Quantcast
View Post

Since when did everything get boiled down to how many dollars per hour of entertainment a product offers in a single viewing/playthrough/whatever? If gamers back in the 80s & early 90s did that, then nobody would have bought any games because they were shorter and more expensive back then. Most games aside from JRPGs could be beaten in 1-3 hours without speedrunning. And the price of a new game in the 16-bit era was around $80-120 in today's dollars:

$40, $50, or even $60 an hour would be absolutely outrageous by today's standards. Would you have paid $75 for Mega Man 10? Would you pay almost $120 for a bare-bones Street Fighter V when it comes out? Would you pay $120 for FFXV? We paid that much for Mega Man 3, Street Fighter II, and Final Fantasy IV when they came out.

Now, you might say "Games were more difficult back then! You couldn't always beat them that quickly, you can get game overs, and you couldn't save," and you might be right... to an extent.

There were a lot of ridiculously difficult games back in the day. There's a reason it's called "Nintendo Hard." But extreme difficulty is not "content" in and of itself. Rather, it masks the lack of content. Because games were so short back then, if you didn't reasonably impede the player's progress, at least on their first playthrough when everything is new to them, the experience would probably feel too short and empty. Difficulty does indeed extend the duration of a playthrough. To use a more recent example, I can generally beat the Halo games in 4-5 hours on Heroic, but on Legendary it takes 7-8 hours. So, were they 4-5 hour campaigns, or were they 7-8 hour campaigns? Was Mega Man 2 a six-hour game because it took you that long to finally beat it, or is it a one-hour game because that's how long you can beat it if you can beat it in a single continue? Also, it's worth pointing out that many games averted "Nintendo Hard" difficulty back then. The Super Mario Bros. games were not exceedingly difficulty, and starting with SMB3 were very generous with extra lives. Even some notoriously difficult games had built-in cheat codes, most famously the Konami Code found in Contra, which gave you 30 lives and turned a brutally difficult game into something much easier.

As a related example of game design implementing means to slow players down to make up for lack of content, many 8-bit JRPGs were guilty of forcing the player to spend considerable time level grinding in order to progress. The original Dragon Quest (then called Dragon Warrior in the U.S.) was my first JRPG, and the game world is extremely small by the standards set by later games. However, you had to spend time levelling up in order to get anywhere. If you tried wandering too far away from the starting town too early, you'll bump into monsters that will absolutely destroy you, so you had to wander around the same limited area earning more XP in battle. If you didn't have to level grind, the game could probably be beaten in less than two hours. By forcing you to level grind, the game feels like a good, long adventure, but in reality it's simply compensating for the lack of content. The next JRPG I played was Final Fantasy IV, and it didn't really require any level grinding, but the game world was much larger than Dragon Quest's.

Regarding the saving of one's progress, it's perhaps true that most games in the 8-bit & 16-bit eras didn't have the ability to save your progress, but that's because they didn't necessarily need it. JRPGs and games like Zelda games (the exceptions to the rule of short old-school games) had actual save points via battery back-up, but since they could not be reasonably beaten in a single session it was necessary to be able to save one's progress. Considering that most games back then were designed to where they could be beaten in a single afternoon, most developers probably didn't think it necessary to offer the means to save one's progress.

That being said, quite a few games that were of the standard length back then had password systems. The existence of password systems for shorter games did show that even back then the desire for gamer's to save their progress did exist (sometimes we don't even get 2-3 hours for a gaming session). So, while games were designed differently back then, with things like limited lives (and sometimes even limited continues) and thus the potential for game overs, many devs were already becoming aware that, even for shorter games, players don't want to trudge over the same ground repeatedly just because they hit a rough spot. Today, as games have gotten longer the means to save your progress is essentially mandatory, and passwords have given way to checkpoint systems and auto-save & quick-save systems in action games, though conventional JRPG-style save-point mechanics exist in many games as well besides JRPGs (I'm playing Alien: Isolation right now, and it has specific save points in the form of telephones scattered about the levels).

But I will say that, much like how many old-school games were made artificially longer due to extreme difficulty, many more recent games aren't long because of the actual content, but because of other factors. How many devs have padded their game with meaningless fetch quests, repetitive objectives, excessive/pointless grinding, absurd requirements for 100% completion, needlessly difficult encounters that kill you repeatedly, and/or other time-wasters? How many 10-15 hour games were really 6-8 hour games (or whatever other ratio pops in your head) with a ton of extraneous content designed to slow you down or distract you from the end-goal, and is said content always actually meaningful and adds to the game?

And what of replay value? That's a largely subjective factor overlooked in these discussions. Sometimes I really enjoyed a long game and had fun from beginning to end, but felt averse to replaying it because of the time investment; I could spend two weeks worth of afternoons beating it again, or I could spend that time replaying half a dozen other shorter games. I really love Final Fantasy IV, and it's still my favorite JRPG even after 23 years, yet because of the 40-hour length of the game I average maybe one playthrough a year. Meanwhile, I'll play through a good short game on a semi-regular basis. I can pick it up, breeze through it, be done with it before dinner, and move on to something else. I only have so much free time, and if a single game is going to consume a considerable amount of my time, it had better be worth it. On the other hand, I know someone who loves playing through Mass Effect over and over despite the game taking some 20 hours to beat. In any case, I'd rather play a 6-hour game that felt fulfilling enough to where I'd want to play it over and over than a 20-hour game that felt like it was mostly filler and felt like a "one and done" experience. I'd also rather have a 15-hour game that I wanted to replay over and over than a 2-hour game that felt too shallow to bother playing that often. But I would have no preference between a short game with good replay value and a long game with good replay value. It depends on the genre. With RPGs and open-world games, I do expect sufficient content to last at least 20-40 hours because they've always been that long. The scale and scope of the worlds and the stories is typically greater than most other games. However, I'm fine with an action game lasting less than 10 hours. As mentioned earlier, I can beat any of the Halo games in 5-6 hours tops on Heroic; granted, they have multiplayer, but even if they didn't have multiplayer (the original, which almost didn't even have MP, was restricted to LANs until the MCC, and LANs have been rare for me for many years) I would have still enjoyed them because Campaign is the main attraction to me, and Halo CE's campaign is the best FPS experience I've ever had. Likewise, I can beat New Super Mario Bros. U in 4-5 hours if I'm not bothering collecting Star Coins. So, if The Order is only a 6-8 hour game, that doesn't bother me any.

So, ask yourself what actually matters more at the end of the day: "How long did it take me to beat the game," or "How much did I enjoy the total experience?" Do you feel like it's a fulfilling experience that you want to frequently revisit, or did it feel like a shallow, repetitive tedium? I imagine there's plenty of people who not only enjoyed The Order, but also want to replay it fairly frequently. How much enjoyment you get out of your $60 (or less if you're patient and wait for the price to drop) is largely subjective, and attempts to reduce a game's value to a simple "Price divided by hours to beat" formula are largely meaningless. Hell, I'd love for Konami to make a AAA-quality Gradius VI and I'd be willing to pay full price for it despite how short Gradius games are.