tristax

Freetime000

aiko.adonia

Call of Duty 1, on the other hand, I blew through in maybe 3 sessions and loved it. I'm replaying it now, but the shortness is definitely a pro.

The game really sucks at the end though :\

man_in_gauze

I do enjoy having games with length to them (I'm playing Icewind Dale II now), but I can't see myself putting up with games that take more than 40 hours to complete. Even at that length, they have to have my fullest confidence; they'd better be good games or they're a waste of my time! Portal is a gaming 'short story' and practically a wonder. I wouldn't mind seeing more games at that length, but 5 - 6 isn't exactly a magic number. Portal had a number of design decisions working for it: a familiar and simple FPS interface, only one 'weapon', a simple story with a fantastic climax, and virtually no fat or filling. Compare it to something like HL2: Ep 1; Ep 1 is a fine game, but it ends up feeling like an excerpt from something bigger. I suspect that if other games made it a design goal to be short, that's what they would feel like: half-done.

Shevek

Tako Attack

unmarkedone

And yet you just said absolutely nothing by giving me that statement. What padding? Describe it. Can you even do that? You mean the gathering stuff for the funeral? That's hardly padding. It's part of the moment and the event. What then could be considered padding (because I can't think of a single other time when someone asks you to get something as part of the main game)? There's no leveling anywhere in the game and the only grinding you can really do is for skills, which is totally your choice. You're never sent off to some random location to go get stuff. Every location pushes you forward in the story and closer to where they want you to be.

So yeah, you've really got nothing. Unless you're counting sidequests as padding, but that would be ridiculous. The story just really IS that long and there IS that much to it.

EggmaniMN

crashlanding

@ForgotMyKeys: I didn't say the "extras" of a game were mandatory or obligations. I'm saying the content is there for people willing to look. Directed at people complaining about lack of content. Not directed at people satisfied with a 4-5 hour game.

"Extras" can also be a lot more than just "a little bit more" depending on your POV on video games and depending on how much effort the developer puts into them. Portal challenges completely change how I look at some levels. But that's only after playing those levels under conditions like "2 portals" or "30 steps." Solving the few challenges I have took at least as long as entire sections of the main game, and were a lot more rewarding.

Xiedo

I'll never play another JRPG prob since they've barely evolved since 16-bit days and they take forever.

GhaleonUnlimited

I had a sick day last week (and was actually sick), and allowed myself the luxury of staying in and not doing anything practical, other than laundry. I rented Devil May Cry 4, finished it by the evening, and was completely satisfied.

If it had been a 30-hour game, I would not have been able to go back to it for a week or two, and at that point would have experienced that re-entry barrier- In the case of a linear game like DMC4, it would have manifested as having to re-familiarize myself with the controls all over again, trying to find the "groove" again, and I would probably not bothered, or not have enjoyed it as much.

Mega-Driven

Well, I bought the Orange Box for portal because I wanted it on disc. I tried TF2... once, for about 10 min. I played a little HL2, it was fun, but I got bored with it fast. I'm simply not into shooters anymore unless they break conventions in a truly profound way.

So yes, I paid $60 for Portal and I don't regret it. In the modern gaming market, I'm so starved for originality at times that I would pay $60 for a game that only lasts a few hours, provided that it gives me something I truly haven't done in other games. That's the most important thing, and length is an afterthought.

Though really for game length my favorites tend to be short. Games like Rez, Crazy Taxi, DoA2 (and most other fighters), Portal, Ghost Squad (HALF AN HOUR! HA!), etc... are games you can just sit down and beat start to finish - for years to come, and still unlock a little bit more each time.

fuchikoma

For me? Bioshock was the perfect length for a shooter. and Mass Effect was perfect for an RPG.

Both are amazing, and just the right amount of gameplay to be worthy of the $60 price tag.

In the future, I'd hope game prices would be in direct effect of a play-time to price ratio.

Portal only 2-3 Hours? Then $20.
Mass Effect is 20-30 hours? $60 is just fine.

3xch4ng3

Ryanraven

Darth Navster

houkah

Having a gaming PC and most consoles and handhelds, it's like there's a raging river of games flashing by, and when I see a good one I can kind of reach out, grab a quick sample of one, try it, and then more come flooding in.

I even played God of War: Chains of Olympus all the time for a few weeks (after almost completely stopping Patapon for it,) always making progress, but it was parked when I got FFVII working on the PSP, which I played like crazy for about 3 days until Wipeout Pulse came out. This is all at the cost of ignoring 5 PS3 and 9 Wii games for a month.

I'd finish... SOME of my most recent games if I were able to take 2 years off work and not have any other obligations, but the PSX/PS2 pile of shame still requires a couple spools to hold it. It's physically impossible to finish all these games and hold a full time job.

fuchikoma

And that's the real shame of it all. I mean, we don't just tolerate the fluff, but demand it for a real game?

And epic is more determined by scope of the story, rather than anything else. But I'm also not terribly attached to that descriptor. It's not highly useful.

Slatz_Grobnik

Short and sweet should certainly be a viable option.

Lokno

What i'm trying to say is that long games are fine aslong as they keep you imersed the entire time.

Although i love what Valve is doing with their releases. To me the orange box is just five GOTY games stacked on top of eachother.

The_nub_next_door

Tei

SeamusMc

erlik

TrekVogel

Replica23

CyberSkull

If it wasn't for the Orange Box portal might not have been a hit.

f0cus

Sorry, I'm a bit fanatic on comments about development...

That being said, I do think there is room for shorter games. For me it's not about the amounts of hours I can sink in a game, but rather the feeling that I get from it. I don't buy games without informing myself about them, so I try to find out if I can enjoy a game (demo's help).
If I enjoyed it, it was probably worth it. If I don't want expensive games, I tend to wait until the price drops to the point where I can buy and enjoy it without feeling bad of spending too much money.

marlblank

For where we need to justify length for price, there lies another issue. I read another article before the current gen systems were released and it said "games are cheaper now because of inflation, $10 on next-gen isn't that much of a price hike." That's a crock of shit because that's setting a standard for games regardless of their gameplay. It's because of this that game companies are using length as a selling point for a game. We gamers see a high price point and we need something to justify the price, so game companies immediately use length to reason the price instead of gameplay because length is easier to generalize and define. It's easier for us to accept games are 30+ hours, but forget that it might play like shit, but it's 30+ hours anyway and that's worth the $60 alone. So these games are made longer for the sake of appeasement and with disregard for gameplay. Naturally, a game's length should be defined by its gameplay and story, as engrossing, elaborate, simple or addictive as it may be. Because we're given a standard of a high price, we've been conditioned to use the length instead of gameplay to justify the price. Thus, we sometimes get long, shitty games. Portal was well acclaimed despite its length. If you wanted to complain it wasn't long or fun enough, it's easier to reason with yourself that you didn't pay too much. If you've played a game that was touted as having a long playtime and you played it through and were ultimately displeased with it, you will say you paid too much.

Because of the high price standard, we try to use "length JUSTIFIES price". In doing so, we adapt "length EQUALS gameplay". We see that if the standard isn't an issue, we can get "gameplay YIELDS length".

And who cares if they've "licked the icing", Xiedo? The game doesn't tell them they have to go for hard mode or high score mode. That might not be icing to them, that's probably the whole cake. The icing is all the extras because it adds a little bit more to the game than what was originally presented. They don't need to partake. You've just got some over-achievement/completion complex or something. Who eats up replay value like that? The issue presented was that people didn't even have enough time to play through the "main story" and you're going on about each obligatory addition as if it's mandatory.

TwoSetBonus

Please make another LOST game, 7 episodes is not enough!

cybereality

kanelstrejf

Did you think of cake because of portal? Oh, GLaDoS. You little cake obsessed machine.

Herabec

kanelstrejf

Herabec

As for "days when games had no story and yada yada". I thought about this for a long time as most of my older systems were broke... But when the VC got here and I DLed SMB3 and SMW and I just can not play them. I made it to the 4th world on SMB3 in about half an hour and have not touched it since. I personally enjoy a good long story driven game that lasts at a minimum 25 hours that I can beat and go back to every 5 or so years to replay again and mix things up a bit.

I actually liked your post except for the bit of irony in it. You said these longer games have no replay value yet something like portal does. It all depends on the gamer I guess because I have no interest in going back and replaying levels on different difficulties and such where there are a few new enemies thrown in or whatever. It all feels a bit repetitive to me and thus has no replay value, it is not licking the icing and throwing it away, it is more like eating a mini-cake in one bite, it tastes incredibly good but does not feel me up at all.

Zenax

I think Portal does the "short game" thing (or just "video game" thing) right. Short story length, but fine-tuned gameplay, multiple difficulty settings and unlockables (challenges). This way, everyone should be happy.

Players with less time on their hands can choose to beat it on Easy once. Congradulations. You feel like you're "done." Players with more time and determination can go to the length of "truly" beating the game on all difficulties and unlocking everything. Or getting high scores and record clears. Excellent gameplay helps as the game can be played for 5 minutes or 5 hours and I still leave a session feeling satisfied.

Portal is a great example of this model. Having only finished the main game (normal & hard) and a small portion of the challenges, I don't feel like I've left the game behind. But I know if I ever feel like it I can dive right back in and go for all those gold medals. This, IMO, is really the way to do it.

Of course, there will always be a place for epic RPGs and adventures, but I find these longer games usually suffer not only from impediments like dictating long play sessions, but they also commonly leave out any difficulty settings or any kind of reason to come back. They just lack replay value, and actually turn out to be less appetizing investments than games like Portal.

I think it's kind of sad (yes, I am a depressed, cynical gamer) that many gamers today think a long, value-packed game means 50+ hours of story-based content. New environments. New cutscenes. Well, whatever happened to games where there was no story and just gameplay? And the thrill was reaching level 100? And then when you got there, it unlocked Hard mode? And then you were asked to do all 100 levels again with new enemies and more obstacles? And then that unlocked Very Hard mode?

Well, these games are still around. And I'm glad. COD4 has Arcade mode. Halo 3 has the skulls and meta-game. Dead Rising has some very hard achievements. DMC4 has all sorts of ways to waste time for all persons interested. I've personally logged over 200 hours on DMC4 already and not a dull moment. Even last-gen, ever heard of Ninja Gaiden Black? I'm STILL playing that damn game.

Of course, all anybody complains about (or acts relieved about) is how "short" these games are. They're not short, most folks just lick the icing and throw them away. It's not my business how people play their games, but that's how I feel about it.

Xiedo

Captain Impulse

---

It doesn't matter how short or long a game is, but how much fun you get out of the game during your playthrough as well as the game's pacing. RPGs (Usually JRPGs) may boast 60-80 hour playtimes but it's not until the last 10 hrs of the game, the part where after all the level grinding and advancing through dungeons when you've finally obtained the strongest weapons/spells. If that's the case then how much fun are you really having? I'm talking fun playing the game, not watching cutscenes.

This is a big problem with MMORPGs, especially FFXI, and was a reason why I stopped playing it (stopped 3 years ago). You spend countless hours leveling up just to get to endgame, where most of the action happens, but by then you're too sick of the game to play any further. Most story missions couldn't even be beaten until you were level 60+.

On the other hand games like God of War/Devil May Cry may only be 10-15 hours but the pacing of it makes for an enjoyable experience. The games start you off with the full combat system. Sure you may collect additional weapons as you progress through the game, but they aren't making you have to wait for the best parts last.

UmeShoryu

Find a better example. Lost Odyssey is a long sweeping epic. 70 hours long, no boredom and no level grinding to pad out the time. Even longer to do everything. Extremely satisfying.

Games should really take around 15 hours on average for most genres and that should be single player. Less only if the game has branching paths or multiple endings or something. If you find that you don't have the free time to finish games, then don't buy a new game. Just because your spending habits are dumb doesn't mean the industry should shorten it up for you.

I also don't think games should even be $60 either. What, just because of some nebulous term like "it's next-gen" I have to shell out $10 more? Like hell. At $50, they'd sell even more copies.

EggmaniMN

It doesn't make any sense to say that you've got time to do a 6-hour game but not a 30-hour game. If you have time to do one, you have time to do the other -- it's just gonna take you 5 times as long to do it. If you really LIKED the game that wouldn't be hard to do. The only time it might be was if games were coming out constantly, and you just couldn't keep up, but that's hardly the case (certain time periods like the last quarter of 2007 excluded).

Sure, some games are made long for the sake of being long; But that's not a problem with a game being "too long", that's a problem with the designers/producers not putting enough effort and thought into keeping the game interesting. "Drawn Out" maybe, not "too long".

I mean, who wouldn't want to have 5 times as much time to spend on a GOOD game that you really enjoyed? How often are you not picking up that controller to finish that game "because it's too long"? My bet is probably almost never. No one say s "Man, that game is incredible, but I won't be able to beat it by the end of the week, so I'm just not gonna play it"

You stop playing because you're not compelled to keep playing. Most people, particularly the adults that we're talking a bout, don't play a game to "beat it"; they play a game to have fun and relax. When that goes away, they stop picking up the controller (or keyboard, whatever) because whatever on TV is just as interesting to them.

SigmaHyperion

gsilverfish

Portal is a prime example. Only it was really really cheap. I'd definitely pay more for a game like Portal.

I'm also among the people who don't really have that much time to play games... the last ones I played 'till the end was Portal and COD4.

And when I was a kid, I played lots of games that took like endless months to finish up... titles like Dragon Warrior, and other RPGs or PC adventure games (no walkthroughs was the law).

I finished Zelda from 1 up to 3... then I played Wind Waker and Phantom Hourglass. As much as I liked both, I just didn't have the time to finish them, and ended up abandoning both.

Anyways... I think there still be market for both types of gamers. Casual is the trend now. But I really hope this doesn't just kill long games.

I have great memories from long games too. And I hope new gamers can experience stuff like I did back in the days....

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

Portal: short, sweet, to the point. Great game.

Mass Effect: long, epic, sweeping in tone and vision. Great game...except that so much of that length is sucked up in meaningless busywork.

One of the things that makes Portal as good as it is, is the utter lack of filler. It's all important, and all funny. But, somewhere along the line, someone got the idea that what gamers want in long games is tedium, Easter Eggs, collection routines, and assembled busywork.

This is why Bioshock throws the article for a loop. It's a throwback? I suppose, if actual writing and plot motion is a throwback, even with the occasional "oh, simple task got complex" sort of monkey wrench that's in a lot of RPGs. It's not a throwback, it's the better way to be.

And CoD4? The single player game could be an hour or hundred, because the multi-player is critical. That's what will make or break such a game. If the multi-player was unworldly, a game could get away with a single player game consisting of twenty minutes of penguin's dancing with four quicktime events.

Games should be as long as they need to be, and there should be some variety therein. However, in that we've largely lost the ability to create long games without being dreadfully dull in the implementation, short games it is.

Slatz_Grobnik

Captain Impulse

Alex_Mexico

aaa

Kaedex

deathtastic

@Balius: In others worlds I agree with this guy :)

geoffcbassett

eastx

Make it like a TV series, or a mini series. Think of episodic gaming where you get 5 episodes at once, and can be enticed into the next one but still feel "complete" each time you play through one.

cybereal

So in short, short games, cheap price=good for me. I don't want to pay $60 individually for a game like Portal, but I would pay between $15 or $25, depending if it was a little longer or shorter. Games that include multiplayer components I would pay more for.

CarbonFalcon

Balius

Honestly what kind of moron thinks 14 year olds have more free time than adults. I guess if the only adults you know are total burn outs.

aaa

Thorax

Blah8

aaa

baccardi84

ErskinPig

Allen750

Boudabras

Don't encourage publishers to 'give us what we (apparently) want' in the form of increasingly shorter single-player games with usually half-assed multiplayer modes and Achievement-chasing as justifications for such. For my money (literally), the six-hour game feels like a complete rip-off 95% of the time. "Portal" doesn't even count, because for console owners, at least, it's a title within the greatest single-disc, full-MSRP deal ever.

It's kind of like rising gas prices. They condition us to get pissed at higher and higher pricepoints, so the previous thresholds don't seem so bad when the prices slip back to them. The six-hour game will give way to the four-hour game, and by the PS4, you'll be gladly forking over for the $70 two-hour game (three on the unlockable "Hard" mode, available only after beating it) that tries to take another twenty-spot of you in bullshit DLC.

First person to try to justify this with some 'concert ticket' comparison should get the Ban Hammer without hesitation, on the grounds of irreparable stupidity. STOP TRYING TO ESTABLISH ONE-TO-ONE CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FORMS OF ENTERTAINMENT AND THEIR RESPECTIVE PRICING STRUCTURES.

jollydwarf

Although I enjoyed CoD4, I agree that it was short but thank god for MP.

Roguestriker

Like a movie that's been edited well, short games cut out the crap and relentlessly focus on the good parts to deliver a tight, cohesive, well paced and well thought-out experience.

It forces devs to stop taking easy shortcuts like sidequests that mean nothing, cheap collectibles, endless achievements, various levels of the same skill/perk, etc, to fill out their stupid game. More often than not, the things that make a game long are simply bad or poorly thought-out design.

Pacing and length are critical. Most games don't need to be very long. After a while, even a good game mechanic becomes repetitive and boring.

baccardi84

TheFinalMario

deathtastic

Mongoosekun

I finish about 5% of the games I buy so if this becomes a new trend I'll be quite pleased. Crysis comes to mind recently, it took me only 11h to plough through the campaign and I felt that was perfect.

Passa

deathtastic

TheFinalMario

deathtastic

I love a long game you can get immersed in like Fallout or Deus Ex, and those are the classics that stick with you forever.

unmarkedone

14 Year Old:
7:00 AM - 8:00 AM: Wake up and get ready for school.
8:00 AM - 3:00 PM: School
3:00 PM - 5:00 PM: Sports Practice
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM: Get home and eat dinner.
6:00 PM - 9:00 PM: Practice instrument, do chores, and do homework.
9:00 PM - 11:00 PM: Free time
11:00 PM: Sleep

Adult:
8:00 AM - 9:00 PM: Get up and go to work.
9:00 AM - 5:00 PM: Work
5:00 PM - 7:00 PM: Get home, eat dinner, do house work.
7:00 PM - 12:00 PM: Free time
12:00 PM: Sleep

I think overall that it just depends on the lifestyle of the person and how much of a gamer they are. I know a few adults who rarely played games at all when we were kids but now play them regularly just because of all the new time they have, and for them to lose their newfound chance to play longer games would just be sad. If people had time to play 40-100+ hour games in the past, it doesn't mean they won't anymore. Of course the gameplay has to be fun during those 40 hours but as I mentioned in a previous post I think the reason shorter games do seem more popular now is because of the multiplayer and not the players' constraints on time.

Nirolak

Of course, that doesn't mean I want good RPGs to be beatable in ten hours or less, since I like mine to be at least 20 hours.

Yeux de nouilles

4-bzz

juliopalio

Taco Bell™

TheIrishNinja

stevesan

But, you'll also see more short games for other people - maybe not for you.

stevesan

Stop telling us we want shorter games!

ErskinPig

Polywhirl

jrhawk42

boxofthegods

GOOD EXAMPLE:
Oblivion IV

illmatic291

Wolfers

Mii

The primary draw and appeal of Portal is that, so long as you enjoy the game, you don't have to invest anything. You don't have to invest time, you don't have to invest effort, you don't have to invest thought or philosophy. You can just pick it up and have at it. It's definitely good fun, don't get me wrong, but I would liken it to a flash-based game rather than a traditional video game. In that sense, I would attribute Portal's popularity to the growing popularity in casual flash games rather than a trend in people's video game preferences.

Also, I think there's something to be said about simple concepts being a trend, rather than simply a shorter game. Take, for example, PixelJunk Monsters. If you've played the game, then you know what I mean when I say that it is, by no means, a short game. I easily invested 20+ hours into that game with my brother before completing it. Although the game wasn't short, the concept was so simple that I didn't have to worry about forgetting what I was doing in the game last weekend (which I'm notorious for doing in RPGs). I think a simple design is something that we will probably see more and more of in the coming years. Just something to think about.

Although we all appreciate a short (or simple) game, like I said: it's all about the investment. With a short game that requires almost no investment, you get the satisfaction of having fun without devoting much time or energy. By comparison, however, if you've ever played a great RPG that required you to invest a lot of time and energy (and a little bit of money), you can remember the feeling of getting rewarded in dividends for you investment. Breath Of Fire or Final Fantasy games are generally good examples of this. Obviously, a crappy RPG will have the complete opposite effect, but as with any investment there's always a risk involved. So it's not necessarily how much or how little you want to invest in a game, but also how much you want back from that game.

Essentially, I guess my point is that this is an apples and oranges comparison that Wolpaw gives in his interview. But he's half right.

Big World

toejam316

Captain Impulse

Gamers like to complain about casual gaming and varied length and etc etc etc, but there really is enough room to please everybody.

SuperMaxZero

Spiffmeister

I don't think a game's length has anything to do with (para-phrashing here) "adults not having time to beat it". If an adult has enough time to beat a three-hour game, be it in one sitting, two, three or more, he has enough time to beat any other game. He just needs to play it in smaller chunks.

Heck, I'm 10 hours into Lost Odyssey, am loving the hell out of it, and its taken me 7 sessions to get this far. If the game was over in 5 hours, I would be greatly disappointed, and generally feel cheated out of my money. Now I know RPGs will probably always be the exception to the "short game" rule, but I think I would feel the same way about a lot of other games. A FPS that I can beat in 8 hours, regardless of the number of sessions it takes, still feels short to me.

I don't think short games will ever be "the norm", but if they are as good as Portal (complete, well-told and entertaining pieces), I'm all for seeing more of them. As long as they don't end up hurting other games.

Captain Impulse

evslin

tehFluffz

It's better business sense to support the more hard core gamers who get more games, and its better value for money to get a game with more than a quick plot and some action. If people want to just complete games quickly then go on the internet and find some internet games or go for pick up and play multiplayer games.

-Sigil-

MrMcdoobie: I don't do drugs

iamspoo

D Mitsuki

Lanis

Kid_Kitten

MrMcdoobie: I don't do drugs

Balance_In_Life (PSN)

darthmole12

kickass solo just got the RRoD :(

robbo_the_hood

Chewbenator

/maybe if they had a crapload more advaned levels to do

lordargent

Balmung576

PatMan33

Katorok

PeterQC

Horses for courses.

frostcircus

-Sigil-

boxofthegods

CyberG4

Erwin

TOCATL

TheEngineer

pb00

patsfan07

Spiderbait

Look at Warhawk. No single player, hence the $40 price tag. Is the 5 hour single player experience of R6 Vegas 2 really worth $20 extra?

I know it's a funky example, but I miss the days where you look forward to going through the entire story of an FPS. Half Life was a perfect blend of single and multiplayer.

njhardcoreguy

PaulHunter

Nirolak

t0yrobo

Balance_In_Life (PSN)

If COD4 only had single player they couldn't have charged that much for it (see heavenly sword sales). There's definitely a place for shorter games, but it's just not in the 60 dollar price range. Personally, I'm ecstatic about echochrome for 16.99, even if it only lasts a few hours.

pot3ntial2suck

Sentouki

FIRST!!!

There's no room for filler in a 3 hour game.

bloog

Lancehead

bangbangblah

Though I've actually felt the issues that they're describing there, I don't want the problem fixed. It's my own laziness and responsibility to finish that game. Cutting games down into bite-sized pieces doesn't solve the problem, it just leaves the dedicated pissed, and the rest unfulfilled in all but the best of games.

Simply put-Call of Duty 4 and Portal get away with being 4 hour games because they're excellent. It's their excellence that justifies the time, not vice-versa.

Polywhirl

Kegwen

I mean, it wasn't too long ago that amazing games got seriously docked on review scores for being too short.

Now people realize that bigger isn't always better.

The Amazing Exploding-Man

scottyboy218