A recent trend in singleplayer PC games seems to be that the total playing time is getting shorter and shorter, some games I´ve played in the last year had no more than 10 hours of singleplayer content. So what´s your take on this? What´s the "minimum" playing time a game should offer? And what´s more important to you, replay value or start-to-finish playing time? Taking this one step further, what is the "ideal" playing time for a level (regardless of whether it´s a flying sim or a FPS) and how many levels on average should there be? More short levels, or fewer large ones?

Some of this is the fact that most people over the age of 16 have a job and/or school, and this prevents them from really having the time to finish an 80 hour RPG before the next big thing comes out. A 10 hour game at least justifies to a lot of people that they''ll be able to see the end of the game without having to skip meals to do so.
I love my massive RPG''s, but I don''t play them nearly as much as online shooters? Why? Because sometimes I just need 30 minutes of Day of Defeat to wind down the day, so I can get at least one full map round in without having to worry about keeping track of the story, or getting past the next boss.

-Ryan "Run_The_Shadows"
-Run_The_Shadows@excite.com
-The Navidson Record! The best film you''ll never see!

I don''t know about the rest of you, but I like a game that has different ways you can play it to shorten or lengthen the playing time. Like different difficulties or something, but still have solid play in both areas. That way, you have more than one choice and either way you still have a good game. But that''s just me.

It is coming...8 years in the making and It is finally coming...

-Beavt8r

Maybe one possible factor is the rising cost to develop games.

Another possible factor is the rising popularity of games within the mainstream. I think mainstream gamers like a nice finishable game.

quote: Original post by Hase
And what´s more important to you, replay value or start-to-finish playing time?

Well, to be honest I would have thought that this was pretty obvious, and depends on the game style:

If the game is content-based (story-RPG, adventure, single-player FPS) then the emphasis needs to be on start-to-finish playing time. Content is effectively consumed by the player and is never as enjoyable the 2nd time around. To add replay value to such a game is an inefficient use of your development time as it''s not getting any extra use out of your content.

If the game is mechanics-based (stats-RPG, multi-player FPS, RTS, strategy/management) then the emphasis should be on replay value. Generally you will have a good set of rules and mechanics, along with several approaches to benefit from them. Therefore adding features to increase replayability (rare items, random maps, player mods) makes the most of your existing system as it can be fully explored numerous times without there being redundant content that has to be skimmed the 2nd and subsequent times through.

Of course, many games fall somewhere in between the two extremes, but it''s always gonna be harder to make something that suits both camps because the goals are orthogonal and don''t help each other. Adding more levels to FPS games doesn''t make them much more fun for multiplayer and adding more weapons beyond the first 4 or 5 doesn''t add much more gameplay in the single-player game.

And for what it''s worth, I tend to only play single-player games that give me at least 50 hrs of content. I''ve got way more than 100hrs out of Thief and Thief 2, more than 200 out of Ultima 7, and between 100 and 200 for all the RPGs I''ve played.

[ MSVC Fixes | STL | SDL | Game AI | Sockets | C++ Faq Lite | Boost | Asking Questions | Organising code files | My stuff ]

Total playing time comes from plot and character development. From the moment you first take control of the character(s) to the moment the event happens that "ends" the game is the start to finish playing time. Long intricate plots, multiple dynamic characters, and vast immersive worlds all contribute to total playing time.

Replayability comes from a desire to pick up the control or load the program after that "ending" has been achieved and play the game some more, either from the beginning or from the state in which it was "completed". Multiple endings, side-quests, widely branching plot trees, secret characters/levels/items and engrossing, exciting gameplay contribute to this.

Of the two, I'll take replayability. Plot and characters are the premise of the game, and without them, the game can't take a coherent form, but I play video games to relax and escape. I want to be able to do things and see things I've never seen before, to achieve great feats and confront challenging trials, and I want to be rewarded for each victory. I'll run the races, shoot the targets, and catch the fish at the mini-games, to beat my old scores and my friends' new ones. Sure, it's nice to know that there's a world to save, but I take at least as much pleasure in exploring the saved world as I did in saving it in the first place. Give my character a little medal and a new hat, and cut him loose to seek adventure and glory in the vast wilderness. Better still, this allows me to play a great game for a few minutes at a time and still have a rewarding experience.

Just the other day, I opened my super-beefy Ocarina of Time game and fought Gannon with a carefully limited inventory. Twenty minutes of fun, no commitment. The same kick I get from playing a first-person shooter, but with the added satisfaction of knowing how hard I worked to make that possible.

Multiplayer, of course, makes everything better.

[edited by - Iron Chef Carnage on December 6, 2002 4:03:28 PM]