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."
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
"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.
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?
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
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?"
I would say .hack has proven the medium's potential for success already, and with shorter episodes too.
"Neque enim lex est aequior ulla, quam necis artifices arte perire sua."
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.
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
OTOH, I seem to keep buying games in the bargain bin that I simply never get around to playing!
I actually have a closet shelf full of unopened PC games still in their cellophane wrappers.
I tried to do the math - let's see, $10 for the game divided by the hours spent playing... Dammit, it just keeps saying "undefined"!