Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Role Playing (Games) Entertainment Games

On Videogame Length - Less Is More? 126

Posted by simoniker from the five-minutes-only-kthankyou dept.
Thanks to Eurogamer for their opinion piece criticizing the excessive length of videogames. The author initially states: "It's the woe of every committed gamer: piles of uncompleted games. We all swear we'll go back and complete [games] but the sad reality is most of us will - most likely - never get around to resuming our valiant quest to conquer these epics." He points out the relative lack of time most players have: "For the majority of gamers, squeezing in the time to play games means - pretty much - not spending much time doing anything else in our leisure time", and goes on to advocate episodic content, arguing "I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

On Videogame Length - Less Is More? More

On Videogame Length - Less Is More?

Comments Filter:

  • cost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ziggles ( 246540 ) * on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @04:47PM (#7284888) Homepage
    When games cost 20 dollars new, I won't mind if they're only 5 or 6 hours long. At 50 bucks, it's just not worth it. Max Payne 2 is a really great game, but it is not worth 50 dollars because of it's length. Bring it down to 25 or less and short, quality-packed games are A-OK with me.
    • i agree. longer is better. the author doesnt have a clue
    • Heh. My roommate and I split the cost on Max Payne 2. For $24, it was just about right. :D

      Of course, we, uh, only played it on one computer at a time. Yes. Yes, we did.
    • My rule is 1$ an hour. Sports games, RPGs, and GTA games give you what you pay for. The "fast and the flashy" action titles and fighting games should only be 20$ a pop. It is usually better to wait for the price drop.

      This reviewer's opinion is typical of the burnt out mentality you get when you work around games too long. I used have that attitude when I worked for a games store. You see so many games it all becomes a blur and you only see the loudest out of the crowd, or what you're told to push/sell
      • I do agree with you, except for the fighting games part. Standard multiplayer alone should last a while, and that is really the point of them. Fighting games do need to start presenting more compelling single-player experiences, however. Online play might actually be the best way to do that, but games like VF4Evo do a good job on it too. Rather have a short fighting game with some cool content like DOA3 (those neat endings) then the busywork that is SCII, though.

        If the game doesn't change enough from its p
    • The entire reason you won't get 20 dollar, 5-6 hour games is because the bulk of the game design time is in the engine and other background stuff. Level design and backstory are a tiny fraction of what goes into a finished game. So a 5-6 hour game takes just a little less time than a 25-30 hour game, and no less staff. Reducing the price just isn't possible.

      A GOOD idea is to split games up into parts, like .HACK. That way you get episodes of the game you like at a cheaper price ('course, .HACK didn't

  • And why are we listening to this idiot ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MerlynEmrys67 ( 583469 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @04:49PM (#7284906)
    Well I guess game length wouldn't be so bad if games cost something closer to 10 dollars rather than 50.

    I am just starting Morrowind - Great game, lots of content. I will be going back to this one for years, I just love it... Daggerfall was on this list for me as well.

    I love games with more content - they are going to be the ones I go back to year after year. Fine if you don't have the content, I guess I will just win it and chunk it on the shelf going "what a waste".

    • I am just starting Morrowind - Great game, lots of content. I will be going back to this one for years, I just love it...
      Don't be so sure. For a lot of people, myself included, Morrowind started really great but fell apart in the middle. It's gets too easy, pretty quickly.
      • Agreed. I loved Daggerfall and Arena too. Morrowind was not just too easy, but too repetitive, too much the same thing, too little progress, not enough fun stuff.

        Daniel
      • But the great part of it is, I was prewarned about the money hacks in the game - therefor didn't go out and get a billion credits and train my levelups. I have struggled going up and have really appreciated the game so far... Might have to pickup one or both of the followons
        • I wish I hadn't exploited some of the holes in the rules. Besides getting easy/free money using the HIDE skill, I got lots of uber equipment early but using the fact that potions stack. Grind yourself about 30-40 strength potions and you can pretty much one hit anything in the game. Maybe if I had played the game the way it was intended instead of the way it was actually coded it would have lasted a little longer. It could have used a more compelling story too.
      • I'm still playing Morrowind to this day. It's my single player MMO, you could say.
        I'd say it's a matter of taste whether a person sticks with it, and it sounds like the original poster finds the same facination in MW and Daggerfall that I did.

        As for the original article: to each his own. I have days where I'm swamped with work or I'd like to go out and do something else, so a nice, short game is perfect. But, as previously stated, epics like Morrowind and other similar games are right up my alley. I lo

  • Cheat codes and walkthroughs (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Don't have time to beat Mission 10 solo with a sniper riffle on elite in Ghost Recon to unlock Sgt Slaughter? Just use god mode. Seriously that's what all these cheat codes and walkthroughs are for. Skip over stupid missions and levels you know you can beat and move on to the interesting ones you want to do. I do this all the time. I don't feel like I'm any less of an uber gamer for doing it either. It's all about games/life balance.

  • Short chunks? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Etone ( 627948 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @04:51PM (#7284923)
    "I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."

    Unfortunately, most of the best visual entertainment that is delivered in "short sharp chunks" takes much less time to produce. Look at the development schedule for Half-Life or Grand Theft Auto 3 and compare that to the time taken to produce a television show, or newspaper, or magazine. We're talking several years vs a few days to a week.

    When making games becomes a faster, more streamlined process, then we'll see more streamlined gaming experiences.
    • Movies can take years to produce and the end product is two hours long.
      • I knew that was coming.

        I don't know, I don't have an explanation for that one yet. Still with a movie you're paying 8 bucks for 2 hours . There's no other form of entertainment I can imagine that it seems people will pay 8 bucks for 2 hours of.

        -e-
        • Theater? Opera? Concert? A short book? That's just a few that pop to my mind just now.
          • The "Oldest" profession goes for a LOT more per hour!
          • Theater? Opera? Concert? A short book?

            The first three are performances, which are going to cost more because of the cost of putting together a performance in the first place. In fact, most of those will probably cost more than $8 per 2 hours (though small shows could yield cheaper or right around there for concerts).

            A short book, especially in paper back, costing $8 is one of my biggest gripes in the last few years. 300 page paperback books used to cost $4-5, now they're easily $7-9. Then again, the in
    • Games will probably get faster to produce, as we move away from the technical side back towards the gameplay side, which a lot less people need to be involved in. However, there's no telling how long that will take. Could be 5 years, could be 20, could be more...

      Daniel
  • Unless you're rich, you probably aren't buying those games.... I know I can't afford piles of games, uncompleted or otherwise.

    As others have mentioned, I'm sure not going to spend $50 or $60 for a game that only takes me an afternoon to beat. It's just not worth the cash.

    • Re:Piles of uncompleted games? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Mattcelt ( 454751 ) on Thursday October 23, 2003 @01:32AM (#7288239)
      OTOH, I seem to keep buying games in the bargain bin that I simply never get around to playing!

      I actually have a closet shelf full of unopened PC games still in their cellophane wrappers.

      I tried to do the math - let's see, $10 for the game divided by the hours spent playing... Dammit, it just keeps saying "undefined"!
    • Well sure, if you're buying brand new games. I've built up quite a sizeable collection of console RPGs for various older consoles that I'm probably never going to finish as it is, and I hardly have money coming out of my ass.

  • I couldn't disagree more (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zenobr ( 677134 ) <zenobr@yahoo.com> on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @05:02PM (#7285031)
    I much prefer the epic games that I pay 50 bucks for and then play for a solid 3-6 months (30+ hours actual play time). I hate nothing more than buying a game and beating it within the first week, or less than 10 hours of play time. My main complaint with most games recently have been their lack of story/game length (Halo for instance). Just my 2 cents I guess.
    • I agree. My major problem with finishing many games is that many games seem to be made longer just to be longer, or to "give me more for my money's worth." This usually entails doing the same thing over and over and over and OVER. If the game keeps it interesting (as Mario 64/Sunshine, FF VII, IX, and X did (I didn't play VIII, so don't yell at me)) then I don't mind. But some games just aren't meant to be 30 hours. It may work for many games (unlocking things can be good too, like in many racing games), so
      • If you want a game to be long, fine. Just make it WORTH CONTINUING TO PLAY.

        Tattoo this on the heads of the people writing this article.

        A game that is done well and stays interesting can be extremely long. In fact, those are the games you WANT to be longer because you don't want to stop playing them. I easily got 30+ hours of play out of my first time through Eternal Darkness because it was so interesting and fun. And at the end? I was upset - because there wasn't more to play. I wanted more.

        A game
    • Bad choice for an example - Halo had a much better story than the majority of current games (a really good story in fact) - and although the single player campaign wasn't as epic as many games, it wasn't short either. Replay value for that title was unbeleivably high as well.

      You would be better choosing nearly any other game to make your point.
      • I didn't word that very good I guess... Halo was just the most recent game I've played (on PC), that was a little short for my liking so it came to mind really quick. Don't get me wrong the story was fantastic and it was one of the few games that was absolutely as much fun the second time through as the first. So I guess you're right it was a bad example because it had so much replay value... I guess a prime example to prove my point would be, as mention by someone else farther down in the thread would be
        • Lol, I didn't mean to sound so antagonistic BTW, it is just that Halo is one of my favorite games, and kept my xbox in use for a fair while after launch.

          I definately agree with you about ICO though, terrific game and beautifully exectued (the art and level design was magnificant) however it was extremely short and I doubt many people would play it twice.
      • While I'd agree about being better than most current games, I wouldn't call it really good - a couple of pegs up from Unreal 2's predictable, cliche-ridden doggrel but not exactly good.
    • I hate nothing more than buying a game and beating it within the first week, or less than 10 hours of play time.

      After being thankful I rented Star Wars: The Clone Wars, I agree fully.

      Another peeve of mine are games that are extrememly formulaic and use plot only as a glue in the formula. Those FMV things between levels where we are supposed to be interested in the idle conversation of characters we don't have a good reason to care about are getting pretty stale.

  • You don't have to finish a game. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mike Hawk ( 687615 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @05:03PM (#7285034) Journal
    You don't have to finish a game. There I said it. Don't advocate getting less, they might just give you what you want. I wager that if games actually got demostratively shorter, more people would complain games are too short.

    What games sell well? Madden, GTA, THPS. Giant games that can be played in small bites. The public has voted with their dollar that this is what they want. This is what we will get.

    Yet another rant from a know-nothing bitter fanboy. This one is extra-special because it actually asks value to be removed from games. What kind of person asks for value to be removed from a product? This guy gets 30 games a month to review then actually has the balls to throw it in the public's face and complain. Out of touch much? He called big games bloated simply for the fact that they are big. Thats not bloated, thats big. You know what, forget it, I give up.

    Its about 1-2 weeks before all the big holiday games are on shelfs, most rae hitting now, and this is the best news anyone is submitting?
    • I'm going to agree with this. The games I play most are the ones I can pick up and put down. I like the epic size of games like GTA, X-Wing series (esp Alliance) and anything from Black Isle, but I like the fact that most of these don't have to be played in 6 hour increments. I've stopped playing RTS games for this reason. I don't want one sitting to become a 6 hour war of attrition.

      The other thing I don't like is the fact that it's hard to go back and finish these games. I love Dungeon Keeper I&II but

    • You don't have to finish a game. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bluethundr ( 562578 ) * on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @05:53PM (#7285456) Homepage Journal
      We all swear we'll go back and complete [games] but the sad reality is most of us will - most likely - never get around to resuming our valiant quest to conquer these epics...For the majority of gamers, squeezing in the time to play games means - pretty much - not spending much time doing anything else in our leisure time...

      Yeesh, what a spoiled, whiny brat! So, you don't finish a game? Don't do anything else with your free time, but play a game because it's long? Who's fault is that? Because you have a short attention span and can't manage your time effectively you want the game designers to change the way they make the games that I'm playing? Why stop there? You could just as easily say "You see, I really liked Snow Crash [barnesandnoble.com], but lately that crazy Neil Stephenson's [barnesandnoble.com] books are so darn long! He should write shorter ones!" Please.

      Here's a word for you: moderation! (and not the /. kind!) Don't break open the piggy bank for a new game just because the graphics are flashy and the advertising has brainwashed you into believing this is a game that you "can't live without!"

      Personally speaking, I play a game...ONE game and that's it, until I'm through with it. Right now, I am really enjoying KOTOR [lucasarts.com] and it's precisely because of it's length, depth and complexity that I am! I've never finished playing a number of games, but at least I'm not blaming other people for my lack of follow through! When every thing else in our culture is being dumbed down for shorter and shorter attention spans, it's a huge relief to see a segment of the electronic entertainment industry that's *NOT* trying to do this! And if games are long or short whatever they end up being will be because that's the way consumers are voting with their dollars!
    • Damn...is the current trend in trendy videogame journalism just to be a retard and tell the common man that he's stupid for being the common man?

      "Oh, I'm too wussy to actually play a game through to completion, but it's not my fault, it's the game companies...just make shorter games so I can see the ending."

      I've got a picture [xmission.com] for this guy.

      You shell out 50 clams for a game. I.e. more than 5 times the amount for the smaller, omre enjoyable chunks of entertainment that are known as movies. 15 times the co
    • Well I can only guess you're trolling because no one should get that pissed off from someone's opinion about game length. If not, go and have a drink or have a wank or something.

      So, any complaint that a film is too long is irrelevant because no one has to watch it to the end? Seems like an odd sentiment to me. I like to finish games, but a lot of the current ones are just too long to play through in a couple of evenings.

      The problem is of course is that it doesn't cost much more to develop a 20-hour game t

      • So, any complaint that a film is too long is irrelevant because no one has to watch it to the end?

        Well.. No one's going to sit in a theater all day to watch an all day movie, yet you can get most anyone to play game, save game, play game, save game, repeat for a week until done.. As far as the movie analogy.. Well, if people weren't willing to do something similiar we wouldn't have had any successful miniseries things.. Not to mention.. A person can enjoy one or two of the Star Wars movies without h

        • As far as the movie analogy.. Well, if people weren't willing to do something similiar we wouldn't have had any successful miniseries things..

          Yes, but there isn't really the equivalent to single-sitting films in the game market.

          A person can enjoy one or two of the Star Wars movies without having to watch them all to see how it ends..

          I wouldn't bother watching them unless I had at least the expectation that I would watch the other films. But that's irrelevant because they're designed to be self-conta

          • Yes, but there isn't really the equivalent to single-sitting films in the game market.

            I beg to differ, but in any case the point is that's what you imply you want to have happen.

            Oh great, I express a preference and I get fucking insulted. Clearly you do not have the mental capacity to grasp alternate points of view. I shall spell it out for you: quantity != quality. /1984/ is not an inferior book to /War and Peace/ despite being about 1/10 of the length.

            Quit your whining. Also, I said why not

            • Ah, I see I am talking to either a teenager or a troll. No wonder you have time to play games all day.

              I beg to differ

              You fucktard! No wait, actually having an alternative opinion is OK. This is an approach to life that you may find useful when you reach adulthood.

              It was a joke, and if you noticed I said about as bad as me, which indicates that I myself am not that great

              Jokes should a) be funny and b) make sense. Neither criteria were fulfilled by your "joke". I can tell you can't write for shit, but
    • This one is extra-special because it actually asks value to be removed from games. What kind of person asks for value to be removed from a product?

      Consumers from Mars of course!

    • What kind of person asks for value to be removed from a product?

      Don't necessarily agree or disagree with your main points, but this one is short-sighted. If a developer is able to focus on a shorter (in length) game, that surplus effort will go into making the shorter game denser and deeper. Length vs. density is a struggle that game developers face every single day.
      • If a developer is able to focus on a shorter (in length) game, that surplus effort will go into making the shorter game denser and deeper.

        Or it could just lead to something like Max Payne 2.

        And that game still had the audacity to reuse at least three of its levels (one of them at least three times, too!), one of which was just a remake of a level from the original!
      • f a developer is able to focus on a shorter (in length) game, that surplus effort will go into making the shorter game denser and deeper. Length vs. density is a struggle that game developers face every single day.

        Hmm... I've never seen a short game that really had any density to it. Max Payne was a good game, but at 8 hours it felt like it just dropped off a cliff, like someone was out of ideas (though it built up to it fairly well). People complain that the .hack// installments were too short, and those
  • Episodic content has its own pitfalls. Will gamers be satisfied by short games with no conclusive ending? Will game companies be satisfied making less money per game? (They'd better not try to charge full price for 1/4-sized games!) Will there be frustrating problems of buying the wrong chapter of a game (because it looks just like the others) and then finding out you can't play it without having (or having beaten) the immediate preceding chapter?

    And the obvious question - will this reduce the number of un
    • Yeah... Remember Shenmue? Great concept but in reality it turned out to be total crap because you spent 20-30 hours on the first episode but got virtually nowhere in the story... in fact just when you're starting to get into a good bit of the story that actually feels like you're accomplishing something "Fin" scrolls across your screen and you have to wait a year to fork out another 50 bucks to buy chapter 2, and then a year after that to get what was to be the 3rd and final chapter... but what really end
    • We'll find out when future installations of Xenosaga come out. Last I heard they were shooting for 6 episodes, with each of them weighing in at 30+ hours.
    • People really aren't using the media tools they already have very well for gaming.

      Personally, a monthly game would do quite nicely if packaged in a unique format. CDs are cheap! Toss 'um in a magazine and sell a lot more copies. Which is really the point.

      Look at a game like Quake 3. They could have been releasing levels right along now for almost 3 years...with no more engine investment. I know they have a "mod" community, but that's a bit of a cop-out. Many other games have the same tale of wasted

  • game demos (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you really want short chunks of gameplay, stop buying games and just download some demos! If you keep downloading & playing every demo that shows up on http://www.aixgaming.com/filerush/, it'll keep you busy for the forseeable future.

  • And this is a problem because...? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by El ( 94934 ) on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @05:14PM (#7285137)
    When it stops being enjoyable, stop playing it. Feel bad about shelling out $50 for something you never use? Form a lending library with all your friends. Each agrees to buy a different game, and lend it to one of the others when they're not using it. I really don't see the economic sense it spending so much money for something you're going to play with for a few week, then stick on a shelf and forget about. Let's spread these unused games around! (And yes, I do have a 6 foot long shelf full of software I never use!)
  • I'm glad I did not buy this game - it only took me a couple of hours to beat it, and once you finish it there's really no replay value. Good game, but way too short. Same goes for Parasite Eve on Playstation, while I'm thinking about it.

    20-30 hours should be the target zone for an average finish (not scouring the entire world looking for secrets, next-to-impossible optional boss battles, etc). Any less and you're pretty much not getting your money's worth, unless you pirate the game or wait until it's i

  • "I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks

    like all the best visual entertainment is."[emphasis mine]

    Sunsets?
    The movie Seven Samurai?
    Cerebus and Maus graphic novels?
    Gazing into a beautiful woman's eyes?

    If this guy is sincere, I really feel sorry for him. Sure, there are excellent examples of "short sharp chunks" being very entertaining (lightning, music videos, comic strips, and seeing an incredibly hot woman pass by on the street [to provide examples complimentary to those l

    • the few hours spent enjoying any of these activites are very nice indeed. but they pale to the amount of time needed (30-40 hours) to finish a huge RPG.

      that is the authors point, I believe. even a 3 hour epic movie is a short, sharp chunk compared to most video games.
      • the few hours spent enjoying any of these activites are very nice indeed. but they pale to the amount of time needed (30-40 hours) to finish a huge RPG.

        The question comes down to what you're looking for in games. Even fairly short games (like fighting games, for instance) have enough replay value to come back to again and again (and with groups of friends can last through the nite).

        When you go to the movies, you usually only go to 1 movie, and then maybe you'll go back in a week to see a different movie
    • Have you READ Cerebus recently?

      Church and State was genius though.

  • Shorter? Nonsense. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rimbo ( 139781 ) <rimbosity@s[ ]lobal.net ['bcg' in gap]> on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @05:20PM (#7285180) Homepage Journal
    Remember Sierra, back in the day?

    I remember playing Space Quest II my Freshman year in College, in Fall of '91. Yeah, I realize it was dated by then, but I'd already played IV, the re-hash of I and III, so I wanted to play one that was supposedly one of the best.

    Trouble is, after you go through a handful of these Sierra games, you get the knack for solving the puzzles. And once you get the knack, you've finished the game in 2 hours, with no replay value.

    Why spend $50 for 2 hours' worth of entertainment? You could go to a 2-hour movie back then for $5 on opening night. What the hell?

    If a game gets shorter, it better have some great replay value (see Diablo) or a lower price (see the copy of "Space Channel 5" I got out of a bargain bin for $5). Otherwise it's not worth my money to purchase it.

    I expect a game to entertain me for at least 10 hours, and that's a bare minimum reserved for games that are especially good; 40 hours is more likely.

    Finishing the game isn't really the issue. The question is, as the gladiator asks, "Are you not entertained?"
  • Someone get this guy a pacifier and his blankie. What a whiny little bitch.

    "Waaaah. I have so many games that have provided me with so many hours of fun that the next great game comes out before I've finished. Waaah!"

    Since when did playing video games become about beating them? It's only about beating them if you're having a dick waving contest with your friends. Otherwise, it's about having fun and being entertained. If some people have fun playing 80 hours worth of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, who are
  • I just finished Jak and Daxter. It was about the right length - the game unfolded nicely over the couple of months it took me to play it; it never seemed to hard to get into during the later stages (GTA3); I even went back and did the bits I didn't do the first time round - a first for me.

    So I went and bought Jak 2. Good game, BTW. Not absurdly great, but some really fun bits. However, I'm a bit gutted that one of the design goals for the game appears to be to make it much longer. It appears that to finish
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I want a game to be engrossing and captivating. If a game is worth its price, it had better do just this. If it is to short, then I feel cheated, like going out to a nice romantic dinner with my fiance`, spending hours talking and enjoying each other, then getting a hug in the resturant parking lot and going home. It leaves you wanting more.

    (Of course, the romantic dinner is better then any game)

    Take the recent Zelda. I really enjoyed the game, it was excellent. But the core story was too short. It
  • I find it funny, and this is just an observation, how angry so many people get when anybody suggests that 80+ hour games may be a bit on the excessive side. It's like the way that so many people order food at restaurants, they are less concerned with how it tastes, and more concerned with how much of it they are going to get to eat.

    To me, game length is not all that important in of itself; I think you have to consider the whole game. Take Ikaruga for example. Short game, a play from stage 1 to the end wi
    • I couldn't agree more.

      10-20 hours is just about right in my opinion. I have about 40 hrs playtime on Disgaea right now, and I'm completely burnt out on the game.

      I'm also most of the way through Max Payne 2, and I'm loving every minute. Sure it's short(er). Maybe it should have been $35 or $40 instead of $50. But I'd rather have a 10 hr game that's packed to the gills with quality, rather than have a game artificially lengthened to make people think they got their monies worth.

      Anyway, it costs $1
  • I don't have a problem with shortening the play times on games... if you "shorten" the cost appropriately, i.e. that game that's good for 10 hours of play isn't still going to be $50.

    But of course, game companies aren't going to do that. Less money for less entertainment? Yeah, right.

  • Dear Sirs.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by swdunlop ( 103066 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <polnudws>> on Wednesday October 22, 2003 @06:46PM (#7285883) Homepage
    I am writing to inform you that I am returning all but one of the discs from your latest epic, Baldur's Gate III: The Quest For More Levels. I find it simply unacceptable that, after I have paid you $50, you insist that I sit through over seventy hours with your game to derive full enjoyment of your product.

    In the future, I would appreciate it if you only sent me the first 10% of the game, for the same cost, at the same quality.

    Respectfully,
    A Blithering Idiot

    • The Quest For More Levels/i.

      This reminds me of playing Jade Cocoon 2. "Okay, I got all four crystals, the game must be nearing the end. Oh, what's behind this door to the right...AAARRRGGHHH!"
    • Your joke actually has a ring of truth in it: did you know that for Baldur's Gate 1, you could actually buy a reduced version of the game (containing only the first one or two discs) for a lower price?

      It would "end" about midway through the plotline of the full game, and not have as many areas to explore. I would imagine it sold poorly, because they didn't retry this idea for Baldur's Gate 2.
      • I actually didn't know.. The Baldur's Gate series are on my list of favorite games, but they tend to be pretty lengthy, so it was a tempting target. =)
  • I find that games I feel are worth the money when they have about a $2/hour playing values, plus replay value. If a game is only going to take me 5-10 hours of game play and costs me 60 - 70 bucks (CDN) It's hardly worth the money. Older games like starcraft have given me the best replay value with a decent single player time + a vast amount of online time that I've played it. This is one reason I find that online RPGs can be very good bang for the buck. While 7 - 20 bucks a month (again CDN) may seem huge
  • Well, a lot of what this guy says doesn't mean very much. Blah blah, I can't stop myself from buying too much software etc.

    When he gets into the episodic thing he starts to point to an interesting idea but one of the big problems with developing episodic content is that there's this huge initial risk (engine development). It's there whether you release a 50 hour game or a 3 hour game. It's just that ou can't charge as much for the three hour game so you'd better be damn sure that parts II-XX are going to s
  • I do have a problem with the length of certain games.

    It's not the fact that the actual gameplay experience is too long, it's the problem that you get to nearly the end and have to spend hours levelling up your characters to defeat the final boss.

    Final Fantasy games are notorious for doing this.

    In fact, I actually succumbed to buying an Action Replay just to finally finish Final Fantasy X. I had gotten through the entire game without cheating, managing to beat all the bosses and get to the point where I g

  • Multi-player (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Ogerman ( 136333 )
    All single player games are pretty much a waste of time in my book. Why bother when you can enjoy video game time as a social time as well? (And I don't mean playing online with people you don't know and will never meet!)
  • If you want the very best example of this, you need not look any further than SCEI's Ico, a brilliantly designed game that clocks in well under 10 hours (most complete it in 6-8 hours of game time in their first run through). While most review outfits gave Ico very high scores [gamerankings.com], the one stand out complaint that the non-100% scores were that the game was "too short."

    While it seems plausable that game reviewers would have oodles of time on their hands to play games for hours and hours, most regular gamers hav
  • I would have to disagree. One of the best games ever made, in my opinion, is Deus Ex, which took me about 45 hours to beat, even on easy mode. It set up an incredible story, there are tons of secrets and its incredibly non-linear. I much rather play it than a lot of the trash being made today.

    Anyway, I think games are overpriced, so when I spend $50 bucks for a game, it better be a nice long game with an excellent story and high replay ability. I spent $20 on Deus Ex (I went out and bought it after I saw

  • Commitment

    That's the solution. Commit yourself to finishing the game. It's like going to the gym. Set aside an hour a day and just do it.

    He says we say we'll come back to these games but never do. Well I must be different because I actually do. I think it's somehow better too because of the nostalgia factor. I remember when I came back to Tomb Raider 2. It felt great, like taking up a forgotten hobby. Recalling now, the only games I have to go finish is Final Fantasy 6, Yoshi's Island, and Mario 64.

    Games I'

  • arguing "I long for a future when games are delivered in short sharp chunks like all the best visual entertainment is."

    Someone needs to switch the channel from MTV....
  • I realized the same thing a while ago - that quality games were being released at such a pace, and with such lengths, that I might not live long enough to complete all the games I wanted to play.

    Unlike the article's author, though, I didn't bemoan this fact and wish for shorter games - I reveled in it.

    What is wrong with being able to play good games for every free second of your life and still leave many titles untouched? The only reason not to keep playing is if you're an insatiable completionist, in wh
  • If a game is long for a legitimate reason - e.g. it has a lot of unique content - then I have no complaints. KOTOR is like this. The game world is huge, there are a ton of optional side stories, and so forth.

    IMO, though, most long games are long because the developers have stretched them too thin. Most RPGs are like this. The game world itself isn't very big, but it takes forever to finish the game because you have to fight the same monsters over and over in order to level up.

    On the whole, I would prefer
    • If a game is long for a legitimate reason - e.g. it has a lot of unique content - then I have no complaints.

      Very true. Baldurs Gate 2 was long, had a lot of unique content, and I found it to be very enjoyable. Final Fantasy 7 (I think) was loooooong, also. But all those fights were tiresome. The story actually progressed, but after a while I lost track of what was going on - it was just too much.

      Oh, and did I mention that all those fights in FF really sucked?
  • If less play time ultimately results in higher quality for that shorter time (as some games seem to be trying for lately), then I agree completely. Most gamers would take an eight hour masterpiece over a 60 hour vanilla copycat anyday. But if the issue is not one of quality, but length alone, then I think definitely the longer the better! A crappy eight hour game is even WORSE than a crappy 60 hour game!
  • I finished Giants: Citizen Kabuto fast, and regretted it. That was a beautiful but short game. I loved the length of the Monkey Island series. The original Wolfenstein and Doom were also nicely sized.

    But Ive never finished Zeliard. Now that feels like a sharp stick. I would agree with your comments for a very few games like zeliard which cannot be finished in years, but you know what? When I'll finish it I'll disagree with you again. Because I would be loving it.
  • I think that in a time when movies are getting longer (LotR being filmed as a trilogy, The Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions and Kill Bill being split into two parts), TV shows and anime series on DVD are becoming more popular (roughly 22 and 12 1/2 hours, respectively), miniseries are starting to make a comeback on channels like the Sci-Fi Channel, and all of the games that this person says are too long are at the top of the sales charts, it's fair to say that this guy is in a serious minority. People want visua
  • This became a tougher question the more I thought about it. I like the author's idea about serialization but I have to wonder how this would fit in with the needs of the developers.

    Another thought should be given to platform. I can tolerate a longer game with a console vs. PC. Also a hand held game could be very long because I use it to divert myself on long trips and so forth plus there is a smaller back log of really must have titles.

    The videogame category is yet another consideration. I don't think RP

  • Gamers like to complain about game length, because it all comes down to the issue of value. But if any of us go to movies, we're paying at least $4.50 an hour (sometimes more). With Max Payne 2, a 10 hour game at $50 a pop, that's $5 an hour. It's not THAT much worse than movies, and in extreme cases like RPGs, you're looking at 50+ hours - about a buck an hour for entertainment.

    So why the whining?
  • I think the problem is less the length of certain games and more the number of long games. When I was a wee lad, console games (Sega Master System and Nintendo were the first that popped into my head), the majority of games were short, arcade-style games.

    On very rare occasion, epic games started to appear (Zelda and Phantasy Star come to mind), but the majority of games you'd just pick up a controller and go.

    Since you only had one or two games of epic proportions, you were more prone to spending time w

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Finding a truly good video game is not all that common so I'd like to see them make the good ones longer.

    Now the problem comes about when a game manufacturer tries to determine what is a good game, thus adding more content to it. I guess I'll have to volunteer to test all new games to determine "goodness" for them. Then they'll know which ones to extend.

    Imagine if Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance had 8 chapters instead of 4. We might only be on our 5th time playing it (while waiting for Baldur's Gate Dark
  • I completely agree with this article. I've been playing games since the 70s and its only been since the Playstation days that I started not finishing games on a regular basis. I remember when RPGs were RPGs and not wanna be movies. Its very rare these days for a game to be good enough (or short enough) to actually play all the way through.

    I much prefer games to last 10-15 hours and be top quality all the way through. Most games that last 30-50+ hours are filled with lack luster content or stupid story cu

  • Compare the $.50/hour (so far) it's cost me to play FFX compared to the $4.00/hour for any movie I've gone to see in the theaters. Yeah. I'm not complaining.
  • Fixation on stuff you don't like is always a bad thing. Yeah, there are some absolutely hideously long and involved games out there, and every single one of them is an RPG. Dragon Warrior VII (with 100-150 hours of gameplay by some estimates, packed into two CDs), Morrowind (the original is the gods know how long, and then two more expansions to it? I doubt I have as many fingers as there are people who have gone through the entire game and expansions), Baldur's Gate 2 w/expansion, being the three "worst
  • I don't have time to play long "epics" anymore. A 50 hour game is just *way* too long, unless it's a really incredible RPG. Frankly, I've not seen such a game since Xenogears or Skies of Arcadaia. No 50 hour game has been that worthwhile in recent years.

    So, I thrive on stuff like Ikaruga and Pikmin. Metroid Prime is fun as well. All of these games take less than 20 hours to finish. Ikaruga can be finished within 30 minutes or so, but good luck getting good enough to do that (unless you play long enou

Slashdot Top Deals

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Close