Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johnny C]

I was reading through some user reviews of Half-Life 2: Episode 2 when I started coming across a bunch that started griping about the length of the experience. Apparently three to four hours is too short. It got me thinking about a lot of things. Why does a game have to be a certain length in order to convey its themes, in order for the player to develop an emotional attachment to the characters and plot, in order for a mechanic or technique to be explored? Why is length prioritized over depth?

It's very likely that I'm preaching to the choir here. Games are a medium that seem to prize quantity over quality. I guess instead we can use this thread to talk about that quality, regardless of quantity! Who knows?

To make my position on the matter crystal clear, I'll use an example. I'm a fan of the work of interactive fiction author Adam Cadre. He's created some fantastic work, though he doesn't seem to anymore. It's unfortunate - he took the medium and stretched it, bent it and twisted it in surprising, clever and visionary ways. He's also responsible for probably the most thought-provoking, emotionally volatile game I've ever played. It's called Shrapnel, and that link should let you download it. It's an .exe file, but there's a Z-Code version on his website. Within the first couple of moves, you'll understand what I mean. Yet the whole experience takes maybe a half-hour at the absolute maximum.

I dunno. I just want to talk about this because I feel it's something that people who take gaming seriously ought to be considering, and it's something the industry needs to look long and hard at in order for games to keep evolving and developing.

[Ozymandias]

I think part of it is that gamers expect a certain amount of entertainment for their dollar. Video games cost more than books, movies or even a season of a TV show and if a gamer can finish it in a day without trouble, they tend to feel shafted.

I kind of agree with this sentiment, but I mean...if adding more to the game will reduce the quality, it just shouldn't be done. Period.

[Jackie Blue]

Well, it's simple.  A lot of gamers, especially those who are interested in the "game" part, feel a little disgruntled when a game takes millions of dollars to make and all the money is spent on graphics instead of gameplay.

Games like Primal, Deus Ex, KOTOR, Mass Effect, Max Payne, Grand Theft Auto 3+, etc. have proved that a game can be both lengthy and high-quality, so sometimes it's a little annoying for a commercial game to only last 5 hours.  It's understandable.

[Dimmukane]

I think it's also that no matter how good something is, when you're done with it, you're left wanting more of it.  This goes for the longer video games, movies, books, songs, etc.  At least, it seems that way to me.  I thought Episode 2's length was just fine.  As long as it finishes what it started (not literally), then it doesn't really matter how long it is to me.

[camelpimp]

Well, I'm a JRPG fan, so I feel like my view is a bit... skewed when it comes to game length. Although I don't care much the 40+ hour game, I mean, I loved Arc 2, but it was a chore to play to the end. Some of my favorites only take about 25 hours or so to play, which I guess nowadays is a rip-off? Wow, I am so out of touch with modern gaming.

[KvP]

It depends, I suppose. Though I did hear some complaints about Portal's short length, they were half-hearted, because it was a good game that gave itself a modest goal. Compare that with something like Halo 2, which was long as all shit and had a "buy a new game in '07!" ending. Or Neverwinter Nights 2, which had long periods of what seemed like dead weight in which you'd crawl through a dungeon fighting things, not feeling as though you were going anywhere in the story. Good pacing can justify long length.

[Jackie Blue]

There is such a thing as a game that's too long, for sure.  I'm not big on games like Morrowind which give you a metric ton of quests but ultimately you don't particularly give a crap about any of them, or about travelling a huge gameworld if said gameworld doesn't even have a single memorable character.

That's why Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 worked so well; they were massive and sprawling, but you could easily ignore the vast majority of quests AND they were filled to the brim with interesting and engaging characters and situations.

As far as JRPGs, I love the 20-40 hour length in most cases.  It's just enough to feel really epic without dragging on, when it's done right.

All that said, short games can be great, too.  Silent Hill 2 is all I have to say about that.

[Storm Rider]

It ultimately depends on the game and what the developer is trying to accomplish. However, the basic fact exist that games cost money, and people want a good value for the game they're coughing up for. For instance, Heavenly Sword is a 60 dollar game that has a length of roughly 6 hours. Even for an action game, that's kind of a ripoff any way you look at it. Bioshock, on the other hand, is between 15-20 hours, much longer than the standard single player  FPS campaign, but still manages to be a great accomplishment. But of course we've all come in contact with things in games that were obviously just designed to pad it for length and have nothing to do with the story or the goal of the game. Still, if I'm paying 60 dollars for a game I expect a certain length. It's doubly true for me because unlike a lot of people I don't put a lot of stock in good multiplayer because I don't like depending on other people (because they are frequently jerks) for my entertainment.

[pilsner]

Why does a game have to be a certain length in order to convey its themes, in order for the player to develop an emotional attachment to the characters and plot, in order for a mechanic or technique to be explored? Why is length prioritized over depth?

Because people buy video games to fill time more often than they buy them to appreciate creative expression.  Games that last 6 hours don't fill a lot of time.  So people are dissatisfied.

Next up, Johnny C asks: "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?"

[Alegis]

I think part of it is that gamers expect a certain amount of entertainment for their dollar.

/thread

For shooting games with short SP sessions the focus is more shifted towards the MP component to increase its longevity. It's easier to make a great RPG more lasting, while difficult to have a MP component that makes sense and fits in.

As to be expected though, games with better textures are usually shorter, myself I'm not too kind on that kind of development. Assassin's Creed for example is in my eyes a failure for maintaining a good balance.

[Johnny C]

Next up, Johnny C asks: "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?"

Hey, no need to Rick Reuben this thread.

Besides, people do buy games that have creative expression. This year, Bioshock managed to sell a good number of copies. And time-filling games aren't necessarily the best. There are some long, shitty games on every platform.

It seems like an unusual attitude, especially at this stage in the medium's development, to be stuck on the idea of games as a time-killer first and foremost. They totally can function as such but they also have the potential to acheive so much depth. For God's sake, the medium is all about immersion! I guess that's what is bothering me the most - immersion is viewed more as time spent in the game than the fullness of the experience. Hell, that fullness is viewed itself in terms of length.

Am I making any sense here?

[Jackie Blue]

You're making sense, but using Half-Life Episode 2 is a bad example.  Is it good, sure.  Is it stunning and creative enough to justify  being less than 5 hours long?  No way.  At best it's a decent refinement of the FPS genre, but the FPS genre is showing its age in a major way.

Like I said, a game like Silent Hill 2 (or for that matter Fatal Frame 2) can be pretty short and people don't mind.  I've never heard anyone complain that either of those games was too short.

And I don't think pilsner literally meant that he buys games just to kill time.  I think he meant that one shells out a lot of money for a game that took a lot of time and money to create, and that justifies a certain expectation of amount of content.  Given that we live in a world full of games like Super Mario Galaxy and Mass Effect, which are both very long, incredibly inventive, and visually mindblowing, of course people are going to get miffed when a game like HL2:2 is so short.

It's a valid complaint and I think you're making too much out of it.  I doubt there are people saying "this game is shit SOLELY BECAUSE it's too short".  It's just one aspect of the game, and an aspect that can be justifiably criticised, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the game (Heavenly Sword really has no excuse for being so short, whereas Portal does, e.g.)

[Johnny C]

Valid points. Episode 2 is priced by itself very reasonably and not at the sixty-dollar mark, which is probably what makes it a bad example - it's not supposed to be more than five hours long because it's just supposed to be a part rather than the whole. Episodic content was a poor starting point for my case.

I gathered that Pil didn't mean himself when he wrote that. It doesn't read like the sort of thing one would write about oneself. However, even with games like Mario Galaxy and Mass Effect, there's still a lot of space for smaller games that still deliver emotionally or culturally resonant ideas in a compelling way. I also don't think there aren't games that could stand to be longer but I do feel that in many cases a game's length seems to be held against it unfairly.

Suggesting that I'm making to much of it has me obsessively re-reading my posts. Hopefully this isn't coming across as me thinking that it's a huge issue that affects all games everywhere and all gamers worldwide. I think it's one aspect of gaming and gaming criticism and I think it deserves some addressing, and there are some clever responses and interesting views expressed here in this thread that I think justify the discussion.

[Storm Rider]

Besides which, both Portal and Episode 2 exist outside the normal paradigms of game design. Episode 2 is part of the episodic model, which by definition is based on delivering shorter games for a cheaper price. It's much shorter than the average game, yes, but it also costs less, so you're not necessarily being cheated out of value. Portal, in contrast, is essentially a tech demo with exceptionally funny writing. The reason it is so satisfying is that it's included in a package with other games at a fantastic value. If Valve had tried to sell Portal separately at 50 or 60 dollars, then that would be horrendously bad value.

Also, I think that the solution to the problem of length in games is digital distribution. If you cut out the retail model, you're able to sell your games for cheaper, which allows you to deliver smaller games to consumers in a way that still gives them good value for their money. The eventual problem with that, of course, is storage. I don't think that the common perception that games will transition entirely to digital distribution is a valid one at least in the short term. Retail disc-based games take up around 10 gigs of space at least, and no console has a large enough hard drive to manage a large library of games of that size. It'll happen during the next generation of consoles at the absolute earliest.

[Narr]

Digital Distribution on console systems will likely not take off for quite some time.  It's alive and well and WELCOME in the PC world, however, especially through something like Steam where it stores what games you have in an account, so even if you take it off your computer to free up space, you can download it again at a later date.

I also think the price thing needs to be addressed.  Games come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.  I would think prices should reflect that.  If more games that were shorter in length were $20, more people would buy into it, I think.  I agree that things like Heavenly Sword are simply not worth the $60 price tag when you can pick up something like Mass Effect for the same price.  (I realize they are on different systems so that's not a perfect example, but I can't think of anything worthwhile on the PS3 that's system exclusive, and that's entirely beside the point anyway.)

I also think games are getting too long anymore, especially considering how the really long ones fail to engage people for ridiculous amounts of time.  Prime example: anything by Squaresoft in the past 7 years.  I own FF12, but only because I dislike trading in games especially when I'm not going to get very much back.  It's simply too long and it does what most JRPGs do, which is to say not give you any of your FUN abilities for an extremely long time.  The intro is so incredibly boring as all you can do is whack things with a sword and use items.

The last game I played that was over 20 hours in length I actually finished was Tales of the Abyss, which is kind of funny because my final save had some 80+ hours on it and I beat the game AGAIN with the new game+ feature (so I have about 120 hours total with it).  Why did I spend so long on one game, a guy like me who's attention span isn't exactly the greatest?  Simply put, awesome gameplay.  The combat for me is so in-depth and engaging, I could have cared less about the sub-par translation effort (although the voice acting was superb!).  Give me a game that long with a menu system with something as boring as "Fight/Magic/Item" and I'll burn out in about 5 hours if the story doesn't grab me.

I have to say I'm with Johnny on this one.  Give me something I can complete and get enthralled with, even if it's short, and I'll love you forever.  If you're able to make it long, all the better, but quality will always beat quantity.

[Storm Rider]

But again, the vast majority of the market is in consoles at this point. Digital distribution won't take off on a large scale until it becomes viable for consoles, and that's pretty much all there is to it.

[Jackie Blue]

I honestly dislike the entire console model.  I don't want to have to choose between an XBox360 or a PS3.  You can whine about monopolies all day but when you get right down to it, it was a good thing when it became true somewhere around 1990 that 99% of all PC gamers everywhere were running the same operating system on (more or less) the same hardware.  Having console-exclusive games is a "fuck you" to gamers no matter how you look at it.  It forces people who want the best gaming experience to shell out increasingly large amounts of money to own multiple systems.

It wasn't that bad before this generation - one could own a PS2, an XBox, and a GameCube for not a whole lot of cash.  Remember when they dropped the GC price to $100?  I really don't see PS3 or XBox360 dropping below $300 anytime in the next five years.

(The Wii and the DS are out of this argument, because both provide entirely different ways to play games, with motion-sensing and touchpad respectively, besides the fact that a DS is quite cheap and a Wii won't break your wallet either.)

[0bsessions]

Actually, you can already get one model of the 360 for under $300 (The core unit is $280).

Unless the Wii has an immense drop off in terms of demand, I figure the 360 and PS3's price points will both drop further by next holiday season in order to remain competitive.

[Jackie Blue]

Well, a $280 XBox is a step in the right direction.  Unfortunately I hated the original XBox and hate the 360 as well.  Buggy doesn't even begin to describe my experiences with Microsoft consoles (surprise surprise).  And they still don't know how to design a fucking controller.

The XBox is like a dumb jock that you can't completely dismiss because he's a good quarterback.

PlayStations are like anonymous government agents who do their job extremely well and are very polite to you, but that you always suspect are up to something shady, and may in fact be in league with the Illuminati.

The Wii is like your cute little sister that is always drawing you adorable little pictures.

The DS is just the best gaming system in existance right now (when you factor in its ability to play GBA games, which makes up for its slightly low number of must-have games.)

[KvP]

What are you talking about, the 360 controller is the best gamepad on the market, in design and functionality. It takes after the old Sega controllers. Whereas the Sixaxis controller is like the family member who always barges in on you and your friends and embarasses you trying to be hip with the kids. You can tell the designers took a look at the Wiimote and said "hey, we can do that too!" hence the shittiness of the sixaxis technology.

[Jackie Blue]

Eh, different strokes.  The PS2/3 controller is in my book the ultimate in ease of use.  The 360 is certainly better than the atrocious original XBox controller but I still don't like it.

Actually I take it back, the GameCube controller is the best console controller that has ever been made.  Enday fooking story.

[Narr]

The problem with the Duo-Shock controllers is that the design? It was stolen.  The reason they changed to the Sixaxis crapola is because Sony was sued for quite a substantial amount of money if I remember correctly, and lost the rights to continue the design.  I like the 360 controllers because while they are larger, they still feel essentially like a PS2 controller, but with a D-pad that doesn't tear your fingers to pieces.  The fact it's USB is also a plus because hey, it's a gaming controller that feels right at home on a PC as well, should you have one of the 5 games in existence that was made for PC and feels better with one over a keyboard/mouse!

[ackblom12]

My problem with the Dual-Shock design was that it was fuckin retarded to make you're main directional input be in an awkward spot, while you're D-Pad, which is only better to use in a very small number of games, right in the one spot that most people's thumbs rest comfortably.

The only exception to this I can think of are Katamari and Steambot Chronicles.

[Narr]

Well, the original PSX controller sort of didn't HAVE analog, so when the technology came around, they sort of stuck them on the bottom which was the only place it'd really fit without completely overhauling the design.

Your complaint is why the main analog stick on X-Box and 360 controllers is where it is.

[Jackie Blue]

Again, different strokes.  I much, much prefer having the analog sticks on the bottom.  The exception is the GC controller, but really only because hardly any games used the D-Pad in any major way.

[Johnny C]

The Wii is like your cute little sister that Tommydski is always hovering around.

I don't really mind any of the current generation's controller designs. The last-gen Xbox was really dire though. It felt clumsy no matter what.

[Storm Rider]

Having console-exclusive games is a "fuck you" to gamers no matter how you look at it.  It forces people who want the best gaming experience to shell out increasingly large amounts of money to own multiple systems.

It wasn't that bad before this generation - one could own a PS2, an XBox, and a GameCube for not a whole lot of cash.  Remember when they dropped the GC price to $100?  I really don't see PS3 or XBox360 dropping below $300 anytime in the next five years.

First of all, even if you were to buy the most expensive models of all three consoles, it would STILL cost less than a gaming PC. Secondly, I will bet any sum of money you'd like that both the Premium model of the 360 and the 40 GB PS3 will be 299 or less within 2 years from now. I was going to say 18 months but that was probably a little ambitious. Exclusive console games are a necessary evil in the current commercial model, because each company has to sell their system and if every game was on every system then there'd be no way to do that. The fact of the matter is, the pressure to obtain exclusive games pushes the standards of game development higher, and that's ultimately better for the consumer. Look at some of the best games of this year: Mass Effect, Bioshock, Super Mario Galaxy. My personal top 3 of the year, and all exclusives to their respective consoles.

[Johnny C]

Uncharted is also supposed to be ridiculously good.

[Storm Rider]

Supposedly it's the best first-party game on the system, but they weren't setting the standards particularly high there for a while.

[Ozymandias]

Uncharted seemed really silly to me, but I didn't watch/play too much to be honest. It looked like they really shoehorned in the waggle, though. Appropriate, since Sony really shoehorned in the waggle into the entire system.

Also, the 360 controller is my favorite controller of all time at this point, beating out the Dual Shock 2. It simply melts into your hands. It's the perfect evolution of the traditional controller- a beautiful combination of traditional Sony, Nintendo, and Sega styles.

[Jackie Blue]

Secondly, I will bet any sum of money you'd like that both the Premium model of the 360 and the 40 GB PS3 will be 299 or less within 2 years from now.

Why the Hell would I want a 40GB PS3 though?  It doesn't have PS2 compatibility.

I was going to say 18 months but that was probably a little ambitious. Exclusive console games are a necessary evil in the current commercial model, because each company has to sell their system and if every game was on every system then there'd be no way to do that.

Heaven forbid the console makers do something to differentiate their consoles other than having them look different and have a couple exclusive games.

Mass Effect, Bioshock, Super Mario Galaxy. My personal top 3 of the year, and all exclusives to their respective consoles.

Super Mario Galaxy doesn't count, because the Wii provides an unique console experience.  It has an entirely different control scheme that would be difficult if not impossible to emulate on another console.

That's my point, that the Wii justifies being a separate console because it does things the PS3 and XBox don't.

[Storm Rider]

I didn't say you would want it. I said one of the models for each system will make it to that price point before long.

[Melodic]

Since when was Bioshock an exclusive game?

[Storm Rider]

Exclusive to one console, if you're going to be pedantic.

[KvP]

Super Mario Galaxy doesn't count, because the Wii provides an unique console experience. It has an entirely different control scheme that would be difficult if not impossible to emulate on another console.

Maybe I haven't played the right games, but so far I have yet to play a game that "harnesses the true potential" of the Wii's control scheme yet. Every game I've played on up to SMG uses the motion control as a sort of accessory, with the nunchuck stick and AB buttons serving as the primary controls, and shaking the remote as a third button. It seemed as though you could get through most all of SMG without using star bits, if you really wanted to. Even the most well reviewed game control-wise that I've seen, which is probably Metroid Prime 3 (haven't played, despise Metroid) has been hailed mostly as the best synthesis of conventional control schemes and lightgun mechanics.

I will give Nintendo credit for equating playing the Wii with physical exercise, though. It's a wonderful con. Ditto for Brain Age.

[Johnny C]

Oh jeez, let's see.

Zack & Wiki, Resident Evil 4 and The Godfather all have phenomenal control schemes. My dad bought Blazing Angels and it's pretty neat - there's a lot of wrist movement but you use it to fly a plane so it's sensible.

[KvP]

That sounds interesting. I played RE4 and it was, for the first hour at least, akin to the "normal control with lightgun" dynamic. I was one of those people for whom it was way too difficult to aim correctly. Shaky hands.

Forgot about the balancing ball in SMG, though. That kind of sort of invalidates my point, but I suppose you could more or less replicate the experience with a sixaxis controller.

[Jackie Blue]

You could make Metroid Prime 3 on another system, but it would be a hell of a lot less fun without the motion-sensing control scheme, which really immerses you in the feel of it.

Like it or not, the Wii is actually bringing something truly new to the table.  You can't really say that about the PS3 or 360.  And unlike the Virtual Boy, it works and people really enjoy it.

I know I'm coming across as a Nintendo fanboy, but considering how much sheer joy that company has brought me over the past 24 years, I can't help it.  Nintendo represents everything that's right about video games, from a big-picture standpoint.  They truly understand that games should, first and foremost, be fun.

It doesn't hurt that their star developer comes up with his best games while under the influence of psychedelic mushrooms.

[Johnny C]

Interestingly enough, it didn't take me that long to actually beat Super Mario Galaxy, but it was stellar (ha, ha) across the board.

[Alex C]

That sounds interesting. I played RE4 and it was, for the first hour at least, akin to the "normal control with lightgun" dynamic. I was one of those people for whom it was way too difficult to aim correctly. Shaky hands

I had the exact opposite experience with RE4; I dismissed it upon its original release and then when I got my hands on the Wii version I was all like "Hey! This game doesn't reek of shit anymore."

[Jimmy the Squid]

I'm kind of in the middle on this one. Since I'm paying upwards of $70 for a single game (I payed $80 for a second hand copy of Oblivion during the post christmas sales) I want something that will occupy my attention for a good long while. That doesn't necessarily mean I want a game with a 40hr campaign. Assassin's Creed is probably only 10 hours at the very most (for the main story) and that's only if you take your time with it. Whereas Morrowind or Oblivion are games that I will never technically finish but rather games I will play until I get tired of them, for Morrowind that took over 50 hours. By the same token though, I don't want a game that goes forever but has no substance. Assassin's Creed is a pretty short game as I said but the world is so incredible to me that I loved every minute of it and am still playing it from the beginning for the second time.

Also, the only thing I didn't like about the 360 controllers was the lack of the black and white buttons but they put in the bumper buttons and all was forgiven. It is the most comfortable controller I've ever used.

[Jackie Blue]

You really think the 360 controller is more comfortable than the GameCube's?

Huh.

[Jimmy the Squid]

The Gamecube comes a very close second but in the end yeah, I'm going with the 360. It is the perfect size for my tiny, out-of-proportion-to-my-body hands. The Gamecube controller was a good size too but it lacked the weightiness and solid feel that the 360 controller has.

[Storm Rider]

The 360 controller is very good, in my opinion. I think I prefer it to the Dual Shock 2 at this point, although in comparison to the Wavebird it's more or less a tossup. Although I realize it's not really in the same realm as other systems, I really do like the form factor of the Wii Remote. It's nice having something in each hand so that your fingers aren't all cramped close together.

[Alegis]

The DS (...) its slightly low number of must-have games.

Still a shitload of titles I need to finish on the DS - not enough time.

Myself I like the Xbox controllers (more than dual shock), but not as much as the Gamecube controller.

[Alex C]

You really think the 360 controller is more comfortable than the GameCube's?

Huh.

God yes.

I'd say the dual shock is my least favorite of the group; they're just too tiny, even for me, and I have small, girlish hands.

[ackblom12]

I'd say the 360 beats out the GC controller (my 2nd favorite controller) just for the fact it doesn't have the goddamn Z button that's on the GC controller.

As far as length of games go, I'd be quite happy to pay full price for a good game that doesn't try to artificially extend it's playtime. That's the kind of shit that ruins a lot of games for me.

[KvP]

You really think the 360 controller is more comfortable than the GameCube's?

Huh.

As my introduction to Nintendo, the GC controller layout was absolutely terrible. But at least I learned how to play Soul Caliber 2 pretty well.

My having been so late to the Nintendo party is probably a big part why it's difficult for me to enjoy their stuff, I guess. It's surreal to see so many people who liked the GC controllers. Why?

[Jackie Blue]

I love the GC controller because it fits my hand perfectly, the analog stick was better than the PS2's wrt sensitivity, the pressure sensitive shoulder buttons were absolutely genius and made a mockery of the PS2's shoulder buttons (especially with the "press, press and hold, or press and click" options as opposed to "click or click harder"), the Yellow Stick was versatile because it wasn't just another analog stick; its design allowed it to be used in a wider variety of ways, the button layout was absolutely great because the buttons were actually differentiated instead of simply having different symbols printed on them...

Granted, yes, the Z button was a bizarre mis-step, but so few games used it in any significant way that it didn't really matter.

[Ozymandias]

I'm pretty weirded out by the Wavebird love too, and I love Nintendo something fierce.

The whole thing was just oddly designed. The D-pad was too small, the handles were too small, the Z-button was ridiculous, the C-stick was pretty much worthless. The only parts I really liked were the analog stick and the face button layout.

The Dual Shock 2 was the controller of the last generation, weird analog stick placement and all.