NowGamer: "A great game could be ten hours, but it rarely is," says Brothers game director Josef Fares, as he explains how games re-use assets to satisfy a criteria on how long a game should be, often set by reviewers.
A game can have re-playability but a game that has a great story that sticks in your mind should be played once or twice, this story should be long but not drawn out. Think of a book, you pay £10 for a book you want a long book with a good story, you might re read it later but really you expect a certain length behind it. Much like a gigolo.
People read books in day because they are good. Gamers do the same and flip out. Not many books are sixty bucks.
Good point but don't compare books or movies to the games market. The markets are very different - not the consumers, mind you, but just the way things have to work.
Yeah, I see you working.
I don't know if it's because I'm older now with less time, but I'm starting to really enjoy shorter games with laser-focused stories. But I can see why, when people drop £40-50 on new games, reviewers need to point out if a game takes just five hours to clear.
It all comes down to value. £10 for 3-4 hours is fine for me, but £40 for the same? Nothanks.jpg
That is really how I deal with it, by just buying the games on sale. Very few games do I feel the need to buy release date. Gears of War: Judgement because I love multiplayer, Mass Effect (although that dropped in price quick), and strongly considering Bioshock Infinite....
I'm all for games with shorter lengths...they just have to be priced accordingly.
Problem is we can't just expect games with certain lengths to have the same cost of development. Journey is a 2 hour game, yet did it cost the same as other 2 hour long digital games to make?
I dunno how much it cost to make, but it was only $15 to buy. So what exactly is your point (?).
My point is games being sold only on length will change the way games are made. The cost to make games will lower to suit the need of the given price for length alone. There will be a butterfly affect and the industry will change in some way to fit the new needs to make good profit. It will cause business practices/patterns to change. The change doesn't have to be something drastic, it can be small. What is new will bring both positive and negative perspectives on how games are made. Those who pay for length, play for length. Length of a game is not based on the experience of the game. Length is easier controlled by business methods, while experiences within games are derived through means of passion. Experience can be short or long, lengthy games are only long. Yet passion cannot be forced or it will not create the best experience. So if passion is forced for the sake of constant lengthy games, the experience within games will dwindle.
I do prefer games with a decent sized campaign, as long as it doesn't have loads of filler. A great game that only lasts 6-8 hours is ok, but it's not as good as a great game that takes 20+ hours. Which is probably why rpgs are my favourite genre.
I think most people don't mind short games as long as they aren't expensive. I wouldn't be happy if I paid £40 for a game and it was only 4-5 hours long.
Length isn't a problem as long as it is repeatable. Catherine is only 7/8 hours long but I love replaying that game because its always different and always a challenge. Heck look at nes games, most of those are ten minutes or less if your good but people love to replay them. It's the quality of the content that matters. Hallow fps like cod are examples of short games that aren't replayable or worth the value most of the time
This is true yeah. There's a game I got off Steam in one of the sales, The Binding of Isaac, which cost me a couple of quid I think. That game has more re playability than most full price games I've ever played, which is largely down to the random nature of the levels. If a game can provide a lot of replayablity, the actual time it takes to complete the game on a playthrough is not an issue. Games that are linear, and pretty much the same through every playthrough, aren't as good value really.
The Binding of Isaac is great fun. Really short with lots of replayability. According to steam I've played it for 4 hours but that's been 4 hours of fun and challenging gameplay. Most full length games nowadays are about 10 hours with 2 hours of backtracking, 3 hours of cutscenes, 2 hours of fetch quests, 3 hours of corridor shooting and never-ending repetitive multiplayer... I would rather see a 3 hour action game for about £15 new. It's a market that doesn't exist but would be perfect for gamers who can only spend about an hour max per day to play. And that can be 3 hours of refined gameplay and fast paced storyline. There is a lot of filler in most games to flesh them out to about 10 hours. There's definitely room for full length RPS like Mass Effect, short pick up and play games like the Binding of Isaac and something in between the two.
And there's the point we all have different of what does or doesn't constitute a good game personally after playing the demo of Catherine I felt like I'd spent 2x as much of my life doing so as I would want to but after playing through 20 or so hours of Hitman: Absolution I was still hungry for more. I think the bottom line is we pay our money & play the game. If you don't like what you get then don't buy the next game of that type from that dev team
With the way reviewers are nowadays, they are flawed in so many ways. Honestly i would trust a fanboy who enjoys that certain game that u are going to buy then listen to reviewers online. I bet most of them dont even play the whole game to even start with because u read alot of reviews that just dont make sense at all. Atleast a fanboy will give u the good & bad of the game. Honestly they should scrap the scores of reviews & just give a review of the good & cons of the game that way it doesnt hurt potential sales of any game. If u have to just say, "I dont recommend this game" if the game is just flat out bad.
Its all bullcrap anyways. Reviewers usually rush through the game on easy, of course they will finish the games fast. I usually play on whatever mode i find challenging and it takes me 12 hours for a reviewers 8 hour game.
it relates to bang for buck. There's a difference between reviewing a game for a consumer and a connoisseur. There's been too many Skyrims this gen. 100 hours of a boring game, but as long as it's 100 hours reviewers give it a 10. There needs to be a balance, so revewers stop concvincing me to buy games that I trade in a week later, and got no enjoyment out of, but instad hours upon hours of frustration and boredom.
Maybe to him, but the majority of games I enjoyed lasted between 5 and 10 hours.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.