21 replies to this topic

[Saijee]

How do you determine how long a game is?

How long it takes to beat a game is relative to a gamer, so I like to measure game lengths by using Nintendo 64 games. Like:

"It's about half as long as Star Fox 64"
"It's supposed to be as long as Super Mario 64"
"It's as long as Zelda OoT."

I'm not certain if this is an effective way of illustrating the length of a game. But I use it including the amount of time spent being dumbfounded in solving puzzles and the amount of time being spent getting game overs. So I use it as saying "It should take you about as much time as it took you to beat X to beat Y."

I think ideally the best way to determine a games actually length, would be to do a survey and see how long on average it takes the participants to beat the final boss (this does not include 100% runs) on their first run. But this method has it's impracticability issues.

What would it mean to you if I said I'm aiming to make the game I'm working-on right a little longer than Paper Mario?

[Debels]

well there isn't a specific time to finish a game, but a lot of developers make it as long as they can or want.

Edited by BlueDebel, 20 December 2011 - 05:33 PM.

[Rhodox]

Its hard to decide there are a lot of things to consider for example it took me over a month of playing SimCity 3000 to finish it once.

But it took only 6 hours for me to finish Portal 2

[@Alex@]

I suppose the best time to find out is during your testing. If you select testers of similar demographic to your target auidence you'll get some decent estimates of how long an average player takes. I quite like the comparision method but it can fall short when people don't know/ haven't played the gae you are comparing to. Especially if you're using N64 games, the proportion of number of people that seem to have played the originals and not the remakes seems to have declined.

[xhawkeyex]

It depends on how large the levels or maps are, the amount of levels, maps, wave, or however the game is set up in, then how you play it to win or lose. Also how the game is played. If it is a survival game, it is unlimited time length, but if it is Super Mario, and each level takes a few minutes then the game play could be hours

[Saijee]

It depends on how large the levels or maps are, the amount of levels, maps, wave, or however the game is set up in, then how you play it to win or lose. Also how the game is played. If it is a survival game, it is unlimited time length, but if it is Super Mario, and each level takes a few minutes then the game play could be hours

Well yea, but that doesn't mean anything.

[Taizen Chisou]

Wouldn't this depend on the genre?

30 minute RPGs vs. 30 hour STGs.

I wouldn't dare to begin to make a 30 hour STG :V

[Jorako]

How long is a game all depands of you. If you feel that its too long make it shorter. If you feel its too short make it longer. As long as its fun, its long enough. If the fun stops. Its time to stop.

[Saijee]

How long is a game all depands of you. If you feel that its too long make it shorter. If you feel its too short make it longer. As long as its fun, its long enough. If the fun stops. Its time to stop.

What an uninspired response.

No matter what you would like to think, it can be pretty clear when one game is longer than another. An answer I'd like would explain what that thing is.

[Docopoper]

How long would you call Mario 64? Since that game can take between days and years depending on how good you are at exploring.

[Saijee]

How long would you call Mario 64? Since that game can take between days and years depending on how good you are at exploring.

Well, when you put it that way, I'd have to come up with a rating system. Although a low rating would not be a bad thing.

Touhou: 2
Starfox: 4
Mario 64: 8
Armored Core Silent Line: 9
Fire Emblem Sacred Stones: 10

[chance]

...If the fun stops. Its time to stop.

What an uninspired response.

Frankly, that's the only answer that makes any sense. So +1 to Jorako.

To me, the question shouldn't be "how long?" Instead, I'd ask "when is a game too long?" And Jorako answered that quite well: it's too long when it stops being fun.

[Saijee]

...If the fun stops. Its time to stop.

What an uninspired response.

Frankly, that's the only answer that makes any sense. So +1 to Jorako.

To me, the question shouldn't be "how long?" Instead, I'd ask "when is a game too long?" And Jorako answered that quite well: it's too long when it stops being fun.

To you, that may be the question, but that is in no way the substance I am asking about, because I honestly do not think that if a video game is designed well enough that it can be "too long" only "too short."

But don't you agree that it is possible to say that one game is longer than another, in general, despite the fact that the "time spent on a particular game" is relative to the player?

[Docopoper]

Just get somebody that has never played the game to beat it - and secretly time them.

[chaz13]

...If the fun stops. Its time to stop.

What an uninspired response.

Frankly, that's the only answer that makes any sense. So +1 to Jorako.

To me, the question shouldn't be "how long?" Instead, I'd ask "when is a game too long?" And Jorako answered that quite well: it's too long when it stops being fun.

To you, that may be the question, but that is in no way the substance I am asking about, because I honestly do not think that if a video game is designed well enough that it can be "too long" only "too short."

But don't you agree that it is possible to say that one game is longer than another, in general, despite the fact that the "time spent on a particular game" is relative to the player?

Why do you care about this? It's not really even relevant to game design.. Assuming I've understood- You're asking whether you can compare the length of one game to another? Of course you can.

[Saijee]

That was not what I was asking, that was a rhetorical question.

The real question is : How do you determine how long a game is? And what is the standard way to determine game length?

Edited by Saijee, 05 January 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[chance]

To me, the question shouldn't be "how long?" Instead, I'd ask "when is a game too long?" And Jorako answered that quite well: it's too long when it stops being fun.

...I honestly do not think that if a video game is designed well enough that it can be "too long" only "too short."

I guess that's true "by definition". If a game seems too long, then by definition it isn't designed well.

I think we're both saying the same thing here. Regardless of its length, a game should end leaving the player satisfied with the experience -- not relieved that it's over.

But don't you agree that it is possible to say that one game is longer than another, in general, despite the fact that the "time spent on a particular game" is relative to the player?

I suppose that's true in general terms, based on the notion of a "typical player". (Even though there will always be slower / faster players than the average).

Not sure where you're going with this...

[Saijee]

I guess that's true "by definition". If a game seems too long, then by definition it isn't designed well.

No, that's not what I meant at all.

I think we can all agree that Super Mario 64 is a pretty long game, and a well designed game.

But if it was twice as long, by means of having twice as many worlds to go to, would it be a worse game?

In the case that the other worlds are "well designed" I think not.

There is nothing wrong with making a game extra long as long as the game keeps on throwing new interesting challenges at you.

A fine example would be the new Mario 3D land, When I first got it, and I beat the final castle of world 8, I was already completely satisfied with the game and saw it as everything I wanted it to be. But big surprise! There are actually 8 more worlds to beat! These last 8 worlds made the game experience for me much more than twice as long. But even though I was completely satisfied with the game after beating the first 8 worlds, did that mean that adding these extra 8 worlds made the game poorly designed? Not even close.

[GameRoom]

Its length is how many hours on average it takes to beat/100% it. If it has replay value, the total hours played overall. I've put 100 hours in some Steam games, and in others I've put 20. Time. It's a simple measurable unit.

[chance]

Its length is how many hours on average it takes to beat/100% it. If it has replay value, the total hours played overall. I've put 100 hours in some Steam games, and in others I've put 20. Time. It's a simple measurable unit.

Time may be a "simple measurable unit". But player's ability, dedication to finishing, and replay value, are not. They vary from player to player, and from game to game. So your answer is rather simplistic.

But that's not what Saijee is asking, apparently.

No, that's not what I meant at all.

I think we can all agree that Super Mario 64 is a pretty long game, and a well designed game.

But if it was twice as long, by means of having twice as many worlds to go to, would it be a worse game?

Actually, we are saying the same thing. Like you said, players could still enjoy the game with "twice as many worlds to go to", as long as the game's design maintains interesting challenges.

So I think we're in complete agreement here: there's nothing inherently wrong with very long games... as long as they're designed well enough to hold the player's interest.

Where some designers go wrong, however, is lengthening the game beyond the point of having new/fun ideas. When that happens, the game becomes too long.