More shorter levels or fewer longer levels, which do you generally prefer?

Shorter levels, because I just like to replay levels and don't want to slog through a long level multiple times just to get to the part I like.

Without any other context, I would prefer a mix of both. If the game is introducing something new (characters, game mechanics, etc) then a short level is a good thing. If the game is allowing more of a free roaming phase of the game then a longer level is a good thing.

In either even, it just needs to be well made.

Generally I prefer games that allow you to save, whenever you want, wherever you want, as many times as you want. Which makes level length irrelevant.

Shorter levels make for easy replay ability.

I don't really have a preference in general. I play all sorts of games so I'd need it confined to a specific genre to answer.

Always shorter. I have a very short attention span and hate the feeling of not making any meaningful progress that i get in long levels.

I guess I would go with shorter but more levels because this could allow developers to get more creative with each level, like they did with the recent DMC.

isnt this something that relies completely on context? i would hate to have 45 minute long super meatboy levels just as much as i'd hate to have fallout condensced into 2 minute chunks

Depends on how short short is and how long long is.

If its a 2 minute level, I hate it. Load times suck.

If its more along the lines of 15-20 minutes, thats a pretty good length. Especially if there are no auto saves or checkpoints in the middle of levels.

@pr1mus said:

It sounds cheap but pretty much this yeah

I want a Fire Emblem game that is one really really long level.

I guess more shorter levels, I'd rather not be in one level for too long for the sake of a change in scenery.

Long ass levels. One of the things I liked about the halo games, each level stands out with a character of its own, and playing through a single one feels like a satisfying challenge, and allows for a better sense of epic.

After finishing RE6, I say more shorter damned levels. After finishing Shadow Complex, I say longer damned levels.

Longer usually. Personally, I prefer that the action not be broken up at all, sort of like Half Life, but with better streaming tech/more creative loading techniques (you're already in a damn corridor almost every time lol).

Same thing applies to loading in ES or Fallout games. Fewer loads is better. It also means I can kind of pick my own pace, and doesn't restrict the pacing to assume a typical play time, because there's really no such thing for most individuals, much less the audience as a whole.

I generally hate using checkpoint or save sports in games. Let me just save whenever/where ever the hell I want. As for levels I prefer to have many longer levels. Whats best is if the game is mod friendly, it can have (theoretically) an unlimited number of levels for both single-player and multi-player. Sadly, I'm not really seeing this as much from games that were released a decade ago. I think more developers should allow releasing level creators/editors.

Shorter levels. It was one of my biggest issues with Resident Evil 6 (and I'm not sure if they patched this in...they've patched everything else.) but the levels just went on for an absolute age. I prefer being able to play sections of games over and over again.

If I want short levels I'll play a indie game, I pay top dollar for long levels, I want them to be creative, I want to be pulled into the world, I don't want to be informed that I've that my accuracy was 56% and that I unlocked a really wowzers laser dot for a rifle I don't give a shit about every 15-20 minutes.

Few longer and bigger makes for a deeper experience than a myriad of short small levels. Also it usually means replayability.

Depends on the game and the situation in the game's story. But if I had to choose, I would say fewer longer sections.

Shorter. Feels more manageable for me even when I do have heavy free time.

Depends if there more open levels i would prefer fewer larger ones but guessing your going on about linear levels like most shooters where you can't even explore most the maps make em short.

More better levels, how about that?

It doesn't matter which, so long as there's less padding. You could prefer shorter because Long Levels have a tendency to drag like hell. But you may prefer longer, because Short Levels have a tendency to be repetitive and pointless and break up the flow.

Forms of annoying padding exist in both, and they're probably more prevelant in long levels so I'll go with short for the poll. But really, it comes down to just "design your game with a good pace, fools."

Depends entirely on the game.

Give me no levels at all. That's way better.

I'm no expert, I haven't played it, maybe you have. But I heard Fire Emblem Genealogy of the Holy War has 12 chapters but all of them are huge.

Longer. I hate how short most Mass Effect 3 levels feel.

no levels, open world. That's what I prefer.

Shorter levels are nice, since you can either just marathon through them or play them one at a time in quick sessions. Plus short levels make me much more prone to perfectionism. If Trials levels were any longer I wouldn't care about getting all-gold or platinum metals.

I would say 15-20 minutes would fall into the shorter end of the spectrum. The thing that made me hate the idea of long levels is Alice The Madness Returns. All those levels are so painfully long. They could easily cut out huge chunks of them and the pacing would be drastically improved because of it.

I think the general problem with longer levels is that it's too hard to create variety within them, thus the initial spectacle you get will eventually be thrown aside by the tedium or seeing the same thing over and over again (The Library anyone?)

It is all about the experience, not size of duration. Levels are like chapters in a book, a contained times/place/event in the narrative. Some need to be short and some need to be long, the save system is there like a bookmark to mark the last place the player/reader left off. It not about size, it about the 'appropriate' narrative experiences for that part of the game.

I love good old big fat levels. I love stuff like Halo, Half Life, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear (you can kinda count the different areas right? Kinda...) and Bioshock where you might spend an hour or more in a specific level but that level really feels unique in the game and has its own little world that you can fall into. I'm thinking stuff like "assault on the control room" in halo or the highway mission in HL2 or just about any level from Splinter cell:Chaos theory (especially compared to something like conviction where the whole game kinda runs together) or levels like arcadia and fort frolic in Bioshock.

When I look back on the original Halo I can look at the list of levels and specifically remember their different tones and gameplay styles and the specific things about them that I really enjoyed. When I look back on Halo 4 I remember really enjoying playing it but I have no desire to replay specific levels because none of them really stood out as being different to each other and all just run together into some Halo mush.

Shorter levels then I can take more breaks at certain points, long levels really do drag and can ruin an experience, especially if they aren't that enjoyable.