Over the past few weeks a number of developers have chimed in on the issue of game length and how it is perceived by themselves, as developers, and how it is perceived by gamers, as the customers. Now, with myself being a writer, I’ve often found myself in the middle of these two. I’m neither developing the game, nor am I paying for the game (on some occasions). I am merely judging the games based on a number of factors, of which time/money invested is surely a factor. So with that in mind, I’d like to offer my own opinions on the subject.
Before I begin, however, allow me to first establish just what the issue is. Apparently, after the release of Limbo, a number of reviewers went on to claim that the game was simply too short (our own Mike Rose touched on this subject in our review) based on how much the game cost. As if the entirety of the game’s cost is based solely on how long you’re playing it.
In this regard I’m pretty much in agreement with Ron Carmel’s — of 2D Boy — take on the matter. How in the world can you ever sum up a game and boldly claim it is “too short” when you’re not taking into consideration the experiences to be had while playing that game. In what capacity is the game “too short?” Is there simply not enough levels? Did you want to experience more of the game? Did you enjoy the game at all?
These are all questions that can help a person understand whether or not the length of the game is really an issue or not. When I play a game, for fun, I’m not sitting there worried that the game will end soon and I won’t have achieved a maximum amount of “fun” per dollar I’ve spent. I’m simply experiencing the game. At the end of that experience (whether I beat the game or not), it’s pretty safe to judge whether or not the game was worth the price I paid. But am I judging it on the time of game I played, or am I judging it on the type of experience I had?
This all boils down to the final question: are there games out there that are simply too short? Yes. Absolutely, 100% there are games that are too short. However, I’d like to emphasize that a game that is “too short” isn’t all that common. Limbo, for example, is not too short. The game provided me with a wonderful experience that I thoroughly enjoyed. As such, length was not an issue. However, there are games out there whose story is not fully fleshed out where the game will come to an abrupt end. In these cases, I’d say that were the game longer (which naturally assumes the story would be longer as well) then it would certainly be a better game because of it.
At the end of it all though, I try not to worry about game length at all. If there is a game out there that looks interesting to me, I’ll bite. It’s similar to how I don’t really care how long a movie is. A movie ticket costs me $11.75 either way, but I’m certainly not trying to maximize my dollar potential by only seeing 3+ hour movies. I see the movie I want to based on whether it seems interesting to me.
If you’re curious about this subject some more, here is a fine list of links to some of the best indie developers out there and their thoughts on the game length “problem.”
- Jonathan Blow of Number None
- Chris DeLeon of HobbyGameDev
- Dave Gilbert of Wadjet Eye Games
- Matt Gilgenbach of 24 Caret Games
- Eitan Glinert of Fire Hose Games
- Cliff Harris of Positech Games
- Chris Hecker of Spy Party
- Scott Macmillan of Macguffin Games
- Noel Llopis
- Peter Jones of Retro Affect
- Lau Korsgaard of Copenhagen Game Collective
- Martin Pichlmair of Broken Rules
- Greg Wohlwend of Intution Games
- Jeffrey Rosen of Wolfire
- Alex Amsel of Tuna Tech
- Michael Todd
- Ben Bradley
There’s a wealth of opinions here from some very knowledgeable people. If you’re looking for a specific answer, you’ll probably find one here.