The Want for Length - Why?

[])rStrangelove]

I want a game to stay interesting & fun for a long time. Which means you either have a lot of content, randomly generated content that still makes some sense within the game world (hard to do) or - like in Batman: AC - you have content that is randomly shuffled when you play the game again after the ending.

Or just allow mods.

 

[jthwilliams]

I'd say length is one of the most important factors. Would you enjoy a BlueRay disc if you paid £20 for it, and it turned out to be 20 minutes long?

Of course you have to want to play the game for 40+ hours, it has to be good enough, but personally If I buy a game and get 40 hours out of it, I feel like I've made a wise purchase.

It's part of the reason why Elder Scrolls and GTA games are so popular, because you know that if you buy GTA4 or Skyrim, your in for a full working weeks worth of gameplay. The 40+hours is key - if you can pay £40 and get a workweek load of fun for it, then that's a good entertainment to cost ratio - £1 for 1 hour. We tend not to get that with some games, we tend never to get that with movies or music or any other medium... we'd have to listen to an album 10 times, or watch a movie 10 times before we'd get the same value for money. Sandbox gaming or multiplayer-centric is really the only way to get value for money with games.

I disagree with that a bit. If I buy a movie, I'll probably watch 10 times over the life of me owning it. If I buy a song for 99cents US, I'll probably end up listening to it at least 12 times while I own it. Not in one sitting mind you.

I think we tend to get short changed by games when compared to other entertainment with the exception of live entertainment like plays and sporting events. This are at least arguable more engaging and multidimentional

 

[Vault101]

I'm sure this has been asked somewhere before, but I couldn't find it within the last couple years, and I'd like to hear forum-goer responses - why is the sheer breadth of a game's content so vital to it's consideration for purchase or even success?

I suppose there are some simple responses to be had, but I really don't see quite where the focus on it comes from, aside from one or two only-partially formed ideas.
Ultimately: a game may have you sitting at the computer for weeks, but is that really a worthy selling point itself?

I cant talk for everyone, but ill talk for myself. being a gamer that saw the times when games shorter than 20 hour would be "booed" out of the market i want it back. i dont want to pay 50-100 dollars for a game i will play for 5 hours and then drop it crysis . i want to make my moneys worth in the game. which is the reason i mostly play rpgs/strategy games. in crysis you pay 10-20 dollars per hour. i get more going to cinema even. in, say, ivilization 4 i got to around 4 hours per dollar, and i still play it.
thing is, MOST of the games out there are NOT worth the money. there are two fw=ays to fix that: stat making good games (hard way) or making them cheaper (easy way). online sales make the second part really easy and perfect example that it works is steam (though i dont use it myself).

seriously...you wouldnt be alittle annoyed if you spend $60 on a game a game and then finished it in two sitting?

most games nowaday only take 1 sitting really.

1 sitting? you must be hardcore because even thease days most games I get take more than one sitting

take I six hour game...3 hours per sitting, there you go, thats a weekend or less depending on how much of a gamign binge you go on

 

[Aprilgold]

I'm sure this has been asked somewhere before, but I couldn't find it within the last couple years, and I'd like to hear forum-goer responses - why is the sheer breadth of a game's content so vital to it's consideration for purchase or even success?

I am spending 60$ which I can not try extensively and doesn't have a demo, if the game is good then I want my moneys worth, not a screen repeated over and over again for 3 hours, I want 8 hours of fun content out of a game.

I suppose there are some simple responses to be had, but I really don't see quite where the focus on it comes from, aside from one or two only-partially formed ideas.
Ultimately: a game may have you sitting at the computer for weeks, but is that really a worthy selling point itself?

Yes, because if something is good you will like it all the more, the longer it is the more worthy the game is of the entry fee that is 40$ short of 100$. Is this really worth a thread?

Bottom line, games are expensive. At $60 a pop, if gamers don't feel that they're getting their money's worth, they simply won't bite, and I think that's totally fair and reasonable. Games with strong multiplayer components can get away with short campaign lengths, especially in an age when just about EVERYONE plays online. But when it comes to single player games, six hours just isn't going to cut it. That's, what, about 10 bucks an hour? Way too rich for my blood, friend.

You've been ripped a new one, but I do agree with you when it comes to single player. Although having a short single player and a very extensive multi player is not as great, mainly because the gameplay is always a different roll, get under a 10 of 20, well then its a hacker, lagging match or pub stomp, if you roll over a 15 then your still in OK position but there may still be lagging or hacker, 18 you have a hacker or lagging server, 20 its a great game.

I spent about 200 hours on TF2, I can almost guarantee 100 or so of those was utter pain. 50 hours was damn fun and 50 was decent. Multi player is more chance based.

 

[Maximum_Power_Cheese_Supreme]

A good game needs to be about replay value. It doesn't matter how long a movie is or whether that justifies the price, what matters is whether or not you'll want to watch it again. Of course you don't pay $20 for a "full-length" game, like you do a 2 hour long movie.

I also think multiplayer cannot be justification for re-playability. The single player campaign must itself be so well done you'll want to play it as much as you do the multiplayer.

Pricing seems to be the main issue here. There's no telling whether you'll enjoy what you're paying for as much as you think you should. Other gamers may think Saints Row the third is worth every penny, but you may feel like you've just flushed 50-90 dollars down the drain.

 

[Vault101]

I'd say length is one of the most important factors. Would you enjoy a BlueRay disc if you paid £20 for it, and it turned out to be 20 minutes long?

Of course you have to want to play the game for 40+ hours, it has to be good enough, but personally If I buy a game and get 40 hours out of it, I feel like I've made a wise purchase.

It's part of the reason why Elder Scrolls and GTA games are so popular, because you know that if you buy GTA4 or Skyrim, your in for a full working weeks worth of gameplay. The 40+hours is key - if you can pay £40 and get a workweek load of fun for it, then that's a good entertainment to cost ratio - £1 for 1 hour. We tend not to get that with some games, we tend never to get that with movies or music or any other medium... we'd have to listen to an album 10 times, or watch a movie 10 times before we'd get the same value for money. Sandbox gaming or multiplayer-centric is really the only way to get value for money with games.

I disagree with that a bit. If I buy a movie, I'll probably watch 10 times over the life of me owning it. If I buy a song for 99cents US, I'll probably end up listening to it at least 12 times while I own it. Not in one sitting mind you.

I think we tend to get short changed by games when compared to other entertainment with the exception of live entertainment like plays and sporting events. This are at least arguable more engaging and multidimentional

Id argue its much more satisfying to get a good..all round experience (which you can also replay at one point if you choose) rather then replaying a short game over and over..it would have to be a pretty amazing game

Im not saying allgames have to be sandbox (becuase while doing random shit is ok I prefer to have some kind of direction) I'm just saying I notice when I feel a game is too short..regardles of how long the game might be hours wise

agian it is personal preference...but I dont like to make excuses for short games when they should be longer..we get ripped off enough as it is with DLC (debatable yes...but still an issue)

 

[Strazdas]

most games nowaday only take 1 sitting really.

1 sitting? you must be hardcore because even thease days most games I get take more than one sitting

take I six hour game...3 hours per sitting, there you go, thats a weekend or less depending on how much of a gamign binge you go on

Well, it all depends on how much time you have. if i have a day fully to myself one sitting can mean up to 10 hours easily (ofc i make a break to eat, though if its strategy game both at once can happen) so that leaves you with a 1 sitting game and still some time left after. ofc if your sittings are 3 hours each then yes its 2 sittings for you.

 

[Gunner 51]

Yes it is. "This game is fun and you'll be blown away for about 6 hours and then that's it, give us $60" is not the best sales pitch.

I agree with this, when you stick down 40-45 quid for a game, it is not unreasonable to expect their money's worth from it. This includes the game not being over in two seconds flat like some flash in the pan. A little bit of padding is a good thing.

 

[Subeer]

I wouldn't want to pay 60$ for a short game. I'm a university student so I don't have lot of money to buy a lot of games.

 

[surg3n]

we'd have to listen to an album 10 times, or watch a movie 10 times before we'd get the same value for money. Sandbox gaming or multiplayer-centric is really the only way to get value for money with games.

There are albums i listened to for over 30 times. there are movies i saw 10 times (and i know a person who same one movie 56 times, he counts). and i dont agree that its only miltiplayer games. take a linear racing game - GRID. i had fun for 187 hours in it. it certainly was my moneys worth. take another linear game - Crysis. 5 hour and i dont want to repeat it. certainly not made my moneys worth. Altrogh shortest game i played was Red Faction II, which took me 4 hours, mainly because i had a 1 hour long final boss fight. its pretty bad game dont bother.

Yes, I know what you mean - but typically I don't listen to every album 10 times in reasonable amount of time. With GRID, I would see that as a sandbox game - it's not like you've played through it once and it took you 187 hours, it's more like a sports game. Any game really that doesn't stop can be considered sandbox, I'd say most racing games are sandbox. Maybe not to the extent of TestDriveUnlimited, that is the most sandbox racing game I've ever played - but your working towards goals that are beyond the scope of the original plot so most racing games are at least partially sandbox games - racing games tend not to be linear (as daft as that sounds), you usually have a lot of freedom to decide what cars to buy and which races to do or redo. Thing is, I much prefer the strongly sandbox racing games like TestDrive - in fact that's the only sort of racing game I tend to buy... if I work hard for a car, I want to show it off .

I guess it does depend on how you play games, my focus was on the games that only last 6 hours or so, the ones I tend to be dissapointed with.

 

[sumanoskae]

It isn't a selling point in and of itself, sometimes it's even a detriment. Would Portal be better if it was longer?.

The reason it's good for a game like Skyrim is that it's simply more of a good thing, and it's easier to get lost in a huge, epic world when it really is a huge, epic world.

The idea that there could be loads of unexplored content lurking around the corner gives open world games a much needed sense of mystery, you can't have the thrill of discovery when there's nothing to discover.

This, however, is different then content the player is FORCED to explore, as forced exploration isn't really exploration.

 

[darthotaku]

because I make 10 bucks an hour, so if I pay 60 dollars for a 5 hour game then I've officially spent more time working to get the game than I've spent playing it.

 

[surg3n]

I'd say length is one of the most important factors. Would you enjoy a BlueRay disc if you paid £20 for it, and it turned out to be 20 minutes long?

Of course you have to want to play the game for 40+ hours, it has to be good enough, but personally If I buy a game and get 40 hours out of it, I feel like I've made a wise purchase.

It's part of the reason why Elder Scrolls and GTA games are so popular, because you know that if you buy GTA4 or Skyrim, your in for a full working weeks worth of gameplay. The 40+hours is key - if you can pay £40 and get a workweek load of fun for it, then that's a good entertainment to cost ratio - £1 for 1 hour. We tend not to get that with some games, we tend never to get that with movies or music or any other medium... we'd have to listen to an album 10 times, or watch a movie 10 times before we'd get the same value for money. Sandbox gaming or multiplayer-centric is really the only way to get value for money with games.

I disagree with that a bit. If I buy a movie, I'll probably watch 10 times over the life of me owning it. If I buy a song for 99cents US, I'll probably end up listening to it at least 12 times while I own it. Not in one sitting mind you.

I think we tend to get short changed by games when compared to other entertainment with the exception of live entertainment like plays and sporting events. This are at least arguable more engaging and multidimentional

How often though, would you really watch a movie 10 times? - Aliens is my all time favorite movie, and I've probably only seen that a dozen times. Most movies I've seen, I'd be surprised if I watched again. I prefer to watch lots of different movies, and would only re-watch the classics.
I know what you mean about being short changed - but that's my point - if we find a game that gives 40+ hours of entertainment, then it is quite rare - maybe only 2 games per year that I buy offer that. I find that with music, I'll listen to the same 30 or so songs over and over, I have thousands of tracks that I haven't heard 3 times, let alone 10.

We have to consider the direction that the games industry is going as well - games are getting shorter, downloadable games are more and more common... so we pay the same for less most of the time, and we can't even get money back by selling the game, not if we downloaded, and not if publishers get their way in the future.

 

[Thyunda]

Way I see it, a game needs as much content (not necessarily length) as possible. One long campaign can feel drawn out, but I've found I'm more likely to replay games with multiple characters with their own storylines. Rather than cram everything into one story, you can break it up, with extras and challenge modes and such. And a survival gametype. Always a survival. There is literally no reason not to have one. It's like, infinite replay value.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

If I'm going to pay $60 for a game, it had better entertain me for more than 4-6 hours. A game that can be beaten in that amount of time is okay if it's designed to be played multiple times and has a lot of variety, but I generally won't pay $60 for games as short as a lot of what comes out these days, especially since a lot of recent games have felt shamelessly half-finished or arbitrarily cut up into too many sequels.

 

[plugav]

Like many onthers, I'd be fine with shorter games if they were cheaper as well. I'd actually like that, because I'm short on both time and money. But I guess I'd have to switch entirely to digitally distributed indies for that.

 

[masticina]

There is length and width quality wise

Length can be very useful but if not combined with sufficient width, sufficient worthy content, sufficient creamyness then it is like a long thing pencil. Kinda not really interesting!

Think of it this way if you got a long wooden pole, if it is to thin it will break much easier then if it has some width to it.. some chunkyness. In games it would be the creamy filling that keeps people happy. But if you feel so you can call me out on a seed of doubt.

I mean we pay full price for some games that indeed have 4 hours of fun to offer.. just 4. Seriously that is about $15 an hour. That is about 3 times the minimum job wages in some areas.

It is all about what you get out of it in the end and sometimes yes short can be worth it but when talking about content of enjoyment one has to desire to go longer and deeper. For that Truly Fullfilling Experience that makes one come back to it.

 

[floatRand]

Well, to be honest, game doesn't have to be long. It should be replayable ( without it being a stupid gimmick like 'oh there are two endings which you get by being good/evil hoo hoo' ) and fun. Of course, long games are fun. Skyrim is providing over 20 hours of fun with 50?. Not bad at all.

However, I paid 45? for Dodonpachi Daioujou, which lasts 25 minutes to complete, 50 if you loop that shit. So far I have clocked over 100 hours. Because only wussies use continues.