some thoughts on game length

[baliacta]

We don't judge movies on their running times or books on how many pages they have, so why do we factor time into our judgements of video games? In fact, we usually feel like a movie or book could benefit from better editing if it's overly long, yet reviewers and gamers usually berate a game if it doesn't meet a certain expectation of how long a game is supposed to last. I think that the extended play time that results from this way of thinking has become compulsory to designers and often hurts the quality of the experience.

As much as I love games like Portal 2, Bioshock 1 & 2, or any number of great RPGs, I can't help but feel like they could benefit immensely from a little parsimonious editing. Often throughout the game you're just repeating the same content in new clothes. It's there just to add to the playing time, and it often kills the atmosphere and the fun for a while until things get back on track.

This brings me to Limbo, which I've seen maligned for it's sub-three-hour playtime. The game never gets stale throughout the experience. It maintains a consistency of quality and enjoyment. It maintains good pacing, atmosphere and fun throughout its entirety. I'd argue that this wouldn't be the case if gameplay were added to pad the time. There's also something to be said for having a complete experience in one sitting.

I'm not saying that all games should be short. I'm saying that all games should be the length that they, individually, need to be. Games shouldn't be held captive to the widely held view that in order for a game to be worth your money it needs to take greater than X amount of hours to play. It's putting an emphasis on quantity at the expense of quality. The playtime should heed to the rhythm and flow of the game, not the other way around.

[MST3K]

Some thought on the length of this post.

TLDR or read the summary.

He thinks Limbo is a good length, and other games are to long/short. Discuss.

[Kovaelin]

I personally do not pay attention to game length in general, unless it's an indie title. I don't really know why.

[Lpedraja2002]

Well I do judge some movies on their run time, on the rare occasion. My problem with Limbo is that the short length of the game detracts from the overall experience by not having a real story. The game to me felt like a pretty looking thing that I'm scrolling left to right and some creative puzzles, that's it. I didn't feel any sort of emotional attachment to that little boy, I even started laughing at some of the ways he died as the game progressed. In the end I didn't feel any sense of satisfaction by finishing the game at 3.5hours, though I can only say I enjoyed it since I payed $2.50 for it, any more than that and I would have been pretty mad. The game is definitely beautiful but the gameplay doesn't evolve beyond timed jumps and turning switches.

[Spanky88]

Well I do judge some movies on their run time, on the rare occasion. My problem with Limbo is that the short length of the game detracts from the overall experience by not having a real story. The game to me felt like a pretty looking thing that I'm scrolling left to right and some creative puzzles, that's it. I didn't feel any sort of emotional attachment to that little boy, I even started laughing at some of the ways he died as the game progressed. In the end I didn't feel any sense of satisfaction by finishing the game at 3.5hours, though I can only say I enjoyed it since I payed $2.50 for it, any more than that and I would have been pretty mad. The game is definitely beautiful but the gameplay doesn't evolve beyond timed jumps and turning switches.

Portal is little more than a tech demo/proof of concept title and that amassed a huge following. What attracted me to this game is its art style and atmosphere. I haven't beat the game yet but so far the gameplay is good. I'd love to see the overall concept fleshed out better like Portal2 is to Portal.

[baliacta]

My problem with Limbo is that the short length of the game detracts from the overall experience by not having a real story. The game to me felt like a pretty looking thing that I'm scrolling left to right and some creative puzzles, that's it. I didn't feel any sort of emotional attachment to that little boy, I even started laughing at some of the ways he died as the game progressed.

Does the lack of a story have to do with the length of the game or was that a conscious design decision? I would argue that the story was intentionally vague and ambiguous because it fit the general mood and atmosphere, not because there wasn't enough time to flesh the story out. I don't think you would have felt more emotionally attached to the character if you had continued to solve puzzles and time your jumps for another 15 hours, because things still would have been intentionally vague and ambiguous... Just for another 15 hours. My point is: Not having an emotional attachment to the character has less to do with game length and more to do with poor execution in storytelling and character design.

[Arparso]

The thing is, most movies are roughly the same length (usually around 90 to 120 minutes), so there really is no point in arguing about a movie's length, unless it is REALLY short or REALLY long.

Games are all over the place, however, concerning their "length". Some times you can play a title for hundreds of hours or even indefinitely, while some are finished after 2 or 3 hours with little to no replay value. Limbo clearly falls into the latter category, for better or for worse.

People just want to get as much out of their money as possible, it's as simple as that. If I can get two similar games for the same price, but one offers more playtime than the other, then I'm usually going for that one exactly because I get more for my money. Of course, "playtime" isn't the only criteria - art style, atmosphere and gameplay heavily factor into this decision as well.

I'm not sure about Limbo. It really is very, very short, even for a $10 game - a price you could have bought Minecraft at back in Alpha. On the other hand the atmosphere is absolutely fantastic and the game is highly enjoyable... just not for very long.

I'm also not sure if a longer playtime would have been preferrable. Near the end I did feel somewhat exhausted and wanted the game to finally end... if the game would have dragged on for another 5 hours, I easily could have lost my interest in it, I fear. Depends on if they would have been able to come up with some create level and puzzle design for another 5 hours, I guess.

[timeformime]

The thing is, most movies are roughly the same length (usually around 90 to 120 minutes), so there really is no point in arguing about a movie's length, unless it is REALLY short or REALLY long.

Games are all over the place, however, concerning their "length". Some times you can play a title for hundreds of hours or even indefinitely, while some are finished after 2 or 3 hours with little to no replay value. Limbo clearly falls into the latter category, for better or for worse.

People just want to get as much out of their money as possible, it's as simple as that. If I can get two similar games for the same price, but one offers more playtime than the other, then I'm usually going for that one exactly because I get more for my money. Of course, "playtime" isn't the only criteria - art style, atmosphere and gameplay heavily factor into this decision as well.

I'm not sure about Limbo. It really is very, very short, even for a $10 game - a price you could have bought Minecraft at back in Alpha. On the other hand the atmosphere is absolutely fantastic and the game is highly enjoyable... just not for very long.

I'm also not sure if a longer playtime would have been preferrable. Near the end I did feel somewhat exhausted and wanted the game to finally end... if the game would have dragged on for another 5 hours, I easily could have lost my interest in it, I fear. Depends on if they would have been able to come up with some create level and puzzle design for another 5 hours, I guess.

This. I feel the theme, idea, and minimalist creative design fit a short game well, and the idea wouldn't have survived much longer than the 5 hours I spent playing it.

But as it is, it was a nice unique indie nugget, and that's great with me because that's why I buy indie games anyway, for short fresh ideas and experiences, not for 20 or 30 hours campaigns.

[Orto]

Cos people still see games as only "something to kill time with". So by that, getting a good deal depends on the ratio between money spent and time played. It's sad, but true.

Some games are great that way. Diablo 2 might be the best example (see, I never got into WOW, so...).
However, when you take Portal, or this, what people should ask themselves when they are done is: Did I have an amazing experience that no other game has offered me before? If yes, be happy for that!
Was it really that expensive? Cmon, Portal was part of The Orange Box and Limbo is 10$, or less in any of its many sales.


ps. I do have criticism towards Limbo, and that's the same as I've already read on one review -and Arparso mentioned- about how the game just loses its flow once the sections get rather hard. I just think worrying so much about the lenght is silly.

pps. I also remember people complaining about CoD 4's campaign lenght when it came out, so this isn't exclusive to indie games. Funny enough my thoughts on this were the same.

[baliacta]

People just want to get as much out of their money as possible, it's as simple as that. If I can get two similar games for the same price, but one offers more playtime than the other, then I'm usually going for that one exactly because I get more for my money. Of course, "playtime" isn't the only criteria - art style, atmosphere and gameplay heavily factor into this decision as well.


This. That's what I'm talking about. I feel like I'm getting more for my money if the experience is fine-tuned to maintain it's quality and pacing rather than just being longer. I'll take a 3 hour gem over a 60 hour turd any day.

My point in bringing up movies and books is that you'll never hear someone say: "Die Hard isn't worth seeing because it's just not long enough. It needs another 15 hours to really feel like it's worth the money." Or: "Man, what a rip-off! This Faulkner novel is only 300 pages! Give me another 1500 pages and I'm sold!" We judge those things solely on their quality, but for some reason we factor length into our judgements of video games. I've done it too. I'm just asking why, and if we really should keep doing it.

[Science4cake]

I've never once thought of a game as being less of a game due to length, if a game is good I will play it and enjoy it. That being said if they expect you to pay $60 for a game that only has an hour worth of gameplay I might be a little mad. I still expect at least an hour of entertainment for every $10 I spend on anything i do be it a movie/book/game
Limbo however fell well within this category as i bought it for less then $10 and played it for more then 10 hours.

[Shad0WeN]

This. That's what I'm talking about. I feel like I'm getting more for my money if the experience is fine-tuned to maintain it's quality and pacing rather than just being longer. I'll take a 3 hour gem over a 60 hour turd any day.

My point in bringing up movies and books is that you'll never hear someone say: "Die Hard isn't worth seeing because it's just not long enough. It needs another 15 hours to really feel like it's worth the money." Or: "Man, what a rip-off! This Faulkner novel is only 300 pages! Give me another 1500 pages and I'm sold!" We judge those things solely on their quality, but for some reason we factor length into our judgements of video games. I've done it too. I'm just asking why, and if we really should keep doing it.

I agree with the gist of what you said and the overall sentiment of it, however I would say that length is a fair & reasonable judgment criteria for a game. It just shouldn't be the most important one is all. I can't speak for other people, but on numerous occasions I have lamented the fact that a movie, for example, wasn't as good as it could have been due to the simple fact that it was too short and thus didn't allow enough screen time for proper character development.

[abort_user]

actually people complain about the length of movies and books all the time. however, movies have an accepted standard length (though it has gradually shorted over the years). its also not really fair to compare different mediums but thats a whole different discussion.

OP, you claimed LIMBO didnt get stale. well for me it did. it ran out of ideas about half way through and there was a lot of padding for such a short title. the game could have done with the whole last few sections and the brain parasite things and it would have felt more consistent in quality. still it was too short. it is possible for a game to have length without padding. just because you can think of some examples with padding doesnt mean there arent plenty that dont have padding. theres a reason this sort of thinking constitutes a logical fallacy.

[Monukai]

In a thread of long posts, I'll keep this one short. I like the game, but I would have liked to see another hour or two worth of levels (not much, but just a little bit more). Mostly because I'd like to see more environments in that black/white/gray grainy style. I really enjoyed the variety of environments they packed in though.