Something that I’ve been thinking about for a while now is the perceived value of any arbitrary game based on little more than the length of time it takes to complete it.
When I first saw Journey and it was revealed that the game would only be three hours long, we were especially careful how to present the information – gamers often all too easily reject a game if it’s not epic – an adjective incorrectly used to illustrate how many dozens of hours of gameplay are featured before the credits roll. To me, that just sounds completely and utterly wrong on a number of levels.
In retrospect, that deliberation wasn’t really necessary – Journey’s one of the best games released this generation and that’s partly because of the delicate combination of sublime visuals, wonderful music and balanced gameplay but it’s also because it provided a movie-like experience in terms of pacing, structure and length.
You can, if you wish, get through Journey in around an hour and a half.
Long past are the times when gaming’s first generation of gamers have endless time for the so-called epic titles. For some the change is gradual, but for others, with the onset of family and an all-encompassing job, it’s rather more sudden. Case in point, the thought of getting stuck into Skyrim still scares me to death, a telling difference from when I played through Oblivion, Skyrim’s predecessor, at least twice in full just a few years back.
[drop2]I’ve played big games, have done since I was a child, and I’ve enjoyed them massively. Some, like Phantasy Star Online on the Dreamcast, soaked up hundreds of hours (and the accompanying phone bill), and I’ll sing the praises of the likes of the Zelda games any day of the week.But things have changed, and now I’m looking for the smaller, more concise experiences that occupy my every attention for just an hour or two and then let me go, safe in the knowledge that I’ve seen everything there is to see and I’ve not missed out on a side quest or collectable that’ll take me days to tick off the list.
If those games can grab my attention for that relatively small amount of time then I’m happy. Of course, the criteria doesn’t apply to everything – deep driving sims can’t hope to cram in a full experience in the length of time it takes to watch a DVD, and I’m not expecting Bethesda to suddenly reduce the length of the next Fallout by 90%. What I mean is that I now actively seek out smaller, more appropriate games.
I’m not alone, either, and developers are starting to come around to this way of thinking. Dan Pinchbeck, creative director on the brilliant Dear Esther, agrees. “It still amazes me that some gamers are happy to explicitly say they don’t care about the quality of a game, it’s only the dollar-per-hour cost that defines value for them,” he said to Gamasutra, who are running a related feature.
“I find that completely extraordinary,” he adds. “It’s like going for a meal and basing whether it’s any good on how much food you get served rather than whether it tastes nice. I don’t see shoveling crap into myself as good value on the basis that there’s a lot of it.”
I’m not ignorant or arrogant to think that a lot of people will feel the same, of course, but as my free time becomes ever smaller I’m looking for games that fill the gaps and eschewing those that look like they’ll require considerable investment in terms of time. Personal preference, naturally, but then that’s just free choice and what makes us human.
As entertainment is served up in ever smaller chunks interrupted by adverts and calls to action, it seems gaming is split between the adventures happy to soak up a month of your time and the indie titles that just want to pull you in and take you along for the ride. Sony’s big on these just now – the aforementioned thatgamecompany title, but also PSN stuff like Datura, which was perfectly pitched length-wise – but the other big publishers are yet to take the gamble.
There’s the issue of cost, though. Developers can’t hope to pour endless resources into a game, regardless of length, and then sell it for 99p. Journey was pushed out at £10, which I think is just about right, but I wouldn’t expect games of a similar quality to be considerably cheaper just because they’re shorter than the standard £40 release.
But perhaps that’s for another blog, and I’d welcome your thoughts on any of this, particularly if you fall within the sort of group of gamer I’m finding myself in just now. The truth is, I’ll take a smartly produced, padding-free movie length game like Journey or Dear Esther over anything epic any day of the week, but your feelings may differ entirely.
But that’s me. Except on Sundays, I normally have a couple more hours free on a Sunday…
bunimomike
The game should be as long as it takes to tell the story that the designers envisaged. Simple as that. We have digital delivery (as well as on Blu-ray for anything truly massive) so there’s a million shades of complexity and depth depending on what the devs want. I’d like them to tackle the game as something that unfolds (like a story) as oppose to a game mechanic that has levels built for it in a shameless method to leverage money from consumers before they notice that it’s the same sodding formula (just lit differently as the game progresses).
Journey worked well but needs to not set any sort of precedent. It just needs to highlight that any game length can work well when the game is great.
Alex – It’s your fault for getting your missus pregnant and having a child! :-) Parenting sucks time. When I was with my ex (and her two children) I could manage nothing more than Plants Vs Zombies for two bloody years. My disc-based games wept quietly in the corner. :-)
gazzagb
I think it depends on the game. I think most FPS’s (COD, BF etc) get it about right with 8hrs, while other games like Assassins Creed seem to have a core of around 12hrs that can easily be extended depending on how many side quests you do etc. 2 hours though is far too short, that means in effect I’d be completing the game in an evening or possibly two. Depending on replay value, I wouldn’t want to pay more than £5-£7 if it was little.
hosepha
A few weeks ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly with this article. I probably manage an hour a week playing games on the home console. My chances of seeing the end of a game like Skyrim are slim to none and the worst thing for me is that, I find, the plot gets lost if you take too long a break. You remember the basics but all emotional attachment is gone.
Then I got a vita! Now i’m halfway through Final Fantasy Tactics and loving it. Suddenly long games are much more appealing because I can spend maybe half an hour to an hour a day playing. I don’t mind that it doesn’t have all the fancy lighting effects and a small screen. Side-quests don’t seem like a waste of time anymore. Levels can be fully explored.
I love it. I really, really hope developers pick it up and develop for it and for once I really hope they develop long in-depth titles. I would buy Kingdoms of Amular again in a flash so I might get more than 3 hours in to it. That throwaway comment from Randy Pitchford about Borderlands 2, amazing.
On a related note, there have recently been a selection of longer indie titles that I really want but cant justify because I wont get the time to play. Fez, Spelunkey, even Minecraft and later Scrolls feel like they’d find the perfect home on Vita!
Bodachi
I’m currently loving both long and short games at the moment. I love that I can complete an episode of The Walking Dead in an afternoon but also enjoy titles that take up a large chunk of time like the Metal Gear Solid HD collection. As long as it is a good game I’ll buy it.
Dr_mohannad
the longer the better, as long as it’s not boring
TheLig
“I’m not ignorant or arrogant to think that a lot of people will feel the same, of course” – This statement is kind of at odds with the title of the piece: ALL Games should be two hours long. I completely disagree with this. Games should be ever so slightly shorter than it takes for them to grow stale and/or boring. Which in the case of Journey is 10 minutes. Clearly, you love Journey. I don’t. I think it’s dreadful, and boring, and pretentious. But that’s an opinion. And I feel like 2 hours for a full priced game is not enough. BUT a game being two hours long, doesn’t make it two hours worth of play time. Battlefield 3 is not a long game, but I’ve sunk over 80 hours into it. I think the amount of time you want to play something, is more important than the amount of time it takes to play it.
Alex C
You missed a bit from the title, the word “opinion”.
=)
The Lone Steven
I mainly play games for the plot. I would be royally annoyed if a RPG was only 2 hours long as usually, the first two hours of a RPG are used to help the player get used to the setting as well as starting the story. But for a FPS, it would be the first act(judging from the average length of a FPS which is 6hours).
Plus we wouldn’t have games like UC, MGS, FF etc.. if all games were 2 hours long as you can’t tell a complex story in a videogame in that amount of time.
If all games were 2 hours long, i would probably end up being bored within 2-3 months as opposed to sinking all of my free time into a RPG that has a decent story. :)
Roynaldo
As succinct as ever il say these few words. Whatever floats your boat. The choice is yours.
ATJ
Personally I think it’s all about careful balance of free time and cost. If something is £10 like the awesome journey it is ideal for an after work play through. Anything more than £10 for something of film length would have to be something really special for most to buy. I may be wrong but that’s my view. However when you have a week off or day off the standard AAA £40 release is always the first of choice just to get really engrossed. It ultimately boils down to the amount of free time you regularly get.
An-dz
For the big games like skyrim and oblivion its more about the sense or adventure and exploration that i love. It can have as many hours of content as it likes but it there isnt some vast landscape with secrets to uncover it wont hold my attention the same.