Long games ruin fun!

[racofer]

Look on the bright side.... he dislikes Oblivion then.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Well, that's quite reasonable what Price said. 20-25 hours should be the maximum to tell a great story, anything longer than that will piss me off. That's the reason why I stopped playing Witcher after Chapter 2, because it was so fucking tedious.

 

[Texas Red]

Well, that's quite reasonable what Price said. 20-25 hours should be the maximum to tell a great story, anything longer than that will piss me off. That's the reason why I stopped playing Witcher after Chapter 2, because it was so fucking tedious.

You probably drop reading books after 50 pages because it's not fast enough for you, eh?

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Well, that's quite reasonable what Price said. 20-25 hours should be the maximum to tell a great story, anything longer than that will piss me off. That's the reason why I stopped playing Witcher after Chapter 2, because it was so fucking tedious.

You probably drop reading books after 50 pages because it's not fast enough for you, eh?

Shut up. If you can't stomach different opinions, then fuck off.
Oh and I enjoy reading books a lot, because well, books are meant to be read. Games are meant to be played....got it?

 

[Desmodus Rotundus]

Well, that's quite reasonable what Price said. 20-25 hours should be the maximum to tell a great story, anything longer than that will piss me off. That's the reason why I stopped playing Witcher after Chapter 2, because it was so fucking tedious.

You probably drop reading books after 50 pages because it's not fast enough for you, eh?

Shut up. If you can't stomach different opinions, then fuck off.
Oh and I enjoy reading books a lot, because well, books are meant to be read. Games are meant to be played....got it?

Then how come long books don't piss you off?
I bet you'd love to read if it took 20-25 hours, because according to you that's maximum time for great story presentation.

I'm always sad to see a good story end, no matter how long it is.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Well, that's quite reasonable what Price said. 20-25 hours should be the maximum to tell a great story, anything longer than that will piss me off. That's the reason why I stopped playing Witcher after Chapter 2, because it was so fucking tedious.

You probably drop reading books after 50 pages because it's not fast enough for you, eh?

Shut up. If you can't stomach different opinions, then fuck off.
Oh and I enjoy reading books a lot, because well, books are meant to be read. Games are meant to be played....got it?

Then how come long books don't piss you off?
I bet you'd love to read if it took 20-25 hours, because according to you that's maximum time for great story presentation.

I'm always sad to see a good story end, no matter how long it is.

Who even said I'm interested in great story presentations in games? You think I play Starcraft or Diablo2 or Portal for the story? L0Lz.
And tell me how many RPGs of the calibre of Fallout, BG2, Torment etc. are around worth spending more than 20 hours of time? How many?

 

[Xor]

If a game's fun, I don't see why you'd all the sudden stop liking it after 20-25 hours.

Well-made games manage to be fun even if the gameplay doesn't change that much.

 

[Texas Red]

If a game's fun, I don't see why you'd all the sudden stop liking it after 20-25 hours.

Well-made games manage to be fun even if the gameplay doesn't change that much.

Probably the problem is that developers seem to be of the mind that gamers like their long, monotonous dungeons with poorly conceived combat. They think that they can fool people in to believing the game is longer by adding unnecessary fodder. The gameplay itself in most games is very one sided. What NWN 2 OC did right was the castle management and the trial, which diverted attention for awhile. However, as we can see from other companies, especially Bioware and even Obsidian itself, they don't want to add truly remarkable roleplaying feats and instead focus on the same side quests, main quest and companions.

 

[Norfleet]

If everything in the world was objectively worth a certain amount, trading would be rendered useless because in every deal someone would be making a loss.

Isn't that basically how things work now? You trade for something at a loss to you, in hopes that you can use it to screw over someone else and make back your loss at his expense.

 

[Erzherzog]

What I want to know is whatever happened to that age where trades were mutually beneficial.

 

[Inziladun]

Hell if ARPGs start popping with only 5-10 hours worth of content, then i'll stop buying em. One thing i've always liked about JRPGs is that they're usually long as fuck, the only tricky part is finding one worth playing to the end.

 

[RK47]

i'm tired of hearing this shit of ppl expecting to achieve the end without too long of a game. It's not torture or a downside if the LONG HAUL IS FUN.

No time to finish in a night? That's what save games are for. It's not like Mario Brothers in Nintendo where if u can't finish it, too bad, start over or pause till you can. if the fucking game forces you to watch 90 mins of cutscene before you can even play, nobody asked you to buy metal gear solid the movie and plugged it in your console expecting a game.

It's a lousy excuse. What sort of sour taste is there out of 100 hours of fun? The realization that you were actually having FUN for 100 hours is actually sour? Then I suppose spending 10 hours spent in oblivion saving the Empire from a Daedra Prince at lvl 5 is akin to gargling a cup of molten lava before swallowing it? I'm supposed to feel I had my 50 bucks worth playing a game like that?

If i wanted a short fast, fun game i always have tetris. It's random and not everything is always the same on each replay.

 

[Murk]

I like the approach that fallout (and arcanum i guess?) took, in that the actual main plot is fairly short to do, but there's enough in the game that you can spend dozens of hours playing doing shit that doesn't involve killing the BBEG or what have you.

i think that's a good approach and definitely removes the lameness of linearity

 

[AzraelCC]

I think it's the quality of the content IN BETWEEN the story developments that determine the fun factor versus length ratio. X-com had a simple story, but because the gameplay was so fun, even a little development that occurs after a long period of gameplay seems like a reward. The same could be said of Fallout and Arcanum--doing quests and interacting with the world made it feel gratifying that the story proceeds, because it's a signpost towards more game content.

Games today still use stories as guides for the players or as rewards. What I'd like to see is a game where the story is incorporated into the gameplay--as you play, you make a compelling story.

As for the price of a game versus length, I still believe that an awesome multiplayer gives you bang for your buck.

 

[Thrasher]

It's just lazy cheap lying corporate mentality.

 

[Shoelip]

So where is Dwarf Fortress in the scheme of things here?

 

[bobisimo]

I think it's the quality of the content IN BETWEEN the story developments that determine the fun factor versus length ratio. X

Good post overall, but I'm only quoting this one point because it furthers the point I'm trying to make: which is that a 100-hour game is fine, but a 100-hour RPG story is way too long. A story that long, as I said before, is probably either thin or inflated. Like you say, though, if the inflation (side plots, endless combat, etc.) is fun then so be it. Nothing wrong with that.

But a developer has to realize that most people still won't finish it.

Hell if ARPGs start popping with only 5-10 hours worth of content, then i'll stop buying em.

As a rule, I probably would, too. That said, I think I beat the first Spider-man action game in the current series in about 5-10 hours and had a great time with it. I thought the level design was smart throughout and it felt like a game that did what it wanted to do and didn't waste my time by dragging out content to artificially inflate play-time. Just like with the movies, bot every movie needs to be two hours long. Some stories only need about 60 or 90 minutes to tell. The ones that need 60 or 90 but inflate it to 2 or 2.5 or 3 hours? Those are the movies that drag.

One thing i've always liked about JRPGs is that they're usually long as fuck, the only tricky part is finding one worth playing to the end.

Exactly. And I don't think there are any. Haha. OK, I admit I played through Phantasy Star I, II, and III - and enjoyed them (hey, it was before I knew better) - but if I never had to play a game with endless, repetitive, dull combat that fired every time I took a step again, I'd be happy.

You probably drop reading books after 50 pages because it's not fast enough for you, eh?

Hahaha. :p Again, it's all about scale. You usually need about 90 minutes to 2 hours to tell a good story in a movie. You usually need about 25-35 hours, maybe 45 hours, to tell a good story in a game. And you usually need about 300-ish pages to tell a good story in a book. Just because someone doesn't want to sit through an awesome 45-minute short movie that's been dragged into a 3 hour snooze-fest doesn't mean they cannot read more than 50 pages. It's all about pacing, progression, flow, etc.

I firmly believe if single player RPGs offered you characters that act and feel alive, choices and consequenses with 1/3 content as WOW has, some real challenge as to game not treating you like you are an idiot + great story, I believe you would be sad your 100 h gameplay session came to an end. Something very few RPGs has managed to do decently.

OK, I have played WoW. I should probably admit that. I spent maybe 6 or 7 months in it just to make sure I really understood it. And yeah, I can agree with you that it's a very well-done game. They hit every note, accomplished a great deal, and deserve every one of their 10 million subscribers.

But that doesn't change the point. WoW has no story that you play through. You're not getting pulled along to a climax. It's just repeated game-play. It's just social interactions.

Let's put it this way. Let's make WoW a single-player RPG. Let's turn all the quest givers into fully-fleshed out NPCs with full dialogue trees. Let's make it so that your goal is to conquer the Horde or the Alliance (depending on who you are). Let's make it so that you can spend 100s of hours working up your sewing skill so that you can make some bandages and cloth armor.

Imagine playing a game where you needed to become 70th level, then grind for equipment and/or whatever else, on your way to ultimately "winning the game". By yourself.

Are you really trying to tell me you believe the majority of gamers (even 50 per cent) are going to work their way through that scenario in order to beat WoW? No way. You said it yourself - people play WoW because of the other players. WoW, in order to be a successful single-player RPG that most gamers finished, would probably have to be in that aforementioned 25-45 hour range.

No, if you make a 100 h game filled with characters that act and feel alive, choices and consequenses with 1/3 content as WOW has, some real challenge as to game not treating you like you are an idiot + great story and I believe you would be sad your 100 h gameplay session came to an end.

You're right. I would be sad. That would be a great game for me and a lot of people who post at the Codex. Shoot, I was sad when my 95 or so hours came to an end with Oblivion/Shivering Isles and it didn't offer any C&C, challenge, etc.

But my point is to mirror the points made by the Jason and the Argonauts developer, the average gamer isn't going to finish a game that long. They're going to forget about the story as they delve into sideplots, or they're going to ignore the sideplots as they focus on the story - and either way, after about 20 or 30 hours they're going to find out they're not even half-way to the end and they're going to lose interest.

Can you prove that? While I can agree that a lot of people didn't finish Morrowind, I just can't agree on BG comparrison.

I get your point. And it makes sense. But... yeah, I don't think a lot of people finished Baldur's Gate II. I think it was too long and winding, the end fight too tough, etc. And I think the hardcore RPG audience is too small.

No, I can't prove this. I don't have a website link with stats of completion percentage. This is just based on what I've heard and read over the years at sites like Gamasutra or from marketing reports or interviews or whatever. And, anecdotal as it may be, I can also look to most of my friends - many of whom are casual gamers - in order to see which games they finish (Mass Effect, Jade Empire) and which ones they don't (Baldur's Gate series, even Knights of the Old Republic).

I also believe treu RPG market is big enough to survive. Unfortunately very few developers seem to understand this. True RPGists are begging for a good RPG...

I hope you're right. Genuinely. Because games like Age of Decadence and Eschalon: Book II and Scars of War and Geneforge 5 all seem pretty exciting to me. But I can't imagine any of them getting a million sales. And that's sad, because they look like they deserve it. Well, what can I say? I hope there's enough of a hard-core RPG market to at least keep good indy RPGs kicking. And enough of a hard-core RPG market that developers like Obsidian, BioWare, Bethesda, Blizzard, etc. (etc.? are there any others?) at least give us a little attention.

 

[Naked Ninja]

I hope you're right. Genuinely. Because games like Age of Decadence and Eschalon: Book II and Scars of War and Geneforge 5 all seem pretty exciting to me. But I can't imagine any of them getting a million sales. And that's sad, because they look like they deserve it. Well, what can I say? I hope there's enough of a hard-core RPG market to at least keep good indy RPGs kicking. And enough of a hard-core RPG market that developers like Obsidian, BioWare, Bethesda, Blizzard, etc. (etc.? are there any others?) at least give us a little attention.

Thanks.



This isn't really about game length, but this seemed like a good place for another idiotic quote from a mainstream developer. Spotted on The Escapist:

I truly believe that all video and computer games boil down to 'what's the next eye candy?'" Hensley says. "It's our job as designers to constantly provide incentive for you to see the next monster, magic item or environment just around the next bend.

:facepalm:

 

[Chefe]

Decline of the Codex

 

[Destroid]

If it takes you 25 hours to read a normalish sized book, you read really slow.

 

[Athiska]

I think it's the quality of the content IN BETWEEN the story developments that determine the fun factor versus length ratio. (...) The same could be said of Fallout and Arcanum--doing quests and interacting with the world made it feel gratifying that the story proceeds, because it's a signpost towards more game content.

And then you're left with starting areas like the NWN1 training academy or first act, KotOR's Telos, and (if it weren't for Dungeon-Be-Gone...) Irenicus' dungeon in BG2. It's a mind-numbing chore to go through them if no helpful modder has made a quick-escape add-on or a convenient skip-an-Act, and these chores do add on to the whole "X-Y hours of gameplay in it." Afterwards, you can trick yourself into enjoying it when it's unpleasant (bugs, crashes, ridiculous dialogue or plot), and laud the pleasant. Some games don't add such features, or have enough modders who care to "fix" the irritating beginning or mandatory quest.

I never considered the length of a game when buying, as when a game is enjoyable, time (spent playing) isn't an issue. Gameplay faults make me notice the wasted time. Even if the game rates excellent on my personal scale, a tedious beginning might make me reconsider its ranking and other points I had glossed over the first playthough.