On the Pointlessness of "Hours of Gameplay"

KaiEl writes "An article on TotalVideoGames is quoting Rockstar Games co-founder Dan Houser as saying Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas will have 150 hours of gameplay. That's all well and good, but what does it really mean? The way I see it, a game that I enjoy for 20 hours is much better than a game that I hate for 150. So why the obsession in video game media with quantifying gameplay time?"

Comments

Re:Just like everything else...

[sqrt(2)]

But an Athlon XP 2000+ IS better than a 1.8Ghz P4.

Xenogears

[Taulin]

Xenogears, by far, was the longest RPG I have played. It took me about 80 hours to complete. i think some of those hours were being distracted, and the timer was going, but that doesn't matter. If a game has continual DIFFERENT content, in a REALM that you enjoy being in, then hours matter. If the content is the same, over and over, then hours doesn't matter.

Non-Linear RPGs (like Fallout, etc) are good if long if you enjoy the setting.

Something like GTA 1,2,3 and 3.5, though...for me, every mission started being the same after a while. If the 'core' game can be completed in about 15 hours, with extras of about 30, this style of game is valid.

But, 150 hours!? There is almost no dialog, or story, so what actions are you going to be doing for that long?

They mention gang wars and such, Sim-Gang? If so, a Sim game should not be measured in hours. If can finish "It came from the Desert" in about 10 minutes, while others take hours. Hours mean nothing in a Sim game.

What Is This Guy Talking About?

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

From the final link, "The only "gameplay time" statistic that really matters is how much time you're willing to keep playing the game, and therein lies the problem. Despite the seemingly straightforward and absolute definition given above, most "gameplay time" statistics end up reflecting how much time the reviewer was willing to spend with the game -- an inherent value judgement that is largely invisible to the reader. If one reviewer blazes through a game he hates in five hours to get the review done, and another spends 20 hours engrossed in what he considers a deeply moving experience, who's to say which number is the correct measure of "gameplay time?" And who's to say which one will be closer to the amount of time a player actually spends on the game?"

I very rarely see reviews of games that cite hours played by the reviewer. Based on the knowledge and quality of most reviews, the reviewers rarely play the game for more than 1 or 2 hours. These game play times are generated by the company that is releasing the game, not by people reviewing the game. I mean, look at the cite that is provided - Rockstar games' co-founder Dan Houser is talking about number of hours of play, not an independent third party. The whole rant in Kyle Orland's blog is built on a false premise.

The premise is that these statistics are cropping up in reviews of games. This is not the case. They are cropping up in the marketing of games. And so why bother with a critique? What the marketing firms say about the game is entirely subjective and not even worth noting in evaluating a game.

Re:Quantity + Quality over Quality

[AndyBusch]

It depends on the linearity. GTA is going to be different, but if it's 150 hours of linear game to beat it, I'll be annoyed if I only get 1/5 of the way through and don't see the ending. But if it's 30 hours I enjoy and see the ending, and then have another 120 hours to munch on in the future, that rocks.

I kinda dig shorter games, but I'm in the smaller margin.

Advertising Dollars

[robolemon]

The answer is simple. If this guy can convince sponsors that an average dork kid will stare at the screen for 150 hours, the game becomes prime real estate for logos emblazoned everywhere.

Re:Quantity + Quality over Quality

[gl4ss]

be very very very sure that it will be beatable in 30 hours, beatable as in 'played enough'.

the earlier gta's had all kinds of stuff to increase the overall gameplay time that was only necessary if you wished.

besides, if it's _quality_ gameplay you'll enjoy for 30 hours, what does it matter that there's 120 hours still available for you one day. it's not like it made those 30 hours any less fun that there's shitloads of more in the game unless you want to be a 'beat it all' in 30 hours in which case you're lucky with most pc games nowadays(beatable in 8h, totally sucked dry and tested everything possible in 30h).

Re:I'd still rather...

[robnauta]

I'd still rather Play a game I like for 150 hours than a game I like for 20 hours. =)

I disagree. I have a job, I'm home at 7pm, then I have a few hours to do a lot of things.
I installed Diablo II last sunday (old but good), and played it for 6 hours, quit when I moved from act 1 to act 2. Now RPG's are games which require you to have a lot of hours to waste. Assuming I don't have 2x10 hours to waste on it in the weekend, I could play it for on average 1 hour/evening. If it takes 200 hours of treadmilling to build up stats and gather gold/items it would take me more than half a year.
I have played games like Morrowind, Neverwinter Nights etc. occasionally for a few months until I abandoned them, sure I feel I am probably halfway there, but it still doesn't feel good.

On the other hand, I have finished Call of Duty, most games of this kind are considered too short, but that feels a lot better.

There are also games that do not offer a goal and are are not useless when completed. Sports games and racing games are games you can just play for half an hour and keep their value. Playing a few quick races in Colin McRae 4 feels a lot better than playing an RPG for half an hour and gaining 1 level of strength.

If a game promises me 200 hours of gameplay, it is probably a plus for unemployed persons and teenagers/students and a turnoff for people who just don't 200 hours to waste.