GAMES: GameSpot: Best of 2008 | GameFAQs | SportsGamer MUSIC: Last.fm | MP3.com MOVIES: Metacritic | Movietome TV: TV.com
Click Here

Before The Horse Bolts

I was going to title this post Shortal, but decided against it, a wise decision I have ruined by mentioning the fact. Ahem. Portal is short. In fact, it's so short that short is a misleading term. Most people who read that would assume that it's 6-8 hours' worth of gameplay. In point of fact, Portal would rate more as a long movie, at give or take 3 and a half hours to play it through start to finish for the first time.

Turns out for me, the length of Portal is one of its shining lights. Not because I don't have the time any more to play long games (a common complaint), but rather because I think that a game needs to know how long it can play for. I've lost count of the number of quite good games I've got about three quarters of the way through and simply got bored and stopped playing for the same reason. Games are repetitive. They have to be, after all if you weren't doing the same thing over and over again then there would be no gameplay mechanics. What a game needs to do is realise exactly how long the repetitive actions it uses are entertaining for and then make the game about ten minutes shorter.

Even if this was an exact science, you are of course stymied by the fact that everybody has a different boredom threshold. Mine is clearly quite low, unless everybody else doesn't bother finishing games and developers are wasting their budgets on final cutscenes. Off the top of my head, the following games I rate as great have been criticised for being too short: Max Payne 2, Gears of War, Portal, Fable. I finished each of those games and at the end wished they were a little bit longer. But only a little bit, and not so much that I would have preferred to get that sinking feeling you get when you press the button to go to the third storey in the Library in Halo. A game that is too long can easily ruin your perception of it, because memories of the good parts will be overshadowed by the frustration and boredom of unnecessarily extended levels, jumping puzzles and thrice-damned escort missions.

Think of any game you've played that you've spent more than, say, 20 hours on. Chances are there was at least one section that seemed to go on for a little too long, or there was some grinding in the middle to get the appropriate level or item or whatever. Stop and think about that for a second. You were spending time doing something that you pay money voluntarily for, that you do for fun, and you were bored. Your chosen form of entertainment bored you. You can be bored for free (staring at a wall, talking to some old person on a bus), or even get paid to be bored (work), why pay for it?

Back to Portal. Over the course of the game, the creators go through every fun puzzle they can come up with involving the portal gun, and then they stop. There's not seven or eight moving platform over lava puzzles, there's one. Now obviously, there are a lot more factors that make Portal a gem of a game, but if it lasted another three hours, I think you'd see a lot of reviews saying "original idea, but feels overplayed by the end." Now, Portal has the advantage of being a part of a package that is frankly ridiculously good value, and barring a fairly large shift in the way AAA titles are priced and marketed, I don't think 3 hour games are going to become the norm. Nevertheless, it's worth thinking about whether a game you thought was too short was in fact exactly the right length.

Posted by metagnome, 11/19/2007 4:52am
45 Comments  | Post Comment Sign up to post comments!

Comments

Previous   |   Next »
Page: 1  |  2  |  3
Have to agree i don't finish most games to and i only play their multilayer- resistance finally finished with freinds
Posted 11/19/2007 5:19am
I guess your mostly right but Portal should have been at least 6 hours long.
Posted 11/19/2007 5:20am
Valve did a tremendous job to calibrate Portal. Length is not issue on second thoughts, especially when digging the challenges ( which may suck you to spend MANY hours more ).
Posted 11/19/2007 5:40am
Great read. The one comment I have is about the grind. I feel that sometimes the grind , although boring, adds to the feeling of accomplishment in some games and is therefore a very necessary part of the formula.
Posted 11/19/2007 5:45am
I think the game was about the right length but it didn't have that varied gameplay so had to be. On the other hand 4-6 hours for an FPS singleplayer (like COD4) is too short in my opinion. Some games such as rpgs can sustain interest over longer time frames though (think WOW or even pokemon yellow). As long as short games still represent good value I don't mind (think orange box episode 2).
Posted 11/19/2007 5:48am
Most games walk a fine line between repetitiveness and legnth. The only way that this can truly be combated is via creating a game that delivers a 4 hour expirence that can be replayed for different and new content. Although, having a very high play time is a great selling point. So don't expect games to get any shorter, or less repetitive.
Posted 11/19/2007 6:12am
I agree with you to a point, games like portal should have that "just right" feel to them concerning length and gameplay. If they had made it say another hour or so long i probbably would have lost my mind concidering what kind of puzzles they would have had to come up with, that and i'm not sure they could have taken the story any farther without turning it into a traditional fps at the end game point. That said i don't agree on the boredom factor you have i can sink myself into almost any game i enjoy for many hours at a time and often pick up old games ( bioshock atm) and replay through them just to have that experience again, but i do believe games are getting shorter and shorter without getting any better, take the orange box for example ep1-2 are nice additions to the halflife franchise and storyline and they're lentgh is just right also but the story is there to back it up, but take a game like timeshift or halo3 the story wasn't there like it could have been and just when your actually starting to get into it it's over games like that are'nt worth my $60 imo.

i wish we could have the old days of gaming back, days like when i realized i had poured 120 hours into ff3 and wasn't done because i was exploring everything and lvling my char, games that had lenght AND a story and content to back it up we used to have the 80 hour minimum rpg's and now we're doing good to break 20 and at that point youv'e seen most everything there is and no reason to go back and try to find that " ultra super secret armor/sword".

what makes me "Bored" in games now is the short gameplay and stupid storytelling/ending's.......rainbow 6 anyone?
Posted 11/19/2007 6:36am
Absolutely agreed. Not all games are made to last forever. For example, I'm currently playing Tales of the Abyss, and even though it's an RPG I feel that it's dragging on unnecessarily, I'm 60 hours+ into it and I haven't done most of the sidequests. Honestly, the game would've been fine if ended by hour 30, now I just feel like I'm doing the same things over and over, the story is barely making sense anymore and the characters that were once fun and engaging are starting to become annoying. Don't get me wrong though, I love the game, but like you stated it's these kinds of things that will eventually overshadow my perception of it. On the contrary, you also mention games that last for about 20 hours and that gave you the same sensation (repetitiveness), well, I guess I do have one game that isn't necessarily the case. For RE4, it took me 24 hours to beat it the first time and I never felt that the developers were just throwing things at it to make it longer, it just felt right. Another game that manage to get away with that was God of War 2, although this one would enter in the Shortal category, short campaign but oh so satisfying.
Posted 11/19/2007 6:45am
all games are to long for me lol...i haven't even beat portal yet(but im at test chamber 18 and ready to beat it real soon!) and i havent even gotten to episode 1 or episode 2 cuz im only at ravenholem in hl2!!!!! i play normally multiplayer games tho...the only good game that ive really wanted to beat lately(shadow of the colossus) has really started glitching out and i cant get to the 8th collossus =(
Posted 11/19/2007 7:27am
N8A
Agreed. I love portal and didn't feel "cheated" when it was completed.
Posted 11/19/2007 8:40am
Long games can still be fun if they are properly paced, adding new content through the course of the game to keep things fresh. It is the long games that show all their cards in the beginning that get repetitive near the end.
Posted 11/19/2007 8:57am
Its odd that you use portal as an example. Does anyone know the story behind it? Thats what makes me giggle at all these "games today" comments. It was a 3 lvl class project from some students using the Source engine, they posted it on some forums for help, Valve hit it and loved it to death and got them on for an official release. The original game was three lvls used to demonstrate their coding of alternative physics, then Valve added a story and time for polish. So, I can't get behind the "they knew just how much to make" comments. Thhey actually had to extend it quite a bit to get it up to a game standard. It was a "mini" game to begin with, and stayed that way. An awesome, mindbogglingly fun one, but a mini game none the less. Now the fun I have with it is the user made maps from fansites and the like. Long live the cake, its around here....somewhere....
Posted 11/19/2007 9:54am
metagnome,

Wow, it's been months since I've seen an editorial from you, and I'm not disappointed. Great read.

Seinfeld once said in response to his extended length commercials (three minutes or longer) for American Express, "People will watch anything as long as they are being entertained."
Posted 11/19/2007 10:11am
Games are too long. Just about all of them. For some reason I continue to buy RPG's knowing full well I'll probably never complete them. I just keep telling myself, I'll get back to that when I have more time.

So still, FF 7,8,12 KOTOR, Baldurs Gate 2, Arc the Lad, and several others sit on the shelf unfinished. Will I finish these games? Possibly, but first I think I'll give Mass Effect a play.
Posted 11/19/2007 10:58am
Oh man, I thought I was the only one! I can list far too many titles that are lying unfinished in my library simply because of their excessive length. And I'm not talking bargain bin titles, either. MGS3 is a great example. I don't want 50 hours of gameplay in an action title! Not even in an RPG. As great as that game was, I had to stop 20 or so hours in. I just lost interest. I've also been working on Okami for well over a year! And I consider these games to be absolutely excellent - just excessively long. Unfortunately, so many players mistake game length or tacked-on multiplayer for value, the industry is in a strange place right now. We've got many games that are generally very good, but excessively short with detailed multiplayer (seriously people, I can't be the only person tired of online FPS's). It's a rare treat indeed when a game comes along that is satisfying and lengthly without the use of a limited appeal multiplayer.
Posted 11/19/2007 11:15am
I actually didn't have a problem with the length of Portal, and I know a lot of people might disagree with me when I say that Twilight Princess was too long. After about 40 hours, I just got bored of the gameplay before I finished.
Posted 11/19/2007 11:33am
"We've got many games that are generally very good, but excessively short with detailed multiplayer "

Its becoming a real problem. The expectations are so high now that we want so much from our games that the developers cant keep up. Even some games that have been in development for over 3 years turn out to be short ( CoD 4 for example). To many games keep "raising the bar" (Crysis would be a good example, note that this is a relativly long game...) to quickly, and as a result games are becoming shorter with ever more ambitious projects.
Though i dont see how MGS 3 is a long game. Its no where near 50 hours plus, unless your running backwards. I think i completed it in about 13 hours or so, and im not really the "Hardcore" gamer type.
Posted 11/19/2007 11:38am
I agree. I played portal through in one run, took just under 4 hours, I haven't done the challenges etc, and probably won't download new levels, as the it was just the right length for an intense play through in one sitting, by the end I felt like I'd become familiar with the portal mechanics, and done a lot in a very short time. I believe playing it through in one sitting is essential to getting the escaping/running atmosphere, and the fatigue of the game throwing escalating challenges at you.
Posted 11/19/2007 11:42am
Nice read. Portals length was absolutely perfect and no I never finished oblivion and I probably never will. But will that stop me from buying and enjoing Elder Scrolls 84? nope. On the other hand COD4's 6 hour story mode definitely turns me off from purchasing it as I'm not a fan of online multiplayer FSP....adios
Posted 11/19/2007 12:13pm
Previous   |   Next »
Page: 1  |  2  |  3

Post a Comment

Profile

metagnome
last online: 5:14am Nov 14, 2009
member since: Jul 23, 2003
Rank:
Level:
My Other Profiles:
GameSpot TV.com MovieTome

About Me

One of those elitist strategy types who actually reads the manual. Well, I try to be, but mostly I spend too much time playing first person shooters to make it believable.

Friends' Recent Blogs

Data Warehouse Clear Gif