Why does the length of a game matter?

[thethingthatlurks]

Here's how I judge how good a game is: ||awesomesauce||=(quality)*(length/price). I rate the original Portal extremely high, because its quality was almost perfect (cool puzzles, humor, but it lied to me about a cake /terribleoldjoke), and I got it for free on a Steam special, so that's great. 'course, even if I hadn't gotten it for free, it would still have been acceptable. IIRC, Portal was never more than $20 on Steam, so that's still ok. Now Portal2 is $50 to preorder, which is way too much for a game that will only be about 5 hours long, no matter how great the quality is. Besides, games like Portal aren't exactly known for replayability, so that's another strike against it. I'll still buy it, of course, just not until its price has gotten below $25.

Just saying, portal 2 (if you didn't know already) has two stories, one co-op, other single. Each should be 6 hours or more, so at least 12 hours of gameplay there. I'd pay that for 12 hours.

*shrugs* your call, and if that's what you want in your entertainment, good for you!
See, I don't play coop. Having to rely on other players I can't punch for screwing up tends to make games boring, at least for me. So I won't touch the coop mode at all, which just leaves me with 5-6 hours of (no doubt excellent) gameplay, which just doesn't justify spending $50.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

People generally want to feel they are getting enough for their money. Of course when you?re playing it quality can overcome everything, so even if it?s a short game it can still feel worth the money. Obviously ypu can?t judge the quality of the game before you are playing it. So you are stuck using something like length to justify the money you are hand over for it.

 

[MrA]

I would be okay with games being shorter if they didn't cost a fuck ton of money.

And I ask you, which is better: A bacon sandwich?

Or 4 bacon sandwiches?

/thread

 

[Callate]

It does matter within certain limits. If a game takes only four hours to finish but every moment is packed with innovative work, full player engagement, and a complete lack of repetition, I'm fine with that. If a game is twenty hours long and has four hours of truly great gameplay, that can be fine too as long as the other sixteen are competent and the best parts are well paced such that I truly look forward to those pieces and the memory of them keeps me moving steadily forward.

On the other hand, twenty hours of by-the-numbers copy-and-paste isn't most people's idea of a good time, and a game that's four hours long and ends just when it's finally offering something worthwhile is just unacceptable.

There are other factors, too, of course- replayability, price, expandability and modability, and I'm sure others my sleep-deprived mind isn't leaping on right now. But overall, I'd agree that quality is certainly the higher concern- just that there are certain minimums beneath which a game can reasonably expect to frustrate player expectations. I have no particular worries that Portal 2 will be worth the time, however much time that is.

 

[GeorgW]

It doesn't. As long as it's quality time and not any filler the lenght makes absolutely no difference to me.

 

[Merkavar]

well for me i prefer longer games but i dont find value in games just cause of its length. if a game is ok i want 20-40 hours of gameplay out of it since im paying 90$ or more. but games can have shorter gameplay if the quality is better.

basically i want value for my money so gameplay length is a factor but it isnt the only one.

 

[EllEzDee]

Because we're charged a shit load of money for them. I don't want to spend 30 quid and finish the game in 2 hours, no matter how "good" it is.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

I was watching a Portal 2 preview video on Gamespot yesterday where they were talking to someone from the dev team. What he said was that both modes of the game would equate to a game five times as long as the first one.

I plan on buying the game on release, but it wasn't the length that sold it to me, and I wasn't turned off by the original Portal being short. Maybe it's just me, but I don't tend to play any one game for hours at a time, so it still took me a good few weeks to complete that one.

I'm sure most of us could reach the end of any single-player game in two or three sittings if we had the time, but is that really what the single-player mode is for? In an age when video games are becoming more and more like film and TV, does it really matter that it only takes a few hours to escape the enrichment centre? That's still longer than a lot of films.

And another thing I'm curious about, how do you quantify replay value? Reviewers tend to complain that once single-player game is finished, there's little else to do, but isn't that the point? When you've defeated the antagonistic force, the final act has ended and your services aren't required in the immediate future. This sort of thing doesn't stop me from watching a film I've seen before.

There are some films i can watch over and over and over again, and never stop being entertained. The same with some games, these films and games tend to be actiony types whereas portal is a puzzle game, and the thrill in a puzzle game is figuring out the puzzles.

I've played through portal 3 times, the first time probably took me about 4 hours and the following 2 play throughs took about 2 hours each.
Because i've played through it before i know exactly what to do, so the puzzles are no longer puzzling. Meaning apart from the good humour, there is nothing really to play for.

However thats just portal (i did actually think it was good value for money despite being short) I dislike when £40 games are short (or whatever the full price equivelent for a AAA game is in america) because ive spent so much money on a 4-6 hour campaign... unless it was literally the best game ever, i could've got better value for money spending £10 on going to the cinema with some friends.

 

[monkey_man]

Besides, games like Portal aren't exactly known for replayability, so that's another strike against it.

I've replayed Portal 1 a few times, and I still loved it. you cannot get tired from flinging yourself acrros a room, ever. It's the law.

OT, Short games have to be cheaper, or else it's not fair to charge for them. But id the game is truly awesome, I don't mind paying a lot for it

 

[Woodsey]

Now Portal2 is $50 to preorder, which is way too much for a game that will only be about 5 hours long, no matter how great the quality is.

Main campaign is 6-8 hours, co-op is the same. That's quite a long 5 hours.


[sub]Also: Valve aren't stupid. They're not going to charge full price and release a game the same length as the first.[/sub]

OT: The length depends on the game.

If things start to drag, or the credits roll when you think you're only halfway through, something's gone wrong. There's no time designated beforehand.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

Mostly because alot of games are 60 bucks nowadays. It just doesn't seem worth it to throw out that much for a game you'll play once for a few days and never touch again. Unless of course the game is just that f-ing awesome. Or if you plan on charging each of your friends a $5 borrowing fee to make up for what you spent.