. Does there even exist a popular game whose Japanese version was produced entirely in Japan and the US version entirely in the US?

When someone speaks of a game genre where length matters, RPGs are the classic example. The US just isn't exactly known for producing the best RPG titles. But likewise, the US has produced many titles that offer greater length in terms of replayability. No one honestly expects a person to play through a Final Fantasy game ten times - but titles like Unreal Tournament and most PC games can be played again and again thanks to robust multiplayer components.

But is that "length"? Again, you are faced with the original dilemma - you're comparing apples to oranges. Specifically, comparing a designer-created "length" to a player-created "length." I would assert this isn't a meaningful comparison.

Re:Final Fantasy IV

[Stephen Williams]

(and possibly the European as well)

The SNES version of FFIV was never released in Europe. The PSX version was FFIV's first outing in Europe. Same for FFVI.

And yes, it is a difficult game. It's got nothing on FFI, though; that really is difficult. When I got FF Origins, I selected "normal" difficulty, thinking "I beat FFIV, how hard can this be?" More fool me...

(Chrono Trigger has never been released in Europe. We didn't even get the PSX version. Thank goodness for ZSNES).

-Stephen

It's Not The Size, It's How You Play It

[Babbster]

It's bothered me over the past several years that people focus so much on the length of video games. It's not like video games have suddenly gotten more expensive, making it more important to get the most bang for the buck. So the most important question to me is this: Why do we care how long it takes to complete a game? Further, is there a direct correlation between how long a game lasts and how much entertainment it provides?

Many people, including myself, say that Panzer Dragoon Orta is an excellent game even though it can be completed in 10-14 hours (less? a little more?) apart from replays and extras. On the other hand, I played Saga Frontier long enough to figure out that I wished it was over after the first five minutes.

I suppose that for people who have nothing to do all day but play games, such a measurement might be important, since they could run through several games per week. But for everyone else, what's the difference, really? In fact, I would argue that people with lives outside of video games should be pleased if they get one 40+-hour game per year. After all, it's not in the industry's best interest if someone can play Final Fantasy X for 4-6 months before needing another game.

I'm probably going to invite jeers for saying this, but it bears repeating because it's fundamental: If you're having fun, it shouldn't matter if the video game is 10 hours or 100 hours. Unless the flavor goes out of the game in less than 10 hours of play (which would cause me to call it a bad game with length of play probably being at the bottom of a list of shortcomings), you're probably getting your money's worth as compared to going to movies or buying DVDs.