Let me tell you a story, it begins with a bright-eyed boy, full of pep and vigor – ready to put that fresh Final Fantasy 13 disc in his Xbox. It ends, with the same boy, pale of skin, and with hollowed-out eyes staring at the screen, 70-some hours later and with no will to go on.
I’m over exaggerating (kinda – but not about the hours), but at some point, my will to keep playing Final Fantasy 13 evaporated. I made it through the tedious first 20 hours, kept plowing away at the endless, and endlessly frustrating side-quests, and eventually just gave up – and pretty much right at the end – I just didn’t want to play any more Final Fantasy 13.
Why? For me, the game was too long – and it overstayed its welcome. I just didn’t want to commit any more time to the same game, when there was so much else out there that I could be doing – in real life or virtually with other games.
It got me thinking – are games today too long? Because a game costs $60, do gamers inherently expect a certain number of hours out of it? And more importantly, do hours actually equal value?
This led me to wondering, what is the right length for a video game – and tied intrinsically to that – what’s the right value based on that time?
Have games gotten longer? Yes.
First, I think this question needs to be answered. My experience says yes. So, why?
Well, when I was a kid, most games weren’t actually very long. Something like Kung Fu on the NES only took about half an hour to beat. Once you beat it, you just kept playing the same levels over and over.
Other games were longer, like Mario Bros. – but the actual core experience was pretty short. The game compensated its short length by making it challenging. The time consumed, was really in doing levels over and over to beat them. Some examples: Mega Man, Ghouls n’ Ghosts, Contra etc.
I think the obvious answer for why this was is simply technology – a cartridge could only hold so much information, so naturally the games were limited by this constraint.
That said, there were some long games on the NES. The two Zelda's and Final Fantasy 1 were long for their time – but interestingly, they fall into a particular genre – role playing. And they weren’t the only ones – Dragon Quest, Crystalis etc.
The right length depends on the game – to a degree
So perhaps, technology was not the only factor – but the type of game also dictated length. I mean, I can’t imagine playing an 80 hours Mario Bros. game, and wouldn’t want to…the game would become too repetitive at that point.
But, for some reason, an adventure games seem better suited for longer completion times. As this forum posted noted, there seems to be a magic formula for certain game genres.
Where does the magic formula come from? Gamersushi’s says it’s related to pacing.
In a similar vein, a recent Destructoid article points to the quality of the experience.
I think both articles are right, if not touching on the same thing from different angles - a game is only so good as it entertains you. So why does genre play a role in these things? I believe it’s because genre dictates the flexibility of the narrative structure and the flexibility of the game’s mechanics.
Take for example, the best shooting games (COD4, Bioshock, Halo). The mechanics of these games is fairly restrictive – there is a particular way to play them, and that stays unchanged. These games seem to be most successful by presenting intense experiences in a variety of environments that challenge the player’s mastery of the mechanics. These types of experiences seem best served by a tight script that allows for a good balance between quiet/loud scenarios.
A game of all intense firefights becomes exhausting. A game of fetch quests in abandoned hallways becomes mundane. And at some point, the best shooting games also know when to finish – because you can only shoot so many nameless enemies before the specter of repetitiveness kicks in.
Same rules apply for other genres of games – the more flexible the play style and story structure, the longer the game can be drawn out. For example, Assassin’s Creed 2 does a great example of making a 40-50 hour game seem compact, because there are a variety of narrative strands to follow and a variety of different tasks that can be done using the game’s mechanics. With more stories, and various things to do, the game avoids being repetitive. Some other great examples are Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3, Oblivion.
The right length depends on the player – to a degree
Even though I found the quality of my experience with Assassin’s Creed 2 to be excellent, I still struggled completing it. And that’s entirely my own fault. The right game length doesn’t just depend on the game itself, it depends on who’s playing it.
As this GamePro correspondent points out, gamers (like me) are getting older. And here’s the key maxim that applies to our gaming habits:
- · Adults have money, but no time
- · Teenagers have time but no money
My most important commodity when gaming isn’t the cost of the game. It’s how long the game takes to complete. I simply don’t have time to play video games, work a full time job, play sports and pursue other hobbies. A 70-hour game means I couldn’t play seven other 10-hour games.
The stats don’t lie, using telemetry (achievements or trophy information) game developers have noticed only about 5 percent of players finish most games. And further, more than 90 percent of games are only played four or five hours. A specific example would be the less than 10 percent of people who beat Joe Danger.
But, despite this, one look at forums discussing the issue and you see comments like “if it’s less than 25 hours, I won’t buy it.” And I understand that – because as a young person with limited income, I remember wanting the biggest bang for my buck. On the other side of the coin, are older gamers commenting “Free time is scarce when you’re not 13 anymore.”
What’s the right value for a game’s length?
So if there is a divide in what makes a good game length, not only based on the game, but on the player’s profiles (age, income etc.), what is the magic formula for a game’s value?
I don’t have the answer, but I see some solutions that help address problems on both sides:
Short games with lower price points: For older gamers, I think games like Portal and Limbo provide an excellent experience in a tidy 3 hours, and most importantly, the games are priced like a 3-hour game. I know that I gravitate toward Xbox Live titles because they provide a variety of experiences, without being too costly for my wallet or my day timer.
Serialized games: Penny Arcade Adventures provided a great experience in short installments, rather than be released as a full-length game. I haven’t played any TellTale games but they seem to be taking the same approach release the full game in small affordable chunks.
Create your own content: Though Little Big Planet has its own campaign, what really extends value for those looking for hours of entertainment is the ability to create and share your own content. The game never ends as long as people are contributing content.
Multiplayer: One of the reasons Call of Duty and Halo are so popular is that they can appeal to young and older gamers. You could play Black Ops Zombies for hours trying to master it. Or you could just hop into a couple of matches with friends, and then drop out to take the dog for a walk or do dishes, or god forbid, play more Final Fantasy 13.
No comments:
Post a Comment