Game Duration: Is bigger, Better
- Thread starter Zeema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not always.
Quality > Quantity.
Most games are either great and short or sacrifice quality to make it longer with the occasional rule breaker that is great quality and fairly long. (Think Bioware games)
Also the length needs to be compared with the replay value - Sure a long game will keep you entertained but a vastly repeatable short game could give the same or even more. (Think multiplayer games)
Quality > Quantity.
Most games are either great and short or sacrifice quality to make it longer with the occasional rule breaker that is great quality and fairly long. (Think Bioware games)
Also the length needs to be compared with the replay value - Sure a long game will keep you entertained but a vastly repeatable short game could give the same or even more. (Think multiplayer games)
I'm going to assume you don't mean quality over quantity here, correct me if I'm wrong.
If the developer can pull off making a game longer without also making it worse, it's all good. Padding is the ur example of how this usually doesn't work. But there's a difference between a game being bad because of padding or a game being good in spite of it.
Let's take The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion as an example. I think we can all agree that the game was padded, but the padding was done well. The game is HUGE. Sure, the animation might be lacking, the bugs might be prolific (though not so much anymore, with official and unofficial patches) and the main story might not be that engaging, but there's just so many places to go and so much to see that I didn't care much. This isn't to say the game wasn't engaging, though: I was really drawn in by the Dark Brotherhood questline.
If the developer can pull off making a game longer without also making it worse, it's all good. Padding is the ur example of how this usually doesn't work. But there's a difference between a game being bad because of padding or a game being good in spite of it.
Let's take The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion as an example. I think we can all agree that the game was padded, but the padding was done well. The game is HUGE. Sure, the animation might be lacking, the bugs might be prolific (though not so much anymore, with official and unofficial patches) and the main story might not be that engaging, but there's just so many places to go and so much to see that I didn't care much. This isn't to say the game wasn't engaging, though: I was really drawn in by the Dark Brotherhood questline.
Definitely quality. I would play full price ($50) for a 5-hour per playthrough game if I felt that those five hours were worth it. What I don't want to do is play a 50-hour game that I end up quitting because it was boring. I don't care that I got less than $1 per hour of play-time if I fall asleep while playing it.
That said, a game like Half-Life (yes, I'm a fanboy, why do you ask?) lasted me about 20 hours for my first playthrough(PS3 version, don't judge me), and I would rather get another game like that than another CoD that annoys me the entire time I play through it's 5-hour story line.
That said, a game like Half-Life (yes, I'm a fanboy, why do you ask?) lasted me about 20 hours for my first playthrough(PS3 version, don't judge me), and I would rather get another game like that than another CoD that annoys me the entire time I play through it's 5-hour story line.
Dragon Age is an example of why it is and why it isn't.
Dragon Age's story arc, gameplay and quality meant that the longer it was-, the better - on the whole. But the endless sections of trudging through the Deep Roads - bland environments, nothing to lift it up from being merely average, little interaction with anything - this could do with being hours shorter.
Dragon Age's story arc, gameplay and quality meant that the longer it was-, the better - on the whole. But the endless sections of trudging through the Deep Roads - bland environments, nothing to lift it up from being merely average, little interaction with anything - this could do with being hours shorter.
Which just goes to show that with these sort of things, your mileage may vary. The Deep Roads was one of my favorite parts of the game. If it had just been a little 30 minute jaunt, I would be wondering what the big fuss about the place was. As it stands, I sort of wish they had ramped the difficulty up a bit there (especially towards the bridge crossing) so that you really started to understand why it posed such a serious threat to the dwarves.Susurrus said:
Depends on the game; sometimes 5 hours of epicness is enough and sometimes you'd wish that it would go on forever.
If all other things where equal (how gripping the story, how interesting the characters, how fun the gameplay etc) then I'm of the view that longer is allways better.
But you have to remember that that's rarely the case. A game has to be designed to be long to work as a long game. I'm thinking of the Zelda frachise as an example.
But you have to remember that that's rarely the case. A game has to be designed to be long to work as a long game. I'm thinking of the Zelda frachise as an example.
I dunno. {i]Blade Kitten[/i], for example, was overall very short, but each of the individual missions were generally too long, I thought...whatever new thing you were doing in each level got tiring long before the level ended.
On the other hand, Spiderweb games such as Exile 3 featured massive maps, and with one or two deliberately sparse areas, all were full of interesting things. Really made the world come alive, though sometimes sticking too much into too close an area feels a bit odd. Generally, it helped Spiderweb games, but if the story and world-building weren't there, I don't think it would have really mattered much. Sometimes, though, it was easily to lose the point of the game, and be wandering round in the world, if you see what I mean.
On the other hand, Spiderweb games such as Exile 3 featured massive maps, and with one or two deliberately sparse areas, all were full of interesting things. Really made the world come alive, though sometimes sticking too much into too close an area feels a bit odd. Generally, it helped Spiderweb games, but if the story and world-building weren't there, I don't think it would have really mattered much. Sometimes, though, it was easily to lose the point of the game, and be wandering round in the world, if you see what I mean.
Are you talking about the story or the game overall because in Oblivion that overall was a HUGE game with HOW many quests I completed but for story I would go for Mass Effect 2, so yeh certain games are good when it has a long duration, I cant imagine if Mass Effect if it was just a single game that didnt become a series or if in Oblivion, you kill the assassin that was about to kill the king....
No that is a flawed logic, game length is meaningless, anyone can make a game that will last forever but the question is content.
If the game sustains good content though the entire duration then longer is better, but in most cases the content is progressively weaker or spaced out just so they prolong the game, and that is simply bullshit.
That is why all MMO's are horrid, you cannot have 1000+ hours of content for a game, so they just keep it from you, keep you doing boring repetitive sh*t and trickle in the what they have to keep you mildly entertained.
If the game sustains good content though the entire duration then longer is better, but in most cases the content is progressively weaker or spaced out just so they prolong the game, and that is simply bullshit.
That is why all MMO's are horrid, you cannot have 1000+ hours of content for a game, so they just keep it from you, keep you doing boring repetitive sh*t and trickle in the what they have to keep you mildly entertained.