PAX East todo: It's not the Length, it's the Mirth (Game Length Versus Value)

Will you be sporting your pajamas there too?

I definitely think it's all about the value. Sometimes, some games are so gripping and well-designed that after I finish the game I think "really? It really just took 6 hours? I could've sworn it felt longer".

I think people who say a game is "too short" don't have this issue pinned down well just yet. In reality, what they want to say is that the content is too thin, not that the game length is short. 8-10 hour games can feel short if the content is thin, spread out, and doesn't truly utilize the game's basic mechanics to their full potential, whereas other 8-10 hour games are fine if they really squeeze the engine to deliver a game that's fun every second of gameplay.

That's not to say I want bombastic, turn-it-up-to-11-all-the-time campaigns (*glares and Black Ops*). It has to be well paced, but gameplay-wise, people really don't mind if a game is short as long as the minute-to-minute gameplay is top notch.

That's why I think developers need to start moving away from AAA $60 titles with 60 hour gameplay. Let's face it, as good as Red Dead Redemption was, there WAS a lot of filler content, and we all know how expensive it is to make games these days. I'm not saying we shouldn't have games like Mass Effect and RDR, I'm saying not EVERY game needs to launch at $60 and not EVER developer should feel the need that they ought to pack their games full of filler content to justify the $60. Just scale the games back, make maybe an 7-10 hour campaign (WITH NO MULTIPLAYER) and charge $20. I GUARANTEE you that the folks like me (who really don't have the time to play 60 hour epics anymore) will dig this game. Keep the 60 hour epics, of course, just don't blow off all kinds of budget and shoehorn crap like superfluous multiplayer just to justify a $60 price tag.

People will always find something to complain about.

Like for instance my comment here, where I'm complaining about people complaining.

I read the title and thought this was going to be a panel about the 'PAX East logo' for a second.

Needless to say, I'm disappointed. You couldn't bottle my excitement for a four hour panel discussing the length and girth of the logo, and the price it was commissioned for.

I guess for me it depends on the experience, I'm willing to toss down $60 for a brand new entertaining experience, like Mirror's Edge or WET, even if its really short. On the other hand, if either of these games got a sequel, I would expect it to be longer than the orginial, because that first time charm is gone now. I sorta view these games as an experiment by the developer to see if people would like it. People liked Mirror's Edge, so it's time to give us a bigger package of it.

My favorite game of all time is probably Morrowind, which is probably also one of the longest games of all time. I must have put over 300 hours into my character and I still never did everything that game had to offer. On the otherhand, I spend around 130 hrs on Oblivion, and completed EVERY quest & DLC it had. Length doesn't have to be important, but you better have a really, really engaging experience or a fun, unique idea if you want to sell a 6 hour game at a $60 price tag.

My general rule of thumb for games is "$1=1 hour of entertainment." If a game meets or beats this, then I consider it a great value. My last game purchase was Dragon Age 2, which I snagged for $48 on a Direct2Drive sale, and i expect it to meet this formula.

Is this really a topic that needs to be covered again? It feels like a train that I can't get off.

There are crappy 6 hour games and there are crappy 60 hour games. But if you have a game you REALLY enjoy, are you wrong for wanting it to go on for awhile? I've played great 6 hour games, and never have I thought "Boy that was AWESOME! I'm glad there isn't another level or two to enjoy, I've had too good of a time playing!".

To get to the heart of the topic you have to compare oranges to oranges. If you were at a store and they had a normal version of Mass Effect 2 for $20, and right next to it was the collectors edition with all the DLC included on the disc for $20, which would you buy? Obviously most people would buy the one with more content.

I can't remember which podcast it was, but one of the ones I listen to brought up an interesting argument this week: When a game like Angry Birds costs $1 and lasts far longer than most of the games that come out for $60 on the consoles, publishers and developers have to really justify their games like never before. I know that isn't exactly what this panel is discussing, but it is in the same ballpark. When you are developing a thirty or forty million dollar game, and it turns out to have less length than a game that probably didn't cost a million, it suddenly becomes difficult to explain to your customers why your game doesn't offer more content. I know that most of us understand the costs related to development on the current gen consoles, but do kids? If a kid is looking for a game to play, and he can get thirty plus games on his iPhone compared to one game on his 360, which is he going to choose?

That kind of brings us back around to Iwata's point from his keynote, that platforms like iOS are a real threat to gaming, because no one is really curating the content on those platforms. At this point, Apple surely doesn't care about the quality of the games, as much as it does the quantity. Getting a new generation that is used to cheap experiences, hooked onto the longer, more expensive experiences all of us are used to, could become a challenge.

For me, the experience is what matters. Ico may only last a few hours (now that I know all the puzzles and everything), but I still value it over some games that last ten times as long (like FFXIII). Some games get lost in trying to provide time as value, and end up with situations like Red Dead Redemption (the Mexico portion particularly) where the content just keeps dragging on, far after you're ready for it to end. The sad truth is that there are developers that have never, and will never, deliver anything that can stand on its own as a unique experience, and for them, sheer length is always going to be the goal.

Console space should rightly be worried, amongst my gamer friends with iOS devices, most only commit to a handful of AAA titles a year and do the rest of their gaming on iOS, where as previously they would pick up a few more full price titles on the whim. More are converting. Sure none of the games are particularly good, but for the price of a coke you can waste away an afternoon and there's the occasional gem that is an absolute steal at the price point. Wii owners seem to be particularly affected, maybe it's the overlap of the casual market, but if you're gaming alone it's easier to sit back and flick around on the touch screen/

Why can't we have both?