Rant: Getting The Short End

[Alex]

Getting The Short End

Your eyes do not deceive you. Idle Thumbs has a content.

Read all about it here: http://www.idlethumbs.net/display.php?id=266

Wuxtry.

[toblix]

Great stuff. I've always interpreted putting being too short up as a con when reviewing a game as sort of an ironic (or whatever) remark or something, like a variant of putting something as both a pro and a con, but I guess it can be equated to saying the same thing about food. When someone says that it was good, but not enough, they're either being clever or gluttonous. If they're clever, yay. But if they're the kind of people who think quantity is the most important property of a serving of food, they shouldn't be writing food reviews. Game reviews. Ah, forget it.

[DanJW]

Don't forget the statistics that show that a large number of players, if not the majority, actually complete very few games. This means a huge number of game copies are never played to their end, which argues in favour of shorter games - if for no other reason than the wasted devlopment time. It is only the gaming press and the vocal minority of 'harcore' gamers that view 100 hours as some kind of desireable benchmark.

[manny_c44]

I'm all for short, smart, and well-paced games but I can see how certain segments of gamers could value the amount of time they get out of a game. You have to remember that a lot of gamers (probably most of what people refer to as "hardcore gamers") are essentially 'table-top' gamers; people who basically want the grind or, after taking a liking to system of rules, want to continue playing within them indefinitely- maybe this gave rise to the Consumer's Reports style of game's journalism, a way of evaluating play-balancing by giving it a time value. (For example: "I played Civ II for 3 days straight, it is good"-- the same could apply for most RPG/RTS/MMO games)

Other types of games need to be evaluated differently, and most times they are not. The confused institution of games criticism tries to equate totally different types of entertainment.

[LOPcagney]

Great stuff. I've always interpreted putting being too short up as a con when reviewing a game as sort of an ironic (or whatever) remark or something, like a variant of putting something as both a pro and a con, but I guess it can be equated to saying the same thing about food. When someone says that it was good, but not enough, they're either being clever or gluttonous. If they're clever, yay. But if they're the kind of people who think quantity is the most important property of a serving of food, they shouldn't be writing food reviews. Game reviews. Ah, forget it.

Interesting take, but ironically, it's this comment that made me think twice about vehemently supporting this article. Using the food analogy, good food is good, like you said, regardless of the serving size. But in purchasing a meal, a consumer looks to the product that will deliver not only the quality but the quantity to satisfy ("quantity" in terms of Portal includes length as well as bonus content). It's like ordering a cup of soup for dinner: it may be the best soup you've ever had, but in the end, you'll be wanting something else with it. That's why the Orange Box is so brilliant. I believe critics of Portal are missing it's point. It's meant to be a side trip of sorts. Though I definitely think it's worth $20 to me, it wasn't intended as something to be sold and enjoyed separately, but as a side-trip of sorts. It seems unfair to take the Orange Box and then rate the contents individually. They were tweaked to compliment each other and work as a whole. I'm all in favor of short, excellent games like Portal. I believe that video games can be art, and that, like any other work of art, size is merely another aspect that can improve or take away from the piece. But to play the devil's advocate, I'd like to suggest that if a gamer, hardcore or casual, is looking to make the best use of his or her $20, it's probably better to go with something a little bigger than Portal, because if you're dying of hunger, no side-dish in the world is going to do more for you than an entire meal.

It sound's like I'm talking down to Portal, which I'm not trying to do at all. It was just the right length and extremely well paced, with every inch of the game brimming with personality and entertainment and all that good stuff, and I'm still playing it 10 or so hours later (over... and over... and over). But It's a different kind of game from Oblivion or Bioshock or Half-Life 2.

That said, Portal was probably the best game I've played this year, right up there with Bioshock, and I would nominate it for Game of the Year in an instant.

[miffy495]

Man, the thumb may not provide you with much content, but what it does give is of great quality. Unfortunately, after reading an article, you're just left wanting more. If this site had lasted a bit longer, the score would undoubtedly be much higher. As it is though, I'm left having to mark it down a tad for just not delivering enough for your $20.

8/10

Irony aside, it's great to see a new article up. Well, three articles really. Ben's response especially was an introduction and a conclusion from working as a standalone. I always find myself liking short games a lot more. I can count the number of 20+ hour games I've finished on one hand, but as the hour number falls, the completion rate grows. I now take the "doesn't last as long as I wanted it to" mark as a recommendation when reading a review. To me it says "Hey! Here's a game you may actually be able to finish while keeping up with the rest of your life!"

I had a moment of clarity for this a while back in EB. I was looking at the box for Neverwinter Nights Diamond. I'd never played NWN and I thought it'd be a good chance to give it a shot. Then I saw the blurb on the back of the box that read "Over 120 hours of gameplay!" and put it back. My thoughts? "I don't have time for that, what the hell am I doing even thinking of buying this?"

[Roderick]

In response to Ben's little bit at the end, I actually do have some songs that I would have wanted to be longer, and I am of the opinion that they would not have suffered from it. I enjoy a good song more if it is longer indeed. This has everything to do with one's own preferences and tastes.

In the same vein, I do not agree [completely] with the article. It generalizes too much and actually, ironically, makes the same mistake as the reviewers it laments: objectively stating that a game's length is not a criterium to judge it by. But this is exactly as flawed as objectively stating that it is a criterium. It is rather silly to postulate that all game journalists are idiots who don't know what they're doing. Are they, now? If all of them come to some conclusion, say, they found Portal too short and would have liked to see more, could it be that this is actually what they felt at the end of it? And that it is not some virus meme that has infected them? Shocking!

The music analogy is good, but consider the film analogy. I see so many films that last too long. So many films where I think they should have cut out at least half an hour. In fact, this is exactly what Alex says in the article; he would have liked to see Halo be shorter and more concise. Length is just as much a value that you can use to judge entertainment by as other qualities such as image and sound.

Personally, I do agree that shorter games tend to be better paced and more enjoyable because there's less filler. In that I agree, but it's a different discussion. It's faulty to say length should be of no consequence. That's like saying money is of no consequence when buying a PS3, with all the tedious restaurant metaphors it engenders.

[Alex]

In fact, this is exactly what Alex says in the article; he would have liked to see Halo be shorter and more concise. Length is just as much a value that you can use to judge entertainment by as other qualities such as image and sound.

You're right, length (in terms of proper pacing) can have an affect on how well a game plays, and perhaps I should have made that clearer. For instance, if Half-Life 1 ended a third of the way though, as you were running along a corridor, or met that big snake-like green beast thing, it would be so jarring and out of place with the rest of the game that it would have a negative impact.

The point I was making, though, was that reviewers do not seem to be concerned even with this detail. They take length as an absolute, regardless of pacing and regardless of the proper time to stop, and use that number to judge the game. And that, I think, is wrong.

[Ben]

It is rather silly to postulate that all game journalists are idiots who don't know what they're doing. Are they, now? If all of them come to some conclusion, say, they found Portal too short and would have liked to see more, could it be that this is actually what they felt at the end of it?

It's not silly to postulate they're all idiots, no . Anyway, I didn't say they don't or couldn't feel that way; nor that I didn't understand why they do. I said that it shouldn't be a something to hang a game by and reduce its value as a game (rather than as a product). There is a difference.

In response to Ben's little bit at the end, I actually do have some songs that I would have wanted to be longer, and I am of the opinion that they would not have suffered from it.

That's cool. The song analogy was just a random example I raised while Alex and I were discussing his article, I stuck it in without really thinking about it in great depth, hehe. But I think it's a valid comparison. I'm not surprised when people say they wish a song or game was longer. Again, the same thing applies - I'm not suggesting that it being longer is necessarilly a bad thing (I go out of my way to explicitly state so: "Sure, it might have been cool if it had been longer...";i'm simply saying that its value as a form of art (as something that emotionally resonates) is not intrinsically linked to length as reviewers would have you believe. And thus something that is good being short does not necessarilly mean it's of less value artistically, in the same way that being longer does not make it of more worth artistically. It simply is what it is and you either relate and appreciate it for those reasons or you also apply external values like cost (which is the reason that length is often raised in these reviews, and the reason I don't consider it a genuine or valuable objective criteria for a review of a game in and of itself).

[Roderick]

Alex; and in that you are completely right =) Length is not an absolute value but depends heavily on both the game and the player. Ideally, that dynamic quality should be reflected in any judgement.

I also forgot to mention that I really liked seeing something so passionately written again on the Thumb

[Nachimir]

Don't forget the statistics that show that a large number of players, if not the majority, actually complete very few games. This means a huge number of game copies are never played to their end, which argues in favour of shorter games - if for no other reason than the wasted devlopment time. It is only the gaming press and the vocal minority of 'harcore' gamers that view 100 hours as some kind of desireable benchmark.

Is that just Valve's episode 1 stats you're referring to, or are there other stats showing the same thing?

[DanJW]

I believe there are other stats showing the same thing. I will have a hunt for them later.

[elmuerte]

The key is not absolute length, but the unique length of a game.

erm... in numbers.

A short game:

1 2 3 4 5

A "longer" game:

1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3

The longer game is actually shorter (unique length being: 1 2 3) it just seems longer because it repeats stuff. And it's the repetitive stuff that makes people stop playing a game. Of course games don't usually repeat the same stuff directly, but it often goes like: 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 4 2 3 4 5

Of course this is only considering unique elements of a game, not the tediousness of the unique elements (which are often included in long movies).

It's not a bad thing to repeat stuff, but it should only be small (optional) elements of the game.

For example the main story line is: 1 2 3 4 5 and you inject two small repeating elements: 1 6 2 7 3 6 4 7 5

[toblix]

So the question is: If a game is mediocre, and too long, should it be made better or shorter? And conversely(?), and even crazier, if a game is excellent, but too short, should it be made longer or more mediocre?

[Nappi]

The shortness of a game only bothers me if (a) the game is actually good and ( there is potential there that the developers have left untapped.

For example, it has been said that Psychonauts was way too short. I don't really feel that way, at least anymore (don't remember what I thought just after finishing it), because it offered so much variation and plain good times. But if they had removed, or even replaced, Milkman Conspiracy and/or Lungfishopolis levels, I would probably still be whining about how short the game was and begging for sequel.

[eljay]

Heh, if that question isn't ironic it kind of misses the point.

If a game is mediocre it should be made better, if cutting parts will achieve this then that's a good idea! But then perhaps this game might seem too long only because of its mediocrity.

If a game is excellent and complete, then adding spurious content could very easily spoil it, so should be considered very carefully.

Of course some games just end at the wrong point, Halo 2 famously ends in a stupid place (especially considering the marketing campaign). It works both ways though as personally I feel that Bioshock should have ended way earlier, the whole last segment really disappointed me.

My position is that a game should only be as long as it needs to be to fulfill its purpose, to contain a complete well paced experience. Neither long nor short are inherently bad or good.

[Tanukitsune]

Am I the only one who LIKED Portal so much BECAUSE it was short?

I'm lucky to have one or two hours of gaming a day, so a game that lasts 200 hours is waste of money to me and a game that's 10 or less is perfect!

The worst part is what people are doing to make the games longer!

"Hey! I know this is a action game but let's add some races to ruin the pace and make them really frustrating"

It's ridiculous to see how many game have a decent length if you ignore the sidequests, but if you DO them, the game length skyrockets to over 100 hours!

I wonder if people demanding longer games is one of the factors of arcade games dying? They'd loathe a game that lasts only an hour or so...

And... I'm rambling...

[DanJW]

On the other hand, arcade games are seeing something of a rennaissance on Live Arcade, are they not?

And yeah, Portal felt like the right length for me too. It would have probably felt stretched if it was any longer. Plus I still haven't finished all the challenges.

[Tanukitsune]

On the other hand, arcade games are seeing something of a rennaissance on Live Arcade, are they not?

And yeah, Portal felt like the right length for me too. It would have probably felt stretched if it was any longer. Plus I still haven't finished all the challenges.

It's much more reasonable to buy the equivalent retro compilation in my opinion, I don't know how much they cost, but for 15-30€ you can get a retro compilation with 10-30 games with unlockables much better than achievement points!

And I completely ignore the extra stuff in games unless it's really worth it... I just don't have time and the length just skyrocket if you try to be a completist...

[elmuerte]

portal was too easy, not intrinsically short.

[LOPcagney]

Am I the only one who LIKED Portal so much BECAUSE it was short?

Absolutely not. I thought it was the perfect length for what it was.

And another interesting thought:

So the question is: If a game is mediocre, and too long, should it be made better or shorter? And conversely(?), and even crazier, if a game is excellent, but too short, should it be made longer or more mediocre?

If a game is too short, should they make it longer or make it cheaper?

[elmuerte]

If a game is too short, should they make it longer or make it cheaper?

Cheaper. Unless making it longer isn't done by padding tedious stuff

[toblix]

And if a game is too cheap, like the Orange Box? Seriously, that was too fucking cheap.

[miffy495]

Just out of curiosity, why isn't this article linked on the main page? Seems like now that there's new content you'd want to flaunt it.

[Alex]

Just out of curiosity, why isn't this article linked on the main page? Seems like now that there's new content you'd want to flaunt it.

I don't know what you mean ¬ ¬