- Joined
- Jun 18, 2002
- Messages
- 28,344
Wired add their voice to the ongoing debate of <a href="http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/commentary/games/2009/03/gamesfrontiers_0323">just how long does a game need to be</a>?
<blockquote>The Maw is a very short game; downloadable from the Xbox Live arcade, you can get through the entire storyline in about three hours.
[...]
Granted, The Maw is indeed a wafer-thin repast compared to most games these days. I'm slow, so it took me four hours, but that's still only one-tenth the traditional "40 hours of play time" that has become the atomic standard in the game industry.
[...]
Still, the uniform kvetching about The Maw's short span made me wonder: Why exactly is 40 hours considered the natural length of a videogame? Is The Maw really too short?
[...]
Forty hours might sound like a reasonable amount of play. But the truth is that very few games offer an experience that truly requires — and rewards — 40 hours of play. After all, one of the chief joys of gameplay (which nongamers tend to misunderstand) isn't in having mastered it. It's in the process of mastering it. You start off stumbling around, not really knowing what your goals are, how your enemies and obstacles behave, or the complexities of your weapons and abilities.
[...]
But the truth is that most game mechanics simply do not need 40 hours to reach their limits. For example, I loved Fallout 3's fight mechanics and moody design, and played it for several evenings in a row. But then battles and environments began to feel too similar, and my attention started wandering. Sure, I know there's another 120 hours of stories and environments to explore. But I don't care: 10 or 15 hours is more than enough.</blockquote>
I don't think he'll have any complaints there. Mind you, this is <a href="http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/commentary/games/2006/09/71836">not the first time</a> Clive has talked about games and his short attention span.
Spotted @ <a href="http://www.rpgwatch.com">RPGWatch</a>
<blockquote>The Maw is a very short game; downloadable from the Xbox Live arcade, you can get through the entire storyline in about three hours.
[...]
Granted, The Maw is indeed a wafer-thin repast compared to most games these days. I'm slow, so it took me four hours, but that's still only one-tenth the traditional "40 hours of play time" that has become the atomic standard in the game industry.
[...]
Still, the uniform kvetching about The Maw's short span made me wonder: Why exactly is 40 hours considered the natural length of a videogame? Is The Maw really too short?
[...]
Forty hours might sound like a reasonable amount of play. But the truth is that very few games offer an experience that truly requires — and rewards — 40 hours of play. After all, one of the chief joys of gameplay (which nongamers tend to misunderstand) isn't in having mastered it. It's in the process of mastering it. You start off stumbling around, not really knowing what your goals are, how your enemies and obstacles behave, or the complexities of your weapons and abilities.
[...]
But the truth is that most game mechanics simply do not need 40 hours to reach their limits. For example, I loved Fallout 3's fight mechanics and moody design, and played it for several evenings in a row. But then battles and environments began to feel too similar, and my attention started wandering. Sure, I know there's another 120 hours of stories and environments to explore. But I don't care: 10 or 15 hours is more than enough.</blockquote>
I don't think he'll have any complaints there. Mind you, this is <a href="http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/commentary/games/2006/09/71836">not the first time</a> Clive has talked about games and his short attention span.
Spotted @ <a href="http://www.rpgwatch.com">RPGWatch</a>