Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Marketing is easier if you can reduce your product to a number. Bigger numbers win.
AOL 9 is better than Netscape 7, which is better than MSIE 6.
Firefox 0.9? Forget it.
An Athlon XP 2000+ is better than a P4 1800MHz.
V-8 is better than 7-up.
etc.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
a game that I enjoy for 20 hours is much better than a game that I hate for 150.
While I agree with this statement, what about a game that you enjoy for the first 30 hours, and then hate for the next 120 over a game that you enjoy for 20 hours. I'm looking forward to this game because of the vast amount of things I expect I'll be able to do. I'm guessing with all of the options there's only a slim chance I'll hate it right off the bat... I'm sure I'll get bored with it eventually just like the other 2 gta 3's, but if it provides me a decent amount of fun before it hits the repetitive wall I will consider it a good buy.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
I'm gonna call bullshit on this. You don't HAVE to find every hidden package, do every taxi/vigilante/firefighter etc mission, or even do some of the story based missions (as was the case in vice city). You could tear through the story in a good thirty or so hours if you wanted.
But if you are like me you probably will do all the side missions. And you will enjoy them too.
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.
Straight-up clockspeed is a marketing tool, for which more appears better. Total play time seems to be heading that direction. There's one significant difference: you can't measure play time. No game in history has ever made one play-through of the minimum take 150 hours, for good reason... no matter how good the game is, within 150 hours it WILL get boring. So that's not what they're measuring.
What are they measuring? One playthrough with everything? I doubt it, for the same reason as above. I get the impression that there are enough side paths that it will take you multiple passes through the game, and that will total 150 hours. Compare to the average MMORPG, if you go all the way to endgame content. Compare to, actually, most games with multiple paths.
And the most important point... play time varies by player.
This is my sig. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.
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.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
The best reason to qualify gameplay time is to put a value on the game. Think about it: I played Max Payne, and it lasted 15-20 hours. It cost $50. I payed over $2 per hour, but it was worth it.
Maybe that was unrelated, but the bottom line is that if your box says 150 hours and it costs $50, the penny-pinching gamer with no job will think "cost-efficient." A game that costs less than 50 cents per hour! Money money money.
And now, for a sig that's a complete copout.
Why? Because games are $50. Honestly, for many people that's a lot of money. Obviously a game I hate for 150 hours sucks, but why do you think a long game == a bad game?
I spent 100 hours on Knights of the Old Republic and loved every minute of it. I spent about 15 hours on Panzer Dragoon Orta and loved every minute of it. I spent $50 for both. Which one was the "better" value? Well, I can buy KOTOR2 with confidence, because the first one gave me so many hours of enjoyment.
I think most game developers aren't obsessing about game length, because they know the same thing you do, a game needs to be fun. But would a press release of "This game is fun" get any attention?
Personally, the time it takes to beat a game is irrelevant to me. To me, replay value is the biggest factor.
Adding numerous ways to complete levels, optional/hidden items, and perhaps even multiple routes through the game makes it much more fun to go back and play it again. If a game is only good for one play-through before its gameplay is completely exhausted, I would be reluctant to shell out my cash for it.
Despite cries to the contrary, players have been asking for longer games. I have read a few reviews (by gamers) that have rated a game as "high quality, but a little short." It is not just the impatient players asking for longer games either. Even those who intend to replay the game have been wishing for longer games. It may be only a minority of players complaining, but the developers are listening. As result there have also been complaints of repetition: "There may be 60 hours of gameplay, but you have seen everything after the first 10."
Nightmare level: 24 hours = oh fuck it's boring!
Hell level: 48 hours = I really, REALLY should get a life!
After Hell level: create another character and start from Normal again...
bad game with 20 hours of gameplay = bad game with 150 hours of gameplay
good game with 20 hours of gameplay < good game with 150 hours of gameplay
Thus we can deduce that length of gameplay does not matter for bad games. However, for good games long gameplay makes the game better. That is why it matters.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
Play Time was introduced by Role Playing Games. When Final Fantasy II had 20 hours of story straight through, it was a big deal. When Final Fantasy 7 took 40 hours to beat, it was a very big deal. These are games that are played once, maybe twice, and if it takes 20 hours to beat, then 20 hours is all you will get.
A lot of RPG's at the time were suffering from being too short to satiate the player. I remember beating Dragon's Quest in about 4 hours. I also remember the week that I dedicated to beating the original XenoGears in one sitting. I slept on the couch, through 70 hours of gameplay... and the game they shipped wasn't even finished. I could see a fully implemented version of Xenogears reaching near to the 150 mark, and it would have been a damned good ride too.
Furthermore, play time is a metric that all video game developers must use. If you are creating an FPS with 10 levels, each level being 5 sections long and each section taking 5 minutes to complete, if the player has to restart every level once, how much gameplay are you really providing them? In this case, 500 minutes, or about 8 hours. Add in another two hours for setup, cinematics, and (sigh) loading, and you have a 10 hour game. You had better think seriously about your lead programmer's suggestion for implementing cooperative multiplayer, because you're going to need the meat.
That's not to say that the metric has gotten out of hand. I can SAY that the game I'm developing has about 1,200 hours of gameplay, but the fact of the matter is that's just a lie. The problem is that the metric is A: unverifiable and B: linear. Hence, if someone else says "40 hours of gameplay," I must say "50 hours of gameplay," or I'll be second-string. Just ratchet that puppy up: nobody will know the difference.
Of course play time is not a good indicator of quality... Metal Gear Solid was just 10 hours long.
The ______ Agenda
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?"
Just because 150 hours of gameplay is a selling point does not mean that it is necessarily a selling point for you. For fans of the genre, it can be a godsend. Take Disgaea, for example. One of the major selling points of Disgaea was that if complex RPG/Strategy games are your bag, then that one game will let you enjoy one of the pinnacles of your favorite genre for months in one stretch. And that's what the GTA developers are telling their fans. No more "Okay, I shot ten punks... time to shoot ten more punks" or "Okay, I've had Spidey deliver twenty pizzas, now I can... deliver twenty more". If you love GTA's style of gameplay, then they're promising than San Andreas will let you enjoy its main selling point -- its huge, content-rich world -- for as long as you want without doing the same great stuff over and over again until it nauseates you.
If you're not a really big fan of the genre, it doesn't matter to you, but if you are, then it means the world. If someone could promise me 150 hours of Ico and Prince of Persia's puzzle/action gameplay, rather than six or ten hours of it followed by six months of waiting for the next high quality game in that little niche to come out, I'd be there. Just like I was when Disgaea was released.
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.
I design user interfaces for a free network management application,
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.