Reply With QuoteIs this some kind of joke? Broken links, links taking me to porn...
I'm not reading all that shit.
Someone want to read through all the bullshit and cut and paste the relevant stuff?
A bunch of indies (including cliffski, Jon, and me) organized by Jamie @ Klei have gotten together and posted our thoughts on the "game length issue". Here's a pile o' links:
http://24caretgames.com/2010/08/17/d...length-matter/
http://2dboy.com/2010/08/17/too-short/
http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/08/Game-length-and-value
http://www.brokenrul.es/blog/?p=314
http://gamesfromwithin.com/size-matters
http://macguffingames.com/2010/if-si...-virtual-goods
http://mile222.com/2010/08/a-haiku-about-game-length/
http://nygamedev.blogspot.com/2010/0...-up-short.html
http://positech.co.uk/cliffsblog/?p=810 (this is cliffski)
http://retroaffect.com/blog/160/Size..._t_Matter_Day/
http://spyparty.com/2010/08/17/size-doesnt-matter-day/ (this is me)
http://the-witness.net/news/?p=438 (this is Jonathan Blow)
http://www.copenhagengamecollective....e-does-matter/ (this one is, uh, kinda nsfw)
http://www.firehosegames.com/2010/08...uch-is-enough/
http://www.hobbygamedev.com/spx/short-videogame-design/
http://www.spyeart.com/misc/gamelength_MichaelTodd.html
http://www.tunahq.com/2010/08/size-doesnt-matter-day/
http://mindflock.com/2010/08/why-are...-ground-games/
Also, #gamelength on the twitters.
Chris
Last edited by checker; 08-17-2010 at 12:09 PM. Reason: fixed a link, added qt3 names
Is this some kind of joke? Broken links, links taking me to porn...
I'm not reading all that shit.
Someone want to read through all the bullshit and cut and paste the relevant stuff?
Fuck off, kerzain.
I like JoBlow's at the-witness.
You need to play Minecraft Bob, we could build giant penises together.
I fixed the broken one (which was, naturally, the first one...wordpress changes the permalink on posts, yay), and put a warning next to the "porn" one.Originally Posted by kerzain
Thanks for your thoughts on the topic!
Chris
I agree with the sentiment that the length of a game shouldn't matter, but it's got to be somewhat commensurate with price. I have finite resources and I just can't spend $60 on a game that's going to occupy 3 hours of my time and still feel like I got my money's worth. Now when people crab about a $15 game lasting "only" three or four hours, it strikes me as ridiculous. But for a full $60 game I expect at least five or six good hours of play, at least.
What I'd love to see is games sold for a discount without access to multiplayer. I'm never going to play Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer component. Why not let me pay $40 for the game instead of $60? I'm not going to utilize that MP component, so why should I have to pay for it?
Last edited by MSUSteve; 08-17-2010 at 11:50 AM.
I'm in the same boat, and have never played MW2 because of it. With a few exceptions, I do almost all of my gaming as single player and prefer it that way.
So a lazy movement for greedy gamedevelopers... whip out those bumper stickers!
I keed.
I do like how he links to a non-censored version of the image, for those who want to see it.
I guess you can never have enough Poser porn.
It strikes you as ridiculous but you feel the same way? You're just quibbling over the optimal ratio of dollars to hours.
You're saying that a hypothetical one-hour game that is the greatest gaming experience you've ever experienced, that enriches your life and that you fondly remember forever, that this game has a hard cap on its maximum allowable price based on its one-hour playtime?
I think he misses a key point. Few people pay to listen to a song for 3 minutes and are done with it. I doubt many people pay 99 cents on Itunes for a song and expect to derive a grand total of 3 minutes of satisfying experience from it.
When people buy something, they expect to be able to repeatably gain that satisfaction (or approximation) from it, whether it be movies, games, or books.
The real problem is that so few games offer experiences that are not only worth repeating, but repeating enough to make them worth the 60 dollar investment new.
So if a game can't offer an experience worth repeating for your purchase, it offers a longer experience that's worth playing one time or they tack on multiplayer. That's the solution games have come up with regarding this problem.
Welcome to the mass market commercialism. If you want a different set of rules, I suggest you visit an art gallery.
I've read the first one, the second one and the porn one and don't see any point in reading further. It seems like arrogant game designers demanding their games be reviewed in a way they approve of. While I agree that a review shouldn't just say, "too short," I don't think I've ever read a game review that just said, "too short." And if there was a review that just said a game was, "too short," I don't think anyone of reason would listen to it.
All in all, it's a lot of rage over what seems to be nothing.
No one's suggesting that "the market" would support a different metric. But any individual should know better.
The dollars to hours ratio is personal and different for everyone. What strikes me as ridiculous might be fine with someone else. I was simply expressing my personal threshold, not trying to lay down the 11th Commandment.
There is no hypothetical one hour game that I would pay $60 for. What I expect and get from the games I love the most could never be accomplished in one hour. Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2, for example, both take place over quite a few hours and are two of my favorite games of all time. Both allow for a rich story to develop and, most importantly, allow me to grow my character over time. That's what I like about a longer game. If a game is really only going to last an hour, it might be a good experience for that amount of time, but I'll never pay $60 for it.
Really? I don't know. If you look at the mediums presented in his argument, there's a clear pattern in price expectations and length*. If the next oscar winning film started charging 60 dollars a seat, I'm pretty sure you'd see movie reviewers discussing whether it was worth it.
As soon as you start talking about price, you've invoked the market. There's no getting around that. The only thing you can do is find a different market with different rules.
*And it's not surprising the one exception is the painting, but like I said, different markets.. different rules.
Last edited by Mordrak; 08-17-2010 at 12:39 PM.
Man, I've actually been writing a post on this exact topic for my own neglected site.
I'll summarize here:
I miss games like Super Metroid which are great, offer a lot of replayability, and can be finished in one sitting. Whether you are trying to change the order in which you complete things, or just be more efficient, or do speed runs, it's a game that keeps on giving, and can be satisfying in a 3 hour block.
I think more games should strive to be 3 hours long... but to provide that replayability. Jonathan Blow is right. We should be condensing games. Christ, I've pretty much given up on RDR due to the amount of time wasting involved. It's not meaningful, and while I might occasionally have "fun" I'd rather have a self contained experience that completes itself quickly.
I've been kicking around the idea of making a metroid game that randomly generates the levels, so a single complete playthrough would last a few hours, and then next time you wanted to do so, you'd be presented with another set of challenges and explorations.
I'm tired of games that expect me to repeat the same actions for 5 hours as part of a 20 hour game. I have too many things I'd rather be doing.
And that's before even getting to the point of all the retarded narrative filler that games put in to extend the length. RDR again, I have to win races for this fuckstick who is supposed to help me? When was the last time that shit was the highlight of a book or movie?
Please, focus on the interesting things, and if you have a ton of things for me to do, surprise me over multiple short playthroughs with new experiences or different takes on the same ones, even.
If I was to use shorthand to describe that game, I might say it's too long. I'd get away with it too because indie devs don't make long games, so they won't conspire to rage all over the internet about me not liking their game.
When I was younger, I was a bit more concerned about game length. With more time than money, I wanted games I could replay and enjoy.
Now that I'm older, have a job/house/kid-to-be to deal with, I want games that deliver the most fun in a reasonable amount of time. For $60, I'd rather have a game deliver me 10 hours of awesomeness instead of stretching it out to 40 hours. The content density of a game is important to me.
The main exception to this for me is anything where I get to socialize with other people. I've had way more fun co-oping Halo 3 than playing some other games.
To MSUSteve's point, though, I would totally pay $60 for a one hour game. It would need to be absolutely phoenomenal to justify that, though. And I can't really think of a game I've played ever that would justify that.
I've been pretty happy with a lot of the indie games at a 5-10-20 dollar price point. A lower price means lowered expectations, and it makes me feel less like I need to justify the expenditure.
More like game designers seeing how a common trend (obsession with game length) is forcing crappy compromises that make games worse (padding out content with trips back and forth, obvious 'grinding' that feels repetitive etc).
I won't apologise for that. Maybe you would prefer it if game designers didn't give a flying fuck about the end quality of the game, and just wanted the maximum cash from the product and left it at that?
While I haven't played RDR, games aren't books or movies. I suggest you watch more movies or read more books if you want those experiences. RDR is an open world game right though? Well, that kind of thing could be part of its appeal to some as an example of the diversity and breadth of experiences that are included with the game.
So I should go back to non-interactive media if I want more interesting experiences? Wow. I guess games really *are* boring.
Look, the point is this, books and movies leave out the parts that aren't interesting. There is no reason that games shouldn't do the same thing. If you truly feel that crossing your nearly empty world on horseback is interesting, fine, so be it. If you feel that contriving ridiculous narrative reasons why you should do ridiculous things is interesting... well, I'm sorry. I don't like your game.
This is a place where I, even as peon to big business game development, can easily agree with Cliffski. I've worked on a lot of games where the word came down from on high that we needed to 'make it longer'. And that does result rather directly in a compromise of quality.
I don't buy that. If one of you said it, fair enough. Instead an exclusive, specific group of game designers gets together, and complains about a particular quality of certain games. A quality that is generally not element of the type of game they make themselves. And a quality that part of games that are more popular and make more money than the type of game they make? The complaint you put across isn't that games are using filler, the complaint is that the press are concerned about the length of a game. And the length of a game is a valid concern when people are paying money for the experience. Sure it's shorthand, but that's what reviews use. To take it a little further; If you wanted to attack filler in games why didn't you address your concern at the game developers. Or is it because you believe non-indie games are being designed less by artists and more by marketers?
Five or six? I can't imagine paying full price for a game that doesn't provide at least 30 high-quality hours, preferably more. A lot more. There are plenty of titles out there, and I try to get my money's worth from my purchases.
Last edited by Dave Markell; 08-17-2010 at 02:02 PM.
This is exactly the sort of nonsense we're talking about. Excellent example, Dave. I bet it hurt to pretend to believe that.
What you don't realize is that this is a balancing act.
If your game is set up a certain way, and then it needs to be longer to keep people happy, it's a fine line between long enough and boring due to repetition.
Considering I meant every word, nope, no pain.
Wah wah wah. My two hour game is worth over fifteen hours of that game.
I fully accept that. I know there is a time:content ratio. But you have to accept that quantity:quality is also a ratio that comes into effect when people are being asked to spend money. What you seem to be doing is arguing that someone's appraisal of your game is wrong. That's not a call you can make.
No, books and movies don't cut out what's uninteresting, they cut out what's irrelevant to that particular narrative and/or their style of storytelling. There are all sorts of potentially interesting things in those in between spaces. To say that movie's and books cut out the uninteresting parts is to misunderstand what books and movies are and how games are different from that.
If the race was uninteresting to you, it was either not what you were looking for or poorly implemented. The mere existence of the race doesn't make it uninteresting.
That can be an interesting experience, but you sound like people complaining that art house films are too slow and boring. Games like that are about being in a space that bridges a gap that movies nor books can achieve. So yes, riding on horseback across an open world could be very interesting in and of itself, like driving around in Farcry 2 through the african setting.There is no reason that games shouldn't do the same thing. If you truly feel that crossing your nearly empty world on horseback is interesting, fine, so be it.
I don't disagree with this at all. For me there is a floor to an acceptable play length compared to price. Even a very good three to four hour game won't feel "worth" $60 to me. I'm not one of those people that needs or even wants a 40 to 60 hour game usually. It's the rare game that can hold my attention for that amount of time. Red Dead, for example, had me for about 10 to 12 hours and then I bailed. I just got bored and stopped. Fallout 3, on the other hand, clocked in over 40 hours for me easily.
And that's totally your prerogative. I'm certainly not going to beat you up over it. I just don't like journalists and developers telling me, or anyone else, that it's somehow wrong to be conscious of the price to hours of entertainment ratio, whatever it happens to be.
Posting Permissions