Why does the length of a game matter?

[CrankyStorming]

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.

 

[Jester00]

What he said was that both modes of the game would equate to a game five times as long as the first one.

so 2h for me. hm.

i agree. i hate it if i need months to finish a game.

 

[Realitycrash]

Most games are quality over quantity, true, and a game doesn't need to be long if it got quality. But most games don't have 100% quality, and in order to feel satisfied as a consumer, we need to get some quantity as well.
Most games, however, go for quantity and zero quality. "Oh, we need to make money, but only got an idea for a single level. So..uh..Let's repeat that level, with tiny variations"

 

[Traun]

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.

Take Fable 1 for example, you have two endings - good one and bad one. At least two times the replayability value. Take Bladur's Gate - you can do a lot of things differently every play through so the replayability is even higher. In contrast Doom has one ending and no matter what you do that would be it, you play it once, you see eveything.

As far as game length goes. Games are worth 60$, this is 5 times more than a movie ticket. If I pay 5 times more I expect to have AT LEAST 5 times the time engagement. If Portal 1 was too long the game would have been bland, if it was 20 minutes than we would have stoned the devs.

 

[RidleyValiant]

The simplest answer I can offer is value for money.

Why would I buy a game with a 10 hour campaign for £40, if I can pay the same for a 60 hour campaign?

EDIT: Just to quantify I'm talking about the options from two games I believe I would enjoy, as oposed to completely random titles

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I'm a cheap bastard. Which means I want bang for my buck.

 

[Outright Villainy]

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

Portal's length was fine. Bundled in with the Orange box, I spent approximately ?4 on it. If I had spent ?60 on it however, I'd feel a little ripped off. It'd be like going to the cinema, spending full price and coming out after 15 minutes when it's finished. You might enjoy the hell out of it, but you'd enjoy it more if there were more of it.

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

Or 4 bacon sandwiches?

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

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.

DVDs cost £10 these days, games cost five times that. Therefore I would like to think I would get five times more escapism.

 

[trooper6]

The original Portal was short...but it also wasn't $60.

I'm not paying $60 for a 2hr game. That would upset me greatly. People always counter with, "But long games don't == quality," and sure that's true. But, I also won't pay $60 for a crappy game. Crappy game? Not for $60. Too short game? Not for $60. Bring the price down and we'll talk.

 

[Wutaiflea]

I don't think there's a precise length of game that makes it perfect, but for me, it's value for money. I don't expect to pay the best part of £40 for something that only last 5 hours.

Portal being somewhat shorter than most games worked perfectly from a design point of view but the price reflected it (namely in my house's instance where it was essentially a freebie that nobody cared about tacked on to Half-Life and Team Fortress- which were the games my husband wanted in the first place).

 

[Technopath]

Take Fable 1 for example, you have two endings - good one and bad one. At least two times the replayability value. Take Bladur's Gate - you can do a lot of things differently every play through so the replayability is even higher. In contrast Doom has one ending and no matter what you do that would be it, you play it once, you see eveything.

I often have to question games like Fable having "two endings". A lot of games with karma meters that give two endings actually only have the ending based on one decision made at the last moment.

I'm just saying I don't consider it "two time replay" if I could see both endings, simply by backing up a secondary save file and making ONE decision differently.

I don't consider it two times play through anymore than I consider beating the dracovian lord, and then the final boss for a second time for an alternate ending in dragon quest eight to be a two time play through.

 

[RatRace123]

I think there's a certain sweet spot for game length. A lot of people complain that shooter campaigns take like 3-5 hours to beat, which I agree is too short for most full priced retail games. For something like Portal 2, I'd say maybe 10-15 hours, if they can keep all the puzzle mechanics and the story and atmosphere up throughout. So yeah, 5 times longer than Portal 1 seems about right.

 

[Fanboy]

It doesn't matter to me. I will play a game I like until I am sick of it, then move onto something else. If it is really good I will go back to it later. The only problem I have with length is when games have felt like they lasted too long, such as the first Assassins Creed. Also, having an annoying cliffhanger ending, like Crysis and Halo 2, can make the game feel unfinished and puts me off replaying the game.

If I beat a game and still feel like playing it I will do what I can to get more out of it. Changing the difficulty, changing my playstyle, installing mods, messing around with level/game editors, using cheat codes, finding secrets and unlockables, finding amusing glitches, achievements, multiplayer, artificially inflating the difficulty, etc.

 

[trooper6]

Oh, here's an analogy that isn't about films.

You spend $15 on a CD...you listen to it and enjoy yourself.
You band puts out its next CD...you spend $20 (because the price has gone up)...and...there is only one song on it. I don't care how good that song is, I'm not spending $20 on one song. And I'd be really, really irritated if I went in thinking I'd get a full length CD and only got one song.
Similarly, I'd be really annoyed if I spent $15-20 on an album, and there were 15 songs...but all of them but the single were terrible.

None of those things are acceptable to me.

 

[Om Nom Nom]

Length does matter. But it's far from the only factor that makes a good game. Any publisher that puts "60 hours of gameplay!" on the box as a feature is telling me: "we've made a bland game with an unbelievable plot, boring levels, and possibly bad voice acting too - but hey, it's 60 hours!".

 

[RowdyRodimus]

I'm a cheap bastard. Which means I want bang for my buck.

Same here, that's why I always have four or five games I'm playing at once. I can play an hour or so of a game then switch to another. It makes them feel longer that way. My brother is the complete opposite, he won't so much as look at another game until he has completely exhausted his interest in the game he is playing which right now is a PSN tower defense game I picked up for like $1.50 a few weeks ago.

 

[infohippie]

As an RPG fan, I would feel absolutely cheated if I got any less than 20 or 30 hours out of a game. I wouldn't be impressed until I got at least 50 hours out of it. It takes time to tell a good story, and time to explore a world.

 

[TH3_D15HWA5H3R]

to an extent yes... would you spend $100 for a 5 min game?

 

[Bostur]

The longer a game can be enjoyed, the more value for money it is.

At the moment cinematic games with linear plots is the trend. That makes for games with little replayability but with other qualities.

The Civilization franchise was specifically made with replayability in mind. It is intended to be replayed with different options and different approaches.
"Just one more turn" and "Just one more playthrough" almost became marketing slogans for Sid Meier.

The game that works as a movie or a book is just a tiny corner of the gaming history, but a very popular one at the moment. For other gaming genres replayability or lasting value is more of a main feature than a side option.

 

[Super Toast]

Because I'm not about to spend $80 on a game I'll finish in one sitting.