Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Does Videogame Length Vary By Territory?

Posted by simoniker on from the it's-how-you-use-it dept.

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?

8 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Asian ones aren't shorter, that's a myth!!!

    Oh wait, games. Yeah, nevermind.

  2. maybey not longer but more challenging by sknja · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For the most part ive noticed that Japanese games are quite a bit harder than the American counterpart. For example soul calibur 2 (GC). Many of the weapon mode challanges are quite a bit tougher with shorter times to beat stages, and harder battles than the equivalent american game. Not to mention an extra subchapter. Also Zelda TWW (kaze no takuto) is also quite a bit harder when trying to find the triforce shards. Im sure with enough though more could be thought of.

    1. Re:maybey not longer but more challenging by Babbster · · Score: 2, Informative
      The reason they don't put variable difficulty settings in certain games is simple: Money. They want to get the games out the door as fast as possible, and it takes extra time to balance out extra difficulty settings. I expect this is particularly important with "first sequels" as they want to ride the crest of the buzz wave of the original.

      Me, I hated Devil May Cry. But I found out later from friends that the reason I quit (the lava spider - normal difficulty) was, oddly, one of the really difficult bosses. I'm all in favor of ramping up the difficulty as you progress, but making that thing the first boss just put me off the whole thing.

      As for the original point (difficulty of Japanese games), I expect that a ridiculous proportion of their gaming community consists of RPG addicts. RPG people (turn-based RPG people, anyway) get used to having it easy because in most turn-based RPGs levelling solves all difficulty problems. An extra hour or two in "The Forest of Lost Hope" (or whatever), bullying wimps, will make the following two or three stages very easy, thus rewarding time over skill. However, if you spend four hours fighting "The Yellow Turban Rebellion" in Dynasty Warriors 3 (a Japanese action/RPG/strategy game based on Romance of the Three Kingdoms), Lu Bu will probably hand you your head when you meet up with him for the first time, high level or not, because you haven't fought anyone tough yet.

      Heck, this could explain more than anything the Xbox's failure to thrive in Japan. Turn-based strategy isn't anywhere to be found on Xbox, and so the games require a modicum of skill instead of selecting an attack from a menu and then watching it play out. There's a really disgusting marketing campaign in there somewhere: "The Power of X: Too Much For The Japanese." :)

  3. Stupid question by Kyouryuu · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

  4. Final Fantasy IV by questionlp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the prime example would be the difference between the original Final Fantasy IV release and the American (and possibly the European as well) release of Final Fantasy II for the Super Nintendo. The original FF4 was a PITA of a game (as it was finally released in Final Fantasy Chronicles) and Squaresoft had to release an easy version of the game. The easy version was the one that was released outside of Japan.

    In a way, the harder version of FF4 was "longer" mostly due to the fact that you had to spend more time building up levels and earning Gil/GP in order to buy the expensive items. That doesn't include the fact that a lot of the enemies and bosses were even more difficult to defeat.

    1. Re:Final Fantasy IV by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 2, Interesting

      (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

  5. Endless games by Bourbon+Man · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How long is Everquest, Ultima Online, etc? What do these "endless" games do to the graph?

  6. It's Not The Size, It's How You Play It by Babbster · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.