It's not all about length

This week's Gamasutra Question of the Week is:

How important is the length of a video game for you, as someone involved in the industry? Is there a particular 'hours per $ purchase price' that makes sense, or are there other sensible measures of replayability beyond simple linear mission modes? How should the game industry address this problem in the future?

I can see Richard Bartle gnashing his teeth in anger as I type. The question is so badly worded that it's almost a joke. It shifts from 'length of a video game' to 'measure of replayability' (whatever that means) half way through and then sums up by asking how this problem should be dealt with - who said there was a problem?. I was going to answer on the Gamasutra site, because it's a subject I do have opinions about, but I think I'd best keep my answer to this little read forum instead...

The article which leads to the question stems from a letter by Zoe Nichols. You should take a moment to read it but in short she'd go for quantity over quality if there was no other choice. Her ideal, I think, would be cutting edge technology in a game which offers 24+ hours of gameplay. She thinks that's what $70 should buy her... I disagree with her wholeheartedly, except perhaps for that last point, but only because I think $70 is far too expensive for a video game.

Personally I like to see the light at the end of the tunnel. I've probably completed less than a quarter of the games I have played. In fact it's probably less than that(can you have less than 'less than'?). Here's a list including one or two from each of the platforms I have owned over the years:

Dr Who and the Mines of Terror (BBC)
Cybercon 3 (Atari ST)
Doom (PC)
Warcraft (PC)
Crash Bandicoot (Playstation)
Lander (PC)
Advance Wars (GBA)
Burnout 3 (PS2)
Mercury (PSP)

These are all games that I really enjoyed and I didn't complete any of them. I could probably list all the games I have actually completed from memory (it would include Another World (ST), Out Run (Arcade),  Wario 4 (GBA), Half Life 1 & 2 (PC)). And often it's a complete let down to play right to the end anyway (Half Life 1 being a prime example). Unlike Zoe I'd go for 6 hours of gameplay over 24 in most cases. Perhaps not in games like Burnout, but certainly in anything which purports to having some sort of story. I hate story in games, but levels are okay, and often the levels are wrapped in a story for fairly obvious reasons.

My dislike of long games is coupled with a disdain for the way games are priced. Give me Advance wars with 10 levels for £10, then sell more levels for £5 a pack. Half Life could have been half as long and still satisfied me.  Some games are just so hard that it seems no-one will ever see their denouements (Cybercon 3, Lander). And for those cutting edge, virtual worlds; those story driven adventures into alternate realities which are going to cost £40 no matter how long they are, what I want is six hours of amazing game play. Six hours of faultless, coherent escapism. I can think of nothing worse than a game like Deus Ex. A sprawling melodrama ruined by endless inconsistencies (it aims to be a real world but, as usual, only 10% of the doors open and half of the items in the world can never be collected).

If the scope of a game was reduced dramatically but the effort and attention to detail refocused then we might start to see truly convincing game worlds. Set a game entirely in an office block, but make everything work. Every phone, vending machine, computer, drawer, trolley, everything. I know some people in the industry are aiming for this. I had the pleasure to once work (indirectly) with Paul Holmes who always dreamed (I think) of creating truly convincing game worlds (see Hunter, one of his earliest efforts). The best examples are often still text based games (MUD 2 continually surprised me right up until the moment I prized myself away from it).

In fact, I'd go one further. I'd be happy if I sat down to play a game on my XBOX 360 knowing that the experience would last 45 minutes, and no longer. A tense, action packed race against the clock set in a game world which was so densely populated with convincing characters, objects and incidents and so amazingly rendered that I wouldn't have time ponder it's inevitable inadequacies. Then, when I'm done (be it success or failure) I could chose to play again, perhaps making the same choices, perhaps different, or maybe as a different character entirely and on a completely different arc.

It's not that I've got a short attention span or anything, I just think that games are too long (and often formulaic). It reminds me of Lost and 24 - except with games there's no advertising revenue driving the content on into an almost never ending stream of mediocrity. I want my games to be like Edge Of Darkness. I want a six part drama of world class proportions not 144 episodes of never ending, repetitious dross! (And I want Bob Peck to come back to life, dammit.)

But if Zoe's in tune with the masses (and I fear she is) then I'm not going to get it am I?

Comments

[Richard A. Bartle]

Gnash, gnash...

Richard

[Ian]

Well...if we look at Gears of War, the 360s newest flagship title, this offers only 6 hours of gameplay in the singleplayer option, and though I feel this is quite short, it is supposed to be one of the best 6 hours of gameplay ever. I agree that pricing of games is way off and I would quite like to see more of what Valve are doing with Half Life 2, releasing episodic content, which makes it feel like a nice tightly knitted TV series.

I think developers often feel pressured by publishers to create content just for the sake of it, more bang for your buck so to speak, but this truly is a ridiculous way to develop games. Unfortunately, with the industry now driven by large corporations and not bedroom coders/artists we are very unlikely to ever see something which in every way is a joy to play and features no repetition.

[Nick]

I think what people are largely forgetting are game mechanics. When you played Quake or Unreal Tournament, were you asking yourself how many hours you had played? I suppose you could say there is a large difference between a multiplayer experience and a crafted single player experience, but I don't know how many hours I spent just playing the AI on the Morpheus map in UT. I must have played the same map over and over again for hours on end against mindless drones who yelled obescene slurs whenever they fragged me with a rocker. Why? Because it was so Goddamned fun, that's why. Stop thinking of it as a product, and think of it as a game. For instance, someone responding in the aforementioned Gamasutra article compared the pricing of games to coffee. When I buy coffee I'm buying something to drink. When I'm buying a game, I'm essentially buying a good time. Is it fair to measure the cost of fun? I mean, it isn't just entertainment, something to do on a friday night; it's something people crave and want, it is enjoyment. To attempt to quanitfy such a thing would be shallow, and it's hard to understand where some people are coming from if they just want some kind of time wasting device. If they want that, go play the latest MMO and be done with it.

[Jonathan S.]

You ... you're utterly insane.

To have "Every phone, vending machine, computer, drawer, trolley" working would be the polar opposite of your "focused, attention to detail game world."

How is spending hours upon hours of dev time on a nondescript phone to work like real-life, but doesn't really work like real-life (in that you can't really call anybody), why have the phone "working" at all? And if there's nothing in the drawer, why open it? Great, a vending machine, can I actually eat?

And Deus Ex is about as bad an example of doors not opening as it gets. Pay a visit to the HDTP (a graphic revamp project) and see the list of fully interactive objects that are in the process of being renovated.

http://www.offtopicproductions.com/hdtp/

[Glenn Broadway]

Yes, I probably am insane, but I just can't get excited about games that claim to offer immersive experiences. I suppose I was being a little facetious when I said I wanted _everything_ to work. My point is that when I come across something in a game that doesn't work as it should then the spell of immersion is broken. I'd rather a game was abstract if it was the only way to ensure consistency. Setting a game in the real world is a non-starter because you're never going to get anywhere near to reality.

Yes Deus Ex has an enourmous amount of interaction, but it still only scratches at the surface of reality. I'd prefer Dragon's Lair to that to be honest. At least there are no pretentions there.

If you really must set a game in a real world environment then at least limit the scope so that you don't end up with a disappointing lifeless shell of a game after spreading your assets thinly across its face.

[Jonathan S.]

1. To what degree of "working as it should" are you talking about? With phones, it's pretty much a non-issue. Who would you "call" in a game? What's more, Deus Ex has fully functional drawers and vending machines.

2. With 1st-person games it's guaranteed impossible to be abstract. Did Oblivion's 16 square kilometers of "very abstract continent" affect your spell of immersion?

3. There are different types of "immersion" like there are different types of "fun." I'd wager that environmental immersion has less to do with the authentic usage of in-game objects and more to do with the actual design itself. HL2 didn't let you dial home or get a soda from the machines, and the illusion of a fully articulated world is phenomenal.

4. Name another game with more objective interaction than Deus Ex? By your logic, we shouldn't have even attempted Deus Ex. And guess what, Deus Ex is hitting 7 y.o. soon and it's still unsurpassed.

[Glenn Broadway]

1: Basically, if something appears in a game which I am familiar with and yet it doesn't behave properly it simply reminds me how thin the game's facade is. No, I wouldn't want to actually phone anyone, but the fact that I know I can't is what annoys me. The vending machines in Deus are not fully functional, by any means.

2. No it isn't. Tron 2.0 was a damn site more abstract than any other FPS. Oblivion is one of the worst offenders in my mind.

3. I agree, and if a game is trying to be like the real world, less 'immersion' (or perhaps 'interaction') is better. Your example (HL2) is a good illustration of how I feel actually. It's not far off Dragon's Lair!

4. You definitely should have attempted Deus Ex. It was an amazing achievement and a milestone. However for me, it still fell short of providing an environment I could have fun in. I couldn't enjoy myself there because I was always so preoccupied with its shortcomings - and yes I know that it absolutely pushed the boundaries of what was possible at the time. Your question is so subjective though - Arkanoid has more objective interaction, in my mind, because there's nothing in the game which doesn't behave as it should. That's an extreme and provocative response I know, but I hope you understand: there's practically no point arguing with me on this because I'm far too jaded!

Thanks for your thoughts though, they are greatly appreciated.

[Jonathan S.]

1. If you're thinking in terms of selection from the vending machine, then I rest my case :) Deus Ex went above and beyond with functional vending machine, nevermind that eating is trivial.

2. It's the subject. Tron dodged that arrow with flying colors because its landscape is barely anchored in reality. Oblivion, just like you said, was about as bad as it comes in that regard.

3. HL2 did environmental immersion (and envir immersion only) really well. From a literary standpoint, it's about as odd as having fictional landscape abstract to the extent of what we've seen in Oblivion - the main character never speaks, but I digress. The breaking point comes from the reaction of the characters to the deaf-mute Gordon. That's not "life-like" at all, now is it?

4. When did you play Deus Ex? Did you play it and understand the myriad of ways to interact with the envir?

For instance: Standing next to a leaking gas barrel causes Denton to cough, which alerts near-by patrol (if they're close enough to hear).

Nearly every door can be blown open, hacked open or opened with a key. Same for gun turrets and stationary cameras (password, hack, emp, anti-armor attack, or explosive).

That's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm having a very hard time believing that someone would have an expectation HIGHER than what is STILL unsurpassed after so many years.

Deus Ex is a great game, but I can imagine something even better. But even I'm aware that having every stick of furniture perform its real-life function is non-conducive to the core gameplay.

If you really think games ought to do that sort of stuff, you need to make that game my friend.

[Ian]

I think immersion in a game is not reliant on everything working. In HL2, I WAS immersed, but not because I could fiddle with everything, but because the well crafted story set against some beautiful backdrops pulled me in. So what if Gordon doesn't speak? The idea being that people are talking to you, not the character you are playing.

Deus Ex bored me. Compared to System Shock, Deus Ex never quite got it quite right for me. Not to say it isn't a fantastic achievement, but nothing pulled me in. There was almost too much to think about, and the overall satisfaction of achieving something was pretty low.

Still, I guess time will tell on what sort of new games and their respective immersion capabilities arrive on the market.