Game Length and the Pile of Shame
http://kotaku.com/were-buying-more-pc-games-than-we-can-play-1493402988
See this Kotaku piece - it's becoming more and more common these days and likely to get worse. If you look at the "most anticipated games" lists popping up you'll no doubt spot a bunch of games you probably want to play, but probably also much more than you'll have time to.
It's a big part of the reason why I tend to favour shorter games these days, and indeed Maker's Eden will be fairly short. There will be people complaining about the length, much like people complain about the length of Kentucky Route Zero's episodes or something really short like Thirty Flights Of Loving. Personally I'd rather have a short, well-crafted, but complete experience than 200 hours of mostly filler that will get tedious before I see the end of it.
For someone with not much time, people with families etc, I suggest:
- Games in short (< 3 hour) episodes - Walking Dead, KRZ, etc.
- Short complete games (<10 hours) - Gone Home, Papo & Yo, Sine Mora, Mirror's Edge, Metro 2033/Last Light etc.
- Games that can be enjoyed in short bursts that feel self-contained - Desktop Dungeons, Anything where you can just play a round of something
For big sprawling epic time-sinks, you can be a bit more picky then.
P.S. It does grate on my nerves a tad when people measure perceived value by play time, but me tries to ignore that as much as I can.
EDIT: I suppose "buy fewer games" is also a valid option... ... ...bwaaahahahaa! Nah, just kidding.
See this Kotaku piece - it's becoming more and more common these days and likely to get worse. If you look at the "most anticipated games" lists popping up you'll no doubt spot a bunch of games you probably want to play, but probably also much more than you'll have time to.
It's a big part of the reason why I tend to favour shorter games these days, and indeed Maker's Eden will be fairly short. There will be people complaining about the length, much like people complain about the length of Kentucky Route Zero's episodes or something really short like Thirty Flights Of Loving. Personally I'd rather have a short, well-crafted, but complete experience than 200 hours of mostly filler that will get tedious before I see the end of it.
For someone with not much time, people with families etc, I suggest:
- Games in short (< 3 hour) episodes - Walking Dead, KRZ, etc.
- Short complete games (<10 hours) - Gone Home, Papo & Yo, Sine Mora, Mirror's Edge, Metro 2033/Last Light etc.
- Games that can be enjoyed in short bursts that feel self-contained - Desktop Dungeons, Anything where you can just play a round of something
For big sprawling epic time-sinks, you can be a bit more picky then.
P.S. It does grate on my nerves a tad when people measure perceived value by play time, but me tries to ignore that as much as I can.
EDIT: I suppose "buy fewer games" is also a valid option... ... ...bwaaahahahaa! Nah, just kidding.
Comments
I love deeply involved games of strategy and experimentation and mastery. I played 200+ hours of Pokemon X & Y, bred many Tyranitars (oh bicycle, biiiicycle), but don't ask me to pick that game up again. Grinding grinds my gears. Hate it.
I will never ever play another MMO, I played one when I was way smaller, an Asian one, and that's when I learned to type Mandarin. Without it I probably would be a Mandarin illiterate now. I played that one for about 3 months, and I will not throw time into MMOs. Ever.
I love Netrunner and have spent TONS of time deck building and playing online and offline. I try to get the local community involved and visible. But I will not tough Magic (again, quit in 1998) with a 10-foot bargepole or anything.
Now my pile of shame is massive. There are people I know without such piles of shame and it's really quite impressive, I think. But sales are sales and supporting developers is great :P But I don't know what I prefer anymore. I guess with choice comes responsibility. Responsibility over your own time - and making them well spent, when you do eventually spend them :)
(that was way longer than necessary)
If your game is for younger gamers (and other gamers who have more time than money) then it will be judged by it's length (minute of gameplay per dollar). And validly so, because teenagers (etc) have a ton of spare time they want to soak up and not a lot of money.
But if it is targeted at mature gamers, then you wouldn't need to worry about this at all. If anything the reverse is going to be true (i.e., like Tuism pointed out, their may be complaints about slow pacing if you pad it at all).
I'm certainly more excited about Makers Eden knowing that it won't be 10+ hours. The number of games I finish these days is tragically low.
I think @RustyBroomHandle might also be suggesting that piles of shame (as well as maybe the rise of free-to-play) might be moving (or should be moving) the premium market as a whole towards games that are more condensed...
Either way short games are good but I always feel like you should get a just a few more hours in when you're paying R700 a game, console gamers.
When It comes to length vs. price, I feel like it depends on the type of game (both genre and its approach to elements within the genre). For example, with Portal 2, I felt the length was perfect. If it had gone on longer, It would've been a drag (I can't remember the exact length. but I finished it in about 2 short gaming sessions and one longer one). Then look at Borderlands 2. I sank 80+ hours into my first playthrough. I never felt bored, I never felt I was grinding and the story kept me interested. In both of these games, the story is well-crafted and interesting, but an 8o hour puzzle game would simply be draining and a 8 or 9 hour rpg-heavy shooter could easily leave one unsatisfied.
With indie developers, I'm a bit more lenient about price vs. length. But I will always choose substance and quality over length. But 'length' is also a funny term that I feel shouldn't stand seperately from 'breadth'. For example, Risk of Rain: I've sunk about 40 hours into a game that, the first time I finished it, it took me 66 minutes to complete. 40 hours from a 10$ game (that I intend to play more)? I think that's amazing value. When pure 'time to complete' (which people see as the length of a game) is looked at in Isolation, you'll get a false sense of value.
However, I feel like narrative-based games should always be shorter, rather than longer (relative scale with nothing to compare with, I know.) When a good story gets padded with any grinding or when a story arcs too far away from the main plot, only to return later for the sole purpose of extending gameplay, I feel like the game is worse off.
As much as I loved Skyrim, or Borderlands 2. They either overwhlem you with "stuff", or are too long that inevitably the gameplay shifts from story-telling/exploration to grinding.
However on the other hand, a game that doesn't offer enough or ends prematurely is also terribly sad though, like modern manly shooters have this problem (favoring multiplayer instead), or when a game introduces a mechanic, or something awesome, just to use it once and then the game ends.
As mentioned before by the others, the game style mechanic obviously is important, shorter games for story are more immersive whereas others are more for competition or co-operative play, and should be balanced as such, resulting in long play throughs, or short bursts resulting hundreds of hours of play.