Slashdot Mirror
The Importance of Game Length
Gamasutra's regular 'Question of the Week' feature touches, this week, on the ideal length of games, and the importance of game length. While the overwhelming opinion was 'quality is better than quantity', there were a range of opinions along that scale. From the article: "I would say as a gamer on the more casual side (30+ years) the game length is fine around 20-25 hours. If you are having fun while playing. I never have time to finish anything longer. It makes me more satisfied to have played through the game in 20-25 game hours than never even reach half way. - Joachim Carlsson, Massive Entertainment"
It really depends on the genre. If I sit down to play an RPG it better be a lot longer than 25 hours... With that said, 25 hours out of an FPS is acceptable. The 12 hours it took to beat half-life 2 the first time was lacking though.
It may be more of a question of game depth rather than pure length.
I agree with the second answer - within reason, cost is not an issue. I'd rather pay $40 for 10 really good hours of gaming than 40 quite good hours, I can always buy another game. Very few single player games have enough variation and interesting content to justify more than about 15 hours of gameplay.
As a gamer who's growing older (heading into my mid-thirties), I realize my response will likely anger many younger gamers who have 10 hours a day to play games. The maximum length I want a game to be these days is 25-30 hours. If it's a mindless platformer, I only want 10-15 hours out of it before I get bored. I have played some RPGs that go longer than 30 hours, but by that point I just want it to wrap itself up. For me, it's hard to make the time to play anything longer.
This guy's the limit!
If you had a great game that last 10 hours but had 10 completely different ways to play it, would that be worse than a 30 hour game you'd never play again?
Should Gears of war be downplayed even though it has 3 difficulties and the ability for co-op play?
How can we rate Multiplayer? Exactly how do you define game length? Do you need all achievements?
Overall the "length" of a game differs to much to be considered.
In addition this discusses quality versus quanity? Guess what, that only is good if there is quanity. A 5 minute game can be the best game ever but it's not going to get 50 bucks, however a rpg that is good that last 50 hours will easily get 50 dollars.
You have people on that site saying length isn't important and would rather buy a 50 dollar game that takes 10 hours than a 50 dollar game that takes 50? All I can ask is, is he stupid? I have felt that games are too long also for a time, Tales of the Abyss took me entirely too much time, but I spend almost the same amount of time on the new zelda already and I want another exactly like that. It was a fantastic game.
The bottom line is it's always better for a game to be too long but enjoyable, than too short and be the same thing over and over. But even more so, they are asking people in the industry, as one of those people I can tell you, we don't have the time that the people outside of the industry have to play games. You can invest the hours into games but you also spend your entire day doing the same thing.
As funny as the parent comment sounds, I agree with it.
When I play through a game, I like to know that it's more than just A-B-C plot progression. I love sideplots. I love side missions. I love small quirky things that happen in the game that can either distract me from the main plot, or join up with it eventually and make it a broader gaming experience.
What was said is absolutely true: game depth is really the driving question. Much of the length of games today is derrived through repitition. Levels are drawn out longer than they need to be, in order to afford the player extra play time. However the extra time isn't really that valuable, since it consists of the player either doing repetitive or boring tasks, or places the player in the same situation repeatedly. A game with 10 hours play time, where every encounter and situation is utterly unique, seems much more fun than a 20 hour game with areas and levels mostly the same.
Games like Stubbs the Zombie I think fit this mold as well. The game itself is quite short, yet every minute is utterly enjoyable. It's not perfect, but the experience is far from repetitive.
Look at puzzle games. Mean Bean Machine, which is based on Puyo Puyo, takes all of about 30 minutes to 'beat'. Yet the game itself is so good, and adicting, and especially with the two player mode, just plain fun to play. Wario Ware can similarly be beaten quickly, however it's still fun to play the minigames just for minigame's sake.
RPGs are definately the biggest offenders in my opinion. A Link to the Past or Alundra is an example of what to do right. Final Fantasy is not. Much of the 'gameplay' in final fantasy involves looking at cutscenes, wandering around, or battling random monsters over and over. This is not to say that the game isn't fun, it's simply that it could easily have been half the length and not suffered at all.
I'm more concerned with playtime beyond the first playthrough. A game could have 20 hours of playtime, but be totally and utterly unreplayable. Yet that 10 hour game is so compelling, I go back for a second, third or even fourth try. If people come back to play it again, THAT's when you know you have a winner. Ideally, the game would be short and very replayable.