|
Editor's note: Daniel wants developers to shy away from long games in favor of shorter games with high replayability. I couldn't agree more -- the prospect of shoehorning an 80-hour RPG into my schedule makes my head hurt. That's why I've lately found myself playing quick six-hour campaigns I can finish in a weekend. What's your game-length sweet spot? -Brett
One thing I've found myself disagreeing with a lot these days is peoples' contempt for short games. I think there's a lot more that goes into a game's value than just the time it takes to beat it once.
I understand wanting to get more for your money. Only getting about five hours of entertainment for $60 sounds like a rip-off compared to 30 or 60 hours, but what's the real gauge for that time? Is that kind of thinking compatible with every consumer?
A lot of people obviously don't have the time for a game that requires 30 or 60 hours to be considered "beaten" in any capacity. Furthermore, for some people the best experience might be one that garners additional polish from its concise length.
My main defense of short games is that usually, if a game is good enough, you won't want to play through it just once. The proper comparison is to a rollercoaster. I don't ride rollercoasters, but I everyone I know who does talks of rollercoasters at parks that remain enjoyable even on the eighth or ninth ride.
When a game is that enjoyable, it's initial "length" is already multiplied. Mirror's Edge is a five-hour campaign, but my regular replays of time trials and segments of the campaign have probably amounted to more than 20 hours. Six hours has become the standard campaign length for a Call of Duty game, but working your way up the difficulty ladder to Veteran means you're getting up to maybe four times that much gameplay out of it.
On an episode of the 1UP Yours podcast, Metal Gear Solid 4 producer Ryan Payton specifically noted that Kojima Productions took a "short but sweet" approach to the game. Sans cut scenes, MGS4, like most Metal Gear games, is 6-to-10 hours long. In my experience, however, that game got a lot more fun upon exploring the finer points of its gameplay on second and third runs. That goes without mentioning the various end-of-game emblems and such.
The other side of this argument is that making games shorter but still enjoyable enough to repeat puts more control in the hands of consumers when it comes to length.
People who are strapped for time may feel troubled by a game like Persona 4 in which you have to put in at least 80 hours just to see the credits roll. That same person, however, can turn an 8-to-10 hour game into a 30-hour game completely by choice, depending on replay value. Another good example is games with short main quests but tons of side content. If you wanted to you could finish Fallout 3 in 12 hours, but there are people who've spent 200 hours on it.
These qualities rarely reflect in professional video game reviews because chances are a reviewer is probably only going to play through a game once. It's already being acknowledged that many of them are forced to play through games at a different pace than the average Joe. This goes for anyone else acclimated to the cycle of constantly jumping from new game to new game.
It's very easy to say, "This game only has six hours of content in it, so it's probably not worth $60," but possibly the hardest thing to gauge in a medium like games is length. Not mentioning the fact that length is variable depending on the player, that base "length" basically becomes meaningless the moment you start another new file.
This was cross-posted from redswirl.1up.com.
|
so i need to make short 1-2 hours play sessions, what makes me think that if a long game ( 60-80 hours ) was designed with that in mind ( like short chapters or quests ) more people like myself who doesnt have the time anymore, would be able to somehow consume those games. 