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

What nonsense!

[Dr. GeneMachine]

Let me rephrase that:

"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.

Re:What nonsense!

[ikkonoishi]

Exactly.

Would the SNES game "Zelda, Link to the past" be as good if the game ended after you saved Zelda from the dungeon?

At the same time however tetris would have been pointless if each block took 3-4 hours to fall. (Complete with FFX-like three minute cutscene as the block locked in place.)

It is all about balance.

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.

Re:What nonsense!

[some guy I know]

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.

I've never understood the fascination some people have with Minesweeper.
As long as you are careful, take your time, and carefully analyze the minefield, you can generally get a mine to blow up in only one or two moves, five tops.

Long games...

[ikkonoishi]

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%.

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.

Making the case for short lives

[dtfinch]

Which would you rather have, a life that takes eighty years to complete or one that lasts just a few decades? 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 go through each day, which type of life will you really find worthwhile? Also, isn't it peculiar that when you near completion of a complex and lengthy life you rarely want it to dredge on any longer, yet short lives are often interesting and full of excitement, and endlessly repeatable if your religion allows?

Re:Making the case for short lives

[NanoGator]

"There's an old Cat saying: It's better to live one hour as a Tiger than a lifetime as a worm."

"Well there's an old human saying: Whoever head of a worm-skin rug?"

Re:Time commitment?

[NanoGator]

"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."

It's a detail, but not a flaw in the premise. How many of you have half-played games? I have. I never finished Mafia, even though I was enjoying it. I've had San Andreas for 3 months now. (I'm stuck on a not-so-fun level.) Prepare to point and laugh, but I was FIRST in line to get Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, they're both still half finished.

Shifting the commitment doesn't strengthen the commitment. Either you really want to spend that much time in a game world, or you don't.

Frankly, I think there is easily a market for both types of games, especially now that the portables war is starting to take off.

Fallout 1 & 2

[tdelaney]

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*.

Nothing new here...

[danbeck]

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.