Slashdot Mirror
On Videogame Length - Less Is More?
Thanks to Eurogamer for their opinion piece criticizing the excessive length of videogames. The author initially states: "It's the woe of every committed gamer: piles of uncompleted games. We all swear we'll go back and complete [games] but the sad reality is most of us will - most likely - never get around to resuming our valiant quest to conquer these epics." He points out the relative lack of time most players have: "For the majority of gamers, squeezing in the time to play games means - pretty much - not spending much time doing anything else in our leisure time", and goes on to advocate episodic content, arguing "I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."
Didn't we already see this article a week or two ago?
When games cost 20 dollars new, I won't mind if they're only 5 or 6 hours long. At 50 bucks, it's just not worth it. Max Payne 2 is a really great game, but it is not worth 50 dollars because of it's length. Bring it down to 25 or less and short, quality-packed games are A-OK with me.
I am just starting Morrowind - Great game, lots of content. I will be going back to this one for years, I just love it... Daggerfall was on this list for me as well.
I love games with more content - they are going to be the ones I go back to year after year. Fine if you don't have the content, I guess I will just win it and chunk it on the shelf going "what a waste".
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Don't have time to beat Mission 10 solo with a sniper riffle on elite in Ghost Recon to unlock Sgt Slaughter? Just use god mode. Seriously that's what all these cheat codes and walkthroughs are for. Skip over stupid missions and levels you know you can beat and move on to the interesting ones you want to do. I do this all the time. I don't feel like I'm any less of an uber gamer for doing it either. It's all about games/life balance.
"I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."
Unfortunately, most of the best visual entertainment that is delivered in "short sharp chunks" takes much less time to produce. Look at the development schedule for Half-Life or Grand Theft Auto 3 and compare that to the time taken to produce a television show, or newspaper, or magazine. We're talking several years vs a few days to a week.
When making games becomes a faster, more streamlined process, then we'll see more streamlined gaming experiences.
The last few games I've played have been RTS, sims, etc. I've been looking for a longer game with a storyline I can get into. There don't seem to be many around anymore. Suggestions?
Unless you're rich, you probably aren't buying those games.... I know I can't afford piles of games, uncompleted or otherwise.
As others have mentioned, I'm sure not going to spend $50 or $60 for a game that only takes me an afternoon to beat. It's just not worth the cash.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
I much prefer the epic games that I pay 50 bucks for and then play for a solid 3-6 months (30+ hours actual play time). I hate nothing more than buying a game and beating it within the first week, or less than 10 hours of play time. My main complaint with most games recently have been their lack of story/game length (Halo for instance). Just my 2 cents I guess.
If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kick-boxing.
You don't have to finish a game. There I said it. Don't advocate getting less, they might just give you what you want. I wager that if games actually got demostratively shorter, more people would complain games are too short.
What games sell well? Madden, GTA, THPS. Giant games that can be played in small bites. The public has voted with their dollar that this is what they want. This is what we will get.
Yet another rant from a know-nothing bitter fanboy. This one is extra-special because it actually asks value to be removed from games. What kind of person asks for value to be removed from a product? This guy gets 30 games a month to review then actually has the balls to throw it in the public's face and complain. Out of touch much? He called big games bloated simply for the fact that they are big. Thats not bloated, thats big. You know what, forget it, I give up.
Its about 1-2 weeks before all the big holiday games are on shelfs, most rae hitting now, and this is the best news anyone is submitting?
Episodic content has its own pitfalls. Will gamers be satisfied by short games with no conclusive ending? Will game companies be satisfied making less money per game? (They'd better not try to charge full price for 1/4-sized games!) Will there be frustrating problems of buying the wrong chapter of a game (because it looks just like the others) and then finding out you can't play it without having (or having beaten) the immediate preceding chapter?
And the obvious question - will this reduce the number of unfinished games piling up in front of the TVs and computers of gamers? I'm not so sure. Making shorter games means you can make MORE games. Making less expensive games means you HAVE to make more games to profit.
If you really want short chunks of gameplay, stop buying games and just download some demos! If you keep downloading & playing every demo that shows up on http://www.aixgaming.com/filerush/, it'll keep you busy for the forseeable future.
When it stops being enjoyable, stop playing it. Feel bad about shelling out $50 for something you never use? Form a lending library with all your friends. Each agrees to buy a different game, and lend it to one of the others when they're not using it. I really don't see the economic sense it spending so much money for something you're going to play with for a few week, then stick on a shelf and forget about. Let's spread these unused games around! (And yes, I do have a 6 foot long shelf full of software I never use!)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I'm glad I did not buy this game - it only took me a couple of hours to beat it, and once you finish it there's really no replay value. Good game, but way too short. Same goes for Parasite Eve on Playstation, while I'm thinking about it.
20-30 hours should be the target zone for an average finish (not scouring the entire world looking for secrets, next-to-impossible optional boss battles, etc). Any less and you're pretty much not getting your money's worth, unless you pirate the game or wait until it's in the bargain bins.
Remember Sierra, back in the day?
I remember playing Space Quest II my Freshman year in College, in Fall of '91. Yeah, I realize it was dated by then, but I'd already played IV, the re-hash of I and III, so I wanted to play one that was supposedly one of the best.
Trouble is, after you go through a handful of these Sierra games, you get the knack for solving the puzzles. And once you get the knack, you've finished the game in 2 hours, with no replay value.
Why spend $50 for 2 hours' worth of entertainment? You could go to a 2-hour movie back then for $5 on opening night. What the hell?
If a game gets shorter, it better have some great replay value (see Diablo) or a lower price (see the copy of "Space Channel 5" I got out of a bargain bin for $5). Otherwise it's not worth my money to purchase it.
I expect a game to entertain me for at least 10 hours, and that's a bare minimum reserved for games that are especially good; 40 hours is more likely.
Finishing the game isn't really the issue. The question is, as the gladiator asks, "Are you not entertained?"
Someone get this guy a pacifier and his blankie. What a whiny little bitch.
"Waaaah. I have so many games that have provided me with so many hours of fun that the next great game comes out before I've finished. Waaah!"
Since when did playing video games become about beating them? It's only about beating them if you're having a dick waving contest with your friends. Otherwise, it's about having fun and being entertained. If some people have fun playing 80 hours worth of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, who are you to say that it's too long? I'm so sorry your busy schedule of playing video games for a goddamn living didn't provide you 40 hours with which to get 100% in GTA3. Cry me a river.
Im a full time programmer who has to commute from house to work for 2 hours, this leaves only weekends (some of them) for gameplay and some hours in the evening. Thats why my favorite games are fighting games, anyone with some experience can beat one in just a few hours and each time you play theres a new character to beat the game with. (until you beat it with all characters I mean)
Although I apreciate games that are fairly long sometimes I find myself unable to finish them, I played FF7 and 8 for about 6 months, before I quit. I dont know maybe the game itself lacks something to keep you going for months if required.
Besides some game designers have the false impression that since you made it to highers levels you instantly become a semigod, capable of taking 30 enemies with a hand behind your back and doing impossible tasks, heres a remainder for thos eguys: Is a miracle I made it that far, I need a small break, not critters 10 times stronger than the last and missions with 5 seconds less than a normal human desperately needs.
I couldnt finish Half life, quake 2, Soldier of fortune, final fantasy, max payne (1), soul reaver 1 and 2,shenmue, GTA3, VC a good number of rpgs (you are suposed to finish those?) a good number of rts.
I have finished (in no particular order) lots of sierra games (LSL1,3,5,6 KQ 4,6) Prince of persia 1 and 2, doom 1 and 2, goldeneye, spiderman (dont ask), tekken 2,3, soulcalibur 1 (now playing 2) mortal kombat 1,2,3 and trilogy, now playing DA (yeah I kind of like MK), metal gear solid, Resident Evil 2, silent hill 1, 2 PC (yeah!), Enter the matrix, marvel vs capcom 1,2 and at least 3 megaman games and SOTN 199% (yes I missed 1%)
*fighting games: with all characters in almost all dificulties.
In conclussion is not the length, its simply how much you are interested in the game what determines if you will finish it or not. but of course all human have limits. I dont know anyone that has played any game (not in multiplayer) for more than a year. no matter how much they like it.
I just finished Jak and Daxter. It was about the right length - the game unfolded nicely over the couple of months it took me to play it; it never seemed to hard to get into during the later stages (GTA3); I even went back and did the bits I didn't do the first time round - a first for me.
So I went and bought Jak 2. Good game, BTW. Not absurdly great, but some really fun bits. However, I'm a bit gutted that one of the design goals for the game appears to be to make it much longer. It appears that to finish Jak 2 I'm going to lose many more of my actually increasingly scarce hours, the danger of monotony in getting there is much higher, and I may not finish it at all.
So, yeah, I think I'd be up for shorter video games in general. I liked the "quick bang, small buck" approach of the croteam games but wonder how well it would fit in with the PlayStation distribution model.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Yes, less is more, buy only the games you have the time for, problem solved. Or just play those short flash/java games on the internet which are supposedly garnering a shitload of market share due to their popularity. There is definately no lack of variety in the number of games you can play.
I want a game to be engrossing and captivating. If a game is worth its price, it had better do just this. If it is to short, then I feel cheated, like going out to a nice romantic dinner with my fiance`, spending hours talking and enjoying each other, then getting a hug in the resturant parking lot and going home. It leaves you wanting more.
(Of course, the romantic dinner is better then any game)
Take the recent Zelda. I really enjoyed the game, it was excellent. But the core story was too short. It left my feeling disappointed. I wanted to continue living in that world, but I couldn't. Like a author, you find one good book and you keep going back for more over the next month. Like when I first read Heinlein, I read everything I could find in a month, and missed Lazurus Long when I was done.
Of course, there is the flip side. Games that are long and bothersome. These I just don't finish. I throw them aside. This happens because either the game is just bad or they try to hard to pack in to much unnessaray junk.
If a game is good, I'll play it and love it. If it is good and short, I 'll play it and feel disappointed that I spent my money for it full price. If a game is bad then I should have done a little more research before buying it.
But don't tell me that they need to be shorter. That's bull. They just need to be better. But, I do play primarily RPG's, and expanse and grandiose is good for those.
It just isn't any fun. I have purchased more than a few games that just stopped being fun after 10 odd hours of play.
Legacy of Kain:Soul Reaver- Gorgeous looking game with very little to actually do. How many times can I push some big blocks around a room before I want to pull my hair out? Lara Croft, I am talking to you too.
Stuntman- cool looking but insanely difficult and no fun whatsoever. Most extremely unfun example of a twitch game. Load times were incredibly long and far too frequent.
Resident Evil 1- ridiculous story, terrible voice acting, laughable really in many ways but REALLY REALLY fun. I finished it.
GTA 3/VC- so much fun to play, who CARES if you finish it?
You can have a great story and awesome cinematic visuals, great voice work, but if it ain't fun, forget it. Games aren't getting too long, they just aren't fun enough to justify their length.
That's why I always liked Pong: good story line, great graphics, and you miss the ball three times and it's over.
We all swear we'll go back and complete [games] but the sad reality is most of us will - most likely - never get around to resuming our valiant quest to conquer these epics...For the majority of gamers, squeezing in the time to play games means - pretty much - not spending much time doing anything else in our leisure time...
/. kind!) Don't break open the piggy bank for a new game just because the graphics are flashy and the advertising has brainwashed you into believing this is a game that you "can't live without!"
Yeesh, what a spoiled, whiny brat! So, you don't finish a game? Don't do anything else with your free time, but play a game because it's long? Who's fault is that? Because you have a short attention span and can't manage your time effectively you want the game designers to change the way they make the games that I'm playing? Why stop there? You could just as easily say "You see, I really liked Snow Crash, but lately that crazy Neil Stephenson's books are so darn long! He should write shorter ones!" Please.
Here's a word for you: moderation! (and not the
Personally speaking, I play a game...ONE game and that's it, until I'm through with it. Right now, I am really enjoying KOTOR and it's precisely because of it's length, depth and complexity that I am! I've never finished playing a number of games, but at least I'm not blaming other people for my lack of follow through! When every thing else in our culture is being dumbed down for shorter and shorter attention spans, it's a huge relief to see a segment of the electronic entertainment industry that's *NOT* trying to do this! And if games are long or short whatever they end up being will be because that's the way consumers are voting with their dollars!
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Damn...is the current trend in trendy videogame journalism just to be a retard and tell the common man that he's stupid for being the common man?
"Oh, I'm too wussy to actually play a game through to completion, but it's not my fault, it's the game companies...just make shorter games so I can see the ending."
I've got a picture for this guy.
You shell out 50 clams for a game. I.e. more than 5 times the amount for the smaller, omre enjoyable chunks of entertainment that are known as movies. 15 times the cost of a magazine and infinite more times than regular TV.
But you know what we REALLY need? The ability to pay a whole lot more for less entertainment. Honestly, who wouldn't be against that aside from people who don't eat their lead paint cereal with their bowl of mercury?
You know the best way to get rid of pompous fools like these? Visit real game websites that don't try and talk down to you because you can't be avant-garde if you're not arrogant. Lump these guys into the list of sites that you block, along with the fools at Insert Credit.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
I find it funny, and this is just an observation, how angry so many people get when anybody suggests that 80+ hour games may be a bit on the excessive side. It's like the way that so many people order food at restaurants, they are less concerned with how it tastes, and more concerned with how much of it they are going to get to eat.
To me, game length is not all that important in of itself; I think you have to consider the whole game. Take Ikaruga for example. Short game, a play from stage 1 to the end will take you about 30 minuets (assuming you can finish it at all) Can you imagine playing an 80 hour shooter? I can but it comes perilously close to what I imagine hell might be like. Instead (and in keeping with the food theme) I like to think of the game as a rich chocolate dessert, I don't need a lot of it to savor it in its entirety.
I find myself most loving those games that take about 10-20 hours to finish, but then again I feel that a really good game warrants more than one play through. This is not to say that long is bad, I have buried many hours on Final Fantasy Tactics (psx) and despite the fact that completing it takes about 30 hours or so I don't have a problem investing that time since I find the game a joy to play. On the other hand, Dark Cloud 2 which I have tried to play through twice now has eaten up over 50 hours of my time total, and I only made it half way through to the end before my interest in the game just flickered away (I had to start over as my first save game was lost when some git stole my memory card, an offense I feel is grounds for a justifiable homicide if I ever get my hands on the bastard)
Metroid Prime, Castlevania:SOTN, Maximo, Zelda: Link to the past, System Shock 2 and a few others clock in at what many would consider "fairly short" but I have played through them several times each (SOTN and LTTP I have finished more than 2 dozen times each over the years) and I wager that I have spent just s much time with, and enjoyed them every bit as much as any of you have enjoyed the 80 + hours you spent playing FF10 or whatever your favorite game is. It's all about variety.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
Well I can only guess you're trolling because no one should get that pissed off from someone's opinion about game length. If not, go and have a drink or have a wank or something.
So, any complaint that a film is too long is irrelevant because no one has to watch it to the end? Seems like an odd sentiment to me. I like to finish games, but a lot of the current ones are just too long to play through in a couple of evenings.
The problem is of course is that it doesn't cost much more to develop a 20-hour game to a 10-hour game. Once you've designed a monster to shoot it can be added into the game 100 times at no extra cost, and extra perceived value, at least by some. I would personally prefer shorter games, with less dilute content. There aren't any of these around however, so it's hard to gauge what the public want.
I don't have a problem with shortening the play times on games... if you "shorten" the cost appropriately, i.e. that game that's good for 10 hours of play isn't still going to be $50.
But of course, game companies aren't going to do that. Less money for less entertainment? Yeah, right.
I am writing to inform you that I am returning all but one of the discs from your latest epic, Baldur's Gate III: The Quest For More Levels. I find it simply unacceptable that, after I have paid you $50, you insist that I sit through over seventy hours with your game to derive full enjoyment of your product.
In the future, I would appreciate it if you only sent me the first 10% of the game, for the same cost, at the same quality.
Respectfully,
A Blithering Idiot
Weapons of Mass Analysis
I find that games I feel are worth the money when they have about a $2/hour playing values, plus replay value. If a game is only going to take me 5-10 hours of game play and costs me 60 - 70 bucks (CDN) It's hardly worth the money. Older games like starcraft have given me the best replay value with a decent single player time + a vast amount of online time that I've played it. This is one reason I find that online RPGs can be very good bang for the buck. While 7 - 20 bucks a month (again CDN) may seem huge, the entertainment is more than going to the movies, or buying a new game every month. Perhapse if this whiner was given a budget affording him only one or two games a month (or every 3 months as the case is for some people) he will start to appreciate their length.
Well, a lot of what this guy says doesn't mean very much. Blah blah, I can't stop myself from buying too much software etc.
When he gets into the episodic thing he starts to point to an interesting idea but one of the big problems with developing episodic content is that there's this huge initial risk (engine development). It's there whether you release a 50 hour game or a 3 hour game. It's just that ou can't charge as much for the three hour game so you'd better be damn sure that parts II-XX are going to sell as well.
On the other hand consider this: If most of your users never see the final ten hours of your game, why did you bother making it? Couldn't you, as a developer have spnt that time working on your next great game?
Someone should spend some time figuring out how much time most people devote to games they like. Not just the hardcore nerds like us but the casual customers.
I have a lot of opinions about Cyborgs and Architects
I do have a problem with the length of certain games.
It's not the fact that the actual gameplay experience is too long, it's the problem that you get to nearly the end and have to spend hours levelling up your characters to defeat the final boss.
Final Fantasy games are notorious for doing this.
In fact, I actually succumbed to buying an Action Replay just to finally finish Final Fantasy X. I had gotten through the entire game without cheating, managing to beat all the bosses and get to the point where I go to the Highroad and battle Sin. Even finished the first few Sin battles on my own.
Then I hit a brick wall, the same one that I hit in Final Fantasy Seven. I just wasn't powerful enough to get the final battle.
To make matters worse, levelling up in these games is just flat-out tedious. I really don't want to devote hours to playing Blitzball or Card Games or Raising Chocobos in order to finish the game.
That's the one nice thing with Computer RPG's, you can progress through them at a steady pace and finish the games. You don't have to spend the same amount of time running around the gameworld levelling up, as it took you to get to the final battle in the first place.
That's about the only thing that keeps me from finishing games. Unless you count being too creeped out to finish playing it (System Shock 2 comes to mind). I can still hear the midwives and androids calling in the distance.
Dr. Wu
"Yes, There's Gas In The Car"
I think Max Payne 2 is a great example of this. It's only 10-12 hours through the first time (if you're not a fps stud and blow through in 6-8). But not a single moment of that is wasted - it's just move shoot kill story move shoot kill story. No stupid puzzles. You never have to backtrack through half a level just to flip a stupid switch. No stupid cut and paste levels. It's just pure goodness. When it was over, I went back and played it again at harder level.
You might think $50 is a bit much for 10 hours, but I don't really mind paying that much for something this good with no filler - and if you looked around you could get it for $35.
Now shorter BAD games for $50, that would suck.
All single player games are pretty much a waste of time in my book. Why bother when you can enjoy video game time as a social time as well? (And I don't mean playing online with people you don't know and will never meet!)
If you want the very best example of this, you need not look any further than SCEI's Ico, a brilliantly designed game that clocks in well under 10 hours (most complete it in 6-8 hours of game time in their first run through). While most review outfits gave Ico very high scores, the one stand out complaint that the non-100% scores were that the game was "too short."
While it seems plausable that game reviewers would have oodles of time on their hands to play games for hours and hours, most regular gamers have around 5-20 hours a week to devote to games, in a world that is constantly releasing more and more "must-have" games into our hands. With that rationale, why would one deny themselves an amazing gaming experience that would allow you to prospectively beat a game in enough time that you can actually remember the beginning of the game enough for the whole thing to make sense in the end, let alone beat it at all?
- colin
That's nice, so he's trolled before. Who fucking cares? He's not trolling now, so we'll just mod you down instead for whining about it.
Stupid human.
I want at least 1000+ hours, anything else it too short. I am living in my parent's basement, and I have no job or a life besides playing games. I have nothing better to do, and for my $50, that I didn't pay you cauz I warz3d it, I should be able to sit on my fat ass at a computer 24/7 for 3 weeks without finishing it. It should take that long just to be able to complete the first quest, not counting the millions of side quests that should be available at the start. You also need to have at least a zillion quests, or your game isn't worth my time.
In the future, I would appreciate it if you gave me 100% of the above request, that it be the best quality, and should only cost me $10(not that I would pay it). If you try releasing and charging me for a sequel I will download your game and boycott you!
Respectfully,
A Blithering Idiot
I would have to disagree. One of the best games ever made, in my opinion, is Deus Ex, which took me about 45 hours to beat, even on easy mode. It set up an incredible story, there are tons of secrets and its incredibly non-linear. I much rather play it than a lot of the trash being made today.
Anyway, I think games are overpriced, so when I spend $50 bucks for a game, it better be a nice long game with an excellent story and high replay ability. I spent $20 on Deus Ex (I went out and bought it after I saw Tom Hall give a speech on game design and included Deus Ex), and its probably the best $20 I've spent on a game (next to Unreal Tournament).
-Vic
Commitment
That's the solution. Commit yourself to finishing the game. It's like going to the gym. Set aside an hour a day and just do it.
He says we say we'll come back to these games but never do. Well I must be different because I actually do. I think it's somehow better too because of the nostalgia factor. I remember when I came back to Tomb Raider 2. It felt great, like taking up a forgotten hobby. Recalling now, the only games I have to go finish is Final Fantasy 6, Yoshi's Island, and Mario 64.
Games I've gone back and finished: (even if that means finding the rom) Zelda 1, 2, Metroid, Super Mario 1, 2 ,3 Deus Ex, Final Fantasy 7, Brood War, and Tomb Raider 2.
However there are some games that I have started to play and quit but I have no intention of ever playing them again. Those games just suck. Why would you want to finish a game that was no fun?
If the game is fun, you'll play it until its conclusion. If you don't want to finish it, then it probably just sucks.
arguing "I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."
Someone needs to switch the channel from MTV....
First they burn books, then they burn people.
Consumers from Mars of course!
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
I realized the same thing a while ago - that quality games were being released at such a pace, and with such lengths, that I might not live long enough to complete all the games I wanted to play.
Unlike the article's author, though, I didn't bemoan this fact and wish for shorter games - I reveled in it.
What is wrong with being able to play good games for every free second of your life and still leave many titles untouched? The only reason not to keep playing is if you're an insatiable completionist, in which case it's your own damn fault if you don't have time for anything.
Glog!
If a game is long for a legitimate reason - e.g. it has a lot of unique content - then I have no complaints. KOTOR is like this. The game world is huge, there are a ton of optional side stories, and so forth.
IMO, though, most long games are long because the developers have stretched them too thin. Most RPGs are like this. The game world itself isn't very big, but it takes forever to finish the game because you have to fight the same monsters over and over in order to level up.
On the whole, I would prefer to spend 15-30 hours completing a given game the first time through. However, I don't mind if the game is shorter if the entire experience is a good one. Even if a game is only eight hours long, that's still four times the length of most feature films.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
If less play time ultimately results in higher quality for that shorter time (as some games seem to be trying for lately), then I agree completely. Most gamers would take an eight hour masterpiece over a 60 hour vanilla copycat anyday. But if the issue is not one of quality, but length alone, then I think definitely the longer the better! A crappy eight hour game is even WORSE than a crappy 60 hour game!
I finished Giants: Citizen Kabuto fast, and regretted it. That was a beautiful but short game. I loved the length of the Monkey Island series. The original Wolfenstein and Doom were also nicely sized.
But Ive never finished Zeliard. Now that feels like a sharp stick. I would agree with your comments for a very few games like zeliard which cannot be finished in years, but you know what? When I'll finish it I'll disagree with you again. Because I would be loving it.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
having long games that I never finish is pretty nice actually.
;)
most games I buy it, play it for a week, find something else and do that for a week. unless it's something really cool (like NWN, but that's another story, because then there are expansion packs), I don't bother finishing it.
the fun comes when you pick up that game again a few months (sometimes years later) and give it a go again. most of the time, when i pick it up after a while i'm more compelled to finish it.
also, by the time you pick it up again, changes are your hardware will actually be good enough to handle the game
I think that in a time when movies are getting longer (LotR being filmed as a trilogy, The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions and Kill Bill being split into two parts), TV shows and anime series on DVD are becoming more popular (roughly 22 and 12 1/2 hours, respectively), miniseries are starting to make a comeback on channels like the Sci-Fi Channel, and all of the games that this person says are too long are at the top of the sales charts, it's fair to say that this guy is in a serious minority. People want visual content that can actually present something a little closer to the depth and quality of storytelling that appears in novels, so TV shows are featuring more arc story lines, movies are being planned from the start as several parts that fit into a larger whole, miniseries are making a minor comeback after being forbidden from North American TV for about a decade, and console RPGs are becoming what they've always wanted to be: beautifully illustrated interactive novels.
Personally, I don't think that console RPGs are long ENOUGH. Suikoden 3 clocked in at 50 hours and felt rushed in the end, Xenogears clocked in at somewhere around 60-70 hours and was EXTREMELY rushed on the second disc, and Final Fantasy Tactics felt a little rushed because it seemed like its developers really wanted to flesh out Delita's side of the story, but didn't have time to.
And to the writer of the article: Welcome to life as a reader. Your complaints are exactly the same as everyone I know whose main hobby is reading novels. And you know what? They wouldn't trade the sort of depth and quality that a longer work can give them for anything else, least of all for a greater quantity of books to claim that they've finished and then feel proud about themselves as they look upon their shelf of conquered books.
Also, if you have so much more money than all of the other gamers I know, all of which have to scrounge for each new $50 title and do a lot of comparison shopping beforehand so they won't get a five hour long lemon of a game, then maybe you should put that extra money to more worthy pursuits than buying games that will rot on your shelf unplayed. Maybe you know a lot of people that can afford way more games than they can play, but I don't, and it gives me the feeling that you don't travel in the same circles as most gamers.
Personally, a monthly game would do quite nicely if packaged in a unique format. CDs are cheap! Toss 'um in a magazine and sell a lot more copies. Which is really the point.
Look at a game like Quake 3. They could have been releasing levels right along now for almost 3 years...with no more engine investment. I know they have a "mod" community, but that's a bit of a cop-out. Many other games have the same tale of wasted resources. Massive engines are developed for a One-shot game, then zip. Once you get 3-4 $50 games piled up that you'll never have the time to finish buying another one [even if you REALLY want it] is a pretty slim chance...that's BAD for the industry. If they can keep you coming back for $15 or $20 games they'd be better off in the long run.
One business point many PC games miss is the need to keep people GOING to the stores! [or at the website] They keep missing the SOCIAL aspect of releasing new stories to visit. The Maxis people have hit this dead-on with The Sims. You can pick up the base game and any "chapter" and be quite happy. If you've been "collecting" right along you get added value from the extra attention to "cross" interactions. There is lots of user content, but it's not the basis of their product plans. Everquest has done this to a lesser extent [but people are tired of buy now play later MMORGs].
The other thing is content. Game companies need to develop games for a broader audience! There's only some many /.rs running windows to buy this stuff. I have yet to see a really engaging kid/teen level game. Per Hollywood, PG entertainment sells better than R. There's a LOT of ways to get younger customers involved. PCs don't have the huge license fees so copy count for returns aren't an issue. Also, they don't make many "party" games for PC. Not talking Lan games, but really good Social games...again Sims fits this catagory. Consoles have good ones like Mario Kart or all the sports games. PC games are pretty solitary when they could be so much more! Look at how popular Karaoke and sports bars are..you lazy games people can play for fun, OR you need tournament style games that have good spectator value. The "sit in the dark corner" games will only ever have so many customers...with dwindling cash as they "grow up" You need games that CMDRTaco can still play after he and the mrs pop out a few kids to tend. I'd venture an awful lot of readers here fall in that catagory....write games for US!
Another thought should be given to platform. I can tolerate a longer game with a console vs. PC. Also a hand held game could be very long because I use it to divert myself on long trips and so forth plus there is a smaller back log of really must have titles.
The videogame category is yet another consideration. I don't think RPGs should be short. FPSs have many levels because most of the game's novelty comes in the scene and setting changes. On the other hand; I prefer a great story line (such as in Ico) in my action adventure or horror games. Length for length's sake would really ruin things here.
I would bet that individual preferences would be one of the largest factors. As the author pointed out--teens and college students probably have more time to lavish on longer games and they want more bang for their buck. As a senior gamer (over 50) quality matters most to me.
Gamers like to complain about game length, because it all comes down to the issue of value. But if any of us go to movies, we're paying at least $4.50 an hour (sometimes more). With Max Payne 2, a 10 hour game at $50 a pop, that's $5 an hour. It's not THAT much worse than movies, and in extreme cases like RPGs, you're looking at 50+ hours - about a buck an hour for entertainment.
So why the whining?
Well said. Very well said.
On very rare occasion, epic games started to appear (Zelda and Phantasy Star come to mind), but the majority of games you'd just pick up a controller and go.
Since you only had one or two games of epic proportions, you were more prone to spending time working on them. But now that everything is of epic proportion, games go unfinished, sitting on the shelf. Spy Hunter for the PS2 is currently collecting dust in a DVD rack on my sunporch. Really no reason for that to be an epic thriller. The original (which I had on the Sega) wasn't. And to tell you the truth, I preferred the original...
:wq
I also refuse to spend more than 20 dollars on any game. So that keeps the "not completing it" guilt trip to a minimum.
Finding a truly good video game is not all that common so I'd like to see them make the good ones longer.
Now the problem comes about when a game manufacturer tries to determine what is a good game, thus adding more content to it. I guess I'll have to volunteer to test all new games to determine "goodness" for them. Then they'll know which ones to extend.
Imagine if Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance had 8 chapters instead of 4. We might only be on our 5th time playing it (while waiting for Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance 2 which has been delayed till January) instead of the 12th.
I'm booting the PS2 and checking the mailbox...
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
I much prefer games to last 10-15 hours and be top quality all the way through. Most games that last 30-50+ hours are filled with lack luster content or stupid story cut scene filler that just adds to the length. There are a few exceptions like Zelda:WW which I actually completed. I also finished Metroid Prime which was 20+ hours of fun.
Besides those two exceptions the only games I've enjoyed through to the end in the past many years are Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank and ICO. All 3 of those were excellent from start to finish and didn't over stay their welcome with a bunch of repetitive gameplay to pad the game length.
If gamers want to suffer through repetitive gameplay and/or lame cut scenees in order to feel like they spent their $50 wisely then that sucks. If a game is good enough like Sly Cooper you'll want to play through it a second or even third time, there is your additional hours of game play and your moneys worth. Sly Cooper is a shining example of how games should be. It may only last 10-14 hours but its filled to the brim with variety and it oozes polish from start to finish. Most of all it is extremely fun.
Greg
"When the going gets Weird, the Weird turns Pro" - Hunter S. Thompson
Compare the $.50/hour (so far) it's cost me to play FFX compared to the $4.00/hour for any movie I've gone to see in the theaters. Yeah. I'm not complaining.
only when im playing ET on an atari.
"I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."
Uh, what is he referring to as the "best visual entertainment?" Comic books? Can't be anything on TV, from what I hear these days.
"It'd be like watching the first half an hour of a movie or reading the first ten chapters of a book"
Now here's a thought. Should all books be comic books? Of course not. So the Lord of the Rings is too long to read over a weekend. Should it have been shorter? I would argue that it should not. I, for one, enjoy epics. If it takes me weeks to finish a book or a game, then those are just weeks in which I don't play/read anything else.
I don't have huge piles of half-finished games, I have short piles of finished games. Of course I don't have time to play everything, so I discriminate. I only play games that I feel are worth my time, and I take as much time as necessary to complete them.
Not that episodic or short games would be *bad*, of course. It's an interesting concept, and I would be interested to try out a "comic book" game that comes out once a month and takes me a few hours to finish (and costs about 5 bucks an episode). What I disagree with is the argument that long games are bad.
I enjoy comic books, but I happen to enjoy "real" books a lot more. I wouldn't want to do without either one.
[javac] 100 errors
Fixation on stuff you don't like is always a bad thing. Yeah, there are some absolutely hideously long and involved games out there, and every single one of them is an RPG. Dragon Warrior VII (with 100-150 hours of gameplay by some estimates, packed into two CDs), Morrowind (the original is the gods know how long, and then two more expansions to it? I doubt I have as many fingers as there are people who have gone through the entire game and expansions), Baldur's Gate 2 w/expansion, being the three "worst offenders" I can come up with off the top of my head. However, even in the long-ass world of RPGs, these around-100-hour titles are few and far between. More and more of the ones released Stateside are adopting models where there's a 20-30 hour main storyline, and then a whole truckload of other things you can do if you want to "beat it all". Games like Pokemon (you don't have to "collect them all" to win the game), .hack//Infection and it's myriad sequels, Legend of Mana, Valkrie Profile, etc.
Action games generally don't take near as long as even a midrange 35-40 hour RPG experience (even counting the save/reload treadmill in many action games). I wish more of these action games were longer than the 10 hour max play time I've been getting from just about every single player game (and the single player portion of many games with multiplayer) I've laid hands on recently. Hell, if more were 10 hours long, I'd be far more interested, but i'm sick to death of beating these things during a weekend of play time. Gungrave was gorgeous and fun, but I beat it in 3 hours with a friend. Devil May Cry was a pathetic waste of 5 hours, total, beginning to end. Onimusha was fun, but didn't amount to much more than 10 hours, if that, even making several attempts to go through the underworld to unlock the super keen sword. Few if any have worthwhile replay value.
At least 10 hours of play time is needed in order to get the pathetic costs back out of a game. MMORPGs, even paying every month, are a better cost/benefit ratio than 90% of the other games out there, which are play for a day, finish, chuck on shelf, pay $50 more for.
I used to scavenge the bargain bin an awful lot, and built up a sizable collection of stuff, but nowadays I'm not even finding most stuff worth $20. Saves a lot of money, I guess.
A GOOD idea is to split games up into parts, like .HACK. That way you get episodes of the game you like at a cheaper price ('course, .HACK didn't lower the price...)
"This is something that's been happening for years before I got paid to play games."
Kristan, you dolt, the only thing that's been 'happening' in the years before you got paid to play games is that the attention span of the young is faltering, imagination is dwindling. People are fine with -literally- throwing away 10 hours a day infront of the television, of which a solid 1/3 is simply to be prostheletized by comercial after commercial.
What I'm reading is "Whine Whine, I don't have time to finish all these games I have to review". I'm willing to bet that you have something else soaking up gobs of your time? Perhaps a certain game even, that's caught you up in it?
When I was younger, in the quiet roar of the SNES' struggle with Sega, when the -real- RPG's started hitting the shelves. We would take a look at those suggested times on the box right after we read the back, guess what, anything under about 20 or 30 hours went right back onto the shelf...
Why?
Because it was a sure sign that some company had thrown something together, fleshed out a back story as quickly and raggedly as possible, and had flunked miserably. There are a few exceptions, and even those seem to take a long time to beat the first time, longer than one might 'require', because you're busy soaking up the storyline.
I have -no- regrets in finishing FF II (FF4 In Japan) three or four times, a few for the english release, a few for a translated japanese version. At about 60-80 hours of play a shot.
Nor do I have reservations with other wonderful games, most of Square's games from that period (both english and japanese), nor other stellar titles.
And I have a stack of useless, idiotic games that might last 80 hours, do I feel sorry for not finishing them? Not one bit...
A game is as long as it needs to be, just like a novel, or a really good movie (before they slice and dice it for the public). Some games are just that good, good enough that you're willing to invest your 80 hours to -really- enjoy something. And some games will never be good, whether it takes you 5 hours or 50 hours. And it is that, nearly exclusively, that will determine what lures you back to the computer or the console, and what gets filed under G, for garbage.
Asking them to remove content is like asking for a hole in the head. FF 2, 3, and even seven were wonderful games (even if I didn't perticularily care for seven's storyline).
But Eight? Nine? They weren't bad...
Final Fantasy X? was SUB-PAR. Yes, you've heard me right, everyone I know who has played the older FF games as much as I, or has seen much of their overseas work has said they graphics were wonderful, but it lacked substance. Would you like to have a row of games you've finished, that look great, sound great, but leave you feeling empty?
Or would you like to have something you can feel proud of finishing, absorbing into yourself, a true classic...
Shame on you, asking them to strip away what in some games is one of their most precious, endearing features.
I don't have time to play long "epics" anymore. A 50 hour game is just *way* too long, unless it's a really incredible RPG. Frankly, I've not seen such a game since Xenogears or Skies of Arcadaia. No 50 hour game has been that worthwhile in recent years.
So, I thrive on stuff like Ikaruga and Pikmin. Metroid Prime is fun as well. All of these games take less than 20 hours to finish. Ikaruga can be finished within 30 minutes or so, but good luck getting good enough to do that (unless you play long enough to get bonus continues). I played some Star Fox Adventures recently, and while it wasn't the best game I had ever played, it was worth $20 for 15 hours of play. Viewtiful Joe is another game that you can pick up and play on occasion, without some cliche storyline that tries to be too deep.
These days, I just want innovative gameplay on top of classic styles. I want games that I can pick up and enjoy when I have free time, but not games that I have to devote more than 50 hours to. I think that developers are making a switch back to these short, but fun games. Keep em coming.