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…
BalramRules
Was Uncharted 2, 2 hours long? No!
Games and Movies are two different things, enough said.
mad_mac_hl
Game length is important but so is quality. But a long game doesn’t have to sacrifice quality if the developer puts the effort in. The best example I can think of is Dragon Age: Origins vs Dragon Age 2 as to how badly this can be screwed up.
DA:0, first playthrough was 70-80hrs for me, hugely enjoyable, a lot of interesting and unique features about the setting.
DA2, 30-40hrs gameplay (if you’re lucky), and while it was certainly ‘shiny’ in appearance, it was a substantially poorer game in terms of overall game quality and the mistakes they made.
Developers should look carefully at the balance of game time vs the quality of what they have produced especially where sequels are involved. I wouldn’t mind a sequel being substantially shorter than the original, as in the case above, but I would like to see a big leap in game quality if that is the case.
cam_manutd
How people perceive value for entertainment determines how the length of a game/film should be. Some games like Disgaea or Fallout for instance beg to have dozens of hours chucked at the game whereas Modern Warfare can be completed on vet within 5 hours. That to me is short and I certainly have never completed a game within 2 hours. Why? Because games are made to be played over time and some can be completed in a continuous stint but are made for players to return and play over and over far exceeding 2 hours. I have yet to play Journey and while I can believe it to be sublime I cannot for the life of me use that as an example as to why games should be short, sweet and easily completed within 2 hours. Games and films are two different mediums- one interactive and the other streamed viewing. Sorry but games are made to be played over time and no game should be made for a few hours stint- that is arbitrary to the industry and would incur the wrath of the gaming population rather quickly.
Stefan L
Has anyone mentioned Diablo and how quite a few people are complaining that there’s not more gameplay to keep them wanting to play the game?
I should point out that this is after they’ve gone through each difficulty level, played all the characters and in total sunk about 350 hours into the game.
Anyway, I think all games have their specific market. Journey and Flower are short bursts of near perfection that you can play in one go, and this is fantastic. Equally, the Uncharted games are fantastic at 8-12 hours of gameplay. I wouldn’t want to force UC to be 2 hours, just like I wouldn’t want to force Journey to be stretched out for 8 hours. Different games for different markets and experiences.
Lets keep the diversity going.
TSBonyman
Movies are great but i also like to settle down with a good hefty book from time to time.
Not all ‘long’ games are successful at it but i really like a game that provides an immersive experience and/or draws me into it’s world/storyline. I could play ME2 forever if they just kept releasing new missions for it. They should make Mass Effect : Infinity, i’d buy that! :)
I love Journey too, but i can’t help wondering… they covered life, discovery, companionship, joy, despair, fear, spirituality, struggle, death… but couldn’t they have made the game a bit longer by covering parenthood..? ;-)
hazelam
for me i prefer more meaty games.
i don’t mean just how many hours it lasts, more like how much there is to do.
like how many different activities can i take part in while playing?
how much scope is there for exploration?
i like an epic plot that starts out with some small seemingly unimportant event that builds until the fate of the world, or worlds, hangs in the balance.
but i’m not averse to shorter games.
in fact i’d take a better shorter game over a bad longer one.
50 hours of crap or two hours of sublime?
quality beats quantity after all.
but having both is better, in my opinion. ^_^
one other thing i like about a longer game is, you can get to know the characters pretty well and even start to care about them, if they’ve been written and performed well.
Red Dead Redemption was one game that did a magnificent job in that respect.
i don’t know if i’d have had the same emotional connection to Marston after just a couple of hours of the game as i would after 30 or 40 hours.
i know in a film or tv show they can get you invested in the characters in that shorter amount of time, but they can focus on the character there, in games you have to have the players playing the game most of the time, you couldn’t do a two hour game and make an hour and a half of it cutscenes.
LTG Davey
I actually agree for the most part. 2 hours I must admit is a bit short for my tastes but I also find myself getting bored when playing 150hour epic RPGs.
6 hours seems to be the perfect length for me. Short enough so that I can play through it in one or two sittings before moving on to something else.
ClubberLang
If the story needs just 2 hours then tell it in 2. If it needs 10 hours then take 10.. What frustrates me is story that has few hours worth of story being stretched out to 10+ just to please the gamers idea that longer = better. The worse still padding a story out to justify a price point. If your game is 2 hours long but great that’s fine by me…. But price bitaccordingly. I’d like to see them trying a “movie” making business model. Write yer story, and develop it and then release it for between 20 to 25. I pay that for a bluray (in hmv) and so I’d b happy paying it for a game. Losses from a lower price point could be offset by increased sales….. If MW3 had been £20 I’d have picked up a copy.
Fen
Personally, I prefer games that can be played and enjoyed, and tell their story in both bite size chunks or all at once (depending on what time you have). Just like tv series and books have clear stopping/break points (chapters, end of an episode) games that do the same have been the ones I’ve most enjoyed over the years even as time available to me has varied. Also like a good book or a tv series, if it’s done right, it’s something I’ll come back to again and again as well.
To me this is just another case of the gaming world seriously lacking good writers and developers, not shorter games. Honestly, I think I’d lose all interest if all games were suddenly only two hours long, so no I disagree with this. But despite saying that, I recognise and accept that variety is key. :)
plutoniumdragon
There are many movies which are longer than 2 hours ;)
Obviously it depends on the game, some can be short and enjoyable, some just wouldn’t work in only 2 hours.