I remember playing the story mode of Gears of War 2, and beating it in roughly 8-10 hours. At the time, I really felt like that was the right length for a video game. I really enjoyed the game, but I felt satisfied after that time that I had gotten enough out of it to warrant the purchase. Of course, in time I have since spent additional time playing the game in co-op with my brother, as well as playing some Horde Mode (I never bother with online multiplayer, that's just me) - so I've ultimately spent 20+ hours with the game. Recently I played GTA IV and I was methodical and somewhat thorough in my gaming (though by no means was I being a completionist) and I found myself pumping nearly 60 hours into the game. I probably should have more to show for it, in terms of game completion rate and achievements, but that's another issue.
This got me wondering what exactly is the ideal length in terms of time spent playing, for a video game to be worthy of the money spent. I've often wondered about the value for money of different entertainment properties as measured by time spent versus dollars. Books for example seem like the greatest value for money when you consider how much you spend on the average book, and the time it takes to read it, with a 3D movie at the cinemas probably being the least value for money. This of course assumes that the inherent entertainment value is exactly the same across the spectrum, which is a very subjective call. Given that games are probably the most expensive of these kinds of "entertainment properties" that I'm referring to, with games costing anywhere between $50-$100, you kind of need the game to be something you can sink many many hours into it, right?
Of course, that isn't to say that a game should be padded for the sake of it. I felt that with games such as Far Cry 2 and Assassin's Creed, the game lacked enough substance to warrant its lengthy game time, and felt that a lot of the time spent on these games was repetition almost for the sake of it. Perhaps the developers felt that there was an acceptable length that the gameplay should have been and in their design padded out the content accordingly. Going back to my experience with Gears of War 2, I felt that after the 8-10 hour story, I had gotten my value because it was satisfying to play, the story and the play did not feel padded, and given the actual substance of the gameplay in the title, 8-10 hours felt about right. Meanwhile games like GTA IV have a lot more substance to it, and was therefore able to generate significantly more play out it, so playing for 60 hours didn't feel too long, and in fact I could easily spend many more hours playing it going through all the content it had, though to be honest I did feel like if I'd spent too much more time fatigue would surely have set in. When I say "more substance" I do acknowledge also that Gears does have more substance to it by way of its multiplayer, and although it doesn't interest me, I can see how many people have poured significantly more hours into that game than I have and continue to do so.
So, given that all these games have the potential to generate tens and in some cases potentially hundreds of hours out of a single title - what is the minimum amount of time you can spend playing a game to feel like it has been worth the value? Can an excellent story with high production values and satisfying game play, still be worth the regular retail price if it were only say two hours in length? Or does it have to be at least say 10 hours? If so, why?
Log in to comment