As a hobbyist who mostly creates short games, I have to agree with this video - I find it better to create a short, good game with 3 hours of play time, than a 30-hour “epic” that is anything but.* Yet…the market appears to disagree.
So, let’s talk length in our game designs. When is short a good goal, and when is it not? Resources available to the developer obviously factor in…but what else should we think of when deciding how big to scope our game?
*: To be fair, my short games have not been too epic either, but had I tried padding them out, they’d’ve been worse, I guarantee it.
Just my opinion here but for me perhaps the most important thing to think about is actually getting it done. Completing it. Not making it epic. Not making it awesome. Not even making it great. Just getting it done. Why? Because that gives me a solid foundation. A starting point. It’s not like it can never be touched again. Never be updated. Never make a sequel.
I think many people spend too much energy and time trying to make something “perfect” or awesome. And they often end up never making anything at all. I am the same way. If I choose a very small scope I will finish it. If I dream bigger it probably won’t be done.
TLDR: My view is don’t think about making the end all be all version of your game providing 50+ hours of gameplay. Just focus on making “version 1” and getting it done. Use feedback collected to make version 2 or a separate game as a sequel.
I’m surprised they didn’t link to that one since it’s pretty much the same idea.
I’m mixed. It’s not that denser experiences aren’t good, but I have to question what you get out of it. Short games can easily feel insubstantial, like you didn’t really do anything. It’s a different kind of experience, and not one that is easily comparable to the normally uncompressed design of most games.
10/15 bucks is fine for anything that looks appealing to me, but there are enough idiots who would rather eat shitty fast food than spend only a couple hours on a decent game.
An alternate thing to consider is playthrough length versus total length. Roguelikes/lites commonly operate like this, but it could be used for scripted games too. You basically compress the world, but not the story(-ies).
Short games at three hours? Guess you haven’t tried the latest Crossy Road yet.
It’s probably with considering things in terms of total play time, rather then play length. If your game is designed to be played through once, then never picked up again, three hours is pretty short.
But still, I spend 20 dollars seeing a movie once that’s less then three hours long. If your experience is on the same quality level as a movie I don’t see why it has to be long.
There is also the danger of making a game too long. Several games I’ve abandoned near the middle. There is a point where you run out of gameplay and mechanics, but keep putting content in front of the player. Not much point building the last 30 hours of players log out after 10.
Just assuming we are all awesome developers who have no issues solving complex problems and difficult systems and setups, I think a couple points that should be considered when deciding how big to scope is -
How good are you at telling a story? If you can sew an epic yarn 40 hours long that can be played through at leisure - ala Skyrim, - go for it scope big and make it epic!
If you can put in main plot points but have a hard time coming up with interesting filler to fill in between those high story moments, consider making the game shorter with very little content between the major plot points.
When do you want to release. As a hobbyist developer if you really don’t care when the game gets finished - make it as large and over the top as you want with tons of extra one-off features and elements that are only good for one monster encounter.
As a person who fancies themselves as someone who’d like to make money developing and delivering games, that person might have slightly stricter deadlines to deliver product faster, to make as much money as they can, or at least not have to sign up for unemployment.
A couple examples from my gaming experiences.
Limbo is pretty perfect in length imo, though some may say it was too short.
Papers Please is pretty spot on in length with the core mechanics it had.
Super Castlevania IV was slightly too short imo, but I also think it was too easy.
A mobile game UltraFlow was perfect in length.
Several AAA games I drudge through just to finish the story.
All the God of War games could have been 5 hours shorter and still been great experiences.
All Metal Gear Games are 10 hours too long, and Final Fantasy if they could reduce the 10 hour intro tutorials down to 1 hour or less that would really improve the offerings.
I was done with Alien Isolation after about 15 hours of play. After that it was pretty redundant.
Red Dead Redemption was done before going into Mexico - and there was still 20+ hours of straight gameplay left.
I can beat Reaper: Tale Of A Pale Swordsman in a day, and Mata Nui Online Game in half an hour. Both of them are the most epic, deep, and memorable games I’ve ever played, and yet they’re as as short as a mayfly’s lifespan (not literally). And yet, most N-CODs would turn their noses up at them because they’re “to short” or have “not enuf contint” in them.
So, it’s basically down to what market you’re trying to reach (if any: I personally forget all that marketing tosh and simply attempt to make a fun game). Are you pandering to people who’ll go glassy-eyed over The Witcher’s amount of content, or are you hoping to get noticed by people who Fanatic-out over Portal or Journey?
Assault android cactus if your really good you could probably beat the whole single player campaign in less than 2 hours, theres an infinite mode as well. Some of the reviewers on the steam page put in over 100 hours into the game.
