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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Making the Case For Short Games 123

Posted by Zonk from the long-games-have-more-time-to-suck dept.
Gamasutra has a feature up entitled Making a Case for Short Games, in which the author argues that a good short game is far and away preferable to attempt than an epicly long game. From the article: "Which would you rather play, a computer game that takes forty hours to complete or one that lasts just a few minutes? Don't be too quick to answer. The former asks for a serious time commitment. The latter says come and go as you please. One is a ball and chain. The other is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. Well, it's not exactly that bad but considering all of the things you have to do today, which type of game do you really have time for? Also, isn't it peculiar that when you complete a complex or lengthy game you rarely want to replay it, yet short games are often endlessly replayable? "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Making the Case For Short Games More

Making the Case For Short Games

Comments Filter:

  • What nonsense! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. GeneMachine ( 720233 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:49PM (#12428289)
    Let me rephrase that:

    "Which would you rather read, a book that takes forty hours to complete or a short story that lasts just a few minutes? Don't be too quick to answer. The former asks for a serious time commitment. The latter says come and go as you please. One is a ball and chain. The other is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card.

    I like my epic games - no one forces me to play them in one weekend. A good long game is like a story that I can read/watch/take part in - all in my own pace.

    • Re:What nonsense! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ikkonoishi ( 674762 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:54PM (#12428330) Journal
      Exactly.

      Would the SNES game "Zelda, Link to the past" be as good if the game ended after you saved Zelda from the dungeon?

      At the same time however tetris would have been pointless if each block took 3-4 hours to fall. (Complete with FFX-like three minute cutscene as the block locked in place.)

      It is all about balance.
    • More happened in HL2 in 13 hours than happened in doom 3 in 20 hours.

      • Re:What nonsense! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ford Prefect ( 8777 )
        More happened in HL2 in 13 hours than happened in doom 3 in 20 hours.

        Interestingly, it seems that a fair amount of content was cut from HL2, and then what remained polished up for release. Very little from the E3 2003 stuff got into the game intact, for instance.

        A game I played recently that was in dire need of some editing-down was Far Cry - there was one point where I thought I'd almost finished the game (rescuing what's-her-name from a war-torn bunker) but it turned out I was only about half-way throu

        • A game I played recently that was in dire need of some editing-down was Far Cry - there was one point where I thought I'd almost finished the game (rescuing what's-her-name from a war-torn bunker) but it turned out I was only about half-way through, and I almost ended up playing as quickly as I could just to finish the damn thing. I'd probably have appreciated it a bit more if I'd known roughly how much game was left...

          I'll agree that Far Cry was in some desperate need of an editing-down. Though, I think

    • Re:What nonsense! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @12:01AM (#12428715) Journal
      I think it's dumb that there's even an argument as to which one is inherently better. Doesn't it depend on what the point of the game is? Doesn't it depend on what kind of mood I'm in? Over the past 10 years or so, I've probably spent just as much time playing windows minesweeper as I spent playing through Knight of the old Republic on my Xbox over the course of a couple weeks. I enjoyed both of them a lot. I was much more emotionally invested in KOTOR while playing, but now that I'm finished with it, I'll probably never touch it again. One day, however, I'll probably be sitting around bored and fire up the ol' minesweeper and see if I'm as good at it as I was when I was younger. And I'll enjoy it then too.

      Epic games are awesome, and by definition, they need to be longer to work. They basically end when the story ends, and once the story is known, the fun stops. So there has to be all that story. There may be puzzles, and there may be combat, or whatever, but in the end, you're playing to advance and learn the story.

      Then there's games where there's absolutely no story, just the rules, and your goal is generally to learn how to be efficient at whatever the task is.

      I guess my point is that it's silly to compare these classes of games in this way. The word "game" is a little to broad to draw comparisons between anything that falls under it. Taking the analogy that you quoted; a book and a short story are very different. They both fall under the category of "writing". Asking which one is a better form of Writing is a pointless question. It depends on what the author is trying to get across to the reader.

      • Re:What nonsense! (Score:5, Funny)

        by some guy I know ( 229718 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @02:51AM (#12429453) Homepage
        One day, however, I'll probably be sitting around bored and fire up the ol' minesweeper and see if I'm as good at it as I was when I was younger.
        I've never understood the fascination some people have with Minesweeper.
        As long as you are careful, take your time, and carefully analyze the minefield, you can generally get a mine to blow up in only one or two moves, five tops.
        • you can generally get a mine to blow up in only one or two moves, five tops.

          AFAIK, the first selection in each game is never game-ending. That is, you never select a mine on the first move.

          I stopped playing years ago when I could finish Expert in slightly under 99 seconds. Out of curiosity, I just found this site [minesweepers.org] where they note:

          "The current World Record for Expert level, as certified by Minesweepers.org, is 67.342, set by Sacman555 of Providence, Rhode Island, United States on 29-Jan-2005."

          Goo

      • My favorite games have always been a mixture of both. Shenmue 2, for example, is a pretty long game, but along the way there's a ton to see and do, minigames, jobs you can get, gambling, etc. While it follows the same general story every time, I can always replay it and have fun with the minigames.
        • Yeah, there are definitely games that fall in between, or mix the two design philosophies. And that's a pretty good idea. Sort of taking the emotional attachment that an epic game can inspire, and supplementing it with the replay value that can be found in simpler games.
        • Do you know where I can find sailors?

          I'm looking for sailors.

    • Re:What nonsense! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rmart ( 834426 )
      I can't remember who it was, probably the boss of Team Ninja or some other Japanese game developer that had an article in Edge a few years ago where he said that if he had the option of making all his games really intense and heart-pounding one-two hour experiences, he'd do so.

      Unfortunately, the publisher and, well, the market doesn't really allow him to do so.
    • a game that you play over and over again... that can last 4 minutes per round ok.

      if you want to nitpick though, the whole fucking article is totally pointless. you could easily argue that every battle in an epic game is a mini 'game' as it's mostly the same as the last battle, only that the story goes on and on.

      maybe he likes to argue how much better playing a round of pool is compared to going on a roadtrip, because it takes less time and is still fun on it's own turf!

  • Long games... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ikkonoishi ( 674762 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:49PM (#12428292) Journal
    Long games might have more time to suck, but short games have less time to be worth the money you pay for them.

    The best balance is games that can be beaten quickly, but take long times to complete 100%.
    • I don't like it when I finish a game and then there's lots of added-on BS like do the whole thing again with less saves, time, or collecting all the secret things.

      a game should either be short but really fun with lots of replay value (e.g. sports games such as pool), or long but with lots of new stuff so it doesn't repeat itself too often.

      if you can't put your game into one of these two categories then you need to spend more time on it.

    • Re:Long games... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mindaktiviti ( 630001 )
      That's why...

      - GTA: Vice City
      - Deus Ex

      were such wicked games. You could just do the main missions but there's so much more to do. Granted, those games did take a while to complete, but they took a lot longer to complete everything 100%.
    • Oh dear, don't start another percent completion game idea.

      Bad enough when you finish and find out you were only exposed to 70% of the content you paid for. Worse even is when you go through a 2nd and 3rd time trying to take that 99.9% up to 100%

      FFX2 anyone???

    • ALA Final Fantasy, X-2 in particular. While this game is still not "quick" you can certainly complete it in a couple of days, but to get the full plot/satisfaction/etc you can go on and do more and more and more til you've completed it 100% (literally, there's a gauge on the save screen :P)

    • Re:Long games... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by toddestan ( 632714 )
      The best balance is games that can be beaten quickly, but take long times to complete 100%.

      I hate games like this. No better way to turn something that's supposed to be fun to a chore, especially when going from 98% to 100% takes many long, tedious hours. Which is the case with every one of the games like that I have played. Especially when you can't reach that mystical 100% without the strategy guide, which manages to turn every game into something that looks like the "Getting to know Windows 95 tour"

      • Re:Long games... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by WaterBreath ( 812358 )
        Sounds like there's a conflict of interest between two personality traits here:

        * Impatience
        * Perfectionism

        You usually can't have both rule at the same time. Even in games. There's nothing tying you to your seat forcing you to spend hours chasing down that last 2%. So just stop playing when the fun is gone.

        I did this with Final Fantasy X. With previous Squaresoft games, I played through once getting everything I could, then played through again with a guide to get everything else. With FF-X, I

      • I don't have a problem with these kinds of games except when major gameplay features are missing until you unlock the last 99% of the game. Its like an embarrassing admission that the gameplay is crappy and that the designers need to provide you with an incentive to play. This is especially terrible on multiplayer games, where all the good arena levels require tedious single-player tasks to fetch. Or one of the Crash Bandicoot games, where the "ending movie" was a half-assed 5-second cliffhanger telling

  • Bad comparison... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by avalys ( 221114 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:49PM (#12428294)
    "Also, isn't it peculiar that when you complete a complex or lengthy game you rarely want to replay it, yet short games are often endlessly replayable?"

    Not really. I'd say many more people play a 20-hour game once, than a five-minute game 240 times.
    • I play 20+ hour games right through when I get a chance -- I don't devote 20 straight hours to the game (with some exceptions though -- GTA series, I'm looking directly at you). But then I stop playing for some time. I come back to them at a later date.

      It's like watching a movie -- you generally don't watch the movie again right away, but if it's really good, one lazy Sunday afternoon, you'll throw your copy in the media device of your choice, and watch it again, this time noticing things you didn't the fi
      • It's like watching a movie -- you generally don't watch the movie again right away, but if it's really good, one lazy Sunday afternoon, you'll throw your copy in the media device of your choice, and watch it again, this time noticing things you didn't the first time.

        Whoever thought up the idea of 'chapters' for games should be sainted.

        It's great being able to hop into a game at a particular part of the plot, without the need to play it from the beginning again. Okay, it wouldn't work with some kinds of g
    • I'd just have to mention that I've seen people on Yahoo who have played like thousands of games of Spades. Even if they were the best players ever they'd still be clocking more than five minutes a game.
    • obviously you've never played Snood...
    • Eh, no. The reason PopCap is so successful (and inundates us all with a slew of puzzle games, both good and bad) is because there is a huge market for puzzle games that you can play for an hour, but usually only play for ten minutes tops at a time. It is called caasual gaming, and I would wager that it is more common (and more commonly played) than your typical blockbuster immersive mega-adventure or RPG.

  • Time commitment? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The whole premise is flawed as soon as you introduce the radical concept of saved games, as you can shift your "commitment" to any point in the future, or put it off indefinitely.

    The real commitment is where it takes a while to become familiar with a game or to get to the entertaining bits, and long-lasting games often aren't like this.

    • Re:Time commitment? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @11:17PM (#12428456) Homepage Journal
      "The whole premise is flawed as soon as you introduce the radical concept of saved games, as you can shift your "commitment" to any point in the future, or put it off indefinitely."

      It's a detail, but not a flaw in the premise. How many of you have half-played games? I have. I never finished Mafia, even though I was enjoying it. I've had San Andreas for 3 months now. (I'm stuck on a not-so-fun level.) Prepare to point and laugh, but I was FIRST in line to get Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, they're both still half finished.

      Shifting the commitment doesn't strengthen the commitment. Either you really want to spend that much time in a game world, or you don't.

      Frankly, I think there is easily a market for both types of games, especially now that the portables war is starting to take off.

      • I fail to see the point, though (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @02:02AM (#12429252) Journal
        Yes I have half-played some games, and I have even thrown games away after half an hour. Some games are just not fun, or get you stuck on a not-so-fun level at some point. (And yes, I won't point and laugh, I _hated_ both N64 Zeldas too. I quit Ocarina Of Time after 15 minutes.)

        It still doesn't say basically "long games are bad", which is the flawed premise of that article. In reality, some games can be long and very good, yet others can be short and awful.

        And yes, the grandparent post is right: once you have saved games, the whole premise of that article becomes flawed. Because the premise was basically "waah, but what if I have to do something later, and this game is too long to fit in? I can't commit that much time to a game." _That_ is the flawed premise.

        And with saved games that's a straw-man. I've been known, for example, to squeeze in 15-30 minutes of some game before I go to work. I've never had to think "naah, I only have half an hour, so I'll play solitaire" yet.

        No, of course it doesn't strengthen the commitment, but it makes it possible. Just because a game took me 70 hours to finish (e.g., "Persona 2: Eternal Punishment") or a whole month to finish (e.g., "The Elder Scrolls: Arena"), it doesn't mean it had to be in one go, without pause, without sleep, without doing anything else.

        Or let's take your argument about half-played games. Would it have been that much better if the game had only the first mission? Yay, you've stolen the first car (or whatever you do in GTA), the game is over. How many times would you have replayed that?

        By contrast, I can think of games which were long and had a story, but were complex enough and fun enough to be worth playing again. E.g., Fallout 2. E.g., KOTOR.

        Now I could see the author's post if he picked on the distinction between abstract games (like Solitaire, Pac Man or Tetris) vs story-driven games. Anything story-driven is inherently less replayable: you already know the story. Same as with a movie, really: you can watch a good movie again, but noone sane can see the same movie 200 times.

        But arguing that it's length that makes a game replayable or not -- or even playable the first time for that matter -- it's such a bogus straw man, it's not even funny.

        • I quit Ocarina Of Time after 15 minutes.

          No wonder you hated OoT -- you never even left the fairy village.

          Most of the fun stuff happens after you finish the first few "stone" quests, and head out to the following palace quests.

          * loved OoT, somewhat enjoyed MM *

          • Oh, I think I wasn't even in the fairy village. I quit around the point where I had to jump around using flowers as a propeller. I found that sooo bloody retarded (for my taste)...

            What can I say? I hate jumping around in 3D. Now I do understand that some people actually like it. E.g., my parents sure seemed to like Mario 64 and Donkey Kong 64, so that N64 wasn't a total waste of my money. More power to them. Me, I'll take a game which doesn't even have a jump key at all, if I have a chance.
      • Personally, I thank God they just didn't come up with some sort of addictive five minute version of Zelda. The national GDP would probably have fallen. If nintendo had spent the past five years perfecting such a beast, I would've been found dead of starvation or something a week after purchase, controller still in hand.

        Fortunately, Nintendo has found it thus far difficult to automate the construction of new and innovative puzzles. Four Swords represents a step in that direction, but they had the foresight

  • A quick game of Counter Strike (Score:4, Interesting)

    by utahjazz ( 177190 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:52PM (#12428320)
    The brilliance of CS is the combo of only having 1 life, and really quick games.

    If poeple are rushing (like they should) the game is won or lost in about 1 minute, over in no more than 2. Worst case it lasts 5.

    Just enough sitting out to make dying painful, but quick enough turnaround that you don't want to leave.

    It works way better than "die all you want" games like Unreal and Quake.
    • The "problem" (a lot of players I talk to try to downplay this) with CS though is the fact that if you rush 'like they should' and you get killed early on, its VERY frustrating for players to watch a match drag on for 2~5 minutes because of some sniping campers on both sides of the team. On some maps is possible to run into the enemy within 20 seconds of the match (not counting maps where both spawns are within line of sight of each other...) so if you're not quick or 'skilled' enough, you can die VERY fast
      • The "problem" (a lot of players I talk to try to downplay this) with CS though is the fact that if you rush 'like they should' and you get killed early on, its VERY frustrating for players to watch a match drag on for 2~5 minutes because of some sniping campers on both sides of the team.

        The key to this, while it is somewhat time-consuming, is to find servers that are administrated. Generally, admins don't like waiting for campers as much as the rest of us. Also some servers stress anti-camping with plug

  • Hm. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rekenner ( 849871 )
    Actually, I sort of agree...

    Both are used for different things, though. If I'm multitasking with a game, I often don't wnat to play a game that takes a lot of concentration or constant action, so a strategy game usually works. In that same train of thought, if I have a 15 minute spot of time, I boot up an arcade emulator and play a game or two of Magical Drop 3. NOw, I've probably spent about 10-15 hours in that game, but not for more than 30-45 minutes at a time.

    If I have a day to blow, I won't start a

  • The problem with many PC games is... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rokzy ( 687636 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:56PM (#12428342)
    ...(talking mainly about FPSs) there's no continuing GAMEPLAY innovation.

    in comparison, I playing Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube. I'm 20 hours in and have seen more varied gameplay styles and cool things than all the FPSs I've ever played put together.

    it's probably one of the best games ever. I think it might have a little do do with the fact that you sell a console game once. with PC games there's a lot more effort getting it out of the door due to different systems, and you know you can just release an add-on pack 6 months down the line so creating great gameplay first time round isn't so important if you know you can lure people back with your engine eye-candy anyway (Doom 3, I'm looking at you.)
    • The genre has nothing to do with it. People seem to complain about fps on the PCs, but every fps on the xbox has a new cult following. A long game is good if it's content are unique thru-out.

      RE4 probably has more variety overall. Where as Doom III repeats killing the same alien 4000 freaking times.

      • THe genre has a lot to do with it. FPS in particular seems to show little to no innovation. RUn around, strafe, pick up the BFG (big fucking gun) repeat. Lack of innovation is an all around problem in gaming these days, but FPS games are a particular low spot.

  • Absolutely brilliant, fairly original, well-made, engaging, simple arcade-ish games. I especially liked the fish-tank game and the one with the spiral tracks of balls that you shoot.
  • Back in the day when I had an Amiga and played lots of games on it, the ones I kept returning to were the ones I could play for an hour or two then leave again. There were a few good traditional shoot-em-ups, a few simple driving games (Lotus Esprit 2!), Moria, etc. These days I'd appreciate something similar a lot more than a more involved game as I simply don't have the time for anything overly involved - blame two jobs, a wife & baby for that.

    Damien

  • Length measured how? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by screwballicus ( 313964 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @11:04PM (#12428383)
    The crucial question regarding game length for me in story-based game genres (whether the game be Adventure, RPG, Tactical RPG or even Story-Driven FPS) is simply, how long is the story content? The length of time spent in front of the screen is a comparatively trivial question, in estimating the value of the story as a whole, though I'd rather the game didn't consume time in front of the screen merely for the sake of consuming it, if the story isn't progressing.

    A 100 hour game in which 90 of those hours consist of random encounters with generic enemies is ultimately a less epic story than a 30 hour game in which 25 of those hours consist of dialogue, story-telling and combat with meaningful characters.
    • "30 hour game in which 25 of those hours consist of dialogue"

      Sounds like you'd be into Metal Gear Solid. 5 minutes of play, 25 minutes of cutscenes, 5 minutes of play, an hour of cutscenes...
      • Or FFX. I literall remember times when I'd see a cutscene for 5 minutes, run across a bridge (no enemies in this zone, no fights), and see another cutscene.

        I like story, but I'd prefer it to be integrated with more action.
  • It all depends on the game you are playing. I really wouldn't want to play Galaga for 22 hours, but that's how long RE: 4 took me and it was the perfect length for that game.

    Some games are super short. I can flip open my DS and crack off 10 rounds of Warioware at a stoplight since each round is only 3 seconds long.

    Some RPGs are really long. If something has an enjoyable story to it I can spend 40 hours in it without it feeling like it is a chore.
    • Its people who do shit like that when they're driving that piss me off, music is fine... but anything more than that makes you a danger to everyone else on the road.

      You know those people who take way more time than they need too to get going at the traffic lights? That's you arsehole
      • That was more hyperbole than anything. Like when penny-arcade showed Gabe playing FF: Crystal Chronicles at stoplights. I don't really play games while driving.

        Oh wait, this is slashdot. Everything said here must be 100% literal truth...

  • Which would you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kenneth_martens ( 320269 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @11:09PM (#12428412)
    Which would you rather play, a computer game that takes forty hours to complete or one that lasts just a few minutes?
    That's the wrong question. The question is, which would you be more willing to pay $50 for? Game companies make games with the hope that people will buy them.

    Think about that. Would you pay $50 for Minesweeper? No, but you'd pay that much for the latest Myst adventure. It doesn't matter that you'll only play Myst once and that you'll enjoy Minesweeper several times a week for the rest of your life. You'll never be able to convince people to pay $50 a pop for short games like you will for epic games.

    The reality of the game market doesn't make the article wrong, just irrelevant. It doesn't matter which games are technically better, it matters which games sell.
    • "You'll never be able to convince people to pay $50 a pop for short games like you will for epic games."

      Tell that to Namco, Midway, and Capcom.
      • And Namco, Midway, and Capcom will tell you you're largely right. Epic games regularly sell for $50, but only the real blockbusters in short games like Soul Calibur 2 get that price--and at that, SC2 had a campaign mode that was kinda epic. Most short games have prices of $30 or $40 when they come out.

        Chris Mattern

    • Re:Which would you pay for? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bluGill ( 862 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @11:39PM (#12428590)

      No, but then as a programmer I don't need you to pay $50 to make money on my version of MineSweeper. It is a small game that I can write in a week or less. (Assuming I already knew the APIs, I don't normally work with GUIs so it would take me a little longer) I can sell it for $5, which people are more likely to pay. Or I can sell it with a bunch of other games of similar length for $40.

      Note that I'm using MineSweeper as a generic. There is too much competition, in the MineSweeper world. (Most free and high quality) However there are other games of that type that I can write. Ideally I'd be creative enough to make something original.

  • Making the case for short lives (Score:5, Funny)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @11:12PM (#12428424) Journal
    Which would you rather have, a life that takes eighty years to complete or one that lasts just a few decades? Don't be too quick to answer. The former asks for a serious time commitment. The latter says come and go as you please. One is a ball and chain. The other is a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card. Well, it's not exactly that bad but considering all of the things you have to go through each day, which type of life will you really find worthwhile? Also, isn't it peculiar that when you near completion of a complex and lengthy life you rarely want it to dredge on any longer, yet short lives are often interesting and full of excitement, and endlessly repeatable if your religion allows?

  • Which would you rather play, a computer game that takes forty hours to complete or one that lasts just a few minutes? Don't be too quick to answer. The former asks for a serious time commitment.

    For me, the answer is easy - the 40 hour game. Unless it's poorly designed, any modern game should be choppable into 5-15 minute increments via use of saved games.

    Any game that can be completed within 5 minutes or less is also writable within 24 hours - it does not have much depth, and won't retain interest f

    • I think that Super Mario Brothers represents the perfect example of this, and that it suggests where within that range you should aim for. SMB consists of levels that should be beatable within five minutes, tops. The game save is what places Super Mario World at the top of its peers. The original ties your investment in time to the immediate future. Beat level 6-4 and you'll have to play 7-1 immediately, or leave and start back at the very beginning. SMW lets you digest the game in chewable chunks, five min
  • Also, isn't it peculiar that when you complete a complex or lengthy game you rarely want to replay it, yet short games are often endlessly replayable?

    Most of these (good) 40+ hour games are played at least two or three times by the owner, especially those in the RPG genre, which often have multiple approaches and often more than one ending (Knights of the Old Republic, Chrono Trigger, etc.). If you are evaluating a game, then, in terms of how much time you spend on it, you are talking 100-120+ hours fo

  • Compromise (Score:2, Insightful)

    by djdanlib ( 732853 )
    How about a compromise?

    Let's have games that take a long time to complete, but can be enjoyed in very short sessions, on the order of five to ten minutes.

    Platformers and driving games are usually good with this. Also, fighting games. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Soul Calibur II fit the bill quite nicely.

    I haven't seen too many options in RPGs though - which would be REALLY FREAKIN NICE, especially in the MMORPG world. Somebody out there taking suggestions?
    • RPG's are Role Playing Games. You're supposed to get involved in it, playing 5 minutes at a time would lose the primary aspect...
  • *I* want an epically long game that I can play in 5-10 minute chunks over the course of a friggin year!

    • Re:My choice (Score:2, Informative)

      by NereusRen ( 811533 )
      In other words... Animal Crossing! I don't think there's any other game which fits your description more perfectly. In fact, you MUST play it over the course of at least "a friggin year" if you want to take part in all the cool holidays and special events.

      Of course, the story is a bit weak...
  • ... then clearly WarioWare is the best of them all!

  • Monopoly (Score:2, Funny)

    by Reignking ( 832642 )
    The "Get Out of Jail Free" card refers to shorter games? Seems kind of, since that is from Monopoly, one of the longest board games ever created.
    • > Monopoly, one of the longest board games ever created.

      Not really. Not if you play by the official rules. Problem is, most people don't. Giving the person who lands of Free Parking a wad of cash is one of the most common house rules that makes the game interminable. And forgetting that not purchasing the unowned property you landed on immediately starts an auction for it also lengthens the game.

      Chris Mattern

  • Fallout 1 & 2 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tdelaney ( 458893 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @11:49PM (#12428639)
    Occasionally I like a short game - as short as Freecell.

    However, I've played Fallout 1 & 2 over 40 times each *to completion*. My shortest game is around 10 hours. My longest is over 100 hours.

    I *much* prefer a long game, that I can play *at my own pace*.

    • I second that. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @01:47AM (#12429203) Homepage
      I don't mind games that take a while to complete (after all, I can still play it decently, just over a longer period, right?). What I hate are games which do the following:
      * No easy quest tracking or other goal tracking
      coupled with
      * A play granularity which is around 2 hours.

      Most of the games that are above the 10 hour completion time rating are like this; once you put them down, when you get back to them you realize you don't remember what you were doing. Few games do have a notes on what happened, and a list of what's happening next (Kotor did support this! It made it very excellent to play). Warcraft 3 is great because I can hit F9 and see the quests (hell, any Blizzard game is good for quest tracking).

      The play granularity thing is another issue. I may not have 2 or 4 hours to play a game in one stretch. I'm not a big fan of games where I can't just save and quite at any point, or games where if I do get in, it takes me a good 2 hours to get anywhere in it. Games with specific save points (Resident Evil) require premeditated play time. IE: I pick an afternoon to sit down and go ahead and get from one logical point to another. In a game like Warcraft 3, I can just save at any point, and resume later.

      There are a lot of great games, but there are fewer great games that make themselves easy to enjoy. Lower penalties for platformers (which I've noticed tend to be geared towards the younger gamers, many of whom seem to have infinite patience which I no longer have; losing an hour of 'work' is painful -- replayed game segments are not fun, generally!), better quest tracking, easy save/resume, all contribute to something I can do in my work schedule.
    • Impressive. Wish I could say the same about Wasteland, which is my favorite game, but after a few games, when I've maxed out the characters (you can restart from the beginning with your saved characters after you win), the game starts crashing because the variables go out of bounds :) Yes, it's fun to try to see how far I can get with no armor or weapons :)

      I've started over from scratch, by necessity, maybe 3 or 4 times, but that's not as much fun. I guess that's only 20+ times in all.
  • Some short classical games can keep depth throughout the years. Here I'm thinking about chess, go, and especially bridge. Though these games were available before computers, their computerized ports make it easy to find online partners for an half-hour session, any time of day.

    Though I played bridge for several years now, I still feel like a newbie and will feel that way even when I'm retired - and that's the appeal. I can't imagine myself still playing Bard's Tale or Ultima IV several times a month; th
  • PopCap games are VERY good short games.
  • Yay. Another Slash-vertisment. Or is that an adver-dot?
  • I play freecell because I can finish the game quickly. I'd never get that into a game that it bacame my reallife like some people I know.

    I'd rather do other things...

  • I play long games 2x-3x! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cliffiecee ( 136220 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @12:36AM (#12428897) Homepage Journal
    I have played Morrowind, and all the GTA games, two or three times each. Like a favorite movie, even though I know what's going to happen I *love* the experience. Besides, each of those games is different every time I play.

    Sure I don't play them as often as I would play a short game, but I still enjoy them immensely.

  • What's the best length for a game? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by theclam159 ( 833616 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @12:41AM (#12428934)
    I'd say 10-20 hours. That's long enough to have a good story and a certain amount of complexity, but it's also short enough that you can replay it several times without spending a year on it.

    I know that when I play RPGs, I sometimes feel like I'm missing out. I spend 80 hours playing a warrior, which means that I'm missing out on playing a rogue, a priest, or a mage. I don't really want to spend 320 hours playing the same RPG, so I get to play every class. If the game is only 10-20 hours long, then I can spend about 60 hours and I'll get to experience the game from several different perspectives.

    Plus, most really long games get repetitive after a while. Once you get about 15 hours into a game, you've discovered 95% of the game mechanics, so you're just going to repeat the same things for another several dozen hours.

    I often don't like small games because they have no depth. If you take some of the Popcap games, like Bejeweled, you'll see that there isn't much complexity or strategy to them. Those types of games get very repetitive; your 50th hour will have the same gameplay as your 1st hour.

    Once you get into competitive multiplayer games, however, things start to shift. 2-5 minute games can be fun, because you can play so many games in a row that you can try dozens of different strategies and situations. If you're losing, then the game will be over quickly, so you can start afresh. On the other hand, hour long games can be fun, because you can spend large amounts of time plotting methodically against your opponent, only for a game to come down to one huge climactic battle.
  • Okay, I'm lying a bit. I like to play tactic-games like Command and Conquer and so forth for a couple of hour against friends.

    On the other hand, at the moment, I'm paying FreeCiv in my 60th hour - and to be quite frank, I don't think I'll be finished before spending a couple of hundred hours there.

    But the greatest game(s) of all time was Ultima 7 Part I and Part II ... and you didn't finish those games in the first 200 hours.

  • Different games for different situations. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Temporal ( 96070 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @01:21AM (#12429092) Journal
    If I'm looking to waste five minutes, I'll play DDR. It's not very filling, but it's kind of a fun distraction.

    If I'm looking to waste an hour or two, I'll play a round of Warcraft. This is a little more interesting, but still mostly a distraction.

    If I'm looking to waste a weekend, I'll play an FF or other long single-player RPG. I will get much, much more out of this than playing DDR all weekend. A good RPG story makes you think, makes you laugh and cry, etc. There's something cathartic about it, and you come out feeling emotionally refreshed.

    Few people look back at 40 hours of DDR (or Counter-Strike, Warcraft, etc.) with the kind of emotional attachment that a good RPG can bring.

    This is not to say that short games don't have their place. I wouldn't trade in DDR for another RPG. I guess my point is that it's like comparing cars to airplanes and concluding that cars are always better.

  • Nothing new here... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by danbeck ( 5706 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @01:29AM (#12429135)
    You hear this crap all the time from whiney game reviewers who get all their swag for free. They bitch and moan and write essays about how long it takes to finish games these days, all because they they have to get through it to finish their review in time for that deadline.

    Nothing is more moronic than someone like this trying to convince us that we need to shell out more and more money for shorter and shorter games.

    He obviously doesn't get reality. You know what I do with an expensive game that takes 5 hours to complete? I pirate it. (I'm looking at you Max Payne 2!) On the other hand, I'm first in line to buy a game that gives you your money's worth.
  • > Also, isn't it peculiar that when you complete a complex or lengthy game you rarely want to replay it

    I finished GTA Vice City (*) 3 times, the original Deus Ex 9 times, and Deus Ex - Invisible War 5 times. All of them are extremely long games, especially Vice City, and I still want to finish them a couple more times.

    Finally I am not even a gamer, just play for fun when I feel like doing it, but the games I like are games for life.

    (*) = Killed Sonny Forelly.
  • I like games that have instant action. In UT2004 i love this option to just push up my level toward Godlike by just playing a couple quick rounds every now and then.
    I think there's some RTS games that have this as well. You just can play a quick map instead of (part of) a campaign.

  • Nethack! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Xtifr ( 1323 ) on Wednesday May 04, 2005 @08:14AM (#12430522) Homepage
    Nethack takes a very long time to complete, but you can save the game at any time, and has enough replayability that I'm still playing it nearly two decades after I first found it. And I know I'm not alone!

    It may be somewhat the exception to the rule, though. :)

    Overall, I think they have a moderately valid point, but I think it's more of a guideline than a rule, and probably varies somewhat from person to person. I find a fair amount of replayability in Civ-style games and TBSers (at least the ones that don't have a completely lame AI).

    I also have to say that while I have played a fair amount of solitaire and tetris over the years, I really don't enjoy 'em quite as much as a good TBS. They're more something to do when I'm tired and distracted and don't want to have to think much. The same reason I sometimes find myself watching cartoons.
  • Most games (even, say, Black and White which tried to 'break the mold') have LEVELS.

    What I want are long games with short LEVELS. I don't mind playing a game for 40 hours if it can consistently fit some goal into an hour or less of gameplay.

    That's your target. Can a busy geek complete a level in the time between making dinner and watching prime time TV. Hit that sweet spot, make a million dollars, buy a ferrari.
  • I read short magazine articles as well as 1000 page books. If someone told me that publishers should stop printing books because people really just want to read magazines, I'd call them crazy.
  • I probably don't even need to say it, but, c'mon. Games can be long, not require a huge time committment, and be endlessly replayable.
  • If a 30+ hour game can be finished in less than 30 minutes, which category does it go in?

    you can download the movie [speeddemosarchive.com] to see for yourself.

    No hacked character, no "bad" exploit, but I would say that getting to 9000 intel is a bit abusive.
    • If a 30+ hour game can be finished in less than 30 minutes, which category does it go in?

      It falls into the worst category ever: "Games that have been artificially extended"

    • If a 30+ hour game can be finished in less than 30 minutes, which category does it go in?

      Hey- look at me. I just read War and Peace in 15 minutes! Well, ok, I read a one-paragraph synopsis of the ending of the book, but clearly it's not really a long story at all.

      I know you're joking, but having both played Morrowind all the way through as well as read the speedrun explanation, are you counting the hundreds of hours needed to

      • Learn what you need to do to "win"
      • Learn the locations of a bunch of
  • Did anyone notice that this was less of an article about shorter games and more of an advertisement for / history of one particular game?
  • I like em long. Why would he even make an argument about this? There are short games and long games both available. This is like "making the case for taller cheesburgers" or something. It's nonsense.
  • This is what a lot of game review sites seem to lack in reporting (they do it, but giving an epic RPG 10 out of 10 for "replayability" doesn't seem accurate 90% of the time). Games like Sim City 4 or strategy games like Galactic Civilizations or Command and Conquer * seem to offer the most in this respect, or online games of almost any sort.

    The big RPG games are fun, but I'm always tempted to buy them and sell them, or simply rent them. In the end, I just don't buy most. It's the big replay factor of other

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close