Making the Case For Short Games 123
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? "
What nonsense! (Score:5, Insightful)
"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)
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.
Re:What nonsense! (Score:1)
Re:What nonsense! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:What nonsense! (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.
Re:What nonsense! (Score:3, Funny)
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:
Goo
OT Re:What nonsense! (Score:1)
In this case, the more important issue is that the individual in question has the ability to quickly distinguish the targets from the rest of the environment while also correctly interpreting that environment to find future targets.
Both tools also have the identical limitation that once you perform the action with the sensitive trigger, you are commit
Re:What nonsense! (Score:1)
Re:What nonsense! (Score:2)
Re:What nonsense! (Score:1)
I'm looking for sailors.
Re:What nonsense! (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the publisher and, well, the market doesn't really allow him to do so.
Re:What nonsense! (Score:2)
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)
The best balance is games that can be beaten quickly, but take long times to complete 100%.
Re:Long games... (Score:2)
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)
- 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%.
Re:Long games... (Score:2)
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???
Re:Long games... (Score:2)
Re:Long games... (Score:1)
Re:Long games... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
* 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
Re:Long games... (Score:2)
Bad comparison... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. I'd say many more people play a 20-hour game once, than a five-minute game 240 times.
Re:Bad comparison... (Score:2)
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
Re:Bad comparison... (Score:2)
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
Re:Bad comparison... (Score:2)
Re:Bad comparison... (Score:1)
Re:Bad comparison... (Score:1)
Time commitment? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:I fail to see the point, though (Score:1)
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 *
Re:I fail to see the point, though (Score:2)
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.
Re:I fail to see the point, though (Score:1)
And neither game had a jump button, except the flowers thing and in combat.
Re:I fail to see the point, though (Score:2)
Re:I fail to see the point, though (Score:2)
Re:Time commitment? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Except when you die 30 seconds into the match... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Except when you die 30 seconds into the match.. (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Hm. (Score:1)
The problem with many PC games is... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.)
Re:The problem with many PC games is... (Score:3, Insightful)
RE4 probably has more variety overall. Where as Doom III repeats killing the same alien 4000 freaking times.
Re:The problem with many PC games is... (Score:2)
Popcap comes to mind (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
Damien
Length measured how? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Length measured how? (Score:1)
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...
Re:Length measured how? (Score:3, Insightful)
I like story, but I'd prefer it to be integrated with more action.
It depends on the game... (Score:1)
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.
Re:It depends on the game... (Score:1)
You know those people who take way more time than they need too to get going at the traffic lights? That's you arsehole
Re:It depends on the game... (Score:1)
Oh wait, this is slashdot. Everything said here must be 100% literal truth...
Which would you pay for? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Which would you pay for? (Score:3, Funny)
Tell that to Namco, Midway, and Capcom.
Re:Which would you pay for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Chris Mattern
Re:Which would you pay for? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:Making the case for short lives (Score:5, Funny)
"Well there's an old human saying: Whoever head of a worm-skin rug?"
Re:Making the case for short lives (Score:1)
Easy answer (Score:2)
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
Re:Easy answer (Score:2)
In regards to replay value (Score:1)
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
Re:In regards to replay value (Score:1)
Only once... Prince of Persia
Compromise (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:Compromise (Score:1)
My choice (Score:2)
Re:My choice (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, the story is a bit weak...
If shorter games are better than longer games... (Score:1)
Re:If shorter games are better than longer games.. (Score:1)
Stupid little games are fun as all get out.
Monopoly (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Monopoly (Score:2)
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)
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)
* 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.
Re:Fallout 1 & 2 (Score:2)
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.
Addictions (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Qua? (Score:1)
short attention span (Score:2)
I'd rather do other things...
I play long games 2x-3x! (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Neither, both are too short. (Score:1)
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
Different games for different situations. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Different games for different situations. (Score:2)
Ah, so good games are the kind that generate action figures! No wonder my Pac-Man figures didn't fly off the shelves...
Nothing new here... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Not true... (Score:2)
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.
Instant action (Score:2)
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.
Re:Instant action (Score:2)
Chris Mattern
Nethack! (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Stupid question (Score:2)
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.
Mixed attention spans is ok (Score:2)
Viewtiful Joe (Score:1)
Morrowind speed run: 15 minutes (Score:2)
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.
Re:Morrowind speed run: 15 minutes (Score:2)
It falls into the worst category ever: "Games that have been artificially extended"
Re:Morrowind speed run: 15 minutes (Score:2)
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
Hm. (Score:2)
Re:Hm. (Score:2)
Nope (Score:1)
More games need to be replayable! (Score:1)
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