Game Length: (How Much) Does It Matter?

[Disinnocence]

So, some of you have probably heard of the recent The Order: 1886 controversy about how it was around 5 hours (I believe), cutscenes and all, and it seems it has sparked a lot of talk on game length and how much it actually matters compared to enjoyment and quality or whatnot. So how do you feel on game length, and what seems to be a justifiable length for $60 games?

Now I do think game length matters to a point. I usually tend to play longer game (20-40+ hours or something like that), but something like Transistor or Brothers, that were shorter games, were good too. But I suppose it might be because they're not as expensive. So I suppose I really does come down to enjoyment, but I just like to play longer games.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Disinnocence

[Emeraldfox]

I love to play shmups, so length doesn't bother me. To me, it actually comes down to how much you love the game. I mean, if you like it enough you will replay it again regardless of how long the game is.

[kingddd]

Game length does not matter too much in long run because it's the personal gaming experience that the player went through that affects how much value the person has gotten out of the game. I have paid for many games over the years with game lengths ranging from 5 mins to 100 hours and I have enjoyed them all thoroughly.

It's all in the player's perception because one person's enjoyment for one thing may completely differ from one to another. For example, Star Fox 64 can be beaten in just 30 mins whereas Tales of Symphonia 2 took me 20 hours but I personally enjoyed Star Fox 64 a lot more. The RPG may have been a longer game but my experience for Star Fox 64 was a thrill from beginning to end. Thus making me value Star Fox a lot more than ToS2. It's all about the gameplay experience and how much you can enjoy it.

[Tryhard]

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=50660for relevant replies from before.

Pretty much my last post here.

[Florete]

Generally speaking, being fun and well-paced, even if short overall, matters more than being long. But at the same time, if I'm going to drop $60 on a game, it's going to feel a bit disappointing if it lasts less than 10 hours no matter how good it is.

So game length does matter, but it's not the most important thing.

[Bankai]

I like long games as long as I'm interested in the lore, story or game play (ex. I can't stand the world of Ruin in FF6 because it seems to just drag on.) but if a game is to short and isn't really worth a second play through it also hurts the game (ex. South Park the Stick of Truth I felt was to short)

[Dual Dragons]

Game length does play into how much a person should spend on a game--but it's a variable just like any other. Some care about length more than others.

I sometimes think in of how much I'm spending per hour. For The Order, as this sparked the topic, I think, "For roughly $14 an hour, is it really worth it?" I'm a slower player so it also could be longer than that on my playtime. By the end of it, however, I should enjoy what I paid for. If I don't enjoy it then of course I'm going to think, "This was not worth it."

[Safyrya]

Well it depends how these hours are filled. I mean some rpgs out there take more than 60 hours, but doing what? Navigating through the battle menu to select your strongest spell and take down an army of trash mobs that you don't really feel any fun slaying? The quality of these hours matter, the non repetitivness etc...

For example I've rented Catherine, beat it and then bought the collector edition because the 10 hours it took me to beat where fucking fulfilling and it became my favorite game to be replayed again and again. I must say though, 5 hours is just too short, and the Order doesn't really strike me as that amazing a game for it to be really worth 14$ an hour.

However games can be way too long sometimes. I have a large backlog and like to be able to move on, which is why I'd say 25 hours plus bonus content is the perfect length (not that the games I actually play are anywhere near that short, but I wish they were sometimes)

[Dual Dragons]

Well it depends how these hours are filled. I mean some rpgs out there take more than 60 hours, but doing what? Navigating through the battle menu to select your strongest spell and take down an army of trash mobs that you don't really feel any fun slaying? The quality of these hours matter, the non repetitivness etc...

For example I've rented Catherine, beat it and then bought the collector edition because the 10 hours it took me to beat where fucking fulfilling and it became my favorite game to be replayed again and again. I must say though, 5 hours is just too short, and the Order doesn't really strike me as that amazing a game for it to be really worth 14$ an hour.

However games can be way too long sometimes. I have a large backlog and like to be able to move on, which is why I'd say 25 hours plus bonus content is the perfect length (not that the games I actually play are anywhere near that short, but I wish they were sometimes)

That's why I mentioned I'm a slower player and that it should matter if I enjoyed my experience overall. I guess a better example is I bought two games priced around... $2.99 each, or something like that. I enjoyed the shortest one the most over the one with longer length. I may have clocked in an hour on the shortest one. For the $2.99 I spent for that hour, I can easily say it was very fun and have no regrets purchasing it. The other one of more considerable length (attempting to do everything, I think I spent over 10+ hours though that's my slow playing calculated in), I didn't like nearly as much and it kind of let me down--even though it was only $2.99 and I played it for a while. Even for the cents by the hour I paid for it, it wasn't worth it to me.

I sometimes like to break it down by the hour so it doesn't feel like a "big drop of money." It is what you say, though, about the filing. Some parts of a game can be really, really good, so maybe that's some hours for it. Some are just outright horrible, so that can be some portion of the money. That way I can say, "Eh. Maybe a $40 game, not a $60 game. It still was pretty good."

My friend was even thinking of getting the collector's edition of The Order ($80). I mean, more power to him if he likes whatever version he gets, but I don't know about it enough to judge if $60-$80 is worth it. Just from the hours alone, those five hours either better the best five hours I've ever had or above passable. I've been too saturated on RPGs and even VNs of much longer lengths for at that price or even lower so I'm not the right person to judge.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Dual Dragons

[Interest]

I think this answer probably explains it best.

But really though, I'd be inclined to say it matters, but as Red Fox of Fire says, the pacing and other aspects do too (in terms of accounting game length as part of evaluating the experience). If a game takes a lot of time to finish, but is generally filled with unexciting cutscenes to artificially extend the play time, then the game is essentially a "waste of time." On the reverse side of things, a game may need a bit more time than a few hours to fully develop so that the player can immerse themselves in the gameplay, story, and other elements of the game.

To put it another way, it largely depends on the game itself. Did the game feel like it overstayed its welcome or felt it could've gone on a bit longer? If the answer is yes, then there is likely a problem with the game's length. Game length is also something that a developer should take into consideration when making the game to best match the mechanics they implement, the genre they choose, the story they write (if applicable), their target audience, and so on, thus making it an important element of game design.

...I feel like I just wrote two paragraphs essentially restating points and whatnot.

Also, regarding $60 (mostly* triple-A) titles, I'll just quote this since it's pretty close to my opinion:

I think a 5-hour game can be worth 60 dollars
...if those 5 hours are fucking amazing. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case with The Order.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Interest

[The Geek]

In questions about game length, it's always about getting your money's worth. To achieve that the game must either be of decent length or have high replay value.

[Magical CC]

Remember when people in 2000s complained that Max Payne 1&2 were too short despite the very fast gameplay, all encounters were an unique exciting shootout, a great story despite the shortness of the game and there were a ton of difficult modes to choose? Nowadays people have already been brainwashed, nowadays games are too short, include this Order 66 game. It took me about 7 hours to finished MP1 on the first and several more hours with harder difficult modes. You think this Order 66 can reach the same kind of excitement, the same kind of replay value and the great way to tell the story of the good old MP? I dont think so.

And also, you guys have been tricked into giving the game free advertisement. Remember when the first trailer was so boring and no one give a damn about this game? The "this game is only 5 hours long" is just a trick to boost the game sales. A boring ass 5 hours long game that costs 60 bucks is nothing new (I am looking at you, ME3). They just have to scream :"look at me, I am unique" and all of you immediately believe and make a fuss about it. How cute.

[Psych]

I think a game shouldn't be too short, but on the other hand, can't be too long.

I recently got into the Dragon Age series, and played about half of Inquisition before my friend gave me the discs for the other games. I have 40 hours in Inquisition and am maybe 2/3 of the way through the plot and barely half way through other content like quests and combat. It just drags on and on and it's combat isn't the most thrilling, leading to a heavy plot based and character developement driven game. And that's fine if that's what you're into. I'll admit I like the game, but due to its length, I get fatigued and can't bring myself to really lock down a lot of time to try and complete it.

And then if I'm going to want to finish the other 2 and a half games in the series, it'll probably take me around 70 hours. So this is an example of where making a longer game doesn't necessarily make it better.

[Magical CC]

I think a game shouldn't be too short, but on the other hand, can't be too long.

I recently got into the Dragon Age series, and played about half of Inquisition before my friend gave me the discs for the other games. I have 40 hours in Inquisition and am maybe 2/3 of the way through the plot and barely half way through other content like quests and combat. It just drags on and on and it's combat isn't the most thrilling, leading to a heavy plot based and character developement driven game. And that's fine if that's what you're into. I'll admit I like the game, but due to its length, I get fatigued and can't bring myself to really lock down a lot of time to try and complete it.

And then if I'm going to want to finish the other 2 and a half games in the series, it'll probably take me around 70 hours. So this is an example of where making a longer game doesn't necessarily make it better.

It's because Bioware has been infected by the EA virus. Their games used to be both long and exciting with a lot of good, fun side quests and interesting characters. Nowadays, the side quests in the new Bioware games are just filler. You dont even need to play all of them to get the maximum level. ME3 is barely longer than 5 hours if you just ignore the god damn filler side quests and I was playing on hard mode. If it was easy mode, I bet I can stroll through the god damn boring game in less than 5 hours.

If you gonna play Dragon Age 2, I will just say this: DA2 took the repeating aspect up to eleven, it's even more boring than DA:I.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Magical Amber

[Psych]

It's because Bioware has been infected by the EA virus. Their games used to be both long and exciting with a lot of good, fun side quests and interesting characters. Nowadays, the side quests in the new Bioware games are just filler. You dont even need to play all of them to get the maximum level. ME3 is barely longer than 5 hours if you just ignore the god damn filler side quests and I was playing on hard mode. If it was easy mode, I bet I can stroll through the god damn boring game in less than 5 hours.

If you gonna play Dragon Age 2, I will just say this: DA2 took the repeating aspect up to eleven, it's even more boring than DA:I.

Eh my issue with the Dragon Age series is it seems like they basically wanted to take a DnD style of combat and somehow make it real time and not question whether this would be fun. Like I could pay attention to all these stats and different resistance types and whatever or I can literally just dump stats into strength/magic and use abilities off cooldown till everything is dead.

Like they have a good handle on the rest of the game, but Origins and Inquisition really don't make me think "I want to play this because I had a fun time just mashing buttons"

I'll admit I'm playing on Easy mode, but that's just because I want to rush things as fast as possible since what strategy do they really have here? It's not like there's skills with situational use, I have my warriors spam taunt, my rogues spam everything, and mages occasionally do something other than cooldown rotations. Plus their way of letting you switch between party members doesn't really do a lot for me. If the game somehow had combat like the Tales system, I'd probably have much fewer complaints of the series.

I have other problems with EA too though, but it's not really about Dragon Age.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Psych

[Ike-Mike]

I still think gamers' perception has become too much about length in hours than length in levels now.

What happened to saying "I reached a new level" or "I reached a new area"?

I think the real problem with The Order is that it's only about three levels long.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Ike-Mike

[DragonLord]

Game length might be misleading, seeing as a game can artificially prolong itself through cutscenes and non-interactive moments. That being said, if a game actually has meaningful gameplay, I don't care too much about how long it lasts. As long as I feel I got my money's worth.

Edited February 20, 2015 by DragonLord

[Garnef]

As long as the game isn't Ground Zeroes length, I'm fine.

[Ercdouken]

Length doesn't usually matter to me, especially if it's an arcade game. If I feel there isn't enough to the game, then I may feel it's too short.

[Zera]

Since topics on game length have already existed in this forum, you might want to change the title to specifically reflect The Order: 1886.

I'd like to pull an excerpt from Jim Sterling's review (which coincidentally has the same rating as the Metascore).

http://www.thejimquisition.com/2015/02/the-order-1886-review/

[spoiler=Excerpt]

The Order‘s real problem, however, isn’t that it’s short – it’s that it does so very little with the time it has. Narratively, the game is a prologue as opposed to a full-fledged story, concerned only with building to a crescendo that never comes. Just as things finally get interesting and the plot unfolds… the credits roll. In the final chapters of the game, we deal with revelations that would occur halfway through any complete story but are instead used here solely to set up a sequel, to the point where I’d say 1886 is nothing BUT one big teaser for a presumptuously pre-planned franchise.

Five hours of tight storytelling can be justified, but this is all just a big tease with no payoff. The whole thing comes off more like the first installment of an episodic series than a complete title in its own right, and I was shocked when the game ended as I genuinely thought I’d hit the halfway point and was about to start kicking things into high gear. Forgive the turn of phrase, but if any other game has given me a bigger case of the proverbial blue balls, I certainly cannot recall it.

“But… the game’s just started,” I stammered while The Order: 1886 told me it was all over. “Oh wait, here’s a new cutscene, maybe the credits were a red herr… oh… more credits.”

I always recommend Sin and Punishment: Star Successor to my friends, and it's about 3-4 hours long. But it's not so much a third of your average 9 hour adventure so much as that same adventure condensed into 3 hours. Aside from very brief, skippable cutscenes, and loading screens, the biggest downtime in the game is a 3-second breather before the boss of Stage 6. And this three hours of nonstop action doesn't include QTEs, walking through empty hallways, or anything like that. The ending leaves the potential future of the series a blank slate, but it still provides closure to the current adventure, so the game feels complete. Most importantly, most of the game is real gameplay, so you can't get the same experience from watching a Let's Play on YouTube.

[algae]

Regarding that review... Kind of like The Banner Saga? It's a short game, but its biggest issue is that it visibly and blatantly ends basically the minute you finish a sequence that would be the prologue of any other game. I mean, you could probably compare that sort of thing to books: you can have a great, self-contained story with a relatively small page count, but there are also people trying to get away with selling a few chapters as a complete story.

Edited February 22, 2015 by algae