Game Length And Why It Shouldn't Matter

Eric

Eric

Well-Known Member
Staff Writer
Sep 11, 2013
1,410
481
2,930
Last week, Polygon published an article that claimed that Ready at Dawn’s The Order: 1886 could be completed in roughly five hours. Being that the game was leaned upon to be a shot of Vitamin-C for the PlayStation 4’s weak library, the public reception was quite merciless. By slapping that big number '5' on the title of the article Polygon instantly crippled the game's chances at a initial successful start.

Naturally, Ready at Dawn responded to the slander by providing as much damage control as possible. The small studio spent roughly five years on this game and it was being annihilated before the public could get their hands on the game. Ready at Dawn described the onslaught of criticism as ‘bullying.’

With these articles, I began to think. Does a game’s length really matter? Look, I understand. If you spend full price for a video game, you feel entitled to a money well-spent experience. But why do we fixate on this arbitrary number to justify what is worth a full price admission? Why do we feel the need to emphasize the amount of time we spent with a game rather than the experience we encountered?

Towards the end of 2014, I acquired Far Cry 4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, and Grand Theft Auto V either as gifts or with my own money. Each game advertises an open world with tons of things to do and places to explore. I couldn’t tell you how many times I began a monotonous side quest that was just like another side quest I finished five minutes earlier only to convince myself that I was having fun, that I was getting my money’s worth.

The length of a game should not matter. A game’s design is to tell it’s own story. If a game can execute on that premise in successful fashion, the length of that story should not matter.

Ready at Dawn’s intention during the development of The Order: 1886 was to further blur the line between cinema and video games. The gaming community should recognize that diversity is very critical in the cycle of development. It’s precisely why a company like Nintendo still thrives.

Admittedly, I haven’t played The Order: 1886 so I want it to be clear that my defense is not geared towards the game itself, it’s to the elimination of length being an important factor in critiquing a game. When you ask someone about a game, a movie, or a song, your first question pertains to the person’s enjoyment of the particular form of media, not the length. The experience of something should be what ultimately is judged. The Order: 1886 could have the most banal story and unsatisfying gameplay and that would be fair to critique but the time it takes for the story to be told should not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Z A C K, Registered User 1, TDbank24 and 4 others
Length should matter unless it has replayability and content.The Order 1886 would not have been hammered for its length if its gameplay previews didn't bore us. Because $60 for an interactive movie is ridiculous. Unless it is Asura's Wrath. Because I'm sure a 100%-QTE final boss fight is not how you do it.
 
Eric said:
Last week, Polygon published an article that claimed that Ready at Dawn’s The Order: 1886 could be completed in roughly five hours. Being that the game was leaned upon to be a shot of Vitamin-C for the PlayStation 4’s weak library, the public reception was quite merciless. By slapping that big number '5' on the title of the article Polygon instantly crippled the game's chances at a initial successful start.

Naturally, Ready at Dawn responded to the slander by providing as much damage control as possible. The small studio spent roughly five years on this game and it was being annihilated before the public could get their hands on the game. Ready at Dawn described the onslaught of criticism as ‘bullying.’

With these articles, I began to think. Does a game’s length really matter? Look, I understand. If you spend full price for a video game, you feel entitled to a money well-spent experience. But why do we fixate on this arbitrary number to justify what is worth a full price admission? Why do we feel the need to emphasize the amount of time we spent with a game rather than the experience we encountered?

Towards the end of 2014, I acquired Far Cry 4, Dragon Age: Inquisition, and Grand Theft Auto V either as gifts or with my own money. Each game advertises an open world with tons of things to do and places to explore. I couldn’t tell you how many times I began a monotonous side quest that was just like another side quest I finished five minutes earlier only to convince myself that I was having fun, that I was getting my money’s worth.

The length of a game should not matter. A game’s design is to tell it’s own story. If a game can execute on that premise in successful fashion, the length of that story should not matter.

Ready at Dawn’s intention during the development of The Order: 1886 was to further blur the line between cinema and video games. The gaming community should recognize that diversity is very critical in the cycle of development. It’s precisely why a company like Nintendo still thrives.

Admittedly, I haven’t played The Order: 1886 so I want it to be clear that my defense is not geared towards the game itself, it’s to the elimination of length being an important factor in critiquing a game. When you ask someone about a game, a movie, or a song, your first question pertains to the person’s enjoyment of the particular form of media, not the length. The experience of something should be what ultimately is judged. The Order: 1886 could have the most banal story and unsatisfying gameplay and that would be fair to critique but the time it takes for the story to be told should not.
Click to expand...

Awesome write up Eric.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plainview
I have no problem with short games, I'm just not paying full price for something that is less than 10 hours.

The game pricing system is just like that. Most games cost $60. That includes Dragon Age where you could spend hundreds of hours, and short less than 10 hour SP games. In a way, that seems off, but then again variable pricing for games would probably be a total disaster.
 
The problem is that people equate game length to quality.

There is an inherent reason for this in that most of the 'best' games of previous generations were long 60+hour affairs that became synonymous with quality.
I'm talking about the Zeldas and the Final Fantasies, and the Elder Scrolls, etc.

Due to this reason it has been ingrained in the mindset of most that in order to have a good game worth playing it has to meet certain criteria.
However I will say this.
I haven't personally played the Order:1886, but a studio should make certain strides to deliver a quality title that will please everyone. I'm not talking about tacking on a multiplayer aspect to a single-player focused game, but make that single player really fire on all cylinders.

Look at the best single player only games of past generations and you will see where some of the criticism involving The Order stems from.
 
Last edited:
Of course length, matters, duh. If you were ask to pay the same price for a 90 page novelette as you would a 600 page novel, length would matter. If you were ask the same price for a 20 minute short as you would a full length feature film, length would matter. If you're ask to pay the same price for a five hour downloadable game as you are a full length one , length is certainly an issue, especially with a gome praised for it's beauty and panned for it's boring repetitive gameplay.
 
Kassen said:
Length should matter unless it has replayability and content.The Order 1886 would not have been hammered for its length if its gameplay previews didn't bore us. Because $60 for an interactive movie is ridiculous. Unless it is Asura's Wrath. Because I'm sure a 100%-QTE final boss fight is not how you do it.
Click to expand...

The Order got hammered because it isn't very good. Its not like there haven't been good games that are story and QTE focused. There shouldn't be anything wrong with a game of that type or length it just better be damn good.
 
You have a point, but don't forget that length isn't the only thing people are judging the Order on. I would expect a certain amount of content for 60 bucks, though.

From what I understand, there are zero extras. No art gallery, no way to just look at the models, or anything that would still make sense and add value. Even time trials, or a sort of Horde mode. It is literally presented as a movie, but even movies now-a-days have extra content like deleted scenes and such, and they cost as much if not more to make. Hell, I won't spend more than 20 bucks for a movie unless it's something that I enjoy far more than others.

There is also the fact that one of the main directors described it as a third person action game. People are going inevitably compare it to similar titles to gauge what is acceptable for what is offered from a value perspective.
 
Length matters and always has. I remember when Nintendo put out DK's Jungle Beat or whatever it was called. 3 hours to beat and it got slammed and rightfully so. I don't think developers should be encouraged to makes these types of games.

I can't say what is or what isn't too short for anyone. But the general consensus is that 5 hour games are not OK.
 
The Living Tribunal said:
The problem is that people equate game length to quality.
Click to expand...

True, but there are extremes. When I can buy a game on a Tuesday and finish it and sell it back later that week - that matters. No, not every game needs to be super long (most long games have tons of mindless things purposely put there to slow you down anyway)
 
I'd be more inclined to buy a short game with not much replay value at a cheaper price. So it certainly matters; and it should especially be pointed out before games release so that people are making informed buying decisions.

Eric said:
The experience of something should be what ultimately is judged. The Order: 1886 could have the most banal story and unsatisfying gameplay and that would be fair to critique but the time it takes for the story to be told should not.
Click to expand...

You'd be a bad friend if I came to you for advice on a game and you didn't tell me I should have just done a one-day rental; or that I could just borrow your copy of the game while you're at work, beat it and then return it before you even get home.

List of People to not get game advice from:

1. Puppeteer
2. Eric
 
You must also consider that their really is at least two dialogues taking place when referring to game length, and each of them contribute to its value.

There is the game's length to finish/completion, which we all know can vary from one title to the next. In regards to this aspect, why shouldn't people be able to use it as a metric of quality? They are spending their hard-earned money on their choice of entertainment, so length to completion should be free game to use as one of the measures of quality for them.

There is also the game's length of time it will keep a person playing, how long it compels them to play it. For some this might be shorter then the length of the game itself, and for others this may be hours and hours after completion. In the most basic terms, people would refer to this as replayability. This is also an important determination of value for gamers spending their hard-earned money.

To be clear, multiplayer doesn't always equate to replayability either. A game could only have single-player and be finished in a couple of hours, but still have great replayability for someone.
 
When I was younger and had a disposable income on games it didn't matter as much. Now, it most definitely matters. I usually only buy games where each $1 is 1 hour of gaming. Unless the game is really long or has lots of side missions alongside a shorter campaign I won't buy it at full price. I can't play MP online, so yes the length of the game is far more important than the entire experience of the game.
 
Depends on the game. I really don't give a f*** about all those statistics because if I genuinely want a game, I'm gonna buy it no matter what. I've replayed short games on multiple occasions or games with an arcade style because it was so fun or the overall experience was worth revisiting. I'll check out how long I've played a game on raptr or something, sure, but in no way will it effect whether I actually enjoy the game or not.
 
I think game length translates into the value of a game itself, a short book can be great, but a long book that's good is even better. Its simply more of a value. Sure, long drawn out experiences suck, but they don't HAVE to be that way, there's no rule, it can be both long and good, which is why I put no faith in defending short games, especially when they don't have multiplayer or even coop, its absurd from a value perspective.


If that's the case where do we draw the line? People will defend 5, 4, 3, 2 hour experiences? It just gets whittled down from here. A 1 hour game for $60 is ok as long as its good? See how ridiculous it gets, everyone has a line and when you draw one, it makes the entire point mute.
 
Zcythe said:
You must also consider that their really is at least two dialogues taking place when referring to game length, and each of them contribute to its value.

There is the game's length to finish/completion, which we all know can vary from one title to the next. In regards to this aspect, why shouldn't people be able to use it as a metric of quality? They are spending their hard-earned money on their choice of entertainment, so length to completion should be free game to use as one of the measures of quality for them.

There is also the game's length of time it will keep a person playing, how long it compels them to play it. For some this might be shorter then the length of the game itself, and for others this may be hours and hours after completion. In the most basic terms, people would refer to this as replayability. This is also an important determination of value for gamers spending their hard-earned money.

To be clear, multiplayer doesn't always equate to replayability either. A game could only have single-player and be finished in a couple of hours, but still have great replayability for someone.
Click to expand...

This. If it is a short game, it MUST have a high replayability. For me, Ryse was pretty short, but it is EASY to replay, and it is still fun. It also has an MP component.

I think with the Order, the amount of time watching cutscenes could kill subsequent play-throughs. I think a lot of that could be alleviated if they can patch in the ability to skip cutscenes. The action sequences at least look like they can be some fun.
 
In an age where we get 5-6 hours long games and get raped by Day 1 DLC and Season passes....I mean. Yes length matters.
 
I just want to play good games and my time is the most valuable thing. When speaking of narrative driven games, I find now that anything that passes the 10 hour mark, really starts to drag me out of the experience and lessens my enjoyment of the game. Just as a movie can't hold a cohesive narrative past a certain point, games are no different. Worse yet, is all the awful filler content that is typically used to beef up game length. Had TLOU been half as long and eliminated many of the tedious and repetitive combat sequences, I feel that I would have probably really loved that game. Shame. Short and impactful games are few and far between and I welcome more.
 
Game length should only truly matter to you if you're on a budget and want the most bang for your buck. That's still subjective though. Some people like shorter games with better story or gameplay. Others like longer games like RPGs where you grind away the hours. An example i can give is i've been playing Skyrim again on the 360 and just started The Order on the PS4. I love Skyrim but it's the same crap over and over. Talk to an NPC, then crawl through a dungeon, rinse and repeat. The Order is just awesome gameplay with a decent story.

Skyrim's gameplay is stale from the start and the game has no real story or memorable characters. Which game am i really enjoying more here? The answer is both of them, because they're both great at what they do. That's why we have different genres. If every game was the same it would really get old fast. Length really doesn't determine anything other than how many hours of your life you'll be wasting on a game. You want endless gameplay? Just sign up for an MMO.
 
I think it's reasonable for reviewers to take game length into account, when judging a game. They are, in a sense, advising people about whether it's a good idea to spend $60 on the game. That's a lot of money for some people. It needs to be worth $60. One way "worth" is measured is by how long something entertains you. People see 20 hours of entertainment as worth more than 2 hours of entertainment. That makes sense to me.

If you take it to the absurd extreme, imagine being charged $100 for a game that lasted 2 minutes. Would you have a problem with that? I would. For $100, I want more than 2 minutes of entertainment.

p.s. But I have to add, some of the best games I've ever played have only been a few hours long. So in that sense, more is not necessarily better. Otoh, those games have also been $15.
 
Last edited:
Anderson said:
I think it's reasonable for reviewers to take game length into account, when judging a game. They are, in a sense, advising people about whether it's a good idea to spend $60 on the game. That's a lot of money for some people. It needs to be worth $60. One way "worth" is measured is by how long something entertains you. People see 20 hours of entertainment as worth more than 2 hours of entertainment. That makes sense to me.

If you take it to the absurd extreme, imagine being charged $100 for a game that lasted 2 minutes. Would you have a problem with that? I would. For $100, I want more than 2 minutes of entertainment.

p.s. But I have to add, some of the best games I've ever played have only been a few hours long. So in that sense, more is not necessarily better. Otoh, those games have also been $15.
Click to expand...

Then there's gamers that just buy online shooters though and they wait until they hit the bargain bin and get unlimited hours out of them for pocket change. So value in a game is all up to the gamer. I would probably pay $100 for each Call of Duty and NBA 2k release if i had to. I just play those games that much more than anything else.

You don't see this discussion with people who read books or listen to CDs do you? So one book has 3 less pages then another book but they're the same price. Or one CD has 2 less tracks than the other CD at the same price. Which one do you buy? The one that interests you obviously. Do your research and trust your purchase. That goes for anything. Only you can decide what's worth your time and hard earned money. If you like the developer, and the concept of the game, support that sh!t.
 
Nice write up, though i do think there is a fine line between quality and quantity, I would happily pay 90 bucks for a game i know will have lasting value, and i would wait for a price drop or get a second hand copy of a shorter game that might not hold much replay value.
 
Wow, not feeling this argument whatsoever. I am noy paying $60 for a game with zero replay/online I can complete with a Redbox rental. No, not ever, nor will be convinced otherwise. To each their own though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dtwice
Thanks for the feedback.

A comparison to the price of movies can be made as well; $20-30 for a physical copy of a 2 hour movie. That's about $10-15 per hour with the only option to rewatch and view bonus scenes that have no direct impact on the finished product. Just my thoughts. I don't think it's super outrageous for these $60 games to be 5-10 hours long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back