Short Stories, Not Novels: Why We Need More One-Sitting Games

230340423
Wednesday, November 17, 2010

I once watched a roommate play all the way through Portal while standing up.

Well, I was the one standing. He was seated comfortably at his computer, which I had more or less commandeered for the sole purpose of forcing him to play Portal.

I had completed the game a couple of times, but I found myself so enthralled at my friend's progress that I didn't even think to sit down. (I would've had to get a chair from another room -- but still.)

Two hours later (yes, it only took him two hours on his first playthrough -- he's apparently an excellent test subject), after listening to GLaDOS sing about triumph and cake, I finally flopped onto my bed. And the thought struck me that Portal was an even better, tighter experience when played like that, in one sitting. Er, standing.

I think it's something more games should explore: making an experience designed for players to consume in one period, without breaks.

 

Back in the day, of course, you didn't really have a choice, either because you were playing an arcade title (which was designed to make your duration as short as possible) or because cartridges with battery-backed memory had not yet been invented. And even after that, you had to finish some games all at once. I still remember my long sessions with Super Mario Bros. 3, even leaving my NES on for days at a time, because it lacked any save function.

These days, developers are going out of their way to make it easier to play games in short chunks, so people can fit gaming into their busy lives. They make save points plentiful and pace the story so that you can jump in and out quickly. And I'm definitely grateful for that. But I think it encourages a certain amount of disconnect from the experience. When you're always starting and stopping in small amounts, you might miss some things.

I keep thinking of the Penny Arcade strip where they discuss the length and pacing of Final Fantasy 13 (a game I'm still slogging through). They compare its narrative arc and the amount of time it takes to get there with Uncharted 2, which covers its entire story in 10-12 hours.

As it happens, I finished the bulk of Uncharted 2 in one sitting. (Don't judge me -- it was my day off.) And I was actually surprised at how different the story felt, seeing it all at once, than the first Uncharted, which I played like a normal person over the course of several weeks. With the single playthrough, I really felt like I could inhabit the character of Nathan Drake and be part of the world he traversed.

Now, I know that Uncharted 2's story is no great, life-altering narrative. But it still made me think about the power of that experience, playing it all at once.

Independent developers have understood and harnessed this power. The Flash games Don't Look Back and Today I Die are two prime examples. The former is a pixel-art platformer loosely based on the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice; the latter is an interactive poem mixed with a brief series of puzzles covering themes of death, depression, and existentialism.

Both games together will take you no more than half an hour to finish. But the experiences have really stuck with me.

Imagine if more mainstream games took these principles and expounded upon them -- if more designers created titles with the intent that players would experience the themes and story arc all at once. Some examples of this do exist, notably Braid and Flower, both of which I completed in one session. But I'd like a developer to come right out and say, "This is a game you should play all at once. Don't stop until you've finished it."

Maybe this is an unreasonable concept logistically. I know how much work goes into the production of a game -- it's hard to ask a developer to put all that effort creating art and programming and working out bugs, just to end up with a two- or three-hour game, especially when that game is a standalone title with no reusable assets. But with today's support for indie developers and new digital distribution models, I think it can be done.

Most gaming experiences end up like a novel -- something with chapters that you stop and start at will. Flash games are like poems -- brief experiences based around specific themes. Now I want to see the equivalent of the gaming short story.

I'll even sit down to play it.

 
Problem? Report this post
LAYTON SHUMWAY'S SPONSOR
Comments (12)
Twitpic
November 17, 2010

Layton, good thoughts! It actually reminded me of Mass Effect 2. Although it's a long game, each mission is broken into bite-sized chunks perfect for playing through in one sitting. Even though the player doesn't get the whole story in one sitting, it makes playing through the game completely feasible for gamer's with little time.

Christian_profile_pic
November 17, 2010

I really liked your conclusion, comparing game's to forms of writing.  It's true: there are precious few games that adhere to a short-story form or even a novella form.

However, I also like Chris' comparison with ME2.  I think the pacing of that game worked more as a TV series or serial, and I found it rewarding in the same way as what you're describing.  Sit down and play through one episode of a bigger narrative arc; you get one, complete story in one sitting.  That pacing allows for a much more natural drop-in/out form of pacing that I think a lot of novel-length games lack.

Chas_profile
November 17, 2010

I've been wanting developers to make shorter, cheaper games we can consume in little time and feel totally satisfied because it was an affordable yet complete experience. So many games are bogged down with all this extra content that I never see. It's welcome in some games, but I don't have the time, patience, or desire to slog through an entire 80 hour game, and I always feel a bit disappointed in myself when I don't get that 100% completion.

Games like Portal, the original Super Mario Bros., Silent Hill: Shattered Memories (played that one in one sitting the day I got it), and others are so satisfying when you can take it all in at once.

230340423
November 17, 2010

@Cosmo: That's a great example. I was also thinking of the episodic Telltale series -- you can play a Sam & Max or Homestar episode in a couple hours and get a self-contained story that links into a larger "season" arc, just like a TV series, as Christian said.

@Chas: Yeah, I feel like developers pack all this extra stuff into games to make sure gamers feel like they're getting their money's worth. It's gotta be a tough thing, though, to say, "Okay, we're going to take all this time, spend months and years and millions of dollars creating these art assets and gameplay mechanics and everything...and it's all going to be for a three-hour game. And we're selling it for $20. And there probably won't be a sequel."

Maybe it's a bit naive to think that's even possible. Doesn't stop me from wishing, though. :)

Assassin_shot_edited_small_cropped
November 17, 2010

I'm with you -- let's have more games that keep things focused and stop trying so hard to tell "epic" stories.

As someone who has aspirations to make games, in addition to writing about them, this is a topic very dear to my heart. The kind of storytelling I want to do in games is precisely what you're asking for here: the video game equivalent of a short story.

That's beyond my current abilities, though, so for now I'll stick to video-game poems and short stories [i]about[/i] a gaming experience.

Christian_profile_pic
November 17, 2010

@Layton I'm totally with you on shorter, cheaper games.  I do enjoy the occasional super-long RPG, but I would like it if the industry went the short/cheap route for most games, as long as they tell complete stories.  One concern I have is that now, even most long, epic games stumble in this area.  There's a certain, weird phenomenon I see all the time where a game sets up an amazing, epic plot, and then falters in the third act or completely fails to even have a third act (lookin' at you, Brutal Legend).

Although, now that I think about it, that's probably more a symptom of those long development cycles and epic plots just kind-of getting away from the writers and developers.  Shorter games might be just the antidote.

OK, sorry, that got very stream-of-consciousness rambly. :P

230340423
November 17, 2010

@Christian: No, that was spot-on. I think a lot of games bite off more than they can chew, and budget concerns or time constraints force bad resolutions (stern glance at Indigo Prophecy).

Christian_profile_pic
November 17, 2010

@Layton: Haha!  Oh, poor Indigo Prophecy....

Shoe_headshot_-_square
November 17, 2010

I really like this story! :)

Personalpic4s
November 18, 2010

I love both novels and games that I can do in one go. Moments of achieving such a feat are forever logged in my memory as some of my favorite points in my life. Boring? Eh, perhaps to some. As for me I love the feeling of completion that you get from a rich and full story that you conquered within one cycle. Good job Layton. Thanks for the insight.

Robsavillo
November 18, 2010

I agree with everything in this article. I zipped through Vanquish in one sitting and loved the experience. Nothing dragged on or otherwise grew tiresome, and as a result the game felt a lot tighter than most others.

Fo1_hires_power_armour-1-2
November 21, 2010

All short action games should be played in one sitting. It makes the experience so much better. Specially the crazy ones like Kane & Lynch 2 and Vanquish.

I actually played K&L1 in one sitting. And then I played K&L2 in one sitting just after finishing K&L1. It was fantastic.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.