bit-tech.net | Do gamers want shorter games?

ChaosDefinesOrder 8th July 2008, 10:59

I personally still believe in a little thing called "value for money". If a game costs £50 like X360 and PS3 games do, then you'd damn well hope you'd get a lot of game for your money.

Flattening a learning curve is a good thing, however.

sotu1 8th July 2008, 10:59

he's definately right for the first half hour thing. if i don't get captured in about 30 seconds often the game goes on my shelf for when i'm bored. ie, most RPGs. however, if it's good i'd happily spend a lot of time on it, like diablo 2/battlefield 2. however, i'm in the middle of FF3 on my DS and lovin it (and i only get to play it about an hour a day at the moment). Also loved golden sun which kicked ass. so it's pretty simple, games, so long as they are good, can be as long as they want. i didn't want golden sun to end, it coulda gone on for a long time i woulda played it.

liratheal 8th July 2008, 11:03

If it's immersive, I'll play it for months.

If it's not, then I want it out of the way ASAP. If they're going to make games shorter, make the prices lower to reflect it, otherwise there are going to be many fingers. I might even grow some additional fingers to wave.

alecamused 8th July 2008, 11:31

i wouldn't mind shorter games as long as they still offer an interesting story. they should be cheaper tough.

Gunsmith 8th July 2008, 11:32

too short, i want something i can sink my teeth into, ala pc gaming of OLD

will. 8th July 2008, 11:36

Fair enough if you charge less or the quality is better. I think 20 hours is a good length. A game I can complete in one sitting on my first run through doesn't feel right.

r4tch3t 8th July 2008, 11:38

If its short, it needs to be re playable.

BlackMage23 8th July 2008, 11:38

Making a long or short game does not make it good.
There are plenty of Games out there that can be finished in a few hours, and are great fun.

There has to be a good balence. I do think that a lot of the older generation that has grown up on games probably does not have as much free time those days so short games are good in that sence.

DougEdey 8th July 2008, 11:43

I want replayability, it doesn't have to be something where "the environment changes" or "there's 200 different endings!" They normally make the game just feel like a chore.

What I want is a game as fun as Zelda; OOT, I've lost count the number of times I played that but the game never changed each time I played it. COD4 is fun for the multiplayer, I keep going back to it.

GTAIV has been unplayed for about three weeks now, I just got bored.

Arkanrais 8th July 2008, 11:56

for me, its hardly ever a case of 'x length of time is better'. I enjoy l0ong games like FF7 and FF10 because they reward you with a story and a decent ending to them (unlike FEAR. damn 30 second endings). others like Castlevania; symphony of the night are good and I can fnish that one in around 10 hours if I go a moderate speed.
Thinking 'we need to make games shorter because of the market in X' is bad for the gamers I think. Don't make games longer or shorter because of the market, make them the length that feels right for the game.
Game genre's naturally lend them selves to approximate lengths anyway, with action games generally being relatively short and RPG's being long etc (though as always there are exceptions to these rules).

Timmy_the_tortoise 8th July 2008, 12:03

Depends on the game... With action games, which aren't really focussed on story, it doesn't matter about length, since each level is just a new place to shoot things...

However, when you stretch a story out to 40 hours... There is a limit..

Most of the depth of RPGs is lost on me.. all the upgrading and whatnot.. It bores me.. yet that's a HUGE chunk of the game for many.

bowman 8th July 2008, 12:13

I can't stand the newer shorter games. They feel like a waste of money.

If I want a nice one-time experience for that amount of money I'll go to a restaurant and order a steak, not buy a game. It needs longevity and replayability. If this is the way forward I'm better off dusting off all my old games which STILL HAVE LIFE IN THEM and play them again!

wuyanxu 8th July 2008, 12:13

depends on the price. i only expect ~3 hours from a £10 game, but 40 hours from a £30 game. (PC games, consoles are just unreasonably expensive)

not sure whether your poll wants to know about episode releases. IMHO it's good enough. HL2 episodes are at perfect length.

Xir 8th July 2008, 12:18

Note to self: Must aquire Deus Ex

itchyeyes 8th July 2008, 12:22

Here's the thing, when developers make statements like this it's often a rationalization for putting out less game at the same price as everyone else. Truth is I do like short games, I'm just not going to pay $60 for less than 6 hours of entertainment. I will quickly throw $10 to $20 at one of these games (see Lost Winds or Portal), but if a developer's going to pull a Call of Duty 4 on me their game goes straight to the Gamefly list.

Paradigm Shifter 8th July 2008, 12:39

Value for money is more important that length, IMO. Max Payne 2, for example, I finished in under six hours and it had little to no replay value. Now, even though I got it cheap, I felt ripped off. Same with Halo. I liked Call of Duty 4 initially, but as I'm not a great multiplayer enthusiast, replay is non-existent.

I might part with a tenner for 6 hours of game... but more than twenty quid and it's got to have a lot more gameplay in it.

Timmy_the_tortoise 8th July 2008, 12:44

Length isn't that important...

It's definitely secondary to the quality of the experience.

I'd rather play a 30 minute game which provided the best story and gameplay of any game ever, than a 100 hour borefest which is evidently horrible within the first 10 minutes.

Almightyrastus 8th July 2008, 12:48

I prefer a game that can be picked up and played in short bursts but still has a lot to do, the Lego Star Wars and Indiana jones games have got this spot on for me. I can start them up, play through a single level, close them down and then come back later without having to stop and restart part way through a section and yet still have hours and hours of content.

Bungle 8th July 2008, 13:03

RPG + RTS = nice and long
FPS = short unless it offers significant variety throughout.

Tris 8th July 2008, 13:03

personally it all comes down to how much genuine content there is - games like GTA for example have a pretty long playtime (or much shorter if you choose to ship the extras), but the content is _reasonably_ fresh throughout. Then on the other side of the coin you have games like Assassins Creed - a fairly short game, but with very limited, repetetive content.
My ideal game is short (25 hours max), and with no "fillers". This includes rpg style grinding, repeated content, unecessary cut scenes, and of course ridiculous travel times (most obvious example that comes to mind is WoW, with the stupid "get to x location, kill 2 things then come back to y, where x and y are about 30 mins travel apart).

MachineUK 8th July 2008, 13:10

Must quote first two lines to my girlfriend Timmy............

Seriously tho, completely agree with a lot of you here in that, the length of the game doesnt matter to me if the quality and overall experience of the game shines through. Take Mass effect as an example.........Not a very long story as far as the main campaign goes (lots of complaints from consumers there)........but the quality of the game and replay value FOR ME makes the length of the game less important.

Genres play a part in this really. I want to play an RPG to get lost in a story, and to get that feeling, I generally like that story to be as long as possible. Games like COD4 to me are, fun, quick, action games that dont have to be epic in length.

Timmy_the_tortoise 8th July 2008, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by MachineUK
Must quote first two lines to my girlfriend Timmy............

I'm happy to provide the excuse, to your girlfriend, for your disappointingly small penis.

MachineUK 8th July 2008, 13:24

I was actually still talking about games, my girlfriend is an avid mass effect player.............but thankyou for your kind words.

Timmy_the_tortoise 8th July 2008, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by MachineUK
I was actually still talking about games, my girlfriend is an avid mass effect player.............but thankyou for your kind words.

You are very welcome, friend.

Marc5002 8th July 2008, 13:46

I belivef all rpg game like oblvion as to be VERY VERY Long or Diablo 3 or sacred 2
with lot of quest : possibility
game are never too long Beside Civlisaiton Games :P and yet it why it good. it offer a solution
but i belief all gun games as to be at last. 20 hour of campagne : and over 5000 hour of gameplay online ! =) lot of map & balance
that the ideal
wc3 = longest Story of RTS ever Saw The campagne but realy good lot of gamer
sometime it too long to understand serie. so i used cheatcode and skiped foward story line instead of spending. 200 hour of how to win the campagne it took me 1 day instead of learning the story and it good. rts as to be long as long it offer a possiblity to set level at playable =) for comomon

SlickGnome 8th July 2008, 13:46

Long games are the way to go unless this is achieved through repetative grinding. The same mobs over and over and over in fairly static environments. Diablo 2 had some grinding, but with the way the gameplay was thought out and the environments were setup it wasn't that bad. I still break it out and load it up once in a while.

yakyb 8th July 2008, 13:59

diablo 2 had some grinding??

diablo was a pure grind but the return was so good that you didnt mind it was an excellent game as each level you really felt you where getting somewhere and it did not get boring despite the seemingly repetitious play style

[USRF]Obiwan 8th July 2008, 14:27

Basically the fact is, that the games that I like are to short and the games that I don't like are to long...

Tris 8th July 2008, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]Basically the fact is, that the games that I like are to short and the games that I don't like are to long...

hehe, QFT

Timmy_the_tortoise 8th July 2008, 15:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]Basically the fact is, that the games that I like are to short and the games that I don't like are to long...

THAT'S Relativity, kids.

Silver51 8th July 2008, 15:05

I think this only really applies to 'on rails' games, where you are forced through a series of events determined by a pace set by the developers.

Personally I prefer sandbox games which provide a more open environment where objectives can either be completed at my leisure or completely ignored.

MachineUK 8th July 2008, 15:13

Which is why the shorter or longer game 'thing' doesnt apply to all genres.

In answer to Joe's question tho: No, I wouldnt like to see shorter games!

chicorasia 8th July 2008, 15:38

I don't!

Veles 8th July 2008, 16:18

I don't really mind shorter games myself, I don't like criminally short games, but I don't see the point in drawing out a game for the sake of making it longer, quality over quantity is definitely better. Although both quantity and quality is great too, but it's rare than a long game will hold my attention for long enough, I usually get frustrated with little annoyances in the game play or just get plain bored.

Cthippo 8th July 2008, 18:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charley Price
"I think it's unacceptable for a lot of people, you know - if the game's not fun within the first half an hour to an hour then a lot of people are just going to take it back."

One has to wonder if he's connected to reality, especially with that last line. Does he not know that it's pretty much impossible to return games? :|

pendragon 8th July 2008, 18:13

i disagree with the article saying that most don't have time to play an epic journey in a game.. sure we do... maybe not all in 8 hour stretches.. but i could easily play a long game over weeks with an hour or two at a time here and there..

basicaly, i think there are several factors: price of the game, gameplay, length, replayability/value etc that all factor in to decide whether the game is good... it's never *just* length

Yemerich 9th July 2008, 01:45

I think this is an excuse to make games shorter.

We can now even see episodic games to make them last longer!

PhenomRed 9th July 2008, 02:32

last week i finished COD4 in 2 nights, only playing a few hours each night. awesome game but needed to be longer. my save on oblivion has over 100 hours, and it still isn't boring. thats the kind of game i like

benjamyn 9th July 2008, 03:12

CoD4 is quite short single player wise, but makes up for it with it's excellent online IMO. If there were stats for which games I've played most on my Xbox 360 Call of duty 4 would be multiple times above the rest, except maybe halo 3

rls669 9th July 2008, 03:36

Replayability is key for me. Games that have staying power on my hard drive tend to be either turn based strats with a sandbox mode, or simulations with a dynamic campaign. Games that have tons of high quality user made content are great too, like Oblivion and Silent Hunter III. If a game is designed from the ground up with modding in mind, that adds a lot of value IMO. Perhaps even enough to make up for a lackluster game out of the box.

Helios_CM 9th July 2008, 15:40

Hi everyone, Helios from Codemasters here. Just been taking a look through some of your comments, and whilst there are some very interesting points made, I just wanted to clarify some things about Rise of the Argonauts.

First of all, RotA is by no means a short game. A typical playthrough of the game, including some of the side quests should take the average gamer around 20 hours.

Another point that I would like to make is that RotA is a game that emphasises quality over quantity. The game has not been artificially "bloated" with weak storylines and subplots in an attempt to lengthen the game and boost the playing time. RotA is playable in 1 hour chunks that will be full of intricate story telling, and powerful battles against lethal enemies, no longer will players have to kill rats for an hour before they are strong enough to get into the thick of the action.

I hope the above clarifies a few points that maybe were not made clear in the article.

Cthippo 9th July 2008, 16:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helios_CM
First of all, RotA is by no means a short game. A typical playthrough of the game, including some of the side quests should take the average gamer around 20 hours.

I think most of us would consider 20 hours a short game, especially if it's at the $50 price point. That works out to $2.50 an hour for entertainment, and, honestly, that doesn't indicate a very good return on investment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helios_CM
Another point that I would like to make is that RotA is a game that emphasises quality over quantity. The game has not been artificially "bloated" with weak storylines and subplots in an attempt to lengthen the game and boost the playing time. RotA is playable in 1 hour chunks that will be full of intricate story telling, and powerful battles against lethal enemies, no longer will players have to kill rats for an hour before they are strong enough to get into the thick of the action.

Glad to hear it ;)

A learning curve, well executed, is not a bad thing. I think that having the game be easily playable in short chunks is a good thing. I know I usually play games in about 3-5 hour chunks, and then don't touch it again
for a few weeks until I have time again.

CardJoe 9th July 2008, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helios_CM
Hi everyone, Helios from Codemasters here. Just been taking a look through some of your comments, and whilst there are some very interesting points made, I just wanted to clarify some things about Rise of the Argonauts.

First of all, RotA is by no means a short game. A typical playthrough of the game, including some of the side quests should take the average gamer around 20 hours.

Another point that I would like to make is that RotA is a game that emphasises quality over quantity. The game has not been artificially "bloated" with weak storylines and subplots in an attempt to lengthen the game and boost the playing time. RotA is playable in 1 hour chunks that will be full of intricate story telling, and powerful battles against lethal enemies, no longer will players have to kill rats for an hour before they are strong enough to get into the thick of the action.

I hope the above clarifies a few points that maybe were not made clear in the article.

I'd like to clarify that you can also contact me directly if you want to address these concerns in a more public manner ;)

notatoad 10th July 2008, 01:35

i quite enjoyed the length of CoD4. shorter games are cool, but if the developer still expects to charge $60 for a game, they need to either have a strong multiplayer aspect, or a lot of side challenges. i would not be averse to paying $20-25 for a short game though.

r4tch3t 10th July 2008, 04:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helios_CM
Hi everyone, Helios from Codemasters here. Just been taking a look through some of your comments, and whilst there are some very interesting points made, I just wanted to clarify some things about Rise of the Argonauts.

First of all, RotA is by no means a short game. A typical play through of the game, including some of the side quests should take the average gamer around 20 hours.

Another point that I would like to make is that RotA is a game that emphasises quality over quantity. The game has not been artificially "bloated" with weak story lines and sub-plots in an attempt to lengthen the game and boost the playing time. RotA is playable in 1 hour chunks that will be full of intricate story telling, and powerful battles against lethal enemies, no longer will players have to kill rats for an hour before they are strong enough to get into the thick of the action.

I hope the above clarifies a few points that maybe were not made clear in the article.

20 hours is a good length for a straight run through, but it must have re playability and more to do than just the on-rails main quest thing. Oblivion can be completed in 20 hours, Morrowind I have seen completed in less than 20 minutes in a speed run.

Helios_CM 10th July 2008, 09:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cthippo
I think most of us would consider 20 hours a short game, especially if it's at the $50 price point. That works out to $2.50 an hour for entertainment, and, honestly, that doesn't indicate a very good return on investment.

If you were to fully explore all the games islands then you can definately expect that time to increase. The 20 hours I quoted were just for a regular run-through of the game without full exploration, completing all side quests etc.

righteous_slave 10th July 2008, 18:20

It's not a simple good/bad answer. Someone like me with wife, kids, full time job, and online classes sees a 50 hour epic as an unattainable goal, because finding that much time in chunks big enough and close enough together to get into the game is an epic quest in and of itself. Does that mean I just want a 10 hr game for my $50? Uhhh....no. Long games need to be able to be taken in small doses or extreme sessions and still hold the players attention, and short games need heavy duty replayability, either with gameplay changes or multiplayer.

Proteus 14th July 2008, 01:29

I've played a lot of games recently that were far too short despite being of good quality. Perhaps I have too much time on my hands in this new age of shorter games, but I felt robbed. So in my opinion games should be made longer.

deltaworld 14th July 2008, 02:27

I too felt that COD4 was too short.. I finished it in 5 hours. I thought to myself "is that it" I remember the first Call of Duty was the right length it took me a while to finish it and it was challenging. I don't mind games being short if they are meant to be short like the episodic games which are priced accordingly at about $10 an episode so you come back for more episodes.

So yes.. I am up for short games, if they are priced as "short"
and yes to long games for the longevity of the single player and a good multiplayer aspect

Log in

Do gamers want shorter games?

Related