Topic: Size Doesn't Matter Day

[idolminds]

A bunch of indies have gotten together and posted their thoughts on the "game length issue".

Jonathan Blow of Number None: http://the-witness.net/news
Ron Carmel of 2DBoy: http://2dboy.com/2010/08/17/too-short/
Chris DeLeonL: http://www.hobbygamedev.com/spx/short-videogame-design/
Dave Gilbert of Wadjet Eye Games: http://nygamedev.blogspot.com/2010/08/coming-up-short.html
Eitan Glinert of Fire Hose Games: http://www.firehosegames.com/2010/08/how-much-is-enough/
Mike Gilgenbach of 24 Caret Games: http://24caretgames.com/2010/08/16/does-game-length-matter/
Cliff Harris of Positech Games: www.cliffski.com
Chris Hecker of Spy Party: http://spyparty.com/2010/08/16/size-doesnt-matter-day/
Scott Macmillan of Macguffin Games: http://macguffingames.com/2010/if-size-doesnt-matter-where-do-you-get-the-virtual-goods
Noel Llopis: http://gamesfromwithin.com/size-matters
Peter Jones of Retro Affect: http://retroaffect.com/blog/160/Size_Doesn_t_Matter_Day/
Lau Korsgaard: http://www.copenhagengamecollective.org/2010/08/17/size-does-matter/
Martin Pichlmair of Broken Rules: http://brokenrul.es/blog
Greg Wohlwend of Intution Games: http://mile222.com/2010/08/a-haiku-about-game-length/
Jeffrey Rosen of Wolfire: http://blog.wolfire.com

One quote from Jonathan Blow:

Why can’t video games give me a powerful, high-density experience, so that after 3 hours I am satisfied, I feel like I have had enough? Wouldn’t that be cool?

A movie can give you a satisfying experience in 2 hours.

A painting or a sculpture can give you a satisfying experience in 10 minutes.

A song can give you a satisfying experience in 3 minutes.

What is it about certain kinds of linear-experience games that makes players feel they need to play them for hours upon hours in order to accrue a satisfying experience?

Something interesting that I don't think anyone touched on: all those other experiences require nothing more than the viewer to show up and look at it (or listen to it). Games require you to know how to play it, to learn its rules, to get good enough at the mechanics to actually beat it. There is an investment there and if you take the time to learn all that only to have the game end once you get the hang of it...well, it feels like a waste of your effort.

I think the Hobby Game Dev and Fire Hose Games are the better articles.

EDIT

A response on the Qt3 forum:

I think he misses a key point. Few people pay to listen to a song for 3 minutes and are done with it. I doubt many people pay 99 cents on Itunes for a song and expect to derive a grand total of 3 minutes of satisfying experience from it.

When people buy something, they expect to be able to repeatably gain that satisfaction (or approximation) from it, whether it be movies, games, or books.

The real problem is that so few games offer experiences that are not only worth repeating, but repeating enough to make them worth the 60 dollar investment new.

So if a game can't offer an experience worth repeating for your purchase, it offers a longer experience that's worth playing one time or they tack on multiplayer. That's the solution games have come up with regarding this problem.

I think Mirrors Edge is a good example. A single play through of the story is pretty short. But once you're done you have the time trials which I played a ton of, even though it was nothing more than the singleplayer levels with a clock to beat. But that was enough (along with fun gameplay mechanics) to make it worthwhile.

[Cobra951]

That kind of self-serving drivel is always transparent to me.  Of course they want to live in a world where people will pay $60 to play 4 hours and then do it again (starting with another $60).  I can't blame them for trying.  If they succeed, I blame idiot gamers.

Edit:  There will always be a push here and there toward something way off base for the benefit of a few.  Remember when FMV games were going to replace all other forms of gaming?  I remember the buzz around them, and feeling then how I do now about this length-doesn't-matter bullshit.  Happily, id Software came along and set the world straight in a hurry.

[idolminds]

Here is that Qt3 thread for some interesting discussion.

One quote from the 2D Boy article just knocked me back.

On the other end of that spectrum, Portal would have been a worthwhile experience for me even at $100.

Are you fucking kidding me? The only reason Portal "worked" was because it was only $20 by itself, was a "freebie" in the Orange Box that everyone and their dog bought, and the Valve Distortion Field. I don't mean to say the game isn't good, I thought it was great, but if it was $100 it would have been slammed into the dirt like an extinction comet.

[MysterD]

Screw that - size and price DO matter. The price-tag should keep in consideration the amount of content the game has to offer. I'm not gonna go buy a $50 game to expect a mere 5 hours out of it. Get out of here! Though, give me a game as LONG and as epic as say The Witcher and Dragon Age - count me in.

This size and price DO matter thing should ESPECIALLY go for DLC as well, as DLC pricing for the most part has...sucked. I'm tired of these $7.00 DLC's that might offer up 40 mins to an hour worth of content - Bioware, I'm looking at you here w/ Dragon Age and ME2 DLC here. And Modern Warfare 2 w/ its over-priced MP map packs - for $15 a piece, I get 3 new maps and 2 remade maps? Get out of here!

[Cobra951]

Here is that Qt3 thread for some interesting discussion.

One quote from the 2D Boy article just knocked me back. Are you fucking kidding me? The only reason Portal "worked" was because it was only $20 by itself, was a "freebie" in the Orange Box that everyone and their dog bought, and the Valve Distortion Field. I don't mean to say the game isn't good, I thought it was great, but if it was $100 it would have been slammed into the dirt like an extinction comet.

Some comments give me reason to hope for reason.  Here's my fave so far.

There is no hypothetical one hour game that I would pay $60 for. What I expect and get from the games I love the most could never be accomplished in one hour. Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2, for example, both take place over quite a few hours and are two of my favorite games of all time. Both allow for a rich story to develop and, most importantly, allow me to grow my character over time. That's what I like about a longer game. If a game is really only going to last an hour, it might be a good experience for that amount of time, but I'll never pay $60 for it.

Yes, 2D Boy is living in a dev dream world.  Let him.


Edit:

. . . The primary purpose of games is to entertain. Part of it is the quality of the entertainment. Part of that equation is the duration of the entertainment. Put the two together and you have value...and that's how buying decisions are made.

As such, you're not going to get me to buy Braid at $60 for 5 hours of entertainment. It just doesn't offer enough of a value proposition for me to pull the trigger. You want full price? I want a full experience - quality and quantity.

Blammo!  Bullseye.