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? "

Comments

Which would you pay for?

[kenneth_martens]

Which would you rather play, a computer game that takes forty hours to complete or one that lasts just a few minutes?

That's the wrong question. The question is, which would you be more willing to pay $50 for? Game companies make games with the hope that people will buy them.

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.

Re:What nonsense!

[cowscows]

I think it's dumb that there's even an argument as to which one is inherently better. Doesn't it depend on what the point of the game is? Doesn't it depend on what kind of mood I'm in? Over the past 10 years or so, I've probably spent just as much time playing windows minesweeper as I spent playing through Knight of the old Republic on my Xbox over the course of a couple weeks. I enjoyed both of them a lot. I was much more emotionally invested in KOTOR while playing, but now that I'm finished with it, I'll probably never touch it again. One day, however, I'll probably be sitting around bored and fire up the ol' minesweeper and see if I'm as good at it as I was when I was younger. And I'll enjoy it then too.

Epic games are awesome, and by definition, they need to be longer to work. They basically end when the story ends, and once the story is known, the fun stops. So there has to be all that story. There may be puzzles, and there may be combat, or whatever, but in the end, you're playing to advance and learn the story.

Then there's games where there's absolutely no story, just the rules, and your goal is generally to learn how to be efficient at whatever the task is.

I guess my point is that it's silly to compare these classes of games in this way. The word "game" is a little to broad to draw comparisons between anything that falls under it. Taking the analogy that you quoted; a book and a short story are very different. They both fall under the category of "writing". Asking which one is a better form of Writing is a pointless question. It depends on what the author is trying to get across to the reader.