Since when is 10 hours too short?

[Gamereviewgod]

Ok, I just finished Beyond Good & Evil. Took me just a little over 10 and half hours. After reading countless other reviews, nearly everyone slammed it for being too short. It's not an epic RPG and I think 10 hours is pretty damned long. Hell, growing up in a time when a game could be beaten in an hour or even less, 10 hours is epic. Since when were game developers supposed to extend the life of their games to ridiculous amount of time? I was enthralled by the entire experience and increasing the development time only would've made things repetitive.

Thoughts?

[Captain Wrong]

I want to ask all these people who complain about 10 hours being too short what the hell they do for a living? Do they ever leave the house? Do they work? Have friends? Eat? Sleep?

Besides, it seems to me like too many people make games longer because they can rather than because it makes for a good game. Wouldn't you rather axe the hours of tedious treasure hunting bullshit and play a shorter game that's all quality?

Maybe I'm a dinosaur. I just don't think that because you can make a 80+ hour game means you should.

[Overbite]

i dont mind 10 hour games. i barely have enough time to sit down and actually play a game, so short games still take weeks to beat.

except for Max Payne 2. i beat it in a weekend. Great game though!


(but im 250+ hours into FFXI and the end is still a way off)

[Ed Oscuro]

If it's as long as Zelda: Ocarina of Time, then I'd say it's long enough. Replay value is big for me, and time to complete the game once through (if it's an RPG) better be pretty long. 10 hours isn't much at all.

I don't spend a lot of money on new games, so when I buy one it damn well better last me longer than 10 hours. It's harder to say how long a game should last since I tend to think "that lasted me a few months" instead of "that lasted me X amount of hours." The hours counter is a nice gimmick/tool, but it can be a bit misleading.

So consider that when you feel like being a reactionary against those "evil game reviewers" looking out for me and giving me good advice how to spend my entertainment money. If it's got replay value but one playthrough is short, they'll say that. If it's got little replay value but one playthrough is long, they'll say that too. If it doesn't have much of either I sure as heck wanna know about it, and that's a game I'll be less likely to buy.

[Darth Sensei]

I have to disagree. If I'm paying $50 for a game, I want a lot more than 10 hours (potientally) of entertainment out of it.

D

[Gamereviewgod]

I have to disagree. If I'm paying $50 for a game, I want a lot more than 10 hours (potientally) of entertainment out of it.

But didn't we play games for years that were far less than 10 hours? Never seemed to bother us then.

[Ed Oscuro]

But didn't we play games for years that were far less than 10 hours? Never seemed to bother us then.

No, games back then were worth more than 10 hours worth of entertainment because they actually

a.) had replay value (total time was often over 10 hours)
b.) were hard to get through the first time (Battletoads...some folks have played that one since it came out and still haven't beaten it the first time!)

Think you're missing the whole concept of what that "10 hours" means.

[Cmosfm]

I want to ask all these people who complain about 10 hours being too short what the hell they do for a living? Do they ever leave the house? Do they work? Have friends? Eat? Sleep?

I agree here. Due to my work schedule I barely have ANY time to play any games except for the MAMEing I do at work. So when I hear a game is 10 hours I think "10 HOURS! How the hell will I ever finish it!" I prefer 4-5 hour games, and even they seem too long for me.

[Cmosfm]

I have to disagree. If I'm paying $50 for a game, I want a lot more than 10 hours (potientally) of entertainment out of it.

D

I do agree with you, but with the current rate games price drop nowadays...actually paying 50.00 for a game is about the stupidest thing you can do. Theres no difference in the game if you buy it on release day or catch it at the pawnshop 3-6 months later for 10.00-20.00. I feel paying full price for a game is pointless.

[ddockery]

I agree paying $50 for a game is pointless, since you can usually buy the same game brand new for $20-30 just a couple of months later, but it's all about instant gratification for a lot of people. I know people with 10 games they've never opened, and they still buy new crap for $50.

[Ed Oscuro]

Theres no difference in the game if you buy it on release day or catch it at the pawnshop 3-6 months later for 10.00-20.00. I feel paying full price for a game is pointless.

Then why's there a problem with folks slamming a game that will cost $20 (later down the road) than one which provides more play time but costs no more?

[WiseSalesman]

BG+E was a little too short for me. Not because of the hour counter, but because, by the time I'd finished it (took me about two weeks, going an hour per day or so) I felt like there should have been much more to it. The world and story seemed to big and far reaching to complete in so few missions.

On the other hand, BG+E is definitely my favorite game I've played so far this year. A shame we'll never see a sequel.

[SoulBlazer]

10 HOURS? I've been known on days off when nothing else is going on to play STRAIGHT for 10 hours. :eek 2:

[Cmosfm]

Theres no difference in the game if you buy it on release day or catch it at the pawnshop 3-6 months later for 10.00-20.00. I feel paying full price for a game is pointless.

Then why's there a problem with folks slamming a game that will cost $20 (later down the road) than one which provides more play time but costs no more?

I'm REALLY trying to figure out what you said. You lost me! x_x I THINK you mean why are people slamming BG&E which costs 20.00 now and not games that are 50.00 now. Ummm, im still lost. Please elaborate more here. I think I popped a blood vessel.

[briskbc]

10 hours is a little to short for me. I like to spend 20 hours or so in an RPG (and a game in general). I lose interest in the 40 hour RPGs and I rarely finish them.

[YoshiM]

I have to disagree. If I'm paying $50 for a game, I want a lot more than 10 hours (potientally) of entertainment out of it.

D

I do agree with you, but with the current rate games price drop nowadays...actually paying 50.00 for a game is about the stupidest thing you can do. Theres no difference in the game if you buy it on release day or catch it at the pawnshop 3-6 months later for 10.00-20.00. I feel paying full price for a game is pointless.



Okay so you find full price pointless and buy the game used, the publisher is not going to see one red (or blue or purple) cent of that purchase. If there isn't enough purchases at retail price that sends a signal that the game isn't that "good" to be worth $49.99 (or whatever price it was released at). Even if the game is the best thing since sliced bread (or pretty damn close like Prince of Persia) it's unlikely we'll see more games from that publisher of that calibur as they may either stick with whatever is popular in the mainstream (which can be pretty stagnant) or reduce the price but also reduce the content of the game to make it cost effective. If they chose to go with the latter we'll return to this same topic but more like "5 hours for $30 just isn't worth it" (to be honest I felt that way about Metroid Fusion).

So THEN what does a gamer do?



I don't mind 10 hours games as long as it's one helluva ride. Even if I stretch play time to maybe an hour every other day or even one hour a week that game is still going to be short. It's all how it's presented, not unlike a good movie. Case in point: Metal Gear Solid. I was soooo skeptical about this game when I heard it was short. Even though I loathed (and still do) the Playstation I borrowed a PS1 from my bro-in-law and played this game. I am so glad I did. Some of the best 10 hours of gaming ever. This was well worth the price of admission. However most games that I have played that were short don't have the same level of satisfaction.

As for the longer "more bang for the buck" many of us subscribe to, this kinda goes back to the mentality of the mid to late 80's and 90's. Next to graphics and gameplay the longevity played a big role in what was good. When a big mag EGM included average play time as a stat in a review, you knew it was important. When Super Mario World touted 90+ levels that meant Nintendo knew that longevity was important. On the opposite side a game could be geographically short but the difficulty is ramped up. Battletoads was an awesome example of this practice, followed by Adventures of Bayou Billy and Kid Icarus. Economically games were also more expensive back then so developers had to pack in more to help justify the price.

For me the best length is maybe 20 hours with a healthy dose of honest difficulty (and no difficulty due to poor design or bad cameras or the like) for games that have "endings".

[PapaStu]

I think the 10 hour problem comes into play when the game itself is going to run you 50 bucks. For that kind of price, it would seem that the developer/publisher is saying "Hey spend your money with us, because this game has a lot going for it, and will keep you busy and entertained until the cows come home"

Of course the prices eventually drop. Hell you can pick them up soon after they come out used for a decently lower price (most of the time), but you want to be able to get enough of play out of the game to justify whatever your cost was for it.

This isnt about having nothing better to do than play games with your lives, but when you make a story driven game, and charge a decently high price, there better be something in there that will either keep you comming back, or in the game for more than a weekends worth of play. If i spent 50 on BG&E i woulda been very upset, NOT with the game itself, that was beautiful, but with its shortness... Same goes with Max Payne, Am i going to replay the game in New York Minute now that its been beaten in 8 hours?? NOPE.
Once a lot of these things have been beaten, what is there that brings you back to play them again? Not alot most of the time. I think that is a big enough problem unto itself.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm REALLY trying to figure out what you said. You lost me! x_x I THINK you mean why are people slamming BG&E which costs 20.00 now and not games that are 50.00 now. Ummm, im still lost. Please elaborate more here. I think I popped a blood vessel.

Even though BG&E costs $20 now, it'll still be short compared to other games that came out at the same time, were longer, and are also $20 now. The reviews should all still apply equally, and it's still nice to know how much play time you'll get out of each title even if you're paying a fraction of the original cost -- 'cuz money is always scarce.

In other words, a game that doesn't give enough play time (or that reuses stuff too much to cut the dev cycle and is repetitive -- Halo is the most well known transgressor here) are going to be inferior to longer games, if all other aspects are equal. I think that's what the case is with BG&E, and if it was short then it'll still be short, and I say my money is better spent on games that'll keep me playing for longer.

[davidleeroth]

Personally I wouldn't mind if games would take 5 hours to complete.
It's better to actually play a game trough (maybe multiple times) than to lose your interest in it after 10 hours and shove it in the shelf. Then I would feel pissed off.

Sega Rally (ok, not the best example) takes 5 minutes to complete but I handed over 70 euros for it when it was released knowing it would all be over in minutes.
I got tens of hours of quality entertainment out of it (in 5 minute doses) and I think its one of the best bang for buck games in my collection.

The only thing "wrong" I feel about buying new games (which I haven't done in a long long time) is that no matter how great/pile of crap the game is, the price you pay is the same.

[hydr0x]

i have to disagree with older games being shorter, they had faaaaar more replay value, BG&E can only be played a max of three times which makes it about 25 hours (shorter time than first try), i guess everyone played his atari and nes games more than that ;)

and one other thing:

games: $50 / 10h == $5/h
cinema: $5-$8 /2h == $2.50-$4 /h , makes games up to twice as expensive if they are too short ;)

[DotCom]

Hell my neighbors sell thier NEW UNOPENED JUSt CAME OUT TWO DAYS AGO games for 10 dollars, so I'm happy.

[farfel]

If it's as long as Zelda: Ocarina of Time, then I'd say it's long enough. .. 10 hours isn't much at all..


Funny you say Ocarina. That was good but Wind Waker was s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d with that mindnumbing triforce piece fetching. Better a solid 10 hour game like Beyond Good&Evil, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Zero than a padded 30 hour game like Wind Waker.

Same wit movies. Give me a solid 1 hour or 1.5 hour flick over 3 hours of padded Titanic.

[anagrama]

Hell my neighbors sell thier NEW UNOPENED JUSt CAME OUT TWO DAYS AGO games for 10 dollars, so I'm happy.

Was the security tag ripped off by any chance? ;)

[spooie]

Personally, I want shorter games that are to the point and I can pick up at go at a moment's notice and play through twice in a single sitting. People today seem to have this fascination to me that long games mean good games. Someone offered to trade me Wario World and some cash for a few DVDs I'm going to toss on ebay. So I asked about the game at another forum, how good it is. I got 2 people to tell me "it's bland", and I got 10 people to tell me "it's too short".

So, naturally, I'm thinking.... "It's 7 minutes long?!?!?!". And they're like "No, dude, it's like maybe 5 hours. You'll beat it in a sitting or two". And I'm like "And this is a BAD thing?"

:eek 2:

I dunno... if I had to spend 100 hours playing Parcheesi, I'd probably take a gun to my head... so I guess it's understandable why I prefer shorter games to the requirement of spending 80 hours wandering around battling slimes to build up enough hitpoints just to be able to battle even more powerful slimes.

:P

[swlovinist]

It all depends on what type of game it is and the replay value. Older games were more difficult and (I believe had a ton of replay value). The games had to have this because the graphics were still primative(NES). RPGs have been known to last up to 50-100 hrs for some gamers, but we all know that the market has changed. Games are being sold to the casual Joe Shmo, one who will invest less time in a game. Games are expensive to make know, and even some games, are divided up into two games just to cover development costs(and to uhhhh make more $$$$$$) I agree with the fact that is getting harder to justify spending $50.00 on a new game that can be beaten in 10 hours. It is going to have to have REPLAY VALUE. If I beat a game in less then 10 hours, but unlocks some hidden levels, alternate endings, or hidden characters, then this is going to inspire me to go through the game again. If the game has these then IT IS WORTH $50.00 to me. Unfortunately, we just experienced one of the most flooded Xmas game seasons we have seen in a long time. Many games just did not get noticed due the sheer volume of games out on shelves. This made gamers(like me) sit back and wait a couple of weeks for rare games to drop in price or to find games severely reduced in cost. My rambling can be concluded by saying this: 10 hours is too short for a game that is $50.00 with no replay value. A $50.00 game in the flooded game market has to be better than good...It has to be better than great...It has to be one heck of a gem to justify pepole spending their hard earned money on a new game, espically if the market is full of reduced great games(such as the game mentioned above) going for $30.00 less weeks after release. I choose to buy my games used and in a way that is helping companies out....IT TELLS THEM I WANT SOMETHING CREATIVE, ORIGINAL, and DIFFERENT...NOT THE SOME MOVIE TIE-IN OR SEQUEL.

[spoon]

... Since when were game developers supposed to extend the life of their games to ridiculous amount of time? I was enthralled by the entire experience and increasing the development time only would've made things repetitive.

Thoughts?

FF7 (More or less)

I am/was hoping the new Nintendo machine would focus on games that were shoter on length,but, not quality. I could have swore I read a quote from someone at Nintendo that pretty much stated that somewhere.

I also don't have much time to spend playing games. Sometimes I forget what the hell I was doing when I get the chance to get back to them.

[kevincure]

I feel you on the "10 is plenty". Less even. A great example is a game like Shadow of Destiny on the PS2. The game can be beaten, first time through, in 4 or 5 hours. But there is no "walking back and forth", no repetition, honestly interesting characters, and many plot paths that make it worth playing over and over. One of the better games in this generation.

As for 10 being too short, I think some of you guys have a different memory of 8/16 bit games than I do. Sonic can be beat in an hour or two. Even Mario World is nowhere near a 10 hour game.

[farfel]

10 hours is too short for a game that is $50.00 with no replay value. .

Given two choices
1- an exciting 10 hour game
2- a boring 40-50 hour game

You choose option 2? I'd choose option 1 cause time is more valueable than money, and I want my time spent playing something exciting.

[atari_overlord]

I would actually be interested to hear what kinds of jobs people have because I think it may have something to do with this issue. When I was stocking lumber for ace hardware I was not making much money and wanted to get as many hours out of my games as I could. I was even upset if I did not get at least 20 hours and a great story line for my money. Now that I have settled into a career and have a little more money to toss around I sort of opt for the shorter more fast paced games. And as far as pricing. Dinner for me and my girlfriend at applebees runs about 30 with tip. A movie is 17 for two people. Even though I hate it because I am cheap, 50 dollars is just not that much for something you will keep forever. With the way my belly works, the applebees is usually gone in a few hours anyway:D LOL

[PDorr3]

Ok, I just finished Beyond Good & Evil. Took me just a little over 10 and half hours. After reading countless other reviews, nearly everyone slammed it for being too short. It's not an epic RPG and I think 10 hours is pretty damned long. Hell, growing up in a time when a game could be beaten in an hour or even less, 10 hours is epic. Since when were game developers supposed to extend the life of their games to ridiculous amount of time? I was enthralled by the entire experience and increasing the development time only would've made things repetitive.

Thoughts?

I fully agree w/ you, BG&E was a very very good game, and countless reviews bashed it for being too short. If you ask me, if the game were 20 hours long, I would grow VERY tired of the gameplay, not that it was bad, it was great, but it was already getting repetitive 5 hours into the game.

[Ed Oscuro]

If it's as long as Zelda: Ocarina of Time, then I'd say it's long enough. .. 10 hours isn't much at all..
Funny you say Ocarina. That was good but Wind Waker was s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d with that mindnumbing triforce piece fetching. Better a solid 10 hour game like Beyond Good&Evil, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Zero than a padded 30 hour game like Wind Waker.

You've no argument from me. All other things being equal, longer games are better, but if "longer" means "silly tricks to extend game play," then you're quite right.

The reason it's so long is to give the player more reason to explore the game world, by the way. Nintendo obviously wasn't shooting for replayability with that one, which is why I haven't managed to play the game through a whole second time.