Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Importance of Game Length

Posted by Zonk on from the waiting-for-the-1000-hour-game dept.

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"

3 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. This will be repeated ad infinitum... by lpangelrob · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...but I'll put it another way. I don't think I'll be complaining about the length of my game during hour 65 of Twilight Princess.

    --
    -Rob

    Biblical fiscal responsibility

  2. progress and variation by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Total game length is less important than progress and variation. If a game become repetative it's too long or there wasn't enough variation. Also game length shouldn't be enforced by lack of progress. If you can produce enough progress and variation the actual length should matter much.

    I would say that any game should aim for 40 hours of gameplay (in total) for the first time you play it on normal difficulty.

  3. Re:It depends... by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So just out of curiosity, how does making a 40-80 hour game like Zelda make the Wii more appealing to "casual gamers"? I'm still trying to suss that one out. I'm guessing a whiff of evidence something resembling - um - marketing bullshit?