Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

The game length debate: When 3 hours is plenty

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
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>
 

Wyrmlord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
28,886
You'd have to be significantly out of touch to complain about the "40 hour atomic standard" of videogames in general.

Already as far back as 2005, I was getting sick of console games finished in an afternoon.
 

Nedrah

Erudite
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
1,693
Location
Germany
I suppose there's nothing wrong with 3h of gameplay if the game's price is set accordingly. For me, if the game is not worth playing (at least!) 40 hours, I don't see why I would want to waste 3. Same thing with books that I read for entertaiment, really. I like them to contain several hundred pages, so it's actually worth getting into the setting, characters and story.

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.

Yeah, right. Actually, the process of mastering a game is enjoyable if I can expect to get to exercise my mastery of the system for a while. What exactly is the point of trying to improve at a game (or anything) if it ends by design just as you start getting good at it?
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
He mistakes an argument for better gameplay (and I don't agree with his thesis of "mastering" the game) for an argument against long(ish) games.

On "mastering" the game: I don't seem to "get it". Take Gothic's combat mechanics as an exemple: It took me around 4 hours to master the mechanics in G1 and due to practice 2 hours in G2. After that there was only very little development of my personal skill. All development that took place was my char's. Still, the gameplay remained fun and challenging for nearly the whole game. In the end the char is a little too strong and it gets boring but that was around 40 hours after mastering the game. Is he talking mainly about shooters, sportsgames, etc?

Oh, and for once CF actually has a point. Even if the 3 hours are packed with good gameplay they are not worth as much as 80 hours (yeah, I don't follow the industry's pathetic standards) packed with good gameplay.
 

MetalCraze

Arcane
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
21,104
Location
Urkanistan
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.
PRO-TIP: Stop playing repetitive piece of shit and play good games.
 

Arcanoix

Scholar
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
574
5 hours of gameplay with 2 of those hours being HD, pre-rendered motion-captured cutscenes with faster-than-eye-coordinated action and shitty one-liner exchanges makes me hurl. See Devil May Cry 4 and Resident Evil 5 for a perfect example.

Might I add - I grow weary of cinematic music and cinematic suspense that leads nowhere. The industry has become a breeding ground for "Hollywood"-themed games. GTFO.
 

mondblut

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
22,205
Location
Ingrija
Waah waah kids and wife don't give me enough time to play so games should bend to *my* restrictions.

If he'll breed a couple more times and won't even have one hour to play, would he demand that games shouldn't be produced at all, since he can't play them anyway?

Anyway, all this recent trend of asking for shorter games is just a ZOG conspiracy to produce less content and sell it for same price. Global crisis et al.
 

PorkaMorka

Arcane
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
5,090
Games under 10 hours for 30-50 bucks are awesome.

They allow me to feel good about myself when I pirate them, like I'm standing up for something or sticking it to the man.

As opposed to my normal neutral feelings when I pirate games.

If you want a game to be worth the 50-60 dollars it needs to have extreme replay value (like dominions 3 etc where the fun is the gameplay, not just sitting through a story) or it needs to provide value in terms of length. Baldur's Gate 2 for example, was a worthy investment of 50 bucks. Max Payne or max payne 2 whichever was the 10 hour one (can you tell I dont play a lot of new games) was not, despite the fact that it was a fun ride for those 8-10 hours.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
3-hour-games are a stupid concept. Paying about 40 or 50 bucks for a game that lasts me 3 hours is a complete waste of money if I can buy a game that lasts me ten times as long for the same price. Strategy games are a good example. I'd rather buy a strategy game than any shooter or pseudo-RPG with only 3 hours worth of gameplay, especially since strategy games can be replayed countless times and still not be boring, no matter how short the campaign is. And since most strategy games have skirmish modes with either a large number of maps or the ability to create random maps, you get even more replay value.

Also, for the argument that games get boring once you mastered their gameplay: he's right. At least for most modern games. Most games nowadays aren't challenging. They have too low difficulty. And games without proper difficulty are goddamn fucking boring. Be it RPG or Shooter or anything else, if it's too easy, it gets boring quickly. If it keeps up a decent challenge, it will not become boring because challenge is fun. I mean, seriously, would you enjoy playing an RPG for 30 hours if your character is so overpowered that he cannot die even if you play like a retard after 5 hours already?
 

Seboss

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
947
I agree with most this guy said. I'm not that hardcore anymore and I barely scratched the surface of most of the games I picked up lately except for my yearly gaming frenzy I usually burn on playing some classic game like XCom, Torment etc...
One or two hours sessions once in a while is definitely not enough to master and keep interested in long spanning games.

So, yeah. I'd rather have $20~30 high quality 10hrs games over $50 40 hours worth of blandness.

Oh shit, I'm a casual gamer now.
 

Panthera

Scholar
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
714
Location
Canada
I agree, the Maw was about as long as it needed to be. I think it took me longer than 4 hours anyway, just becaused I went OCD eating stuff in the levels.
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
JarlFrank said:
3-hour-games are a stupid concept. Paying about 40 or 50 bucks for a game that lasts me 3 hours is a complete waste of money
Hey, for 10-15 bucks I'd consider buying them, although I can also get longer games for that price.


Seboss said:
So, yeah. I'd rather have $20~30 high quality 10hrs games over $50 40 hours worth of blandness.
Who said 10hrs? What makes you think shorter games would have better quality? Think Fallout 3 DLC, then you're getting the right idea.
 

Seboss

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
947
When have I said that 10hrs games are intrinsically better than 50 hrs ones? Obviously, that's not true.
Just saying that considering my time schedule, I'm more inclined to invest in a shorter game, something that does not need to sit through 10hrs sessions and preferably with a lot of replayability.

No, not minesweeper.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
I see no problem with a "short story" approach to games. In other narrative mediums, long and short works coexist - ie film vs. series, short story vs. novel - so why not games?

Whether they'll be economically viable is a different matter. There's a lot of work you have to do for three hours' worth of game play, and you'd probably want to reuse the back end.
 

Sisay

Liturgist
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
122
Location
Soviet Finland
My first playthrough of Ico was probably around 4 hours. Another World is even shorter. Would those games really have been better if they were longer?
 

Murk

Arcane
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
13,459
Sisay said:
My first playthrough of Ico was probably around 4 hours. Another World is even shorter. Would those games really have been better if they were longer?

Trick question, a game's length needs to be tailored to the game. Take street fighter or any fighting game - beating it can be done in under 5 minutes if you set your options right, but the real game comes in its replayability.

Take a single player game, especially if it is linear, and having a 10 hour game is kind of ridiculous for 60 dollars. For instance, Army of Two - a relatively fun shooter that's shorter than a single map in Age of Wonders. Not worth the cost - but it is worth a rental. I think the whole "3 hours for full price" argument is weak - chances are if games are short and "casual" then they are giong to be pretty cheap, like the 3-10 dollars download fee for some popcap games.

Regardless, I usually prefer RPGs and I want length of play. Not by arbitrary and ridiculous quests ala a lot of NWN2's original campaign, but by enjoyment of gameplay like Gothic 2 or Arcanum offer. As for the original topic - fuck that guy, he can stick to short games but entire games shouldn't be shortened for people who can't hold their attention to a game past 1 sitting.
 

LittleJoe

Arbiter
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
1,780
No fucking way would I buy a 3hr game for anything more than $10.
I'd rather pirate it, and I'm an honest kind of chap.
 

Erebus

Arcane
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
4,763
Cloaked Figure said:
I will not pay 50 hardearnedbux for a single player game that takes less than 10 hours to beat. No exceptions.

I'm pretty sure it would be possible to beat Portal in less than 10 hours. Are you saying it's not worth 50 dollars ?
 

Jim Cojones

Prophet
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
2,101
Location
Przenajswietsza Rzeczpospolita
Erebus said:
Cloaked Figure said:
I will not pay 50 hardearnedbux for a single player game that takes less than 10 hours to beat. No exceptions.

I'm pretty sure it would be possible to beat Portal in less than 10 hours. Are you saying it's not worth 50 dollars ?
It's possible to beat it in less than five hours, but it is worth 50 bucks for me (but I'm a rabid fan of physical puzzle games* so my opinion is extremely biased).

*there isn't much competition in this genre, is there?
 

sheek

Arbiter
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
8,659
Location
Cydonia
Hey guys, Solitaire offers infinity hours replayability and it costs...... $0. Yes, it's FREE!

Code:
 0 / infinity = error, cannot compute

Start-> All Programs -> Games -> Solitaire

That's it, I'm not going to buy a game in a shop ever again.
 

Pastel

Scholar
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
894
Portal should've been longer. The Advanced Rooms weren't rocket science, rooms of the same difficulty should have been added to the main campaign.
Psychonauts was a bit too drawn out at times.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,338
Location
Bureaukratistan
I'd rather have shorter games without unskippable filler content and artificial extension than long games with those, and the most I would like long and/or very replayable games without shit content. If it starts to feel like work it's not very good, and you're not going to replay the game if evfen on the first playthrough you screamed in rage when yet another dose of the same fucking monsters appeared. The best approach would be one where most of the content is optional - then the developer can safely just throw stuff in, and if it turns out to be shit, the players can just ignore it. Or bitch about it if it's the codex, of course.

Think about, for example, Super Mario World and both Fallouts. You can finish them very fast without seeing most of the content (if you know what you're doing), but playing them is a pleasure so you'll play the unnecessary stuff anyway.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom