It Doesn't Matter How Long Games Are

The price of game is totally not interesting to me. At all, I don’t care about it at all. A great game could be $20, but it rarely is. Most of the time, I feel like they could have cut away at $20 or $30 off the price. But they kind of fit it in because companies kind of have the idea that it has to charge a certain amount – I don’t even know where that came from, I don’t care! It’s like if you go see a movie or hear a song – you don’t care. You care about the experience – that’s the important thing. And I think it’s become like a bad habit. The reviewers and creators say it’s supposed to cost $50, so they push it's value up by making the game longer. and they take these game mechanics and they reuse them all the time, and people get tired of it. So for me a $50 game, if it’s great then it’s great, if a $10 game is great, it is great. I don’t care about how much it sells for.
 
It doesn't matter how long your game is if your game is shit because no one is going to play it through anyway.

For a cinematic game, I think 10-15 hours is good, for a game that includes a lot of fucking around and busy work, 20+ hours is good. For a game that is shit, 0 hours is fine.

I was playing Diaspora, the free Battlestar Galactica mod for Freespace 2, and it was awesome. It was too short because it was so awesome and I wanted to keep playing it and would happily have paid for it to be longer. But no matter how much money I threw at my screen it wouldn't become longer. :(
 
So games like FTL and The Binding of Isaac are obviously terrible games since they're only an hour or two long.
 
I'd play even less games if they were all 20hrs
There are other things which need my time, drawing, guitaring.
I don't ask for games to be long. I ask them to be good.

You guys pay shit all for everything in america anyways.
 
The guy is both wrong and right. Where his argument breaks down is pricing. Especially AAA titles that KNOW they can charge a lot for shorter and shorter, and poorer and poorer games. Even if there were a 1 hour game that I really enjoyed, what would be the price tag on said game? He's right, the length of a game isn't sacred to enjoying it, but it still factors in to decisions. What about getting someone to PAY for this game? That's where it matters, because people care about bang-for-buck. For example, like a lot of people, I bought and played limbo. It probably didn't amount to more than an hour of my time, and I think I spent $3-5 on it. That was an okay price. I've seen it for as much as $10, and I would say that it's not worth that much. I couldn't care how awesome it was to play through it, it's still not worth that much.

And therein lies the problem where you can't say that the length of a game doesn't matter at all. Sure, you can say that as a game developer, but rarely would you find a game consumer that would actually make such statements.
 
I wouldn't pay 60 bucks on a 1 hour game - no matter how "fun" it might be... For some games, this can be expected - fighting games tend to lack anything story-wise... so I expect less story for the money. Likewise with sports games.

If I'm playing an RPG, I want the story to be awesome. I need the gameplay to incorporate the story. I want the characters to be alive, I want to be able to have some type of emotional attachment with them that it jerks some strings. I want to come out of the end-game and say "That was worth it."

If an RPG can't do that than it definitely needs to relook at something. Gamelegnth, Story telling, Characters... It's just not a single thing with a RPG. There's multiple elements and it all needs to work together. If it doesn't it just feels a shamble, a mess.


But again: Fighting and Sports games... Story can be omitted.
 
Depends. If a game is a few hrs long but keeps me emotionally attached, is visually appealing, has a great story to tell, and leaves me feeling like it was time well spent then I dont really care about the length. Journey on PS3 was amazing but only a few short hrs long. But it did all of that and it changed my perspective ever so slightly about what a game is and what it can be. I would have paid $60 for it honestly. Elder scroll games are super long but dont even keep me interested for 1 hr does that make it well worth it? Not to me at least. For me its all about quality over quantity.
 
teh_chem said:
The guy is both wrong and right. Where his argument breaks down is pricing. Especially AAA titles that KNOW they can charge a lot for shorter and shorter, and poorer and poorer games. Even if there were a 1 hour game that I really enjoyed, what would be the price tag on said game? He's right, the length of a game isn't sacred to enjoying it, but it still factors in to decisions. What about getting someone to PAY for this game? That's where it matters, because people care about bang-for-buck. For example, like a lot of people, I bought and played limbo. It probably didn't amount to more than an hour of my time, and I think I spent $3-5 on it. That was an okay price. I've seen it for as much as $10, and I would say that it's not worth that much. I couldn't care how awesome it was to play through it, it's still not worth that much.

And therein lies the problem where you can't say that the length of a game doesn't matter at all. Sure, you can say that as a game developer, but rarely would you find a game consumer that would actually make such statements.
Click to expand...

I agree with Limbo its $10 on steam and it is simply not worth that much, good game but not worth the asking price.

Most people would agree in quality over quantity. But add in price and that changes the equation.

To a lesser extent this subject rolls into why DLC is working and F2P games exist.
 
Well if they don't think the length matters, then they should charge the same price as those movies and songs where the length doesn't matter.

So $.99 or $7.50 (and if you buy the game on Tuesday, it's $5.50)
 
Max Payne 3 was 13 hours long for me, and at the price of $13 that I paid at the Steam sale I still didn't feel like I got my money's worth because it just sucked so bad.

OTOH Metro 2033 was like 8 hours long, same with that foul mouthed FPS space thing I played I forget what it was called, both of them I bought for $5 and was more than satisfied.

Bottom line, for me waiting till a game drops to close to $10 or lower has paid off over and over.
 
Game length is unimportant, I would much rather more shorter, better titles than longer games that give me a story and a 'shopping list' of optional content with the same recycled mechanics and zero effort put into them. I would take Journey, FTL (although it's way longer due to replayability), Thirty Flights, Hotline Miami, The walking dead (telltale one obviously), heck even spec ops: the line (it's like a 6 hour campaign) over games like AC3 and Halo, however, it also depends on what experience the developer is trying to create. Skyrim doesn't work as a 2 hour game, just as journey wouldn't work as a 100 hour game.

If the game is focused, narratively driven and linear, shorter is better, because it allows for better pacing and the ability to consume the title in a single / fewer sittings, meaning you will be immersed in the story until the conclusion. These are the 'auteur' titles I guess, games with a really strong creative vision and cohesive design. If the game is more player driven, throwing you into a big open world with heaps of cool things to do, longer is better, because it gives you time to get immersed in the world, ala skyrim, gta & far cry 3. The main thing is the game has to be engaging, and short and long games can keep you engaged in different ways. Then there is where most AAA games are, which is an overlong singleplayer with optional content that is just plain rubbish (I mean making furniture in a game with a broken economy? Come on AC3!), that you skip, multiplayer that feels tacked on, or a 'big open world'....that you can't interact with in any meaningful and fun ways.

Also, not even going to go into multiplayer :p. But I personally prefer shorter games, or games of any length with working eyefinity support on day one :p, but shorter games I am more likely to finish, and the game never outstays it's welcome.

Also, screw price aswell. Games are too expensive because we have AAA game after AAA game with tacked on multiplayer, huge marketing spend and excessive feature creep. I don't want multiplayer in the new tomb raider, I also won't pay $60 for a new game unless I am super excited. I can wait a month or often less and get it for half that on PC, or wait a little longer at get it for $15. This is also the problem with reviews in our creative medium of choice, if you sit through a 2hr movie that's only ok, you're unlikely to be really pissed and demand a refund. On the other hand, if you play through a game that is only OK, that you bought for $60 day one, you're super pissed. I would buy so many more games on day 1 if they were $30. As it stands, last year I bought ooh ... ummm ... xcom & FC3. This year it'll probably just be bioshock as fay one, $60 purchases, the hundreds of other purchases have been on steam sales that pay off big time.
 
I still can't figure out why most games have the same launch price. I'd be fine buying a 1 hour game if it was 2-3 dollars, but for $60 I expect at least an 8 hour campaign and a decent multiplayer suite.
 
Slurpy said:
So games like FTL and The Binding of Isaac are obviously terrible games since they're only an hour or two long.
Click to expand...

These $5 games gave me over 200 hours of fun each, no AAA title out there gave me that kind of value, it's amazing.
 
rasatouche said:
Game length is unimportant, I would much rather more shorter, better titles than longer games that give me a story and a 'shopping list' of optional content with the same recycled mechanics and zero effort put into them.
Click to expand...
As a game developer, if you feel like putting recycled mechanics and irrelevant content in games, then you just extended the game for no reason. Skyrim is a good example of how to make a good long game. Like literally every quest is unique and interesting in it's own way.

Compared to say World of Warcraft which majority of quests are...

Kill it cause I hate it.
Kill it cause it drops stuff I need.
Kill just one guy, but he's harder.

Those are quests which are designed in moments, and took little skill in creating them. Someone creative could make a tool to create your own WoW quests.

I would take Journey, FTL (although it's way longer due to replayability), Thirty Flights, Hotline Miami, The walking dead (telltale one obviously), heck even spec ops: the line (it's like a 6 hour campaign) over games like AC3 and Halo, however, it also depends on what experience the developer is trying to create. Skyrim doesn't work as a 2 hour game, just as journey wouldn't work as a 100 hour game.
Click to expand...
Spec Ops The Line wasn't a good game. Unique in that it brings attention to your actions in FPS games, but not a good game. The game was so bad that I couldn't wait for it to be over. A situation I don't finding in games I paid for.
Also, not even going to go into multiplayer :p. But I personally prefer shorter games, or games of any length with working eyefinity support on day one :p, but shorter games I am more likely to finish, and the game never outstays it's welcome.
Click to expand...

Games you don't finish are either uninteresting games, or you're just really bad at the game.
 
I'm surprised nobody mentioned DLC. Since game companies offer "EXTENSIONS" to their games. Wouldn't a shorter game allow them to include more DLC? I mean these guys are companies after all, and their only interest in making a profit. Shorter games means less value for customers.
 
Ebernanut said:
It often takes me a few hours to really get into a game and if it's already winding down at this point I don't find it fun, I don't read short stories or novellas for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Well, this is an area that I really despise with current games. I know you're talking about something else, but todays games don't give you the ability to just get in the game and play. You have to go through the umpteenth hour tutorial, which is typically forced upon you in the game.

I prefer to jump into the game immediately, and not have to wait until I can actually play the game. For instance, with board games such as Monopoly, you don't need to make 20 trips around the board before you can start buying stuff. And older arcade games gave you all the mechanics at the very start. The game just got harder as you moved on.

As far as replay goes with games like The Binding of Isaac, that might add to what others consider game length, but I'd say for fairness, you shouldn't include that. Replays are what you make of them.
 
The one thing we can conclude from these responses is that we live in a golden age of gaming. You have the option of $60 AAA titles all the way down to $1-5 titles that offer something for everyone. Thanks to services like Steam it is very easy to get newer games for cheaper than $60.

Different people have different tastes. Some people have busy lives and don't mind shorter games. Some people really want to have a game they can completely immerse themselves in and prefer longer games.

I for one have a waiting list of games that I hope I can play. Gaming has now gotten to a point (for me) where more games are out that I want to play than time to play them.
 
Nytegard said:
Well, this is an area that I really despise with current games. I know you're talking about something else, but todays games don't give you the ability to just get in the game and play. You have to go through the umpteenth hour tutorial, which is typically forced upon you in the game.
Click to expand...

I don't like long hand holding tutorials either, I do however like how a older games included manuals that weren't useless and expected you to refer to that if you didn't understand something.
 
I actually prefer good games that are long in length and offer the opportunity for players to play after the storyline has been completed such as side quests etc.

An example of good long length game is the GTA franchise and the S.T.A.L.K.E.R series but it's an absolute fucking shame the CEO of the company pulling the plug on the company resulting in sequel. Yes I'm still pissed about Stalker 2.
 
The longer the better,as long as it's done right. When I discovered S.T.A.L.K.E.R.,it ruined me for short,linear games. Fallout 3/New Vegas aren't quite as epic,but they're still enjoyable and kept me occupied for a long time,especially with the extensive support they have in the mod community.
 
this is probably similar to what his wife told him on their third date.
 
Movies and games can't directly be compared. It takes everyone the same amount of time (for the most part) to watch a movie. It takes others varying amounts of times to complete a game, people generally don't quit a movie as much as they may a game.

I know MANY people who have bought games purely for MP and never even played SP, and dumped hundreds of hours into them.

If we're comparing SP to movie like experience I'd tend to agree but there is variance. I tend to blow through SP games (FPS) pretty quickly unless they are open ended. RPGs I tend to sink a lot of time into, play from different perspectives or classes. Then there are sims, another huge time sink if I enjoy it. Between dayz and the normal Arma 2 game and expansions I probably have 300+ hours into it at least. For about 50 bucks after buying the expansions. A lot of that has to do with the nature of it though. In dayz we spent a lot of time socializing and whatnot.

BF3 145 hours or so I think, and I took a very long hiatus. Was that worth the 65-70 (premium)? Sure.. thats' 2 dollars an hour for entertainment.

It's all relative, I really enjoy BF3 and at 2$ or less per hour of entertainment it's great. But a $20 game that lasts 10 hours wouldn't even remotely compare. I wouldn't be UPSET per se, but I wouldn't be thrilled either.

If it was "great" I'd want to play it again if it was that short.. I dunno theres a lot to look at but in the end the only fucking reason that mentality flies is because people are impulsive when buying games.
 
I just want to facepalm after reading the comments here. Seriously guys?! I sure hope that a single-player game duration is THAT important to you. I guess MMOs are your favourites? I mean, REALLY?!
 
BDS23 said:
I just want to facepalm after reading the comments here. Seriously guys?! I sure hope that a single-player game duration is NOT that important to you. I guess MMOs are your favourites? I mean, REALLY?!
Click to expand...

Fixed... and we need an edit button quick.

I think game duration pales in comparison to other factors which makes a game a league above others: gameplay mechanics, storyline, graphical art style, moral enlightenment, subtlety...
 
BDS23 said:
I just want to facepalm after reading the comments here. Seriously guys?! I sure hope that a single-player game duration is THAT important to you. I guess MMOs are your favourites? I mean, REALLY?!
Click to expand...

Same. One-dimensional thinking on message boards is nothing new though
 
I agree that what matters the most is experience but I'd like tp ask the guy if he's willing to put up with no more than 5 minutes of THE MOST AMAZING sex for a whole year.

Since most games, including all the indie crap, suck really bad, I buy 2-3 games a year at most. My taste is very narrow so what I do is take the most out of these games. Thing is, they wouldn't be any good if each one lasted for an hour or two.

Hell, I've put 1000s of hours into Quake and StarCraft games, 135 hours in RAGE, 242 hours in Duke Nukem Forever (15 minutes into SP, the rest is all MP :D), 255 into TF2, 85 in L4D, 186 into L4D2, 100 into CS:GO.
 
The last game I was happy with was Far Cry3...and it was about 20 hours for me, mostly because I did almost every achievement in the game you could do, before completing it...just because it was that much fun.

In contrast, I was NOT impressed with any of the half life 2 expansions...they might have been fun but they were too short for how much they cost. Those would have been better suited at the $10 cost at release.
 
dgz said:
I agree that what matters the most is experience but I'd like tp ask the guy if he's willing to put up with no more than 5 minutes of THE MOST AMAZING sex for a whole year.
Click to expand...

Bad example, if he's a game developer, that's probably already more than he is accustomed to.
 
He's right in that game length has nothing to do with the quality of the game or experience, but I expect more for $60 than finishing off the game in a single gaming session.

Also remember we are talking about a developer here and not a gamer, sure he talks like he plays games but he's talking about games selling for $50 and they haven't been that price in awhile. If I was developing them, instead of buying them, I would give a damn about the length either as all I'd care about would be sales and getting paid.

As it sits now I will not pay anywhere $60 for a game that is shorter then $15 expansion packs used to be.
 
Short games are not bad games; they just have to be priced appropriately.

He is talking about something that is subjective (value)

What we all value is different.
 
The problem is that he gives a cost of the game attached to a playgame time that for most of us is unreasonable.

His example is of 50$ for 3H, and that is something that I wouldn't buy, at all.

His own comparison to movies would let you know how flawed is that value, as a movies gives you 1.5-2h enjoyment for 10$, so the bare minimum would be a 7.5 hour game for that price of admission...
 
I think it depends on the game's premise and gameplay. Some games run out of steam a lot faster than others.

If I could wring all of the story and sidequests out of a game like Fallout 3 in 30 hours, I'd be pissed. I'd feel that the game had the potential to have more to explore and do beyond a simple 30 hour time frame.

Now, I remember greatly enjoying Luigi's Mansion as a launch title for the Gamecube. I liked the gameplay and exploring in that game, but the premise really wasn't developed enough to go beyond the 4 to 6 hours that game lasted. It would have just felt like padding. However, they should not have charged full price for it when it came out...
 
WorldExclusive said:
Elder Scrolls games must fill your game library. Expectations too high?
Click to expand...

20 hours is a good minimum number and not unreasonable. I remember putting in easily 40+ hours on Final Fantasy games as a kid trying to max everything out. 3-5 hour games is ridiculous and not really a value for your money.
 
BBA said:
The last game I was happy with was Far Cry3...and it was about 20 hours for me, mostly because I did almost every achievement in the game you could do, before completing it...just because it was that much fun.

In contrast, I was NOT impressed with any of the half life 2 expansions...they might have been fun but they were too short for how much they cost. Those would have been better suited at the $10 cost at release.
Click to expand...

I'm currently playing FC3(got it on sale) and loving the open world. I'm really taking my time to explore and stealth kill instead of just going in blazing. Having said that if I have gotten killed too many times trying to capture a base I switch it up and blow the piss out of it with heavy fire. FC3 game play is something to be emulated.
 
fdiaz78 said:
I'm currently playing FC3(got it on sale) and loving the open world. I'm really taking my time to explore and stealth kill instead of just going in blazing. Having said that if I have gotten killed too many times trying to capture a base I switch it up and blow the piss out of it with heavy fire. FC3 game play is something to be emulated.
Click to expand...

I didn't really think Far Cry 3 was really all THAT. Then I played Crysis 3, and I began thinking to myself "You know... Far Cry 3 was actually a lot better than I gave it credit for..."

But by the time I completed Far Cry 3, I was sick of the world and was more than ready for it to end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top