Poll

Do you think that it's fair to dismiss a game for being "short"?

Yes
2 (11.1%)
No
8 (44.4%)
It Depends
8 (44.4%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Print

Author Topic: "It's Too Short"  (Read 13596 times)

Kuromatsu

  • 黒松
« on: June 05, 2010, 05:20:40 AM »
I hear people say this sort of thing about video games a lot now and after playing Klonoa, I had questioned it myself. "By what means is a Video Game too short?" or rather, "Are there any such means at all?"

What do you think?


Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2010, 07:26:55 AM »
I tend to like a video game that will last me a while.  Metroid Prime Trilogy, for example, was relatively longish compared to some of the other titles I'd been playing.

When I buy a game (keep in mind I'm on a tight budget with no source of income to support the hobby), I have to consider how long the game will last, because I can't just go out and buy another one when I'm done with it.

I do like long games better, provided the length isn't made up of grinding.  That's why (and WarpRattler will back me up here, for once) Kingdom Hearts: 358/2 Days is a good long game; you get 70+ hours of gameplay and grinding is pretty much a non-factor.  To use another example (an oldie but a goodie), Super Mario World was (and still is, arguably) a pretty extensive title.  Ninety-six exit goals to find, plus all the Dragon Coins - even though I could 100% it now without too much time/effort, to someone who hasn't played it half a dozen times, it's a pretty lengthy experience.

I suppose New Game+ mechanics can lengthen a game, and they provide an interesting twist, but I still prefer the real length to come from the actual game, not playing through the same game multiple times.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

TEM

  • THE SOVIET'S MOST DANGEROUS PUZZLE.
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2010, 08:12:02 AM »
In a post-Portal world the answer is obviously "No."
0000

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2010, 11:44:12 AM »
Not even post-Portal. If a single credit of a semi-modern shmup (or any other arcade game with a proper ending) lasts more than an hour for a single loop, it's too long.

Turtlekid is correct about the length of Kingdom Hearts: 358/2 Days not coming from grinding; as I've said before, the game part of that game is designed well, even if the story part is Godawful.

Also, having a New Game Plus mechanic to extend a game's length isn't that much different from putting in multiple endings (which often comes hand in hand with a New Game Plus mechanic anyway) or having co-op play be a separate game mode (for the same stuff as the single-player mode, not for something like what's being done in Portal 2).

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2010, 12:22:02 PM »
I just recently started replaying HL2 for the achievements. Was that game always long as [dukar]?
every

« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2010, 12:30:31 PM »
I voted "it depends", but usually my answer is "no".

It depends on how fulfilling the experience is, whether I feel like going for the optional rewards, and how much replay I get out of the thing. Basically whether I feel like I went through a grand long adventure when I'm through. An example of a game I felt was too short, once I got good at it, was Wave Race 64. I blasted through the three circuits, didn't feel particularly challenged, and was left wondering "was that it?" Felt similar with Extreme-G, given I unlocked nearly everything in one day. The same could also go for Super Punch-Out, since once you've unlocked all the boxers the only reason to come back is to finish it with no defeats or to down each boxer in the fastest time possible, so it felt like a one-play-worth game.

Beyond Good & Evil felt like a medium-length game, but a tad short since the ending came up sooner than I thought (though granted I knew when I was getting close). Since you can continue to grab the rest of the collectables before finishing the game (er, most of them), I was able to prolong that game's length such that it felt satisfactory. Plus, it was a really good experience anyway, so it felt like a decent length.

Regarding number of hours played, around 40 seems to be the satisfactory "long-ish" limit for me. That's how long I spent with World Driver Championship (and you really start to get sick of replaying the same circuits over and over after a while). I clocked 60 hours with Final Fantasy X, but that felt LONG, that felt more like 120 hours. It was 60 hours of always-changing terrain, never-ending story, and a whole bunch of optional sidequests. I clocked 70 hours with Okami, which is the longest I've spent on a game. Yeah, it felt long, but not nearly as long as Final Fantasy X. Partly because of the numerous sidequests, partly because I left the system on for hours just to listen to the music.

It's well-known that the Half-Life 2 episodes are short. They didn't feel short (especially not Episode 2, given how much ground you cover), so I guess the experience was just that good.

I just recently started replaying HL2 for the achievements. Was that game always long as [dukar]?
Yes. It's what we call "this is the game that makes up for over five years of waiting."

Regarding what WarpRattler said about New Game Plus not feeling that much different from multiple endings... yeah. Because you usually get to go through the game again twice as fast or faster, not just because you know what to do now, but also because you start out with your awesome gear from the last playthrough or experience is doubled. Going through Okami in its New Game Plus mode made me fly through it in under 10 hours, as opposed to 70. It's fun breezing through the game so quickly, but then you lose out on the first experience with its more deliberate pace.
...but screw that, walking on water is always cool.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2010, 12:40:08 PM by penguinwizard »
You didn't say wot wot.

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2010, 01:35:33 PM »
Yeah, my second run through Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey took twenty-five hours (the first run took ninety-one) because I didn't bother exploring nearly as much or doing most of the sidequests I had already done, plus all the stuff penguinwizard said about starting with badass endgame equipment. And I'm fifteen hours into my third run and already at the save point next to the final boss (though I do have some things exclusive to my alignment this run to take care of before I take it down).

I'd still say "it depends," though, simply because saying a game can never be too short is just an invitation for developers to end games prematurely (or worse, make the initial $50 or $60 purchase only be part of the story and make the rest paid DLC, or do what some Japanese companies do with JRPGs and make international editions). Games not having replay value is never an issue, though. There are so many games out there that you shouldn't feel like you have to be compelled to replay one or else it wasn't worth the price. If it gives you a reason to play it again (multiple endings, higher difficulty, opportunity for a better score/time, et cetera), great. If it doesn't, oh well, just move on to another game. (The "I can't afford more games" excuse doesn't work with all the free high-quality stuff out there, unless you're on Turtlekid's previous computer.)

« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2010, 01:57:05 PM »
I'd say that it depends on the genre. A fifteen-hour RPG is barely worth one's money, while a certain platformer which can technically be finished in eleven minutes still entertains players twenty years later.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2010, 02:17:44 PM »
I'm with Weegee: it depends on the genre. I'm not going to pay $50 for a 15 hour RPG. I want my RPG's to last me a long time (not because of difficulty or dependence on items, but that's for another topic possibly). I want  RPG's to be at least 25 or so hours. I honestly don't play a lot of RPGs myself. I'm more of a platform player (or even more specifically, a Mario gamer, with bits of Zelda, Kirby and Metroid thrown in for flavor).

Anyway, it's all about the genre. A game may be too short because players breezed through it too. New SMBW is a good example. Someone I know bought the game and beat Bowser that day, but didn't bother to search for all the Star Coins. He complained the game was too short..
Kinopio is the ultimate video game character! Who else can drive a kart, host parties, play tennis, give good advice and items, and is almost always happy??

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2010, 03:53:41 PM »
A fifteen-hour RPG can definitely be worth $50. Genre has no bearing on how long a game should be (with the exception of shmups and games of other arcade-oriented genres, which, again, can be too long) or how much it should cost for said length.

To look at it a different way, a fifteen-hour RPG for $50 is still more cost-effective than going to see a movie in a theater, and, in some cases, more enjoyable. And I know you guys go see movies.

« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2010, 09:09:18 PM »
...or do what some Japanese companies do with JRPGs and make international editions
I had to look up "International version" on Wikipedia, because I remember there was a Final Fantasy X International edition. I guess it makes sense, release the game in its home territory with all the upgrades featured in foreign releases... but wouldn't it just be easier to call it the "Ultra edition" or "Holy Schnikey edition"?

See, when I hear "international edition", I think it should be the ultimate version of the game released in ALL countries (or at least everybody that got a release of the game before), not just Japan. Frickin' Japan getting all the good stuff, as usual.
You didn't say wot wot.

ShadowBrain

  • Ridiculously relevant
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2010, 09:21:13 PM »
"It Depends": Well, if it's like, say, Braid or Portal--plenty challenging and thematically deep--then no problems there. Something like a run-of-the-mill platformer, though... well, that's a different story.
"Mario is your oyster." ~The Chef

« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2010, 09:34:15 PM »
I'm amazed that Brian didn't note the innuendo in this thread's title.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

Glorb

  • Banned
« Reply #13 on: June 05, 2010, 11:30:45 PM »
Actually I could have sworn this thread was about Weegee until I actually read it.

(or Ped Xing)
every

« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2010, 01:39:21 AM »
I think the length of the game is not a determining factor in whether or not the game is good.

Rather, if you finish a game and one of your thoughts about it has to do with the length it took to complete, that's a sign that nothing else in the game was very interesting. So, the game sucked. I guess an exception would be on the other side, where a game is super long. But sometimes, really long games are also really repetitive, which is also bad.

So basically, saying a game "is too short" means the game sucked and didn't make a lasting impression on you, like good games do.

Rarely, a good game will be noticeably short, like Portal. When I played Portal I didn't think it was very short, but apparently everyone else does. Anyway, in the case where a good game is noticeably short, most often people just play the game again and their gripes are solved, whereas for a bad short game, people say "man that game was too short" and then poop all over it and play Portal.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2010, 01:41:28 AM by bobman37 »

Print