The Want for Length - Why?

[BlindedHunter]

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?

 

[Alexnader]

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.

 

[torzath]

A game I pay sixty bucks for had better last at least a week or two (and I only play for 1-3 hours a day normally). Mainly because when I pay for a game, I really don't have a lot of money for anything else.
However, if the price was adjusted, I could deal with shorter games.

 

[skywolfblue]

but is that really a worthy selling point itself?

Would you want one Ice Cream Cone or Two?

Would you want one slice of Apple Pie or Two?

Generally, the MORE of something you like the better. So ergo, a game that has more would be more attractive then a game that has less*.

*Now the obvious caveat is Quality. But if quality is roughly the same, then quantity becomes a very important factor.

 

[Amnestic]

If I'm dropping £40 on a title, I want to be sure that I get £40 worth of gameplay. Now what does that mean exactly? Well, quality and quantity, in essence. It needs to be enough hours that I don't feel cheated of good gameplay so I don't feel like it was shit.

£40, to some, is a lot of money. It's not something everyone can easily blow on games once a week (or even more often, in the case of some titles) so they simply want to be sure that they're getting their moneys worth.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Oh yeah, that's why no-one would buy BF3 or COD for their campaigns alone.
Those are way too short.
I felt very cheated when i bought this game, which turned out hadn't even been fully finished yet, for normal price, with 3 levels.

 

[BlindedHunter]

...so they simply want to be sure that they're getting their moneys worth.

This I quite understand. Let the record show that I haven't bought a game since my last birthday (and before that for, well, around a year) and that was only because I could convince the necessary parties that it was for a very worthy charity.
But to me the length seems too much like a selling point that stands alone - that you will be absorbed in this game however mindlessly for so long is a good thing.
I see I might just be looking too far into it and seeing things too much through my eyes. I would, after all, prefer a short and refined game to a long, buggy, and generally boring one.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

If I'm paying upwards of $80 for a game, I damn-well expect a reasonably long experience.

 

[predatorpulse7]

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 suppose it depends on the gamer and the gamer's time. I see the appeal of long games but things like Skyrim's neverending quests bother me. Don't get me wrong, I played a ton of sandbox'ish games when I was younger(including some from the elder scrolls series) and had fun with them but as I am getting older, I am drifting towards more linear and shorter games with some replayability factor. I game maybe 3 hours per day(whereas before I would pull in 7-8 hours easy if I wasn't doing something on that particular day) nowadays so I need a game that I can finish in about 2 weeks or so. This way I get my money's worth and I can be glad that I enjoyed the full experience of the game.

I am playing Skyrim these days, reminiscing of times when I was playing Morrowind and one thing that frustrates the hell out of me is the time I need to put into this game, coupled with the addictiveness. Morrowind was a joy for me to play as I had a lot more free time back thenbut everytime I play Skyrim I am thinking "it's cool, I am enjoying it, holy crap I only have 2 more hours left to play, better do s**t fast".

To conclude, since games are primarily marketed at a younger audience with tons of free time on their hands, gazillion hours of gametime would be a selling point. I tend to stay away from time guzzlers but I made an exception for skyrim.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't care about game length if the game length fits the game. If a game ends abruptly, whether it's 5 hours long or 10 hours long is a problem. And, it's just the same for a game being artificially lengthen where it's gets boring and repetitive. Many people hated on Vanquish for being too short, I thought it was just about right (the last chapter I felt should've been a bit longer). Bioshock was a game that I felt overstayed it's welcome and the middle sections of the game were kinda boring. The 1st Uncharted game was actually too long, it was artificially lengthened by throwing extra waves of enemies at you. It also is very dependent on the genre, RPGs should be long as there should be a lengthy story along with you leveling your characters. It's just the same with music, some songs are fine at 2 minutes where other songs are 10 minutes and great. It's really case-by-case, and their should be no rule stating that all games must at least be X hours.

 

[Zordran]

A little historical perspective on console games:

Games originally either couldn't be beaten or took half an hour to an hour to beat. Games inconsistently, but on the whole, got longer throughout the NES and SNES eras, with RPGs, of course, being much longer. Then suddenly the Playstation era hit and everybody had CDs and memory cards to work with and length became a thing, with games claiming extremes like 80-120 hours of playtime. Problem was that it was mostly just padded-out crap that made the games so long (I'm looking at YOU, SaGa Frontier), so games steadily got shorter again.

Personally, I think that 20-30 hours is a good length for a game nowadays if it's not really intended to be replayed, but sometimes single-player campaigns have dwindled as low as five hours long, and that certainly isn't worth sixty bucks.

what we've got today are games that are either single-player extravaganzas in the PC RPG tradition (Elder Scrolls) and and primer-for-multiplayer FPS campaigns. There's really no right answer on which you like. I just don't like either too much.

 

[DustyDrB]

For $60, it's not an issue of quality or quanity. It's about having both. I do like quite a few relatively short games (Enslaved, Uncharted, Vanquish), but I always wish there was more.

 

[C117]

Let me put it like this: a videogame costs about $50-60 when released new. And we want that money we spent to actually last as long as possible. Many developers achieve this with multiplayer and needlessly tacked on achievements, but they tend to neglect the singleplayer aspect. Which is very unhelpful for antisocial nerds like me, who would play the singleplayer campaign rather than socialize with a bunch of random muppets online.

And sometimes a game doesn't even have any multiplayer as an excuse. Like Bulletstorm, which I managed to breeze through in a day on hard difficulty. It had co-op, sure, but as far as I know the co-op was just the singleplayer campaign again, but with a smaller screenspace for each player.

But the main gist is that it doesn't ever FEEL like you've sank down the time you have when you play a videogame. A very recent example is Skyrim. I thought I had spent maybe 4-5 hours on it by now, but my Steam-clock (or whatever you wanna call it) says I've spent 9 hours on it. And I've only completed like 7 quests and barely reached level 9.

 

[Yoh3333]

Games are expensive, even more so in foreign countries and when it is so expensive then who would want to buy it and then after 6 or 7 hours your done with it? Sure it might have been good but that is short.
It does come down to taste however, some people prefer the short games in order for the content to be 'top quality' and not 'filled with filler moments'. However, i enjoy a long game with much content to keep me satisfied for days if not weeks (yes i'm looking at you, skyrim...)

 

[BlindedHunter]

I see helpful answers, and thank you!
Though I'm now starting to wonder if perhaps we accept the whole $50-60 issue too readily. As in: why do all these games /need/ to be $50-60? But that's the topic of a different thread I'd think.

 

[KILGAZOR]

I came in this thread expecting a discussion on a man's desire to have a larger genitalia.

I was disappointed, both in the thread and in myself.

 

[Sewer Rat]

Pretty much what has already been said... I paid $60 for the game, I want to get $60 worth of entertainment out of it.

 

[danqaz]

Everyone who uses the "60 dollars is too expensive" argument, I think you all need to sit down and get some perspective. You know how much I just paid for skyrim here in Australia? 85 bucks, absolute bargain, all my friends got it for just over 100.

60 dollars for 6 hours? ten bucks an hour? heck yea, good deal, I'll take it if you guys don't.

 

[ultrachicken]

Length without quality isn't enough, but neither is quality without sufficient length.