Atomic Gamer - The Long and The Short of It

magerette

Hedgewitch
Joined
October 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
Atomic Gamer has posted an op ed on the length of current games, posing the overall conclusion that by and large, modern games are too long:
Games are too damned long. If I wasn’t certain of this before, I am now, as I stare at a stack of holiday titles I’m yet to break from their shrink-wrap prisons. Yet, despite my certainty, titles are still often criticized for being too short. And because this sort of unwarranted sentiment is so widespread, it encourages developers to pack our games with content we don’t need or want. Shouldn’t, with few exceptions, games be judged by what’s there rather than what’s not? Whether a title clocks in at 5 or fifty hours isn’t the issue, but rather how those hours are spent. If a game keeps me engaged from start to finish, I don’t care how short it is. In fact, let me enjoy and savor an 8-10 hour game, rather than slog through a 40 hour one. More often than not these days, I find completing games, even the good ones, can feel like work by the time the end credits roll.
The author does make an exception for the RPG genre:
Now, despite my disdain for long games that have no right to be long, I totally appreciate an interactive experience that packs the content like bacon at an all-you-can-eat breakfast buffet. A good RPG, like Fallout 3, requires more time to develop its characters, flesh out its story, and realize its scope. That’s not to say all RPGs need to be 50+ hours, especially when half that time is spent having uninteresting conversations with NPCs, and doing slightly varied versions of the same quest over and over again. The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category, give players a choice: take the shorter, critical path, or explore every nook and cranny till you realize the sun has risen and you need to get to work.
Conclusion:
What I'd hoped would be a cohesive editorial on why games are too long has devolved a bit into a rant by a madman, frustrated because he doesn’t have enough time to play all the games he got for Christmas. If gamers were to take anything away from this, though, it’s this: Stop and smell the polygons. No matter how short a great game, enjoy what’s there. And if it’s a bad game, be thankful it’s short...
More information.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,834
A good RPG, like Fallout 3, requires more time to develop its characters, flesh out its story, and realize its scope.
Oh please.....
(F3 may be good but there isn't much developing in it)
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
1,718
Location
Dear Green Place
Very good article overall, I agree that many games are longer than necessary.

as I stare at a stack of holiday titles I’m yet to break from their shrink-wrap prisons

I know that feeling all too well....
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,382
Location
Florida, US
Oh please.....
(F3 may be good but there isn't much developing in it)

But I still think it falls outside of the scope of the article.

Games like Jedi Knight and Half-Life were worth the ~20 hours ... Far Cry 2 is not. While I rail about 4-5 hour games like CoD4, CoD:WaW, Quantum of Solace, and so on ... I'd rather have a short, focused, intense experience than a meandering game with 4-5 hours of content spread over 10 - 12 hours ... like Halo.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
The rest of the article is good I just wanted to point out the bad examples he gave about RPGs.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
1,718
Location
Dear Green Place
The absolute best RPGs, and I’d place Fallout 3 and Fable 2 into this category

That would be what I'd call a shaky platform from which to build anything resembling a solid conclusion.

Length - like most separate aspects of a gaming experience - is not wise to talk about like the remaining aspects weren't present.

Length in and by itself has no bearing on the quality of the experience, and it's not enough to mention CRPGs as some kind of an exception to a simplistic and narrowminded perception. Every game is a unique experience (though some stretch the concept to its extreme), and they all have aspects that can either support or work against their length.

In effect, the article is lacking insight and the writer is clearly not a very experienced gamer. It's just another example of the worthless journalism so prevalent these days.
 
Kostaz, stick to your guns because you are right, FO3 was a lame example.
He could have mentioned Gothic-3 as a better example but maybe he was scared to suggest for fear of media backlash upsetting his own alter ego but then he might not know of other better games to suggest.

A better example - - -
Currently about 170 hours into G3 (L65) with no Liberations and no Myrtana or Varant orcs killed. Totally engrossed in the 'suggestive story' game play, the ever so small hints and inuendo's are coming together in a fascinating way. Apart from the 'bugs' its a masterpiece.
I reckon to be half way through the game which is hard but i wouldn't have it any other way...and my character is still developing ! !

It is wrong to generalise on games when there will always be exceptions to the rule.
Matt Cabral was a bit loose in viewpoint direction, when after explaining these exceptions, to then revert back to FO3 to generalise again in a media-istic self gratifying manner. These guys will always hide within the safety net of media "award winners" opinion.

The comparison of G3 to FO3 are like chalk & cheese...there are of course chalk & cheese gamers! - this includes "convenience gamers" as opposed to devoted, undying long saga game lovers.

Bandwaggoneer bloggers strike no melodic chords with me.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,105
Location
North-West England
I agree with Gothic 3 being a good example. As much as I enjoy that game, it is a little too long for it's own good.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,382
Location
Florida, US
IMHO RPGs are quite often too long. I'd much rather see devs stop integrating filler material when they're running out of story. 40 hours and a nice ending is enough. I don't need another 80 hours of generic material.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,830
I agree - though I find I can tolerate cRPG 'trash collection' better than jRPG ... the endless 'random encounters' that you have to tolerate due to level grinding requirements ... annoying.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
Totally agree. 40 hours of quality content is much better than 100 hours with unnecessary filler.

I think it's broadly difficult to do justice to an RPG with the <10 hour games around these days but Fallout was <20 for me, and represents a superb experience.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Totally agree. 40 hours of quality content is much better than 100 hours with unnecessary filler.

I think it's broadly difficult to do justice to an RPG with the <10 hour games around these days but Fallout was <20 for me, and represents a superb experience.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
Well, actual sandbox games should aim at providing an interesting world for 80 hours or so, but for story driven RPGs I totally agree, 30-40 quality hours can usually only be diluted by filler material. On the other hand, I really don't see a trend towards long games - the reduction in playtime has been ongoing for quite a while as part of the mainstreaming of video gaming.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,508
Well, actual sandbox games should aim at providing an interesting world for 80 hours or so, but for story driven RPGs I totally agree, 30-40 quality hours can usually only be diluted by filler material. On the other hand, I really don't see a trend towards long games - the reduction in playtime has been ongoing for quite a while as part of the mainstreaming of video gaming.

In general yes, but what now also seems to be happening is a trend towards sandbox games for everything ... with a 'main game' that is largely filler and can be completed in ~20-30 hours, much of which is pointless wandering ... and filler content that will take much more time that is almost entirely repeated stuff of little substance. Example - Far Cry 2.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
14,953
I agree with most of the people in this thread: How good the content is means far more than the amount of content. In fact, I often prefer replaying shorter games most of the time since I can see the light at the end of the tunnel not too long after starting the game. Certain games should only be played during holidays, or it'll take forever to finish it.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
7,586
Location
Bergen
In some rpg's there is entwined within the storyline the *search* factor which, if there's a well written story of fantasy, lore or mystery or similar, then the searching (exploring related) itself can be the "time consumer" and is usually to be rewarded (in game) with something special or extraordinary. As a consequence, in these situations i also agree that there will appear some time-filler distractions or fodder/padding to fill-out the game, yet these may not necessarily be only nonsense fillers but more to prove the devotion of the antagonists un-nerving resolve and dedication to the theme cause...to succeed and not to give up.
There is no way within reason that this could acceptably be achieved in a few gaming hours, by the very nature of such design concepts its going to take some time and patience to achieve, these rewards are not given easily, they have to be earned and therefore justified. Searching is the essence to the theme....epic saga time consuming games are not everyones cup of tea but don't completely discard or discount them for they are what some gamers seek most.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
1,105
Location
North-West England
Kostaz, stick to your guns because you are right, FO3 was a lame example.
He could have mentioned Gothic-3 as a better example but maybe he was scared to suggest for fear of media backlash upsetting his own alter ego but then he might not know of other better games to suggest.

A better example - - -
Currently about 170 hours into G3 (L65) with no Liberations and no Myrtana or Varant orcs killed. Totally engrossed in the 'suggestive story' game play, the ever so small hints and inuendo's are coming together in a fascinating way. Apart from the 'bugs' its a masterpiece.
I reckon to be half way through the game which is hard but i wouldn't have it any other way...and my character is still developing ! !

It is wrong to generalise on games when there will always be exceptions to the rule.
Matt Cabral was a bit loose in viewpoint direction, when after explaining these exceptions, to then revert back to FO3 to generalise again in a media-istic self gratifying manner. These guys will always hide within the safety net of media "award winners" opinion.

The comparison of G3 to FO3 are like chalk & cheese...there are of course chalk & cheese gamers! - this includes "convenience gamers" as opposed to devoted, undying long saga game lovers.

Bandwaggoneer bloggers strike no melodic chords with me.

Again very subjective. When G3 did run properly (mostly on my old PC, it had alot of trouble with my new computer), I had a lot of fun in the Central area (don't remember the names of the areas). But by the time I was visiting the Snow and Desert areas I was completely bored. I'd still spent over 20 fun hours in the moderate temperature area. If the game had ended there it would have had a good 'length'. I just rushed through the other areas. It didn't grip me in such a way that I'd find it worthwhile. Maybe if I had gone to the desert or snow areas first I might have experienced it from a different angle.

Another (unrelated) problem is, I don't know the names of the areas. Yes, you mentioned Verant and Myrtana, but I don't remember which is which. I guess G3 isn't memorable playing experience for me.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2006
Messages
409
I think games in general are getting shorter. Of course, quality is better than quantity, we all agree on that. The problem is, as Mike put it above, that HL was 20 hours of excellent gameplay, while the top shooters of today offer.. 5? (Mirror's Edge, for example, even if it isn't a traditional shooter) If you also factor in the cost, you realise games really are getting too short (same amount of money nets you a quarter of the entertainment?).

It's similar with RPGs, I believe - BG2 was long and an excellent experience most of the way, while recent RPGs are shorter (ME, for example, if you discount the filler planets).
 
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
585
Location
Serbia
I have seen both sides of the coin. Heavenly Sword was like not even 8 hours while Persona 3 was 100+ (for the main storyline). Both have problems... an extremely short game might be good, but is it worth the $60? I could spend a day at a Six Flags park for less than that! On the other hand, Persona 3 was great, but being so long means many times you lose track of the story and why you're doing certain things.
I would like games (the main story) to be at least 15 hours and up to 50 hours or so.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
It completely depends on what kind of game it is. I have enjoyed strategy games for 100's of hours without getting bored because of their brilliance, and the plot was great too. It takes very little resources since many battles could take a very long time to complete they just have to put in a bit of plot in between.

Quality over length, yes of course, but if I can get 150 hours of mostly quality, instead of 5 hours of high quality, I would take the 150 hours any day.

The biggest problem is if the game is that short, the developer cannot justify the price tag. Like for Far Cry 2 they spent forever to develop that engine , if they release the game and it takes 5 hours to play through people paid $60 for it. They'll just not feel it is worth it. I mean for that price I could get 4 movies or more, which would equal to 8 hours or more.

But they could re-use the engine ? yes to make another 5 hour high quality game? and set a lower price tag on each game? Maybe if they use episodic content or so called digital downloads. There is a lot of marketing and promotion, and it would cost much more to send out two sets of DVD's and packages, and do two campaings.

It does not make much economical sense to produce very short high quality games.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Back
Top Bottom