The Importance of Game Length

Gamasutra's regular 'Question of the Week' feature touches, this week, on the ideal length of games, and the importance of game length. While the overwhelming opinion was 'quality is better than quantity', there were a range of opinions along that scale. From the article: "I would say as a gamer on the more casual side (30+ years) the game length is fine around 20-25 hours. If you are having fun while playing. I never have time to finish anything longer. It makes me more satisfied to have played through the game in 20-25 game hours than never even reach half way. - Joachim Carlsson, Massive Entertainment"

Genre

[GenKreton (884088)]

It really depends on the genre. If I sit down to play an RPG it better be a lot longer than 25 hours... With that said, 25 hours out of an FPS is acceptable. The 12 hours it took to beat half-life 2 the first time was lacking though.

Re:

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

What was really disappointing about HL2 was the amount of time spent going somewhere. I think I spent 14 hours on it...I know I finished it in a weekend. I think I spent three of those hours driving those stupid vehicles from point A to point B. Far Cry made much better implementation of vehicles.

Re:Genre

[Mark Programmer (228585)]

The funny thing is that this is exactly why I don't play RPGs on a regular basis.

For me, most game mechanics get stale after twenty hours of play. RPGs in particular tend to have relatively simple game mechanics that rarely get changed-up---they pad the game out with level-grinding and plot. Once I've mastered the game mechanics, I want to move faster; I've found very few RPGs that allow me to do so, since the artificial wall of gaining levels still exists.

Re:

[Irish_Samurai (224931)]

This is the reason I do play RPG's.

There is something extremely relaxing about grinding levels. Its almost like meditating for me.

I understand what you're saying though - sometimes the mechanic isn't enough to keep me interested. Okami was way too long for me. Awesome game, but I put it down about 2/3rds of the way through. It became tedious to play.

Re:

[Phisbut (761268)]

RPGs in particular tend to have relatively simple game mechanics that rarely get changed-up---they pad the game out with level-grinding and plot.

Good RPG's require no grinding at all. If you follow the plot, and go to places the plot requires you to go, and do quests the plot requires you to do, you should have just enough random encounters to level up enough so that when you encounter a boss, you may have a challenging-but-not-impossible battle.

Boring grinding serve only 2 purposes: 1) Doing that optio

Re:

[thatguywhoiam (524290)]

I totally agree.

God of War took me something like 13-14 hours. And that was good.

Final Fantasy XII, I'm somewhere around 100 hours, and the game is clearly far too short. :)

They forgot...

[GoodbyeBlueSky1 (176887)]

Game girth is a factor too. Really, it is.

Re:They forgot...

[wuie (884711)]

As funny as the parent comment sounds, I agree with it.

When I play through a game, I like to know that it's more than just A-B-C plot progression. I love sideplots. I love side missions. I love small quirky things that happen in the game that can either distract me from the main plot, or join up with it eventually and make it a broader gaming experience.

Seeing as how this is very variable

[rolfwind (528248)]

It may be more of a question of game depth rather than pure length.

MOD PARENT UP

[DreadPiratePizz (803402)]

What was said is absolutely true: game depth is really the driving question. Much of the length of games today is derrived through repitition. Levels are drawn out longer than they need to be, in order to afford the player extra play time. However the extra time isn't really that valuable, since it consists of the player either doing repetitive or boring tasks, or places the player in the same situation repeatedly. A game with 10 hours play time, where every encounter and situation is utterly unique, seems much more fun than a 20 hour game with areas and levels mostly the same.

Games like Stubbs the Zombie I think fit this mold as well. The game itself is quite short, yet every minute is utterly enjoyable. It's not perfect, but the experience is far from repetitive.

Look at puzzle games. Mean Bean Machine, which is based on Puyo Puyo, takes all of about 30 minutes to 'beat'. Yet the game itself is so good, and adicting, and especially with the two player mode, just plain fun to play. Wario Ware can similarly be beaten quickly, however it's still fun to play the minigames just for minigame's sake.

RPGs are definately the biggest offenders in my opinion. A Link to the Past or Alundra is an example of what to do right. Final Fantasy is not. Much of the 'gameplay' in final fantasy involves looking at cutscenes, wandering around, or battling random monsters over and over. This is not to say that the game isn't fun, it's simply that it could easily have been half the length and not suffered at all.

I'm more concerned with playtime beyond the first playthrough. A game could have 20 hours of playtime, but be totally and utterly unreplayable. Yet that 10 hour game is so compelling, I go back for a second, third or even fourth try. If people come back to play it again, THAT's when you know you have a winner. Ideally, the game would be short and very replayable.

It depends...

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

...on the game genre, the target demographic, the platform, and lots more stuff.

A deep RPG could be a hundred hours long and some gamers would clamor for more. The best FPS would become tedious after 100 hours. Strategy games (especially real-time) vary wildly depending on the skill of the player; some people can sail through missions in ten minutes while others take hours.

A few generalized "ideal" game lengths:

FPS: 20-35 hours, with sufficient variation to avoid tedium and ways to finish faster for the dedicated gamer.
RTS: No more than 15-20 *missions* in a campaign.
RPG: At *least* 40 hours, but not much more than 100.
Adventure: 20 hours of actual gameplay, tops. Some people will spend quite a bit of time on certain puzzles.

Re:

[WinterSolstice (223271)]

My personal fav - Ultima 7. Over 100 hours of gameplay, with the possibility to spend a LOT more.
Second to that - Fable. Much shorter, but REALLY fun. Well, until the end, which completely sucks.

On the other hand, Doom 3 bored me after about 3 hours.

-WS

Re:

[PFI_Optix (936301)]

Doom 3 bored me after about 3 hours.

They lost me with the cutscenes. Hey! There's a new and scary-looking monster! I'll stand still and watch it get within striking distance before I even think about using my weapon!

I actually hit a cutscene that killed me every time. When it released the monster immediately hit me, not matter what I tried. My health was low, and I was forced to go back and replay about twenty minutes of game to get past it. HORRIBLE game design.

That, and their version of scary is forcing y

Re:

[WinterSolstice (223271)]

Yeah - I'm with you there. We can send people to mars, but we don't have a stupid gunlight... or the ability to hold a flashlight in our off-hands? There's only so much fun to the whole 'oh no, a scary monster jumping at me from the dark'. As has been said before, it felt like a tech demo or something. Not a real game.

-WS

Re:

[steveo777 (183629)]

A deep RPG could be a hundred hours long and some gamers would clamor for more.

Agreed. I have had experiences like that with Wild Arms, FFVI, Xenogears, Tales of Symphonia, and a few others. Finished the game and thought there needed to be more!

Strangely, I've played through a few games (FFX, Xenosage Ep 1) thinking the whole time, "When is this game going to get good? Where is the good plot?! All the other games were great."

Now, as far as FPS's going 20-25 hours? I'm really not sure if I've ever been that hooked into an FPS before. Maybe Turok 1 and 2, but other than that, the

It's not the size that matters...

[PsyQo (1020321)]

It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it!

Seriously, let me use GTA: San Andreas as an example. I finished that game months ago, but I still play it occasionally. There's nothing better than causing some nice explosions, steal a few cars and beating up some hookers after a frustrating day at work.
I love the freedom GTA: SA gives me and I'd probably buy more games that offer me that.

Re:It's not the size that matters...

[Bugs42 (788576)]

There's nothing better than causing some nice explosions, steal a few cars and beating up some hookers after a frustrating day at work.

And after THAT, you go home and load up GTA, right?

Ideas

[BenjyD (316700)]

I agree with the second answer - within reason, cost is not an issue. I'd rather pay $40 for 10 really good hours of gaming than 40 quite good hours, I can always buy another game. Very few single player games have enough variation and interesting content to justify more than about 15 hours of gameplay.

Re:

[Banzai042 (948220)]

The problem with this is that not everybody can just go out and buy a new game if the ones they have get boring. I think that in the last 6 months I've only purchased two new games (and I don't pirate games), because I don't have enough money to just buy a new game (college student). For a game to be worth it to me it has to have good replay value and/or a reasonable amount of gameplay that is actually interesting. Sure, it's easy to make a 30 hour game, but it's worthless unless the gameplay is actually

growing older

[gEvil (beta) (945888)]

As a gamer who's growing older (heading into my mid-thirties), I realize my response will likely anger many younger gamers who have 10 hours a day to play games. The maximum length I want a game to be these days is 25-30 hours. If it's a mindless platformer, I only want 10-15 hours out of it before I get bored. I have played some RPGs that go longer than 30 hours, but by that point I just want it to wrap itself up. For me, it's hard to make the time to play anything longer.

Re:

[blahplusplus (757119)]

"The maximum length I want a game to be these days is 25-30 hours"

If you don't like the length of the game, thats what cheats and gamesharks are for.

Re:

[chrismcdirty (677039)]

I agree with his point. I don't want a game to be too long, even if it is fun to play. Cheats and gamesharks just make a game boring, at which point, I might as well stop playing the game.

Re:

[amuro98 (461673)]

Seriously, if you're just going to cheat your way through the game, you might as well just watch a movie because that's essentially what you've turned the "game" into at that point...

And as a gamer in his mid-30s as well, who struggles to find the time to play, I have to agree with the parent post. There's just too much to play, and not enough time. I'll play the game until either it ends, or I'm finished with it and it's often the latter.

to repeat...

[Pojut (1027544)]

what many others have said, it depends on the genre...

For me, if it is not designed specifically to take forever to do everything (i.e. Oblivion) and is not an MMO (i.e. WoW), gameplay should not take longer than 50 hours for ANY game, tops. I find myself enjoying rpg's that have around the 40 hour mark, fps's that have around the 15 hour mark...I dunno, like I said it depends. If I had to choose a single time that I would want all games to take to play through, I would say 20 hours. 20 hours to me is en

Re:

[kalirion (728907)]

It's also all right for a game to be relatively short, if there's enough replay value. A great example is Master of Magic [mobygames.com]. A single game, even with the maximum of 4 opponents and a large world, would usually only take a few hours or less. And yet I must have spent at least 150 hours on that game.

Re:

[Pojut (1027544)]

Another example of a game such as this would be Warlords III (which, in my opinion, is the absolute pinnacle of turn-based strategy games...MANY people will dissagree with me, but screw them:-))

If I had the points, I would mod you up...that was a long lost FANTASTIC game, Master of Magic.

More choices, less length.

[phoenix.bam! (642635)]

Beyond Good an Evil is a great game. Amazing story, and it's short. 10 hours to beat. I enjoyed every minute of it. Problem is, no replay value. (You can go around and take pictures, sort of, but that really isn't a game)

Tales of Symphonia, Amazing story... and then you're 30 hours in. You're tired of the same fights over and over again. The combat system has lots of variation, but once you find something that works well enough, why bother futzing around? And by this time, i forgot why the story even started. I'm going to rescue someone? No that was every zelda ever made.. trying to save the world? Yeah, I assume so. Save it from who? I can't even remember.

My point is, if I can beat a game in 10 hours, that's a week of after work play and I can still remember the plot elements from the first hour. But for me to buy another game it's going to need a 10 hour time frame from start to finish, but also have multiple paths and choices I can make so it'll be a different game the next time I decide to play it. Oh, can cut out the item fetching quests, they suck. Mind puzzles, that's where it's at.

Re:

[BenjyD (316700)]

Yeah, what the hell was going on at the end of Tales of Symphonia? The story just went completely crazy. That said, I normally hate overly long games but I really enjoyed Tales.

Length or time played?

[kinglink (195330)]

If you had a great game that last 10 hours but had 10 completely different ways to play it, would that be worse than a 30 hour game you'd never play again?

Should Gears of war be downplayed even though it has 3 difficulties and the ability for co-op play?

How can we rate Multiplayer? Exactly how do you define game length? Do you need all achievements?

Overall the "length" of a game differs to much to be considered.

In addition this discusses quality versus quanity? Guess what, that only is good if there is quanity. A 5 minute game can be the best game ever but it's not going to get 50 bucks, however a rpg that is good that last 50 hours will easily get 50 dollars.

You have people on that site saying length isn't important and would rather buy a 50 dollar game that takes 10 hours than a 50 dollar game that takes 50? All I can ask is, is he stupid? I have felt that games are too long also for a time, Tales of the Abyss took me entirely too much time, but I spend almost the same amount of time on the new zelda already and I want another exactly like that. It was a fantastic game.

The bottom line is it's always better for a game to be too long but enjoyable, than too short and be the same thing over and over. But even more so, they are asking people in the industry, as one of those people I can tell you, we don't have the time that the people outside of the industry have to play games. You can invest the hours into games but you also spend your entire day doing the same thing.

Doesnt it depend on content?

[rickmccl (637396)]

How long is Nethack? I've been playing almost 20 years and I've never ascended. It's never the same game twice. When your game is the same twice, then you have to worry about how long to make the content, just like some lame-ass movie executive. Make your game more real and it will be as long as the gamer's interest.

cost

[kisrael (134664)]

The thing is, for some people the cost is mostly the money, for others the cost is the amount of time it takes... for most it's probably some combination of the two...

Re:

[kisrael (134664)]

The problem isn't mortality vs immortality,
it's more about not having much of a choice about our lifespans.
Sure, I might not want to live forever, but I'd probably want to live for at least centuries longer than I'm likely to.

"A History of the World in 10 1/2 Chapter" has a great chapter on what most people's vision of immortality would actually be like, and makes your point that most people wouldn't want to live forever in the common Western portrayal of Heaven.

Re:

[kisrael (134664)]

See, for you the
value = hours / dollars ... the more hours, the more value.

For me it's more like...
value = hours / (hours + dollars)
or actually it's a harder to calculate thing, like
"# of interesting things I'm doing in the game" / (hours + dollars)

the "# of interesting things" has a correlation to hours, but they ain't one and the same.

Incredible Hulk Ultimate Destruction had a pretty good ratio, keeping me entertained through most of it.

2 types of gamers, 2 different lengths

[Ksempac (934247)]

I think the main problem in this question is that there is not one but TWO answers depending on who you re speaking to.

- On one hand there is the teenager. He has a lot of spare time but not much money. When he buys a game he wont buy another one for months because he just doesn t have the money for that. So he wants a game which will still be interesting in 2 months. A game like "Beyond Good and Evil" is not good for him...With his spare time, he will finish it in 2 days. And then, the game has no mechan

Re:

[Irish_Samurai (224931)]

I have the exact same issue.

When I was in school I worked all the time, had no money, and could never play games. My fiance basically works the opposite schedule I do, so I have all the time in the world to play games. I have a well used gamefly account to play all the games I 'm not sure I'd want to buy. Its a pretty good way of not blowing too much money on a lousy game.

Then I have all the games I buy without question. Usually MGS, FF, SOCOM, Zelda, GTA, Soul Caliber, and GT titles.

I have found that I don

It's not game length that's the issue

[jimstapleton (999106)]

it's session length.

Some comparisons:
I played Asheron's Call and Final Fantasy XI, both are "infinetly long" as they are MMOs, but I found I like AC better overall. Why? I, a semi casual gamer, could pop in and play AC for 15 mins, log out again, and actually do stuff for that duration. For FFXII, I had to make sure I had a block of at least two hours before considering it.

At another angle, the earlier Final Fantasy games vs. the current games - I could save a lot more frequently in them than the current games (I'll add Xenosaga in here too), because I didn't need to use special save points all the time - so I again could pop in for a much shorter time.

There are many more cases of this with me - "what is the minimum time investment per session while still being fun", and not "what is the overall time of the game".

Anyone else agree to this?

Re:

[emilyridesabmx (1009713)]

Yeah, I'm with you on this. For example, I still enjoy playing the original NES Contra, and Castlevania, even though I can more or less play through either game in in 90 minutes or so, depending on how coordinated I am today. I think you feel a (somewhat shallow albeit) sense of accomplishment from shorter games. At least it FEELS like something has been accomplished in video game terms. Game length is the reason I got bored with WOW after a few weeks. The firs two weeks that I played WOW, I loved it. I cou

Re:

[jimstapleton (999106)]

That kinda encapsulated my reason for liking Metroid Fusion.

I wished the game were longer, but I liked that I could play for a short while and not have an issue with shutting it down and loosnig a lot.

Re:

[demonlapin (527802)]

Yeah, the 15 min - 1 hr time frame is what it's about. If it takes more than an hour... well, I'm just not going to be playing it much. I have a wife and a house, and video games are a fun (but necessarily brief) distraction.

Variety is more important than gameplay length.

[mollace (751119)]

I remember one of the Final Fantasy games where your little guy meets a bunch of kids playing jumprope. You can join in and mash buttons to jump. If you jump successfully 10 times, you get a reward. 20 times, a bigger award. And so on. I read a FAQ about the game which said that you could get the ultimate prize if you hit the jump button successfully 1,000 times in a row!!! Who aside from a caffeine-addicted 12-year-old has the time or patience for that?!? I don't mind longer games if the gameplay doesn't become "Fight bigger monsters". The classic Ultima games were a great example of long games that kept my interest from start to finish.

Re:

[Trillan (597339)]

I wonder if there really is a reward at 1,000? They should have said 100,000 just to make some idiot try it.

Re:

[Turn-X Alphonse (789240)]

People who want to do it have the patience. Who levels up to the max level just to beat a side boss and get a super sword when you could already kill every monster in the game at your level any way?

There are many other kinds of games, you know

[cellocgw (617879)]

For example: if I just want a quick "coffee break" at home or at work, I enjoy stuff like MineSweeper. It's quick to play and requires just the right number of brain cells to be active :-) . I can think of many other situations for which a short (under 5 minutes, or under 30 minutes) game is just right.
BTW, my favorite games are pinball sims -- plug here for VPinMAME --, which depending on your skill level can last 30 seconds or half an hour.

huh?

[j00r0m4nc3r (959816)]

I never have time to finish anything longer

What the fuck does that mean? If you have the TIME to FINISH a 25 hour game, you certainly have the time to finish something longer if you would just go and start ANOTHER 25 hour game... Did you mean to say "I get bored after 25 hours"? If I had the time to play a fun game for 25 hours I wouldn't be like, "HOLY SHIT I'VE SPENT 25 HOURS PLAYING THIS GAME! I've got tons of other 25-hour not-fun-games to fucken play... GAWD!!!!" If it's fun, play it. Or is he tryin

Keeping Interest

[lymond01 (314120)]

I played the first scenario of a turn-based strategy game called Age of Wonders II: Shadow Magic. Great game, reminiscent of the Master of Magic series from the 90s. There were, I guess, 16 scenarios, but the first one was so involved, long, showed off all the powers and creatures you could encounter, felt so epic...that when I finally finished it after a few days (a total of 5 hours maybe), I was done with the game, feeling very satisfied but knowing it was just more of the same after that.

MMORPGs people

Corresponding price?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787)]

I can take games of varying length, but the amount of game you get should be reflected in the price. A good example is Beyond Good & Evil. Great, but short game. About 10 hours. I forget exactly how much it cost when it first came out, but it was less than the standard $50. Maybe $35 or something like that.

Vary it

[Metasquares (555685)]

Why not vary the time, depending on what sort of side-quest sorts of things the player wants to do? Those that don't have a whole lot of time can play through the story, while those that do can explore the world a bit more.

Re:

[Slicebo (221580)]

DOH!

Re:

[El_Muerte_TDS (592157)]

(completely forget about this)
Games should be compatible with short play sessions. People should be able to play for 30 minutes and then quit without losing their progress. Long play sessions are nice if you have the time, but not everybody has time.

Re:

[BenjyD (316700)]

The problem is that the developers have a limited budget for development and testing, and the designers have a limited number of good ideas. If they aim for a 40 hour game, those are spread out more thinly.