Slashdot Mirror
Making the Case For Short Games
Gamasutra has a feature up entitled Making a Case for Short Games, in which the author argues that a good short game is far and away preferable to attempt than an epicly long game. From the article: "Which would you rather play, a computer game that takes forty hours to complete or one that lasts just a few minutes? Don't be too quick to answer. The former asks for a serious time commitment. The latter says come and go as you please. One is a ball and chain. The other is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. Well, it's not exactly that bad but considering all of the things you have to do today, which type of game do you really have time for? Also, isn't it peculiar that when you complete a complex or lengthy game you rarely want to replay it, yet short games are often endlessly replayable? "
"Which would you rather read, a book that takes forty hours to complete or a short story that lasts just a few minutes? Don't be too quick to answer. The former asks for a serious time commitment. The latter says come and go as you please. One is a ball and chain. The other is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card.
I like my epic games - no one forces me to play them in one weekend. A good long game is like a story that I can read/watch/take part in - all in my own pace.
This comment does not exist.
Long games might have more time to suck, but short games have less time to be worth the money you pay for them.
The best balance is games that can be beaten quickly, but take long times to complete 100%.
"Also, isn't it peculiar that when you complete a complex or lengthy game you rarely want to replay it, yet short games are often endlessly replayable?"
Not really. I'd say many more people play a 20-hour game once, than a five-minute game 240 times.
This space intentionally left blank.
The whole premise is flawed as soon as you introduce the radical concept of saved games, as you can shift your "commitment" to any point in the future, or put it off indefinitely.
The real commitment is where it takes a while to become familiar with a game or to get to the entertaining bits, and long-lasting games often aren't like this.
Actually, I sort of agree...
Both are used for different things, though. If I'm multitasking with a game, I often don't wnat to play a game that takes a lot of concentration or constant action, so a strategy game usually works. In that same train of thought, if I have a 15 minute spot of time, I boot up an arcade emulator and play a game or two of Magical Drop 3. NOw, I've probably spent about 10-15 hours in that game, but not for more than 30-45 minutes at a time.
If I have a day to blow, I won't start a game and then beat it 10 times, I'll take a chunk out of a large game. Each have their own place.
The crucial question regarding game length for me in story-based game genres (whether the game be Adventure, RPG, Tactical RPG or even Story-Driven FPS) is simply, how long is the story content? The length of time spent in front of the screen is a comparatively trivial question, in estimating the value of the story as a whole, though I'd rather the game didn't consume time in front of the screen merely for the sake of consuming it, if the story isn't progressing.
A 100 hour game in which 90 of those hours consist of random encounters with generic enemies is ultimately a less epic story than a 30 hour game in which 25 of those hours consist of dialogue, story-telling and combat with meaningful characters.
Think about that. Would you pay $50 for Minesweeper? No, but you'd pay that much for the latest Myst adventure. It doesn't matter that you'll only play Myst once and that you'll enjoy Minesweeper several times a week for the rest of your life. You'll never be able to convince people to pay $50 a pop for short games like you will for epic games.
The reality of the game market doesn't make the article wrong, just irrelevant. It doesn't matter which games are technically better, it matters which games sell.
At least in a game like Unreal or Quake you can just respawn and 'freelance' anyway you want. Those games are so arcadish as long as you don't stand still and shoot or go AFK on a 0 second auto-respawn server, chances are you'll end up with no worse than a 1:5 ratio. Throw in a bunch of dumb/average bots for extra guns and chaos and that ratio can turn into 1:1 ratio easily for a newbie.
How about a compromise?
Let's have games that take a long time to complete, but can be enjoyed in very short sessions, on the order of five to ten minutes.
Platformers and driving games are usually good with this. Also, fighting games. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Soul Calibur II fit the bill quite nicely.
I haven't seen too many options in RPGs though - which would be REALLY FREAKIN NICE, especially in the MMORPG world. Somebody out there taking suggestions?
Occasionally I like a short game - as short as Freecell.
However, I've played Fallout 1 & 2 over 40 times each *to completion*. My shortest game is around 10 hours. My longest is over 100 hours.
I *much* prefer a long game, that I can play *at my own pace*.
The genre has nothing to do with it. People seem to complain about fps on the PCs, but every fps on the xbox has a new cult following. A long game is good if it's content are unique thru-out.
RE4 probably has more variety overall. Where as Doom III repeats killing the same alien 4000 freaking times.
If I'm looking to waste five minutes, I'll play DDR. It's not very filling, but it's kind of a fun distraction.
If I'm looking to waste an hour or two, I'll play a round of Warcraft. This is a little more interesting, but still mostly a distraction.
If I'm looking to waste a weekend, I'll play an FF or other long single-player RPG. I will get much, much more out of this than playing DDR all weekend. A good RPG story makes you think, makes you laugh and cry, etc. There's something cathartic about it, and you come out feeling emotionally refreshed.
Few people look back at 40 hours of DDR (or Counter-Strike, Warcraft, etc.) with the kind of emotional attachment that a good RPG can bring.
This is not to say that short games don't have their place. I wouldn't trade in DDR for another RPG. I guess my point is that it's like comparing cars to airplanes and concluding that cars are always better.
You hear this crap all the time from whiney game reviewers who get all their swag for free. They bitch and moan and write essays about how long it takes to finish games these days, all because they they have to get through it to finish their review in time for that deadline.
Nothing is more moronic than someone like this trying to convince us that we need to shell out more and more money for shorter and shorter games.
He obviously doesn't get reality. You know what I do with an expensive game that takes 5 hours to complete? I pirate it. (I'm looking at you Max Payne 2!) On the other hand, I'm first in line to buy a game that gives you your money's worth.
I don't mind games that take a while to complete (after all, I can still play it decently, just over a longer period, right?). What I hate are games which do the following:
* No easy quest tracking or other goal tracking
coupled with
* A play granularity which is around 2 hours.
Most of the games that are above the 10 hour completion time rating are like this; once you put them down, when you get back to them you realize you don't remember what you were doing. Few games do have a notes on what happened, and a list of what's happening next (Kotor did support this! It made it very excellent to play). Warcraft 3 is great because I can hit F9 and see the quests (hell, any Blizzard game is good for quest tracking).
The play granularity thing is another issue. I may not have 2 or 4 hours to play a game in one stretch. I'm not a big fan of games where I can't just save and quite at any point, or games where if I do get in, it takes me a good 2 hours to get anywhere in it. Games with specific save points (Resident Evil) require premeditated play time. IE: I pick an afternoon to sit down and go ahead and get from one logical point to another. In a game like Warcraft 3, I can just save at any point, and resume later.
There are a lot of great games, but there are fewer great games that make themselves easy to enjoy. Lower penalties for platformers (which I've noticed tend to be geared towards the younger gamers, many of whom seem to have infinite patience which I no longer have; losing an hour of 'work' is painful -- replayed game segments are not fun, generally!), better quest tracking, easy save/resume, all contribute to something I can do in my work schedule.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The "problem" (a lot of players I talk to try to downplay this) with CS though is the fact that if you rush 'like they should' and you get killed early on, its VERY frustrating for players to watch a match drag on for 2~5 minutes because of some sniping campers on both sides of the team.
The key to this, while it is somewhat time-consuming, is to find servers that are administrated. Generally, admins don't like waiting for campers as much as the rest of us. Also some servers stress anti-camping with plug-ins or short round times. If you like quick rounds, play on smaller servers. The more players in a game, the greater the chance that someone is a loser camper.
Also, CS isn't all about rushing; there can be as much strategy as a chess match. Attrition is a useful tactic, and by rushing you are playing into the enemy's strategy. Don't get me wrong, if it gets excessive, find a new server. The ONLY way you will be somewhat successful in rushing constantly is if you have a team that is going the same way you do.
On some maps is possible to run into the enemy within 20 seconds of the match
In a majority of maps this is the case. The key is to use teamwork (where available) and strategy. If you are constantly getting overrun, then temporarily camp until the initial threat of a rush has passed. If you rush and die, learn from your mistakes, or you are doomed to repeat them. Don't rush alone unless you have the ability to handle multiple defenders.
Eventually, it all boils down to a bunch of nameless, faceless people you've just met online.
Once again this boils down to your choice of servers. Once you find a good server, keep coming back. Clan servers are especially good for this (as long as they aren't immature kids; its a mixed bag.) If you don't care about what server you play on, then you WILL only play with nameless, faceless people.
At least in a game like Unreal or Quake you can just respawn and 'freelance' anyway you want
Sure, if 'freelance' gameplay is all you want. In CS its very tough to do very well all by yourself unless you are very good. I for one, enjoy working as a team, with like-minded people. Again, clan servers are your best bet if you are 'server surfing'.
Yes I have half-played some games, and I have even thrown games away after half an hour. Some games are just not fun, or get you stuck on a not-so-fun level at some point. (And yes, I won't point and laugh, I _hated_ both N64 Zeldas too. I quit Ocarina Of Time after 15 minutes.)
It still doesn't say basically "long games are bad", which is the flawed premise of that article. In reality, some games can be long and very good, yet others can be short and awful.
And yes, the grandparent post is right: once you have saved games, the whole premise of that article becomes flawed. Because the premise was basically "waah, but what if I have to do something later, and this game is too long to fit in? I can't commit that much time to a game." _That_ is the flawed premise.
And with saved games that's a straw-man. I've been known, for example, to squeeze in 15-30 minutes of some game before I go to work. I've never had to think "naah, I only have half an hour, so I'll play solitaire" yet.
No, of course it doesn't strengthen the commitment, but it makes it possible. Just because a game took me 70 hours to finish (e.g., "Persona 2: Eternal Punishment") or a whole month to finish (e.g., "The Elder Scrolls: Arena"), it doesn't mean it had to be in one go, without pause, without sleep, without doing anything else.
Or let's take your argument about half-played games. Would it have been that much better if the game had only the first mission? Yay, you've stolen the first car (or whatever you do in GTA), the game is over. How many times would you have replayed that?
By contrast, I can think of games which were long and had a story, but were complex enough and fun enough to be worth playing again. E.g., Fallout 2. E.g., KOTOR.
Now I could see the author's post if he picked on the distinction between abstract games (like Solitaire, Pac Man or Tetris) vs story-driven games. Anything story-driven is inherently less replayable: you already know the story. Same as with a movie, really: you can watch a good movie again, but noone sane can see the same movie 200 times.
But arguing that it's length that makes a game replayable or not -- or even playable the first time for that matter -- it's such a bogus straw man, it's not even funny.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.