By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why a 6-10 hour game is sufficient

theRepublic said:

I'm ok with developers making 6 -10 hour games...

...as long as developers are ok with me waiting until the game is in the $10 - 20 dollar range before I buy it.


This sounds appropriate.



Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:

The author makes excellent points. Seems people have to remember that past games weren't much longer than many games of today, there were just different circutmstances to playing and beating a game. 

A 10 hour game isn't worth 60 dollars in todays economical climate. With THQ shooting off at the mouth about $100 games (when they don't make quality games to begin with) they need to calm themselves down or lose whats left of their clientel. If anything goes over $50 it better take me nearly two weeks to beat. Some of my favorite games during the PSX, N64 era went way beyond 10 hours. The reason for the games on the Genesis and SNES being shorter was because it was more about gameplay and less about cinematics and graphics. Those games would be longer if an HD remake version was created with Cinematics. The price is always kept in mind of the market if you want profit.

Take Enslaved for instance. That was an epic game that could've been a classic if the developers worked on it longer and stretched out the duration. Games are becoming experiences on par with movies. If anything they will go beyond movies on an interactive level so people understand what truly went on and can truly relate with characters and their trials.



Khuutra said:

I hate artificially inflated game lengths.

You know what's great? Muramasa: the Demon Blade.

You know what's not great? Having to level up to level 90 to get the "true" ending.

You know when you beat the game? At about level 45.


Finally we agree on something lol



CGI-Quality said:

Don't get me wrong guys, I'm not saying ALL games should just be 6-10 hrs. Where I agree is if you have 6-10 hours of solid game play, rich content, rich story, and beautiful areas to explore, the length becomes much less of an issue.

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm usually left wanting a longer game in those circumstances.

For example, I think something like Uncharted 2 could have comfortably been at least 50% longer without diminishing the experience.



VGChartz

I've started to notice that I barely bother trying to finish long games these days, as they usually end up being a chore unless they have a decent story and an upgrade system. Dead Space, Bioshock, F.E.A.R., God of War 3, Bayonetta, Enslaved, Heavy Rain, Halo Reach and Alan Wake are the perfect games for me, as I'm guranteed to finish them all within the 8 to 12 hour mark and feel completely satisfied with the experience. I was playing Lords of Shadow recently and that game dragged so badly, I enjoyed it for like the first 6 hours and then it just became a chore to play due to it's linear progression and silly plot. 

RPG's are the exception though. I put well above 20 hours into Dragon Age, Oblivion, Fable 2, Fallout 3, Dead Rising 2, Yakuza 3 and Infamous (not an RPG), because I could control the outcome of those games and they all had some excellent progression and story lines (maybe not Dead Rising and Fable).

I haven't got time to waste on something that may be cool for 5 hours, but then loses it's spark one third into the game.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Around the Network

I have spent HOURS playing different boardgames like Puerto Rico and Dominions over and over, and I have a good time and get FAR more of my money's worth out of it.  To see an argument that 6-10 hours is sufficient, and comparing it to movies, is pushing it, as far as I am concerned.  As I see it, full price for a movie is a RIP off. 

As I see it a GAME, not interactive fiction that gets spun to be "games" should have good amount of replayability to them.  They should have accessibility AND also provide a learning curve to master.  6-10 hours can be sufficient, AT a lower price point.  But at $60?  Why should I expect 6-10 hours TOPS out of a $60 purchase.  I would do this for what, a story?  Anyone here want to argue that the videogame industry is noted for providing top notch storytelling on par the movie industry or books?

Shoot, bang for a buck, I would say people can argue a book is FAR superior at storytelling than just about any other medium, as far as competency goes.  After all, that is about the only thing a book has going for it.



Totally agree... length is one of the main reason why I arrely invest in RPGs...



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

It depends a lot on the learning curve for me.

That's why I need my RPG's to be longer. You invest a lot of time into getting to learn strategies and tactics so it's only normal that the lenght of the game is proportional.



Nice article. I completely agree. I've justified 6-10 hour game expenses based on the entertainment value of a movie ticket before. And I'm much more likely to replay a short game like God of War twice than a long game like Final Fantasy.



Hmm. RedBox lets my watch a 2-hour movie for $1. So, by the author's logic, a 10-hour game should cost $5, and a game should provide 120 hours of entertainment to justify a $60 price tag. ;)