Bring back the short games!

@Brodehouse: No I'm not you just have no answer

Different forms of art have different aspects you must study to see whether it is good. Just as you can't compare a painting to a movie in every way the same stands for video games.

Different games should have different lengths and sometimes they should be very long otherwise the game wont be very good. Borderlands wouldn't have worked as a small game and the same applies to many other games. It doesn't mean they are padded.

@Brodehouse said:

@Blimble

@Brodehouse: So all art forms are the same and we should judge them on the same merits?

Well paintings are shit, no dialogue at all. Not even ones popping up between shots like old movies. And don't get me started on the music.

Why can't people get that for games to ever become good art they can't just copy other forms of art?

Also you implied that every long game is bad and full of padding. Games should be the appropriate length and games like Borderlands should be long.

You're being horribly reductionist and I won't engage with that.

You were likewise being horribly reductionist in your book analogy. If not more so. To be fair. :)

@rebgav said:

@PeZ said:

During the end of the pervious generation of consoles and the beginnig of this one, a lot of people got up in arms when games became under 10 hours in length. Not me though, I think 4-8 hours more often than not is a perfect lenght. But these past few years, games have started to get long again. I get that Skyrim has a lot of stuff, but does the main campaign have to be THAT long? Darksiders II, Borderlands 2, X-Com are all 20+, Dishonored over 10 on the first playthrough and so on. As someone who works and does shit, when I have a few hours of game time in day, if that, but still wants to experience those games, it's become pretty frustrating. And the worst thing is that a lot of the lenght comes from needless padding, too. So I'm looking forward to the next gen, when people need time to figure shit out and cut the length of the games. Anyone with me?

PLAY SHORTER GAMES.

None of the games that you mentioned would be improved in any way by stripping them down to a 4 hour campaign. If Skyrim & Co contained twenty hours of tedious grinding to be at level to progress the story you'd have a point, but they don't and you don't. Perhaps the actual problem is that you don't have the time to play every big game that comes out and should make better purchasing decisions.

Well ... arguably, Darksiders 2 could be improved if it's initial 2/3rds were made shorter/tighter, again tho this is personal preference that (i think) a lot of people felt.

You're totally correct about the rest.

Try Dark Souls then. Look on YouTube and you'll find someone beat it in under an hour. And if you are looking for extra stuff, this game has plenty for you.

Wow, you really can't satisfy everyone. Confirmed.

I disagree if I'm enjoying a game, then the longer the better.

@Brodehouse said:

@Tennmuerti I think you are misunderstanding. In a world where _ALL_ traditional retail games are 10 bucks, people would still be making those arguments because their perceptions of value would change.

Ok now I am definitely misunderstanding, people would make the same argument because the value perceptions would change? Sorry, either you're not explaining it properly, or i am way lost, because that sounds bonkers. Maybe you meant to say "wouldn't" change?

And I agree in fact they would still be making those arguments, because length is a factor them, I only argued that it would matter much less.

It's not "games cost so much so that's why people look at games based on length" it's "people treat games like time wasters before any other consideration". I staunchly dislike that idea.

To the first quote: that's A factor whether you personally accept it or not to be a reason for such value judgement. How much of a factor is up to the individual to decide.

To the second: personal perception, you choose to see people treating it that way, i choose to see people having a different set of values to judge this entertainment medium. Just like they treat and value other media differently. But now I am just repeating what I already said earlier.

In this very topic someone said "If I pay 60 dollars it better be long. That's why I love JRPGs, they go on forever!" Notice the thing he says is long, not good.

One assumes a base level of quality is implied. C'mon dude. (and if it isn't, you can take it up and argue with that person)

It all just reminds me of that Woody Allen movie where Daniel Stern is buying art from a painter and saying that he just wants them to cover up wall space.

And ironically a huuuuuuge proportion of people who buy art do it for this exact reason.

I'm far more likely to re-play a shorter game than a long one. Just throwing that out there.

@Brodehouse: So I could buy a game and that last me longer so I get more for my money or get a shorter game of the same quality but I get less for my money.

It's not a mater of longer=better (that is not what people are saying and if you have got that you have misunderstood peoples point) it is that if you are in that situation you go for the longer game because you get more. Please tell me why anyone would pick the shorter game that is of equal quality.

No... No I don't buy many games a year because I can't but just because I don't have enough time/money doesn't mean I want games to be shorter, games are expensive so you want them to have decent length and replayablility...even with multiplayer I still can't understand how people buy 60$ Call of Duty or Battlefield games with 5 hour campaigns and little to none replayability.

If you want shorter games play downloadable games.

@Brodehouse said:

In the first case, I'm not sure it's as complicated as you're thinking. I'm saying it's not a matter of "for 60 bucks it better be long!" its a matter of "for whatever the price games are it better be long!" Because the core concern isn't quality, it's just how much time it can suck up.

I disagree with the fact that it is a core concern. Rather i believe that it is a concern. And fully accept that such a concern is a part of the medium. That said some people go a bit overboard in placing value on the length factor.

I know there are people who 'like' art just because it covers a white wall. It's the same who assumes a big picture is _better_ than a small one, or more colors or brushstrokes means more gooderer art. And that's crazy. I'm not gonna get behind that.

Agreed mostly. And yet there are also people that think doodles can be valued in hundreds of thousands of $ if not millions. And that a black square on a white piece of paper can be considered "art". And that's crazy to me.

Someone brought up if two games are the same in quality, then the longer one (in campaign, i assume) must be better. No. They're the same quality. A Dead Space that lasts twice as long is not a better Dead Space, it's a longer one. If it had twice as much enemy variety, weapon variety, custom gameplay scenarios, that's twice as much quality. But if its the same thing that takes 12 hours instead of 6, that's just longer.

Subjective really. If they think that the longer game (of the two same quality games) is worth more valuable to them, then it is. Better and more valuable are not the same thing mind you. I believe they said which they would buy, this implies a statement of relative value not overall quality.

The person is being entertained for longer. If the quality of entertainment is consistent, there is no reason not to choose the one that lasts longer. (obv. if the person in question prefers longer that is, as there are those who don't)

.

@Brodehouse: Oh and I vastly prefer to disagree with people/posters i somewhat know. At the very least this is more likely to result in an actual discussion. rather than mudslinging at the OP. So thanks for that ^.^

It depends on the game.

Would Journey have been as good of a game if it was 12 hours long, probably not. Would Borderlands have been a good game if it was 4 hours long, probably not.

Gah, reading the analogies in this thread makes me want to headbutt a wall so thanks for that I guess.

Awful, awful, terrible analogies aside alot of length and alot of quality are not mutually exclusive, if a developer has a vision for a wide, sweeping epic game that encompasses many hours of gameplay and delivers exactly that then excellent. Likewise if a developer has in mind a short, tight story that achieves everything intended in a 6 hour package and doesn't leave you feeling there could have been more then that too is good.

Should all games be limited to no longer than 6-8 hours? no

Should all games be padded out to 20+ hours? no

Should a game be as long as a developer intends and needs for what they envision? yes

As an employed adult with a disgustingly huge backlog of games, I still can't agree with that. SOME games have the right to be crazy long. For some games (i.e. Renegade Ops) 4 hours is a fine length. For others (GTA and Assassin's Creed) 30+ is appropriate. There's a few (Elder Scrolls and Xenoblade Chronicles) that can get away with 90+ hours. I'm not going to see the credits on some games in my collection, but I don't get too eaten up with anxiety over it. It's still good that some ginormous campaigns are out there, for those who have time for them.

Also, this is the end of an abnormally long console cycle. Stuff coming out this year can afford to be pretty long, as developers are spinning their wheels in old engines that they've already mastered. Rest assured, 2013 will be full of 4-hour tech demos of "Hey, look what we made in the new Unreal Engine! $60 please!"

P.S. Some people are being uncool in this thread. You can disagree without being disrespectful. Ending your post with a variation of "You're an idiot" is not how we should treat each other in the GB community.

@PeZ: What an incredibly stupid idea.

If you have a need to finish games quickly, play shorter games. If you want to play longer games, play them in sessions. It's not hard.

@Brodehouse: So I could buy a game and that last me longer so I get more for my money or get a shorter game of the same quality but I get less for my money.

It's not a mater of longer=better (that is not what people are saying and if you have got that you have misunderstood peoples point) it is that if you are in that situation you go for the longer game because you get more. Please tell me why anyone would pick the shorter game that is of equal quality.

I totally agree. Also games are waaaaaay too cheap nowadays. They should cost, like, 80-90€ cause that's the way I like it.

@Blimble said:

@Brodehouse: So I could buy a game and that last me longer so I get more for my money or get a shorter game of the same quality but I get less for my money.

It's not a mater of longer=better (that is not what people are saying and if you have got that you have misunderstood peoples point) it is that if you are in that situation you go for the longer game because you get more. Please tell me why anyone would pick the shorter game that is of equal quality.

To play the devils advocate for a bit:

The people would pick the shorter game of the same quality if they are limited on time and have money to spare. As is the case of the OP.

This is due to the inherent human factor that variety in a pleasurable activity generally increases it's value/pleasure to most people (basic human psychology). So a person who is not as constrained by money (but is constrained by time) would rather play shorter same quality games, rather than longer same quality games, thus having more variety and thus more "fun" overall, to them.

Which by the way returns us neatly to the point that $ does matter. (both price of the entertainment product and consumer financial situation). It's an ageless time vs. money or if one prefers time = money, questions. Both in terms of work and entertainment. Two sides of the same coin.

So really i'm not playing the devils advocate. I'm just seeing both sides really @Brodehouse@Blimble: I think you are arguing for two different viewpoints where in reality both coexist quite nicely. (as other posters have since pointed out, there is place for both shorter and longer games) length does not necessary imply quality but it can aid it (or hinder it in rarer cases)

It may be too presumptuous of me however to say who argues what, sorry :P

@PeZ With the number of high quality downloadable games being published on both XBL and PSN, I think there are more short games now than ever. Just on PSN, there's Journey, Unfinished Swan, Closure (took me about 6 hours over the course of a week.) I don't own a 360 or have access to Steam but I imagine that catalog is even stronger.

There are also more good mid-length games than I ever remember, you can make it through a normal playthrough of Uncharted in 10 hours. And more accessible pick up and play episodic games. I haven't started XCOM yet, but that game doesn't seem dependent on narrative, if a player is inclined you can pick up and play a few missions and put it away without losing much. Same can be said with the ubiquity of multiplayer modes in games. You would be insane to miss out on the single player campaign, but if someone bought ME3 or Red Dead just for the multiplayer they would have a lot of fun without much of a commitment.

Like you I'm want short and sweet gameplay lengths. I have a lot of nostalgia for old school games, but I don't miss all the level grinding I did playing Final Fantasy or the constant backtracking through Resident Evil rooms. In the end I'm glad there's a diversity of game style/lengths. It makes the experience more engaging to a broader audience. Personally, I haven't play Skyrim because I don't have the time, but its my loss and I'm glad to support it knowing that a lot players have a good time with it.

@Hizang said:

It depends on the game.

Would Journey have been as good of a game if it was 12 hours long, probably not. Would Borderlands have been a good game if it was 4 hours long, probably not.

Skimmed through this thread and it's the first time I've noticed someone saying this lol.

Yeah I agree, depends on the game lol.

@Brodehouse: Your missing the point in this hypothetical situation

Both the games are of the same quality. One goes on longer but you get just as good an experience. They cost the same. You get more with one of the games. Choosing the shorter one makes no sense as you are willingly throwing away more for you to do that in this situation would be just as good as if it were a shorter experience. Again this is a hypothetical situation that works on the rule that both are just as good just one has more in it. Stop dodging this part

@Tennmuerti:

Still doesn't work as it's not like you must complete a game in a set amount of time. The person with little time would still benefit from the longer experience as they are getting more content out the game.

I can see where Pez is coming from. It was just yesterday that the thought came to mind. I guess I was feeling a tad bit overwhelmed with the growing backlog of games of late. And I think having a full time job has got to do with it. I don't mind buying lengthy games as long as the experience doesn't wear you out, but when I purchase a short game, I expect it to have a degree of replayability both offline and online.

The topic is very subjective. It's nice to read all the points, but the analogies are killing me.

@Blimble:

Then I think you entirely missed the point I was making. The person with less time will appreciate smaller games because he can play more of them overall in his spare time if time is limited. He is still getting the same amount of content in his time, the only difference is that content becomes more varied on the whole, hence more entertaining.

With longer games he would either have to leave them unfinished (lessening the enjoyment for many) or consume less games overall, having less variety (again lessening the enjoyment).

It's simple math.

Getting more of the same content is almost never as valued by a human brain compared to getting more of a variety of experiences. Remember in our example free time is limited and constant, while money is not a significant factor.

I have a problem finishing games due to having no time these days as well. That's really just life as there are people who somehow do have the time and that's cool too. Not all games are super long, but it's not any different then it always has been. I only prefer shorter games when they are fun to play and (sometimes) I don't pay as much for them. But I don't like long games with tons of padding either.

@Tennmuerti: I see what you are saying. If someone really wants to get games finished I could see why they would want to just play shorter games but I personally don't mind spreading one out over a long period and if it also means I get more value for my money (seeing as I don't have that much) then that is even better.

I could go into good long games spreading new content out over time about humans being able to enjoy do the same thing for ages but it isn't really as useful discussion.

While I agree that games shouldn't be padded out to make them longer, games like Dishonored don't out stay their welcome. The way I see it, you can just play the game in small chunks and it will last you longer. It's not like you have to finish the whole game in one sitting. Personally, I don't usually play many games more than 25 hours, but that's mostly just because it usually gets boring by that point. I grew tired of BL2 pretty quick personally.

@Hizang said:

It depends on the game.

Would Journey have been as good of a game if it was 12 hours long, probably not. Would Borderlands have been a good game if it was 4 hours long, probably not.

Pretty much this, it all depends on the game.

@Brodehouse: Your missing the point in this hypothetical situation

Both the games are of the same quality. One goes on longer but you get just as good an experience. They cost the same. You get more with one of the games. Choosing the shorter one makes no sense as you are willingly throwing away more for you to do that in this situation would be just as good as if it were a shorter experience. Again this is a hypothetical situation that works on the rule that both are just as good just one has more in it. Stop dodging this part

@Tennmuerti:

Still doesn't work as it's not like you must complete a game in a set amount of time. The person with little time would still benefit from the longer experience as they are getting more content out the game.

@Brodehouse: I think that second reply was meant for someone else?

the long games are for Saturday and Sunday. probem solved.

@Brodehouse: Ah, I really thought little of the adjective. So the whole paragraph on it weirded me out. As i wasn't really arguing anything there.

@Brodehouse:

The biggest problem with short games is the cost to access them. I don't have a problem with short games that provide an entertaining experience as long as I feel that the price was worth it. I have reason to believe that many people feel the same way.

Take this example:

I rent movies and only rarely buy them. Why? Because I receive the same amount of enjoyment I would have if I would have bought it, while saving me at least $15. I rarely feel the need to watch a movie over and over so buying it would be pointless. I'm also not a collector. The same holds true for short games. I rent short games and don't have to worry about buyer's remorse.

This may lead to poor sales of the title but that is not really my concern. A few hours of my time is almost never worth $60. I'm sorry. I wouldn't pay that much for a few hour movie so why should I pay that for a few hour game? You would have to assume that games are inherently worth more than movies and I just don't agree with that. A solid two hour movie can be just as good or better than a three to four hour game for 1/3 of the cost.

Now if I feel that a game is exceptional and is $60, I will buy it no matter how short it is. Just as I would pay that to go to a concert I was really looking forward to. The trouble is there are almost zero games I feel that way about. Games are first and foremost entertainment in my eyes. I don't play most games the same way I would admire a sculpture or painting and I'm sure the creators of those games never intended for that anyway. Art form or not, games are entertainment for most people and people want their time to be worth their money.