An RPG I played (well, almost more of a puzzle game) in the late 80''s or so called "Loom" took a whopping four hours to win -- and that was with a pizza break and a cartoon break.

Kind of annoying, as we''d shelled out $40 for it. But it was fun. Only 1.5 hours the second time around (and little further replay value -- too linear).

Now, I prefer long, open-ended RPGs. But if it''s pretty, absorbing, and entertaining, it should be as long or short as makes sense.

Will I return to play Loom again? No. Do I regret buying it? At the time, I was a bit ticked, but now, no. It was worth it.

It''s really an open question for me. That''s why I asked for a good example. So I can download and play it to see what I think. Because of this discussion, someone has turned me on to stick rpg. That game is freaking awesome. But I am asking the question in the context of the two things I like about rpgs. First and foremost, to be invovled in a story, second and almost as important, to signifigantly improve my stats or skills or what have you over a certain period of time. I''m just wondering how short a period of time that can be.

quote: Original post by Rochnarand
It''s really an open question for me. That''s why I asked for a good example. So I can download and play it to see what I think. Because of this discussion, someone has turned me on to stick rpg. That game is freaking awesome. But I am asking the question in the context of the two things I like about rpgs. First and foremost, to be invovled in a story, second and almost as important, to signifigantly improve my stats or skills or what have you over a certain period of time. I''m just wondering how short a period of time that can be.

Hmm... a significant increase in skills may be hard to pull off, unless it was a sort of episodic RPG (there was a thread about this recently...) with 1 hour episodes.

If you were to stick to a single 1 hour game, I think you could get both an increase in skills and character development by making them one and the same. The path you take through the game would give you different skills or equipment, multiple paths for multiple ways to finish the game and possibly even multiple endings. Could be interesting to see how much you can do in a 1 hour game (or maybe even give yourself 90-120 minutes like your average movie?). Reminds me of things like the i2 script for mIRC: How much can you fit in a single 30,000 byte script file?

While certainly not praised by critics, Square''s The Bouncer was very character/plot driven and that game as about 4 minutes and 35 seconds long. Lack of game aside, it was a decent tale and the characters (while not terribly deep) grew alot given the brevity of the game. Play this short story...i mean game if you want a good idea of the bare minimum.

When you find yourself in the company of a halfling and an ill-tempered Dragon, remember, you do not have to outrun the Dragon...

I really don''t think you can have alot interms of gameplay or story in an hour long game. I wonder if people realize how short an hour really is. Espically in an rpg you have the intro at least 10 mintues there to explain who you are, whats going on and how to play. Then theres reading messages and talking to NPC probabl 10 secounds per message. Battles your looking at on average a minute per battle. Then travel time, exploring, getting lost. Also 5-10 minutes spent buying and equiping items found during the adventure. An hour long adventure would be over before you know it. It just wouldn''t work for an rpg.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote: Original post by TechnoGoth
I really don''t think you can have alot interms of gameplay or story in an hour long game. I wonder if people realize how short an hour really is.

About 2/3 as long as your average animated movie.

quote:
Espically in an rpg you have the intro at least 10 mintues there to explain who you are, whats going on and how to play.

Well, "how to play" could be covered in a manual, while using common convetions (wasd for movement, equip items on an image of the character with open "boxes" on the chest (armor) hands (weapons/tools), etc.) would allow most gamers to not even need a "how to play" section. As for explaining who you are and what''s going on, why not hit the ground running (perhaps even literally)? Have the explanation be part of the game.

quote:
Then theres reading messages and talking to NPC probabl 10 secounds per message.

If you want tighter control over game length, use voice actors. If not, just say "We expect the average gamer with an average reading speed to be able to finish this game in about one hour" and be done with it. (For what it''s worth, that''d mean it''d take me a bit longer, as I''m a fairly slow reader.)

quote:
Battles your looking at on average a minute per battle.

Here we get into "What''s your definition of an RPG?". If you consider Deus Ex to be an RPG, then, really, I don''t see the problem. If you''re thinking menu based combat is a requirement for an RPG, just make the game mechanics such that battles don''t last as long. Another option, and I realize this may be hard to comprehend for some people, would be to not have battles. "But I want to shoot things!" If you want an FPS, you know where to look. "But I love menu based combat!" If you want Final Fantasy, you know where to look. "But I want to kill things!" Stab them in the back.

quote:
Then travel time,

Limit the game to a town (I was a little disappointed when I found out how little there was to Midgar in FF7). Or even a building.

quote:
exploring,

First, depends on what your definition of RPG is. Second, you could replace "exploring the world" with "exploring character development" or "exploring character interactions" by giving the player interesting responses to what others in the world say. One thing that gave Fallout replayability (for me) was going back through the game seeing if I could get a good ending for everyone.

quote:
getting lost.

Make up some excuse to give the character a map. Or don''t even make an excuse and just give the player a map.

quote:
Also 5-10 minutes spent buying and equiping items found during the adventure.

Depending on the need to purchase things, and how complicated you make the interface, this could be a non-issue.

quote:
An hour long adventure would be over before you know it. It just wouldn''t work for an rpg.

All right, assuming nothing I said satisfied you, let''s see where you''re at

intro - 10 minutes
buying/equipping items - 10 minutes
10 battles - 10 minutes (assuming you spend one in every five minutes of game play in a battle)

That leaves 30 minutes of game play. I think you could make an interesting story in 30 minutes, especially if the intro, battles, and examining your equipment are also incorporated into the story (again, difficult concept for some, but not everyone likes the idea of "random battles")

hmm, lots of food for thought.

So, if you were to make an rpg in one town, (I like that idea because it cuts wayyyy down on resources) how would you introduce new and harder enemies and/or challenges? Would they be introduced as the story progresses? Over time? (I''m not sure I like that one, I like the ability to take my time with games if that''s what I want to do.) Or would they be introduced based on your skill level? I suppose they still might be based on area. You could, for example, fight monsters in one neighborhood, then another, then another, then return to the old neighborhood because it''s filled with new monsters.

Some related questions are "how can you get the most gameplay and general fun with the least resources?" and "What are the big bottle necks for rpg development?" For us, the big bottle neck is art. That''s the resource that takes the most time, along with game balance, and level design.

I think an hour long game needs a good replay value. I am myself designing an RPG/hybrid that will be about 2-3 hours long and my bottleneck is also art. I''m keeping the art as simple as possible. But I will try to provide MANY ways to interact with the world and characters. And good NPC AI. Don''t know how it will turn out though.

Also, while I don''t know any RPG''s that are just an hour long, I know some amateur adventure games that are even shorter and are ok games. http://www.trumgottist.com/crowsnest/games.php <- you can find some links there. Most of those games are probably quite short, though I haven''t played any of those for more than a year.

"intro - 10 minutes
buying/equipping items - 10 minutes
10 battles - 10 minutes (assuming you spend one in every five minutes of game play in a battle)"

Sounds right, no need to have annyonying random battles, they all ways got on my nerves personally.
Now the question of gameplay comes into effect, does the game have puzzles? if so there going to take time to do. You also you have to include exploring time, that is unless your game consists of going down a strait hall with no twists and turns. If you want to include replay value then you have to include none liner activites. Any way you cut it that only leaves a few mintues to devote to story.

What you could do if you wanted an hour long RPG is to have that hour only count for gameplay time. That would mean all the other parts would not be counted towards the hour.

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote: Rochnarand
So, if you were to make an rpg in one town, (I like that idea because it cuts wayyyy down on resources) how would you introduce new and harder enemies and/or challenges? Would they be introduced as the story progresses? Over time? (I''m not sure I like that one, I like the ability to take my time with games if that''s what I want to do.) Or would they be introduced based on your skill level? I suppose they still might be based on area. You could, for example, fight monsters in one neighborhood, then another, then another, then return to the old neighborhood because it''s filled with new monsters.

I''d say it really depends on how your game is set up. The two that seem best suited to an hour long RPG are to introduce them as the story progresses and/or by area. An hour is fairly short, so introducing them over time might get a little strange. By skill level would work, but I''ve never really liked the idea.

quote: TechnoGoth
Now the question of gameplay comes into effect, does the game have puzzles? if so there going to take time to do. You also you have to include exploring time, that is unless your game consists of going down a strait hall with no twists and turns. If you want to include replay value then you have to include none liner activites. Any way you cut it that only leaves a few mintues to devote to story.

Unless you cut it such that everything is story. Why can''t puzzles be part of the story? Why can''t exploring further the story? Why can''t non-linear activities refer to different story arcs rather than side quests? You''ve already agreed that the battles should be story based. Basically, don''t waste a single moment, squeeze story into everything. A lot of this will probably go against everything Square has taught us about what an RPG should be, but I don''t see why it can''t be done.

quote:
What you could do if you wanted an hour long RPG is to have that hour only count for gameplay time. That would mean all the other parts would not be counted towards the hour.

Or simply blur the line between game play, story, and other stuff.