|
Title: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Morfiend on September 26, 2006, 11:15:12 AM Full Article (http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,71836-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2)
I thought this would be another article about hows games these days are to short, and are we getting our moneys worth and so on and so forth. Imagine my supprise when I found the author bitching about games being to long. He even singles out the new Tomb Raider: Legends, a game that many many people have said is way to short and easy. This seems a wierd thing to rant about. If its to long, and you like it, then its not to long, cause you get more game....right? Quote I call it "the myth of the 40-hour gamer." Whenever you pick up a narrative adventure game these days, it always comes with this guarantee: This game offers about 40 hours of play. This is precisely what I was told by Eidos -- and countless game reviewers -- when I picked up Tomb Raider: Legend earlier this year. As I gushed at the time, Legend was the first genuinely superb Lara Croft game in years, with a reinvigorated control system, elegant puzzles, and an epic storyline involving one of Lara's long-vanished colleagues. I was hooked -- and eager to finish the game and solve the mystery. So I shoved it into my PS2, dual-wielded the pistols and began playing ... ... until about four weeks later, when I finally threw in the towel. Why? Because I couldn't get anywhere near the end. I plugged away at the game whenever I could squeeze an hour away from my day job and my family. All told, I spent far more than 40 hours -- but still only got two-thirds through. At some point, I sadly realized I just couldn't afford any more time. I've got a life to lead: Books to read, a day job, my infant son to hang out with, other games beckoning. That's why I've collected a shockingly large mausoleum of unfinished games over the years. Kingdom Hearts II? Stopped halfway. Kameo? Three-quarters through. Enchanted Arms? Eh -- I'm this close to bailing out. Now Enchanted Arms I can understand cause the game is just 0 fun to play, but thats just me. It seems to me this is a combination of ADD and not being very good at gaming. From what I understand you can finish Tomb Raider in 6-9 hours. How is that to long, even if you only play hour long sessions? I just dont get it. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Engels on September 26, 2006, 11:21:55 AM Quote my day job and my family...I've got a life to lead: Books to read, a day job, my infant son to hang out with Could it be perhaps that full time working fathers of newborns aren't exactly a gaming company's target audience? Naaw.... Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: HaemishM on September 26, 2006, 11:26:20 AM My problem with game's length is when games are lengthened by more of the same. Even some of the better games, like Jade Empire or Call of Cthulu, there were parts that were nothing more than "Let's throw the same enemies at them for 2 hours to make sure we get 30 hours out of the game." That kind of artificial game length I can do without. But if I'm constantly learning new things or challenges with new content that isn't just reskinned old content, length really isn't an issue.
But as a time-starved gamer, I can understand the reluctance to put 6 months into a 40-hour game because you only have 30 minutes to an hour each night to play. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Sky on September 26, 2006, 11:29:15 AM What a douche (the article's author, not Haemmy ;)). Here's a hint: stop buying so many games. I play a lot of replayable stuff like BF2 or Civ4, but I like my single player stuff to last forgoddamnever. I'm not sure how far into Gothic 2 I am, because I picked up from an old save game (and I also save just before you pick your final class). I'd guess from start I've got about 50 hours into it and I'm /maybe/ 1/3 of the way into it (the expansion adds a lot of nice content, so I'm maybe 1/4). I played KotOR twice, 60 hrs and 40 hrs.
Now, I have a lot of shit going on, too. I play that long in dinks and doinks (™ Madden), a half-hour here, an hour there, maybe a three-hour jaunt if the princess is working on saturday afternoon. But I also buy less than a dozen games a year, and half of those are $10 bargain bins I don't care if I finish or not. While I don't have the time to play mmo anymore (there's just way too many timesinks and commitments involved), a long and involved single-player rpg is just what the doctor ordered. Sure, I keep a notebook to jot down stuff I'll know I'll forget in my spotty play schedule (that undead-filled mine behind Dexter's bandit camp!). That's a positive in my book, my girlfriend gets a kick out of reading my notes (Dive off quay and look for bow thief clues). Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: murdoc on September 26, 2006, 12:34:55 PM As long as the game has a good save feature, I have no issues whatsoever with a 40+ hour game.
I've been playing Oblivion since I got my 360 a few months back. Think my last save had me around 25 hours and I've barely touched the main quest. I have notes all over my gaming area so I don't forget wtf I'm doing when I come back to the game (why did I save way out in the wilderness again?) If a game is good, I got no problem taking months, even a year+ to finish it finally. It's games that force me to play for too long in order to find a save that bug the Hell out of me. No way I could play a MMORPG anymore. I'd miss out on so much content because my gaming times are way too random. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: SurfD on September 26, 2006, 12:37:11 PM hehe, i remember my first run through Final Fantasy 7. When all was said and done, I had actually rolled the time played counter over (i think i had somewhere around 125 hours on it, since the counter rolled over at 99)
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: tazelbain on September 26, 2006, 12:49:23 PM So games are surpose to figure out how much free time you have and adjust themselves to match?
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: HaemishM on September 26, 2006, 12:51:53 PM So games are surpose to figure out how much free time you have and adjust themselves to match? No, they just shouldn't throw recycled content at me for umpteen million hours to artificially lenghten the amount of hours it takes to play the game. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Yegolev on September 26, 2006, 01:37:34 PM Quote my day job and my family...I've got a life to lead: Books to read, a day job, my infant son to hang out with Could it be perhaps that full time working fathers of newborns aren't exactly a gaming company's target audience? Naaw.... Pretty much. I don't complain about not grinding my zombie+bear army to lv9999 on La Pucelle, I accept that I have other shit to do. On the other hand... No, they just shouldn't throw recycled content at me for umpteen million hours to artificially lenghten the amount of hours it takes to play the game. QFT. I might finish more games if I could skip the bullshit. Bullshit is, of course, relative, but if there are two distinct parts of the game and one of those parts is crap, it makes it hard to get to the other, good part. That's why I finished Atelier Iris 2 but not Dragon Quest VIII. I'll adjust myself to a game rather than demand all games bend to my lifestyle. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: tazelbain on September 26, 2006, 02:06:27 PM I don't think the original guy is complaining about filler. It's more like "I lost interest in the game but I wish I could have seen the end before I did." It's not like TR:L is know for being too long. I definitely like the filler to be optional like Disgaea 2.
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: schild on September 26, 2006, 02:27:43 PM Nippon Ichi has pacing down to a goddamn science. They do their games in TV Like episode blocks with roughly 45min-1.5 hour chunks of story.
If everyone adopted that methodology of gameplay there's a fair chance people would realize how much shitty filler they had in their games. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Lt.Dan on September 26, 2006, 03:54:48 PM If everyone adopted that methodology of gameplay there's a fair chance people would realize how much shitty filler they had in their games. Or slightly more controversially, If everyone adopted that methodology of gameplay there's a fair chance people would realize how much shitty filler they had in their lives. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: schild on September 26, 2006, 03:56:10 PM Man, anything is shitty filler if you take the right angle.
Marriage is just the manifestation of laziness and being completely anti-social. The best way ever to get out of having to meet and get to know new people. It's just too easy to make something "filler." Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Engels on September 26, 2006, 05:04:24 PM Man, anything is shitty filler if you take the right angle. Marriage is just the manifestation of laziness and being completely anti-social. The best way ever to get out of having to meet and get to know new people. It's just too easy to make something "filler." Schild, you are the filler in my life! Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: schild on September 26, 2006, 05:09:49 PM If I was filler in everyone's life, I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams.
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: NiX on September 26, 2006, 05:38:14 PM If I was filler in everyone's life, I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams. You're rich with culture. Does that count for anything? Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Margalis on September 26, 2006, 05:38:52 PM A nice middle ground is to make the core game not so long, but to have a whole bunch of side-quests and optional shit. A lot of RPGs and tactics games are like that, where the side stuff is as longer or longer than the core game.
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Kail on September 26, 2006, 05:47:02 PM As long as the game has a good save feature, I have no issues whatsoever with a 40+ hour game. Yeah, that sounds about right to me. Repetitive filler crap is annoying, period. If you're playing the game and you want there to be less of it so it can be over, that's a good indication that you've got shitty game, regardless of how much of a hardcore gamer you think you are or are not. It's not dev companies misrepresenting the average play time of their target audience, it's them designing games that aren't fun to play. If you just want to see all the plot points of a story and get to the end without having to play through much content, try watching a movie. On the other hand, if you're enjoying the game, it seems like a better solution to just pace the savegames out so that you can play for ten, twenty minutes, an hour, whatever. That's one reason I like handheld systems; they are generally very liberal with their save systems. Also, this: Quote And some designers just hit a perfect midpoint: Halo became famous for creating a long narrative game that also offered "30 seconds of fun" over and over again, perfect for short play-sessions. makes me want to hit something. Yeah, that's the problem, right there. Games don't have enough repetitive filler. Very insightful.Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Strazos on September 26, 2006, 07:48:06 PM Yeah I hate filler (But I would disagree with Haemish's appraisal of Jade Empire...though I am extremely biased on that matter).
Some games just throw shit at you to rack up the hours, whereas games like Baldur's Gate II has a somewhat streamlined main plot, with tons of stuff on the side. I think it's possible to get over at least 100 hours on that one, before the expansion content. ...But really, who skips side quests in a RPG if you can at all help it? Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: hal on September 26, 2006, 08:22:39 PM Sir, You are rich beyond your wildest dreams. Mear monetary value means zilch, if your doing what you love then realise that you lack nothing. You wont understand what I am saying. But you will look back on this time and understand. If your living your passion you sir are rich.
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Lt.Dan on September 26, 2006, 11:02:22 PM A nice middle ground is to make the core game not so long, but to have a whole bunch of side-quests and optional shit. A lot of RPGs and tactics games are like that, where the side stuff is as longer or longer than the core game. Unless it's like Oblivion where if you putz around too much you get so powerful that nothing can even hit you. Then it's time for the walk-through or time for the uninstall (all depending on whether the ending is worth it).Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: stray on September 26, 2006, 11:12:00 PM Uh, what's hal talking about anyways?
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Sky on September 27, 2006, 07:26:09 AM Unless it's like Oblivion where if you putz around too much you get so powerful that nothing can even hit you. Then it's time for the walk-through or time for the uninstall (all depending on whether the ending is worth it). Imo that is the sign of a weak story. Even if the combat becomes a cakewalk, the story should be strong enough for you to enjoy it unfolding.I hardly even like the combat in Gothic 2, but it's a great game because it's got strong exploration and a lot of npcs with subplots going on. Combat often gets in the way of the game, just as I felt it did in Oblivion. It's not like Oblivion combat was Soul Calibur or something. A few games have combat fun enough to retry situations over and over trying new ways of doing things, but they are pretty far between. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: shiznitz on September 27, 2006, 11:51:32 AM I don't care how long a game is if its fun. I rarely finish single player games and it has no effect on whether or not I liked the game. In fact it is so rare that I can count the ones I completed on one hand (well almost one hand):
Grim Fandango Gabriel Knight 2 Deus Ex Sanitarium IWD 1 Fallout 1 Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Xilren's Twin on September 27, 2006, 03:00:16 PM I don't care how long a game is if its fun. I rarely finish single player games and it has no effect on whether or not I liked the game. In fact it is so rare that I can count the ones I completed on one hand (well almost one hand): Grim Fandango Gabriel Knight 2 Deus Ex Sanitarium IWD 1 Fallout 1 No Planescape Torment? Shame on you. Xilren Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Strazos on September 27, 2006, 05:56:27 PM No Planescape Torment? Shame on you. QFT, nubler. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Ironwood on September 28, 2006, 02:04:39 AM IWD 1 It'd be more insightful to the article to tell us how you enjoyed IWD2. Because they rereleased the same fucking game. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Tebonas on September 28, 2006, 02:40:41 AM Maybe that poor man should just get a good psychiatrist to treat his obsessive compulsive disorder? How about plaing the game till it is finished and THEN buying the next one?
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Strazos on September 28, 2006, 08:07:13 AM I'll say it:
I liked IWD2. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Ironwood on September 28, 2006, 09:02:05 AM Why ?
Any answer other than 'Sorcerors' is going to need an explanation. It was the same game. It had the same locations, enemies, loot and even the same story. WHY ? Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Strazos on September 28, 2006, 09:18:59 AM For the same reason why you have a bunch of pr0n videos of the same girl, doing the same stuff. :wink:
But seriously, it's been awhile since I fired the game up...didn't they use 3E mechanics? I would have to actually go and play the game again to give you anything more specific. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: HaemishM on September 28, 2006, 09:35:50 AM Yeah I hate filler (But I would disagree with Haemish's appraisal of Jade Empire...though I am extremely biased on that matter). Jade Empire and KOTOR 1 both had filler, though luckily it was a small enough amount that it really didn't hinder the game much. But something like Doom (or worse yet, Doom 2)? Filler for DAYS and DAYS and DAYS. The original Unreal had whole levels that were filler levels. In story-based games, they are levels that are almost exactly like the last one you went through, with no new plot points, no new enemies, no new weapons, just more of the same. Think Halo's library level, and that's what I mean by filler. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Rasix on September 28, 2006, 09:53:32 AM Gah, what a horrible article. I only ever have time to play in small blocks and I've beaten three fourty hour games since I got my PS2 recently. It's helped that all did a very good job at splitting their content into episodic chunks. I've also semi-recently completed some shorter games like God of War and Katamari Damacy. I'm guessing my final time on Okami is going to weigh in somewhere around the 25-30 hour mark, maybe longer due to subquests. For the record, I'm married and play tennis 3 times a week (no sprog yet).
Only thing that has kept me from beating games in the past is my recurring need for a MMO fix. WoW made it take nearly 6 months to beat RE4 even if the final time on the game was under 15 hours. Everquest made it so I beat BG2 3 months after I had gotten to the last 30 minutes of the game. Without a MMO around, it's incredibly to sit down and play through a game. To veer off to the derail, I believe IWD2 used a bastardized version of 3E including some really fubar dual wield rules. It's hazy, I've not played the game for years. IWD2 was IWD with a shorter and crappier plot. I walked away from that game with a real sense of disappointment (that I remember succinctly). Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Strazos on September 28, 2006, 02:02:43 PM I'll have to remember this thread when I get around to replaying IWD2.
Eventually. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Tebonas on September 29, 2006, 12:37:16 AM Why the hate for IWD2? It was basically a "What happened here over the course of one generation" expansion pack. As that it did work.
It works as a Nostalgia piece, since you see how places and people have changed since IWD1. You actually experienced in a small way how your own actions from the first game changed the world around you. Like the feeling you had in subsequent Ultimas after four, admittingly on a much smaller scale. Or the way you felt when you strolled through Phlan in Pools of Darkness, knowing the layout still by heart from Pool of Radiance. Now that I think about it, you revisited areas and people in the Krynn series as well, its a pretty common gimmick. Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: Yegolev on October 02, 2006, 08:29:06 AM One man's filler is another man's fun. What I meant was that I appreciate games that don't force all of its consitituent elements on me. What the fuck are you talking about, you ask? The best example I have right now is Atelier Iris 2 wherein random combat was limited to a finite number of encounters per map; four in most cases. No one likes random encounters, being disruptive to the rest of the game (cutscenes, story, what-have-you) as they are, and it was great that I could get the four fights out of the way and then take my time exploring the area. Even better, an item comes along that banishes all the monsters and allows you to avoid combat entirely... aside from a couple endgame dungeons, that is. So, filler or not, allowing me a limited choice of when I entered combat was a big step towards allowing me to enjoy the parts of the game that I wanted to.
Title: Re: Article on Game Length on Wired Post by: UnSub on October 02, 2006, 11:10:05 PM If that guy really spent 40 hours on Tomb Raider: Legends, he seriously needs help. I finished it in under 15 hours (PC version) and I wasn't even trying that hard to beat the 7 levels that quickly. Fun game, but long? Hell no. Maybe he spent 30 of those hours rotating the camera around Lara - that'd explain something to me...
I'm married with young kids too. If I want to play, I stay up on weekends. Also, I have no more than three games on the hop at once, one of which is CoH/V (and has been since launch). I've finished Jade Empires twice (to see the different endings), finished Soul Caliber 2 with every character, finished Soldiers of Anarchy several times (for an FAQ), finished Giants: Citizen Kabuto... heck, every game I get I plan on finishing unless I get bored with it. So, for the article's author - two words: goal setting. Two more words: time management. |