Short

[MattyD]

I tend to prefer my games to be a non-stop, balls to the wall few hours like with God of War or Gears these days. I also play 'arcade' titles like schmups and fighters more than ever before.

On the flipside, I didn't really enjoy Twilight Princess as much as I should have, because my50 hours play time was VERY disjointed and done in small burts. Similarly, I bought Okami a few weeks ago and although I love it to death I have found it very hard to get into, purely because I don't have the time - or the energy - to really sit there and get into it for long periods of time.

Having said that, I would hesitate to see games become incredibly short like GRAW 2 was. It was one of the most exciting solo player games I've played in ages, but it was all over very quickly. I think if a game is going to be that short it should at least give some incentive to replay it, even if it is only secondary objectives etc.

[MattyD]

i have grown impatient in games now

fed up with over long tutorials

and annoyed with games taking ages before it starts to kick in

This is something that concerns me also: how every - single - game makes you play the same tedious old lessons in basic third-person controls, and then includes them in the total game time. It's even worse when, instead of a full tutorial, they drip-feed new techniques to you so that you're constantly playing with the training wheels on. As gaming becomes more mainstream we're only going to see more of this, but I think people should follow GoW's lead and make all tutorials skippable.

[MarioMark]

I think some of this matters on replay value. I can't remember anyone complaining in 1991 when Sonic came out, You can finish that in less than an hour, but no one complains (including me). Maybe that's because no matter how many times it's replayed, it's still as enjoyable as the first time and it's still being played by a lot of people today!

[Ady]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This obsession with long games started with Final Fantasy VII (the game that brought RPGs to 'the mainsteam'). From that point, it was used as a measure against pretty much ANY game that followed it (most post-FFVII game reviews mention length where it was never a big deal before). After that, no game was worth playing if it featured less than 500 years worth of gameplay (even if it was a shoot 'em up or something).

The fact is, a lot of games don't NEED to be long at all. A short game allows you to focus and refine your skills, thus improving your game and offering replay value. Conversely, long games may offer an 'epic experience', but provide little to no incentive to return once finished. I for one can say that I've never replayed any of the RPGs I've ever completed; life's too short and there are plenty of other games to play.

[MarioMark]

I think there has been a thread like this before. I remember saying that how come people will pay £15 for a 2 hour movie and be ok with it, but they complain when a £40 game is 10 hours?

[babs]

I think a lot of it is due to the demise of the arcade. Way Back When? arcades were the yardstick for games. Sure there were some original gems on the few home machines, but it was the arcade goodness that a lot of people longed for. Arcade games are by their very nature short, money grabbing creations, and that's what we liked. We wanted that at home and were happy.

Now though there are whole generations who've not really had the coin-op mentality, and expect something more. I think it's just a difference in perception of what a game should be.

I too like the short games, or at least ones I can play in short spells and pick up again instantly. I get annoyed by a game if I can't play for a week and forget what I was doing. Some help me by having a decent Journal/Quest record, but overall it chafes me. I also tend to not get on with games which are long (from start to finish), but I'll happily invest a ton of time into a game which hooks me and I can play over and over (quake 3).

[Concept]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. This obsession with long games started with Final Fantasy VII (the game that brought RPGs to 'the mainsteam'). From that point, it was used as a measure against pretty much ANY game that followed it (most post-FFVII game reviews mention length where it was never a big deal before). After that, no game was worth playing if it featured less than 500 years worth of gameplay (even if it was a shoot 'em up or something).

The fact is, a lot of games don't NEED to be long at all. A short game allows you to focus and refine your skills, thus improving your game and offering replay value. Conversely, long games may offer an 'epic experience', but provide little to no incentive to return once finished. I for one can say that I've never replayed any of the RPGs I've ever completed; life's too short and there are plenty of other games to play.

I'd argue the reverse. All major next-gen games these days seem to be averaging in at 5-8 hours in length. I've never understood this call for overtly short games... if someone doesn't have the time to put the hours into a game then simply disperse it and play it in more bits. I'd be arguing the same if films over the last four years had (on average) been about two hours and then over the course of the last year we'd seen them slim down to one hour instead. With the saturation of multiplay it's becoming a reason.

Of course ideally every game should be in length what they're aiming for, but I've come away from many in this generation feeling unsatsified single-player wise due to the brevity. Gears is an excellent game but it still feels anemic in single-player to me. Conversely, God of War 2 felt just the right length.

What we need are games whose length is applicable to the design, and not overly (I won't pretend nearly all games aren't cut) restrained to meet deadlines for the Q3/Q4 spell. Likewise, I don't want to see many of the big guns falling into 3-5 year timescales and being ballooned. With this generation, management of resources and planning is going to be a crucial skill factor with regards to how satisfying length is, far more so than we've seen before.

To be fair, Condemned was 9 or so hours and I came away from it finding the experience rewarding. The same goes for Lost Planet and Dead Rising.

Games like Gears or more recently GRAW 2 for example... they feel too short and I personally don't think it bodes well for single-player in the first-person/third-person/action adventure genres where the standard used to be 12-15.

To put this into context... when Valve released Half-Life: Episode 1, many people complained it was only 4 hours in length. There's been even more complaining about Episode 2's delay and that it's only scheduled to last 6 hours.

My answer to that, going on this generation's form, why complain?

Most single-player sides of games over a 2 year development spell seem to be lasting that length.

In relation to this, you have people worried over the pricing of episodic gaming.

5 hours for $15 a rip off for a single-player game with a few bits and bobs in multiplayer? Well... haven't we already been playing full price for similar length in some cases?

That isn't what I want out of the future personally in gaming from the majority of full priced titles.

[Concept]

As an aside, the above doesn't refer to arcade-based/styled titles.

[Geoff D]

For a single player game, I tend to prefer shorter experiences - purely for practical reasons though, in that my gaming time is limited.

There are a few franchises that are excepted - Zelda & Metroid for example, because those are worlds I love to get lost in.

However, from a sensory point of view, the length of the game should be however long it needs to tell its own story (talking single-player again) with nothing undercooked & no fat that beeds trimming. That would be a perfect world though.

[Kongster]

I prefer short games nowadays - "the pick up and play" kind.

I play 70+ hours epic rpgs, but I only play them every now and then - playing them regulary is too much for me nowadays.

[Concept]

I guess I'm used to the 10+ hour model too much.

This sounds crazy and it is, but after Bioware promised hundreds of planets to explore in Mass Effect and the impression that it was Oblivion in space, I was slightly disappointed when I read it could be completed in 20 hours, with 40 seeing all the side-quests/extra bits.

A lot of it comes down to personal preference. I don't usually have the energy for the large RPGs that Ady refers to, but I honestly think they're a niche market and that there aren't all that many of them like there used to be three or four years ago.

I think single-player is dying and that's a sign of the times, love it or loathe it. I just hope developers have the guts to stick to their guns, rather than what the bullet point PR marketeers want.

I think games which are primarily built around multiplayer gaming are all good. A developer mentioned it at DICE a few weeks ago. Shoehorning jack of all trades can be detrimental... alternatively, maybe it's just the traditional leap and establishing new IPs/technologies before settling down to best using them.

The answers with regards to how length will cement itself in certain genres will be revealed during this holiday period in my view when we've had the time to transition and reach the second-wave of software (yes, I know Gears was called 2nd gen but I believe for the majority of the industry late 2007 is the beginning).

[toxicninja]

I love short games as long as they give a decent experience and challenge, I wouldn't want to play a good game and then be suprised by an ending that came too soon. Also I wouldnt wan't to play a fun but repetative game that ran out of new stuff to do and dragged on too long. Games like Chibi robo viewtifull joe and Jet set radio are good lengths for short games I think. If i'm playing a long RPG it better start off well if it's going to keep me interested and gradually imerse me though.

[Charlie]

I love epics myself and always have. There are few things more satisfying in videogaming than completing a game I've invested 70, 80, 90 hours of my time in; indeed I tend to feel rather short-changed if a £40 game's single player campaign doesn't serve up at least 20 hours of gameplay.

I'm a very picky gamer though and regularly don't have a new game waiting to play after completing what I'm currently playing - so that probably influences my preferring bigger/longer games.

[MattyD]

As development gets increasingly more expensive I think we're going to get more GRAW 2-like experiences, where they pack as much action as possible into a relatively short game. The longer the game, the more maps, textures etc it needs and the more expensive it becomes.

It's also a marketing consideration though. Most people who buy the game won't play for more than a few hours. The developers need to make an impression on them in a relatively short time, and make the game achieveable for the mainstream player, or they will be less likely to buy a sequel or other games by that developer.

I forget who it was but some developer was recently ranting about just that - this mentality that you must 'finish' a game. He said you don't go around bragging that you 'finished' Lord of The Rings, but that's how people treat games and it's holding the industry back creatively.

[Concept]

If that happens then it's poor for the audience I belong to. Would Resident Evil 4 have been the game it was if it was six hours long?