quote: Original post by TechnoGoth
I think thats a misconception just because a game takes 10 hours to play doesn't mean it requries less production resources then a 40 hour game. It depends what the two focus on, the 40 game might skimp on movies and graphics but achive 40 hours of story and gameplay. While the 10 hour game might focus entirly on graphics and engine design, and only produce 10 hours of gameplay.

For the fair comparison to be possible, lets just assume they focus on the same thing. There my assertion would more likely hold.

quote: you end up with either a 10 hour game or 2 and half hour game, if they are both $50 which would you buy?

Lets hold on to the original times we had, 10 and 40, instead of some ridiculously low 2,5 hours versus 10 hours. IF some company made a game of 40 hours with equal content/filler ratio as some other 10 hour game, I'd buy the 40 hour game (assuming other things equal). But the problem here is that it just doesn't seem realistic. Long games simply tend to have more filler than short ones, because the companies don't have unlimited resources at their hands to provide interesting content for the whole game. I think we're more interested here in what kind of position the game developer is, instead of the one who buys the game. The game developer doesn't have a realistic choice of making 40 hour game with 25% content at the same time they'd make 10 hour game with 25% content. They'd have to make a 40 hour game with 10% content or 10 hour game with 40% content. I think the point is to find a balance that would make the users most happy with the end product.

Though it seems that there's no answer. Short games with intense content like GTAs or Max Paynes sell very well, and so do long games with little content like Final Fantasys. There are lots of gamers after all and some like the other end more than the other. (many even like both)

[edited by - civguy on February 12, 2004 3:58:17 AM]

I think games right now are too short(things like Max Payne 2 and Unreal 2), but I wouldn''t mind at all if they charged based on the length of the game. I would hate to have a 10 hour game where 2 hours of it was movies though, and I wouldn''t buy a 10 hour game for more than $10 unless it had extreme replayability (I still play Zelda:LttP once in a while, but Max Payne 2 only got played one time through and it was great but not worth its price).

quote:
posted by Extrarius

I think games right now are too short(things like Max Payne 2 and Unreal 2), but I wouldn''t mind at all if they charged based on the length of the game. I would hate to have a 10 hour game where 2 hours of it was movies though, and I wouldn''t buy a 10 hour game for more than $10 unless it had extreme replayability (I still play Zelda:LttP once in a while, but Max Payne 2 only got played one time through and it was great but not worth its price).

I''ve noticed the same thing, and I was actually thinking of Max Payne when I started this post. I don''t own Max Payne, Unreal 2 simply because they only take 10 hours to play, and cost the full $50. The fact is, I don''t buy games under 30 hours simpily because of the price.

games are too short

Am I wrong in saying that the problem isn''t long games but bad games? I mean 70 hours is great, but only if you can really offer a versatile, rewarding experience. I can''t think of a game that''s done that.

You have hit upon a paradox of the game development industry and probably all industries marketing to consumers. You can not please all of the people all of the time.

The game industry probably aims for about 20-40 hours of game play for most RPGs or FPSers. You happen to be on the side of the bell curve that likes short games.

Your best option is to research the games before you buy in the hopes of finding a game that fits your gaming style. If you like short games, Evercrack probably is not your style.

Also, if you want cheaper games, try the independently produced games reviewed at sites such as www.gametunnel.com. The indies almost always sell for less than $20 and there are certainly some nuggets out there.

Mojo

For me a playble (good) game should take 8-10 hours to beat and it should have at least 5 paths and as many endings (or more), so that it offers more replayablity.

I haven''t played any games for months and I''ll probably won''t play anytime soon because it just takes too long and life is more than playing games.

Diablo 1 was perfect, Diablo 2 was just too bloated and sensless - a waste of time (an example!!!). Dungeon Siege too - Great demo to play... too much waste of time when you start playing the whole game.

There are many older games that don''t have that much inherent replay value and are very very short (1 hour or less) but people love them. Many oldschool arcade and console games can be beaten very quickly and play the same every time. The have the same enemy placement and patterns, a set of maybe 5-10 levels, etc. Many of them are more difficult than current console and PC games, but they aren''t necessarily that much more different.

Why do people feel that Contra or Mario 3 are the right length but Halo and Max Payne are too short? Could it just be that the expectations of players are a lot higher or can you make a super short game that people love and play over and over again? Maybe games should have shorter more action packed single player gameplay and reintroduce scoring, super hard difficultly levels, lots of secrets, etc?

I don''t think you can lump arcade games into the same category
as computer or console games.

The reason why arcade games are short (beatable in 1 hour or
less) is obvious. Nobody is going to stand around (most
games require the players to stand) for more than an hour or
so to play the same game.

People can sit in the comfort of their own home when playing
their favorite computer or console games, sometimes forgetting
to eat or use the bathroom.


Kami no Itte ga ore ni zettai naru!

quote: Original post by tangentz
I don''t think you can lump arcade games into the same category
as computer or console games.

True, but all of my examples are older NES games. Unless you consider these games arcade games? I think they borrow a lot of conventions from arcades, but they aren''t quite arcarde games.