Musings about so-called "short" games

HangTime

HangTime

HangTime

Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,893
Location
Hampshire
One common complaint I see against games (typically those of a fairly high standard, that have few other major flaws) is that they are 'too short'. Common examples include Max Payne 2, HL2:Ep1/2, and COD4:MW. Now, this in itself is quite a subjective term - how short is too short? There seems to be a general consensus that anything under around 10-12hrs is 'short', with 6hrs or less being 'very short'. For a game to be classed as 'long' (and, for some people, even 'too long'!), it usually needs to weigh in at over 20hrs of gametime.

However, I think purely looking at how many hours it takes you to complete a game is a bit simplistic. Some games may last longer than others simply because they are very hard - for example, they have no quicksave feature and infrequent autosaves. Or maybe failure means you have to restart the level from scratch. So a fair chunk of that, say, 12hrs gameplay time is taken up by going over old ground. Does this make it any better than a 10hr game with less 'wasted' time?

Furthermore, we need to consider the intensity of the game. If you look at the aforementioned COD4, it took me around 5hrs to complete. The original Call of Duty game maybe 8hrs tops, and was completed less than 24hrs after I installed it. So on the face of it, these are short/very short games. But in terms of the amount of action involved, they are probably just as content-rich as games which last much longer. Combat comes thick and fast, there is very little filler and even in the 'quiet' phases, you are usually getting a running commentary from teammates, or witnessing a plot-twist of some description. A Far Cry from some games which involve a lot of aimless wandering around looking for the way forward, or hiking it through a jungle. Nor are you wasting Half your Life zooming down a river in a hoverboat with little happening around you.

Another factor to consider is that just because a game can be completed quickly, it doesn't mean that it has to be. Some games are relatively non-linear or have vast universes to explore, should you wish. Sure, you could charge through the game, leaving stones unturned and corners un-peaked-round, and finish it in under 10hrs. But are you really getting the full experience? Is it the fault of the developer if you chose to ignore or brush swifttly past their carefully designed content? Max Payne 2 is the perfect example. The game is packed full of subtlety, from posters referencing things from the original game, through to the exquisitvely crafted Police Station level. The whole level is a great parody of 3D Realms and DNF, from Officers Broussard and Miller right down to the guy locked in the toilet screaming "I'll be out When It's Done!". I spent an hour on that level alone, listening to all the conversations, exploring every nook and cranny. I can't help but feel that many players missed out on all of that in their incessant charge to the finishing line.

Now, don't get me wrong. I like an epic game like Unreal, Deus Ex, KOTOR or Football Manager as much as the next guy. And some games are genuinely very short (Mashed, Crashday...). But I think that a highly polished, well presented game with a blend of great attention to detail and intense action can still represent great value for money, even if it doesn't last all that long. If 90-120mins is acceptable as the length of a DVD costing £10, why should we feel aggreived at paying £20 for a game lasting 6hrs (even ignoring any multiplayer features)?

At the end of the day, if you feel a game is too short it is often because you are left wanting more. That can only be a good thing, in that you must have enjoyed the game to feel that way. I'd rather look back on say 5hrs of Episode 1 thinking "Wow, that was awesome!" than be getting bored to tears towards the end of say, Pariah, and wishing for the end.
 
I got terribly bored with long games, the new "shorter but more action packed" gets my vote everyday.

Looking at all the games I finished this year (SP obviously) they were all of relatively "short lenght"
The longest of which was Bioshock
 
Yes I felt disappointed with COD4, what it does it does very well but there isnt enough of it. I dont want to pay £30-40 for a game and then finish it a day or so later.
 
I found COD4 very, very short. I managed to complete it in an afternoon on hard. Very good game though. :)

I found crysis very long due to the incredibly repetitive nature of the game that bored the crap out of me. Get to somewhere, find Koreans, kill some, hide, recover and reload, kill some, move on. Rinse and repeat.

EP2 felt short but I didn't expect it to last long as had good gameplay all the way through as did portal.

As long as the gameplay is good I don't mind short games, long games are more difficult to keep the player interested, bioshock is indeed a good example of a long game that keeps the player involved through a plot that twists and the variable nature of it.
 
chronicbint said:
seems that limited imagination players play boringly :p
Click to expand...
Play boringly? :confused:

I play games as I choose to, tactics will vary from player to player, you can hardly call someone else's tactics boring.

So what do you suggest?

Charge into the open field and get slaughtered?

Sneak up on them slowly and find interesting ways to kill them silently?

I've tried most of them and they all got rather repetitive after a while.
 
good thread, liked the subtle hints at game titles in the first post, half you life, c far cry etc :)

imo though the games length is decided on how good the game is ands its potential, at beggining i loved crysis and dind't want it to end, but near to end with aliens it got so boring i couldn't wait for it to end and it couldn't have come sooner .so overall i felt game was too long as it was boring. games like kotor 2 i felt were too short for what it should have been, like it may have taken my 15-20 hours long but it could have been double that so i felt it was too short, where as say mafia, had fantastic gameplay and at time of release it felt like it lasted forever which was good.

it's hard to explain what imean but bacially as you have said in first post, some games are quick but full of what the user wants where as others are long but full of sutff put tehre just to increase time. each game has it's own length, so say with oblivion with the open-ness of it i'd expect it to last atleast 25+ and anyless i'd be feeling to short where as cod4 i expect (now after this thread) no more then 10 hours and imo that will be fine
 
i would prefer a short action packed game to a long drawn out 1 (unless there was some fantastic storyline features in the drawn out period) but realistically HL2 E1+2 could have been one game and still be referred to as short they were just excuses to try and get more blood and money out of the HL franchise they were pathetically short
 
Being a fairly casual gamer I far prefer short games, it means I can play for small amounts of time and still feel the satisfaction of compleating a game, when everybody is still talking about it :)

The best short game I have played recently has got to be Portal, I bought orange box as I wanted the game and have no regrets buying it. I can't play the half life games for long as for some reason they make me feel sick, I've seen it said before on these forums.
 
I dont really mind, as looking back, i can never really bring myself to complete long games, just give up half way, but games like CoD4, max payne 2, cod2 aswell i completed all of them, and i rarely complete single player games :p, Oblivion though, whilst i havent completed it, kept me playing for about 50 hours so even though i didnt finish everything, it still got its moneys worth.
 
Killerkebab said:
Good example here is Portal. Two hours, but those two hours were intense, never felt anything like it since Deus Ex :D
Click to expand...
Totally agree - Portal felt like the perfect length game. All games have some basic mechanic of gameplay, and once you've mastered them, you get bored.

RPGS generally have longer staying power, because there's more depth and variation in action.
 
worse thing about some games isn't how long they are, but how obvious and linear they are, COD4 for example, there was ONE route, ONE way to do things, you could sit somewhere all day and enemies would never stop spawning until you passed a certain point, HL was always ONE route, ONE way as well, hence why i was so pleased with crysis, there are many ways to objectives, many ways to approach each situation, you can sneak past people using your cloak, you can avoid them altogether, run and gun (if you so wish) or kill them in a methodical and tactical manor, no game since far cry has offered so much IMO and people who complain about it being an open sandbox game need to step back and take a look at what they want from a game. but back to the original topic, games that are too long can get boring though it always depends on what the game is about, the surroundings and the feel of it, doom 3 felt like a reasonably long game but i sat through it to enjoy the eerie atmosphere, however it was again a linear game.

we need more games like crysis with vast open levels and less games like COD4 offering singular routes to the end, and how long these games should be, however long it takes to tell the story, games are nothing without a decent story baseline to keep you interested, just my view on things :)
 
I alone dictate how long it takes for me to complete a game. I knew Portal was short, so I limited myself to two puzzles a day. Some days I didn't even play due to abnormal teaching hours. I have been playing Crysis every day since Christmas Day and I still haven't got that far. I keep playing the same levels again and again, trying new things and messing around with the physics. It's great fun. When I have had enough, I play something else then go back to Crysis and finish the level properly. These are just a few examples of how rich games can be regardless of how long it takes to complete them. As people have said before, the time it takes to complete a game depends on the play-style of that person.

I am not saying my style is better or more enjoyable, everyone is different. But if you want a game to last longer, you should try to discipline yourself. However, I have completed games in mere days before. This is because they are so damn exciting and fun, it’s like a rollercoaster ride and you don’t want to interrupt the flow of the action and story. As a result, yes the game is short for me but it was my choice and I still thoroughly enjoyed it.

Short or long games, I really don’t care. If the experience is rich and enjoyable, it’s money well spent as far as I’m concerned. Some short novels have proved to be far superior when compared to, say, a certain 608 page marathon. Quality over quantity is much more important to me.
 
It depends what you like. I loved Far Cry because you did have to sneak through a lot of jungle to get anywhere as it made it feel like a real place. Soldiers obviously spend most of their time waiting around and something like COD4 can be fun but lacks a realism some people (like myself) enjoy. Same with Morrowind where I loved the fact that some places took ages to get to because in real life you don't just click on somewhere and arrive (and yes I know Morrowind had some of that too!).

About the length of games - I believe long games are better as long as quality is not sacrificed and the gameplay is varied enough. Portal for example could not be longer than it was because the gameplay, while innovative, was not varied.
 
Last edited:
Gashman said:
we need more games like crysis with vast open levels and less games like COD4 offering singular routes to the end
Click to expand...

I like a bit of both - open-ended games like FC or Deus Ex where I can approach objectives from different angles, but also highly polished linear games such as CoD4 where you get to a very well presented and slick experience with very few quiet moments.

Linear is only a problem for me when it's boring, you know, a bog standard corridor=>room=>corridor type shooter with very little NPC interaction (e.g. Pariah). The CoD games keep things interesting through teammates and the hi-octane action.
 
Crysis is a nod towards old school, pre-console gaming - hidden and dangerous, operation flashpoint, where you can sit in bushes for half a day and snipe enemy if that's your tactics of choice, as long as achieve your objective. It's a very small nod though since you are being artificially rushed through the game - you camp in one place for too long and they start messaging you - "Nomad! Get that radio station down" every minute. When they described environment of Crysis on E3 I actually though the whole day/night cycle will be exactly that - if you leave your character hidden for 12 hours you can wait for night combat. But what they meant was just that the sun rise on those first, most finished maps.

Going back to game lenghts - it's no surprise that after games like Heretic II, Deus Ex, Half Life etc we can't accept the games that can be finished in 6 hours as long enough to justify the price. I understand you can replay the same levels and check up close every texture if you wanted to, but in certain genres - especially action/combat or puzzles - that's simply not the point - looking from every angle and musing for hours over a game of tic tac toe doesn't make it an exciting game. The story simply has to have its length. I guess the day will come when war simulators, like CoD and MoH will grow to follow very simple, and very effective pattern guaranteeing proper game length - preset realism. The day will come when Call Of Duty 14 will offer just that - and when you sturm Omaha beach in the game you will know the map is 5 miles long, 300 yards of slope to 8 feet high bank of shingles behind which you have 300 yards to 200 belgian gates surrounded with mines and your objective is to use any of the 450 ramps leading to 15 stronghold nests to take them out. You will have 3 batallions of 1000 men, 6 landing sectors and the enemy will have 1200 well hidden, uber trained troopers with much better equipment than you. With no spawnpoints at all you will have all the time in the world to get your men inland...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom