Poll: How long should a game be?
- Thread starter Durxom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
a game should only go on so long as it can keep things feeling fresh
of course if there isn't $60 worth of content it should be less expensive
of course if there isn't $60 worth of content it should be less expensive
I prefer games where you can get through in about 5-10 hours, but have lots of sidequests and collectibles you can go for that only make the main game easier. Zelda and Metroid are good examples of that kind of game.
Length, being an aspect of quality of games, should be subjected to the cost of the game. If I buy something from XBLA, I expect it to be a short, yet easily enjoyable game that will distract me for a bit from my major titles. It's gratifying to see, then, that there's games like Shadow Complex or Braid (which I swear still kicks my ass, God damn the nifty time controls) that will go on for a long time without feeling repetitive. However, if a game simply drags itself onwards, being as overly repetitive as TV ads, then the experience becomes too mind numbing, and the player tends to lose interest. I've rented Borderlands, and even though I've enjoyed it thoroughly, I've had to re-rent it several times in order to make something out of it, as it's not until you've worked your way through the levels and God knows how many different kinds of delivery quests that you actually start getting some fun out of finding guns that are actually worth a damn and slaying enormous monsters or enormous mobs or enormous mobs of enormous monsters, and even then, the game uses the same mechanic. Sure, it's the tried and tested MMO mechanic, but even we have a limit. If, however, a game manages to maintain the same level of quality through and through without ever feeling repetitive, and even if it does, an acceptable repetition, then it has achieved the title of awesome game. I recently acquired Fallout 3, and I've played it for about 8 hours, and I can tell there's so much more in store that I'm about to enjoy, if the game will stop kicking my ass for carrying too many drugs and not enough meds.
So in short, a game's length is proportional to it's gameplay quality. I can tell that, if MW2 had been bad in any sense of the word, people wouldn't have noticed the fact that it's short, or at least, they wouldn't have bashed it so much. However, it is, and if you really don't bear in mind that the game also carries a multiplayer and a co-operative mode, then you really aren't making the most of it. Honestly, in risk of angering Russ and Ben, EVERY single game should be accounted for both their single player and their multiplayer, and how one balances the other out, since multiplayer, specially online, has become our everyday bread, and trying to deny that fact is like trying to deny the fact that the sun will shine tomorrow.
Which I am more than ready to try and contradict
So in short, a game's length is proportional to it's gameplay quality. I can tell that, if MW2 had been bad in any sense of the word, people wouldn't have noticed the fact that it's short, or at least, they wouldn't have bashed it so much. However, it is, and if you really don't bear in mind that the game also carries a multiplayer and a co-operative mode, then you really aren't making the most of it. Honestly, in risk of angering Russ and Ben, EVERY single game should be accounted for both their single player and their multiplayer, and how one balances the other out, since multiplayer, specially online, has become our everyday bread, and trying to deny that fact is like trying to deny the fact that the sun will shine tomorrow.
Which I am more than ready to try and contradict
A long game is good, but I like to see a resolution soon enough to the story of my games too. So I guess really, the current length of most games (i.e. the trend for games with about 5-15 hours) is fine by me. However, I do still expect then for a decent multiplayer or expanded storyline basis as an option if I want to carry it on. A campaign mode on an FPS, for example, should be of a decent length but then needs to be expanded with multiplayer. Something like Oblivion or Fallout 3 should have a relatively short story because then it's boosted by all the side quests and optional stuff, as well as each release of DLC. And so on...
Its not the Game length that im particular about. But it does have to be a game that i can come back to at a later date and play again after completing it. That is a game. For example, Silent Hill series, CoD (all, not just MW2... even though i have completed it twice already...). For Silent hill, the effect is greater if i havent played it for a year, so ive forgotten all the 'shit your pants' jump parts.
I am perfectly happy playing a short game if it manages to entertain and hold my attention. MW2 was criticized for being too short but it was that well presented I still thought it worth the full price I paid. What I cannot stand is a 50+ hr game which has a strong opening and ending, but bugger all happens in the middle.
There are plenty of games I've played for 40 plus hours, and Warcraft has claimed days upon days of my life, but it's hard to find good games that don't get repetitive or boring after x amount of time. I really don't care how long it is, if the replay value is high, that's enough for me.
It depends on the type of game, but my favourite types of games (open-world sandbox games) are usually divided up into several sections, so each individual major quest-line is about the length of a short game on its own, with a number of sidequests you can choose to take or ignore along the way. I like games to be long because, well, I don't like games to end, I guess. So, I suppose my answer is, "A game should be as long as the player can spend in it without getting bored or alienated."