Of Length and Longevity

[grimace06]

I was speaking to a friend of mine lately about the increasing trend of shorter games. He was of the opinion that during the last generation of consoles, a terrible trend of "low content, high production" games.

I of course, disagreed with him. While I'm not adverse to long games, I think that a games length should not come into account when writing a review nor making a purchase. I'm of the opinion that "value" for money is measured in how much interest you have in the game personally - for example Brutal Legend may be short for some and only worth a rent which in turn seems to make people think of it as a lesser game.

I'm aware of the trappings that come with personal opinions and such but I still think that the perceived value of a game is not relative to length and in turn that length should not play a part in determining a review score or recommendation.

So I'm sure that was a tad rambling and the thread title is terrible, but I was just wanting some other peoples opinions on an issue that is beginning to annoy me.

[AranchineD]

It's not about how long it is, it's what you do with it that counts.



Essentially, however long it takes for the game to exhaust every possible bit of enjoyable gameplay that can be gotten from it without a single bit of padding or boring stuff is a good length for a game. Of course this happens naturally most of the time anyway; FPS games can only give so much and are shorter than RPGs, which have a huge scope for gameplay and so are generally much longer than any other kind of game.

[Xanafalgue]

I can't make up my mind whether or not CoD:MW was too short or just that I wanted more.

[SOX]

I can't make up my mind whether or not CoD:MW was too short or just that I wanted more.

Pretty sure my play time was at least 3 days in COD4 (multi of course)

[Lazlow]

Heh, I remember this topic, I started it last time.

I'm of the mind that quality > quantity. Last time the target was Bioshock, with many people complaining that due to the short single player experience and complete lack of multi, it wasn't worth buying.

Nuts to that. Bioshock is a top shelf title that deserves the reward of a purchase. Publishers a driven by sales figures and if people skimp on games purely due to length, you are sending the wrong message.

I also raise the example of a quality game that was extended needlessly; Half Life 2. Fantastic game, but the water boat section was far too long and tedious. You could have chopped it drastically shorter and it still wouldn't have detracted from the experience.

Game length is also subjective and up to the individual. Someone like Aran who's an unemployed arts student would probably burn through Bioshock on a rental, whereas myself would struggle to find the time to get through it in a fortnight.

[Filthy Old Drunk]

I find myself preferring shorter games these days. I just don't have the time any more to put hours upon hours into video games. But I can understand people's point. Back in the day when I could only afford a handful of games a year, I was more inclined to buy games that I know would last me at least a few months (whether it be through repeated playthroughs, multiplayer etc.)

[Lazlow]

Same. I know that despite my best intentions, I'll never finish FF9/10/12. I sunk 70 hours into FF7 when I was kid, and about 50 into FF8 (which I stopped playing by disc 3). Easy to do when you're 14.

[Dust]

Not so easy anymore when you've got a family of your own and more responsibilities; I wish I had more time but I still buy games I know I'll never finish [or at least not in the near future] because sometimes just a little bit of the experience, if it's a well fleshed out world, is worth it. For me anyway.

Length of a game was never an issue as long as the experience of the world draws me in...

[Blue]

You can beat Super Mario Bros. in, like, ten minutes.

[TAT]

I'm on the same boat as Laz.

Now the furthest I've played HL2 was in a 4-player co-op game, so I totally get what he's saying about the pacing issues of the game. Portal, on the other hand, was an amazing experience that I would gladly pay for again. The first time I played it I knocked it over in one sitting, knowing it was barely 3 hours long.

I personally prefer games with a lot of depth, which in turn, create length: the GM Mode in SvR06, TF2, Morrowind, etc.

[JubeiSaotome]

Portal is the best example of quality over quantity.

[grimace06]

You all stay on my Christmas card list then :p

On the subject of longer games, am I correct in saying that they're mainly a product of the Playstation/N64 era where developers were simply trying to create as much content as possible while learning what 3D could do or is that a bit simple?

[Lazlow]

I don't think that's particularly true. IIRC there was some reward for completing Resident Evil in 2hrs or under.

[Stevorooni]

I don't mind it so much these days as I don't have as much time to play games.

Knocking off Uncharted 2 in 10 hours was just about the perfect length, other games have sucked me in enough to put in some long hours but that's pretty rare now, these days I just want them to hurry up and show me an ending sequence when they seem to drag on.

As for game length versus dollars paid, considering that new games have been in that $100 patch for over 10 years while every other thing in the world has inflated in price, it's still pretty good value in comparison between game length now and however long they were before.

[grimace06]

I don't think that's particularly true. IIRC there was some reward for completing Resident Evil in 2hrs or under.

It may have been my young age, but I remember most games back were quite long in comparison to what we see today.

Would games like Goldeneye, Ocarina of Time and Donkey Kong 64 be as long as they were if they were made today? I wouldn't think so.

[Slippery]

Uncharted 2 was pretty good at 10 hours, the production values were so high it could last that long. any longer it would've started to be a bit of a drainer.

[Super Mario]

You can beat Super Mario Bros. in, like, ten minutes.
I can do it in 5.

[sausage]

Bioshock and Timeshift are probably the shortest games I've played of late. Portal was rubbish. I tend to go for lengthy western/eastern Euro RPGs such as TWEE, KOTOR I and II, Fallout 1 and 2, Morrowind and Oblivion.

Also like Action RPGs of considerable length like Titan Quest and Diablo. So I guess you could say I have my games length just like my men; long, hard and deep.

[TAT]

Portal was rubbish.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Devest8r/Image000-1.jpg
Titan Quest
deep
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/Devest8r/n560101418_2087432_201.jpg

[aubergine]

There was some developer comment on a news site just today or yesterday about "People don't want 80 hour games anymore."

I tend to have better experiences with shorter games but it's not a hard and fast rule.

For example, when Oblivion came out I got a 360 and, over the course of a month, played it for 100 hours. Then I sold the game and 360. I had finished the main quest and a number of the incidental quests, and the thieves guild, leaving the fighters guild, dark brotherhood, arena and mages guild all either untouched or less than half done.

Came back to it a year later and probably played it for another 100 hours and then maybe that again a year after that. I doubt I could play any more oblivion but my flatmate's son has racked up more than 1000 hours on it and the expansions.

Main thing I discovered from playing so much Oblivion is that I'd prefer a much tighter experience where the things you are discovering have a bit more weight to them - eg that there be something at the end of the tunnel other than the end of the tunnel sometimes. It made me wish for a game like Oblivion but with well constructed dungeons with puzzles in them like Zelda. Basically a non-linear overworld with well-made linear sections in it. To be fair, Oblivion NEARLY achieves this, but I'd prefer a smaller gameworld with more time spent on tight dungeon design.

In that sense, Fallout 3 is a step in the right direction but still with a ways to go.

While I've played more F3 and Oblivion, I've had more value out of Bioshock, Portal and Batman Arkham Asylum. I only played Portal once, but it was my GOTY for that year, so I guess I do prefer short games over long ones. However, that's only because short games tend to carry a better constructed narrative than a long game. If someone managed to make a Fallout sequel which addressed my few (though labour-intensive) concerns I'd probably never escape from it.

[SOX]

I prefer my single player games to be short and memorable (ie Shadow of the Colossus) and would rather pour my hours into an online game.