Are videogames too long? Should smaller videogames be encouraged?

[Tan]

That's like saying it would be cheaper to produce cassettes or VHS again.

That's a fake argument; the specific case that we used to call "comparing apples with pears" in school.

Apples and Oranges? Hardly. It sounds like your trying to say because 2D is older technology, it's easier to use. Making a 2D game nowadays may perhaps be faster, but not easier or much cheaper. Most companies can't afford to maintain legacy support for older systems or different types of game engines all at once.

For every game engine needing to be built for a 2D game, there is an Unreal engine out there that is already built for 3D gaming and can be licensed saving you R&D time. So why would they invest in a new development team and build a new game engine for a game that will more than likely not perform or sell as well as a 3D game would? Cassettes and VHS, you can't assume that a company can go out on a limb like that and take those kinds of chances. Four Swords on the Gamecube anyone?

Make no mistake, FFXIII on the 360 is, while a good idea, still a risky one. You can't just port a PS3 game to the X360, it's not like the PC in that regard. They have to double their teams and make two versions from the ground up doubling the cost of development. Very risky considering they could end up splitting the market for that game. With a FF game the chances of that are low, but not every company has such history and reputation to be able to risk it at all.

All I'm saying is you can't oversimplify the argument and say because it's 2D, it's easy, cheap and doable. There are way too many factors and variables to consider.

[Shimra]

I thought Oblivion only takes like 15-20 hours to beat the main story without doing side quests; haven't played it though but I could have sworn I heard that from an unreliable source.

Typically though, most JRPGs range anywhere from 25-60 hours for the main storyline. From personal experience I'd say the average for post SNES era RPGs is about 35-40 hours, SNES and before is roughly around 25 hours average, then there are super awesome JRPGs like Chrono Trigger where the main storyline is like 12 hours but focuses on replay.

As for me, I enjoy lengthy games. It can be a bit annoying if you just want to finish it and move on, but if that's the case then it isn't a very good game to begin with now is it?

*Oh and my favorite game of all time is Super Metroid which my average run through the game ranges from like 40 minutes to way longer depending on the type of run I am doing. So I'd say it's all about having spectacular gameplay for me.

[Tan]

I thought Oblivion only takes like 15-20 hours to beat the main story without doing side quests; haven't played it though but I could have sworn I heard that from an unreliable source.

Maybe even less than that, say 10-15 or so. Mass Effect is the same way, 35 hours to beat every side quest, mission, main quest and to explore every system and planet. But you can beat the main quest along in say 5-6 hours.

The fun of games like these are to grind and unlock new abilities and upgrades. I played Mass Effect 3 times to reach the lvl 60 cap picking up more equipment and whatnot along the way, something like 70 hours in total in 3 playthroughs. Games like Front Mission 4, I put in 80 hours or so of battle simulations and perfecting my core teams and their wanzers while maxing out every ability I could.

I still tinker with the cars in my Gran Turismo 2 garage and do a few laps in the speed ring to test new settings.

[phoenix1967]

I would say that most games are appropriately time-balanced. 

I agree with you but the thing is that alot of games are too long for most mainstream gamers as they don't finish them.

^Agreed. And that supports the popularity of the Wii this generation. Its puzzle-type games and the simplicity of the controls are appealing to a large audience this generation.

And such an audience is one that may only play for maybe 30 minutes at a stretch. Plus, they don't have  to worry about accomplishing more challenging goals (or any goals) that are often found in more sophisticated titles (or those appealling to more "hardcore" gamers) because the sole purpose is to have fun for a little while and then put the game away.

[Sirgin]

For every game engine needing to be built for a 2D game, there is an Unreal engine out there that is already built for 3D gaming and can be licensed saving you R&D time.

Aren't there any 2D engines out that companies could buy?

You're very right about the Unreal III engine though. It's easy to just buy it and begin programming. However I don't like how a lot of games look alike because they're all based on the same engine. It's a drawback caused by consumers being used to these next-gen graphics...it's easier buying an engine than taking the risk of making one that could end up not so good as Unreal III.

All I'm saying is you can't oversimplify the argument and say because it's 2D, it's easy, cheap and doable. There are way too many factors and variables to consider.

You're probably right but I don't want to discuss it anymore because this thread was about the lenght of games anyway

Still, wouldn't a 2D game be a breathe of fresh air on the PS3/360? Just look at the response LittleBigPlanet got (even though it's not completely 2D)

[Tan]

I would say that most games are appropriately time-balanced. 

I agree with you but the thing is that alot of games are too long for most mainstream gamers as they don't finish them.

^Agreed. And that supports the popularity of the Wii this generation. Its puzzle-type games and the simplicity of the controls are appealing to a large audience this generation.

And such an audience is one that may only play for maybe 30 minutes at a stretch. Plus, they don't have  to worry about accomplishing more challenging goals (or any goals) that are often found in more sophisticated titles (or those appealling to more "hardcore" gamers) because the sole purpose is to have fun for a little while and then put the game away.

It's ironic, they want to treat gaming a bit like the educational system. Since so many are failing or quitting, they figure maybe lowering the standards, making things shorter or easier, will help more succeed where once they would have failed.

"Yay little Joey! You finished the 10 question multiple choice exam!! Good for you!"

"Thanks you, I fel so smart know.(sic)"

"Yay little Joey! You finished the 5 hour game and beat it!! Good for you!"

"Thanks you, I fel so hardcore know.(sic)"

Seriously though, perhaps they need to offer a multi-tier completion system. Remember how some older games used to offer beginner, intermediate and expert at the start screen which would dictate how long the game would be? Something like this:

Beginner: 5 hours long or 5 levels long
Intermediate: 10 hours long or 10 levels long
Expert: 20+ hours long or all levels

Write the story, organize the gameplay and offer 3 endings or more to make each one worth playing. Actual difficulty is a separate option to choose altogether. Don't have the time to spend playing it for 20 hours? That's ok, you can wrap it up in half or a quarter of the time and beat it. If you want to later on you can always go back and enjoy the entire game later on.

Like this:

[img width=256 height=224]http://www.rfgeneration.com/images/games/U-039/ss/ex/U-039-S-00130-A_00.jpg[/img]

But expanded and modifed for today's games on a "as per" basis.

[Sirgin]

It's ironic, they want to treat gaming a bit like the educational system. Since so many are failing or quitting, they figure maybe lowering the standards, making things shorter or easier, will help more succeed where once they would have failed.

You got a point there. But if you're a company, trying to make a profit, will you rather make a retarded game for the Wii like Wii Sports or Wii Fit knowing it will sell millions or put your hopes up on a hardcore, expensive game?

The arrival of casual gamers this generation has showed companies that the money isn't necessarily anymore in top-of-the-line products but rather in Nintendogs, Mr. Tamagochi Brain Training (I made the name up), etc... So I'm guessing alot of companies will start making products aimed at the easy-to-please casual gamers than at us.

Write the story, organize the gameplay and offer 3 endings or more to make each one worth playing. Actual difficulty is a separate option to choose altogether. Don't have the time to spend playing it for 20 hours? That's ok, you can wrap it up in half or a quarter of the time and beat it. If you want to later on you can always go back and enjoy the entire game later on.

That is a very good idea but companies would have to put in even more work into a game by having to make not just a long game but a medium and short one aswell (with the endings, like you say)

[phoenix1967]

It's ironic, they want to treat gaming a bit like the educational system. Since so many are failing or quitting, they figure maybe lowering the standards, making things shorter or easier, will help more succeed where once they would have failed.

"Yay little Joey! You finished the 10 question multiple choice exam!! Good for you!"

"Thanks you, I fel so smart know.(sic)"

"Yay little Joey! You finished the 5 hour game and beat it!! Good for you!"

"Thanks you, I fel so hardcore know.(sic)"

Did you ever read "Harrison Bergeron"? We're heading in that direction...in too many ways.

[Tan]

You got a point there. But if you're a company, trying to make a profit, will you rather make a retarded game for the Wii like Wii Sports or Wii Fit knowing it will sell millions or put your hopes up on a hardcore, expensive game?

The arrival of casual gamers this generation has showed companies that the money isn't necessarily anymore in top-of-the-line products but rather in Nintendogs, Mr. Tamagochi Brain Training (I made the name up), etc... So I'm guessing alot of companies will start making products aimed at the easy-to-please casual gamers than at us.

That is a very good idea but companies would have to put in even more work into a game by having to make not just a long game but a medium and short one aswell (with the endings, like you say)

Well personally a hardcore game because gaming to me is more than just mindless fun, but it could still be on the Wii though. Some developers are in it for pure profit, others for the art and creativity, you can always tell who is who.

They wouldn't need to make 3 games, just take the main normal length game and add the option for two condensed versions that would have levels or gameplay removed to make them shorter. Think of it as an extended version of a movie versus the theatrical or made for TV versions. All the content is already there, you just have to snip and edit out chunks to shorten it for various mediums.

Did you ever read "Harrison Bergeron"? We're heading in that direction...in too many ways.

It reminds me of the movie Idiocracy. A shame if that's the case because people like Kurt foreseen this possibility nearly 50 years ago and we didn't do anything to prevent it.

[Sirgin]

They wouldn't need to make 3 games, just take the main normal length game and add the option for two condensed versions that would have levels or gameplay removed to make them shorter. Think of it as an extended version of a movie versus the theatrical or made for TV versions. All the content is already there, you just have to snip and edit out chunks to shorten it for various mediums.

Now you put it that way, you're right. I was thinking of having to make 2 alternative endings for the story to end sooner (= more work) but your way works just as well

[Cobra]

A lot of games implemented that type of set up through the difficulty settings. It was always so cruel  making it through a game, and then getting told to play it again on the harder difficulty to get to the next level. The end result is I always played games on the medium setting at the lowest just in case.

Interesting concept I hadn't really thought of. Depending on how well my game goes, I'll have to do something like that in a future game.

[Sirgin]

Interesting concept I hadn't really thought of. Depending on how well my game goes, I'll have to do something like that in a future game.

How long are you planning your game to be? Should it be beatable in like...an hour? Or more?

[djbeatmongrel]

really a game should be as long as it needs to be . meaning that as long as the story is told clearly and the gameplay doesnt begin to feel like crap was crammed in there just to fill it out more. this counts for any thing like side quests and extras, they have to fit the game. the quality of the game experience shouldnt be based around how long it is.

[Cobra]

My current game will be relatively shortish. I'm working more towards re-playability. But I do think it is an interesting idea for a future game.

[The Metamorphosing Leon]

For an action adventure game I think a solid 8-10 hours is good. Anything less and I wonder why I spent the money, anything more and I tend to get tired of it. There are games, however, that have eaten more time from my life than I care to think about. And if you'll excuse me I need to go play Medieval II.