Diminutive Diatrubes: The Ongoing Question of Game Length

Ladies, gentlemen, I am exhausted.  This week I had a lot of training to do for my trip to China and I got 3 shots, and worked a huge amount of time at my job with very little sleep...this is not the time for a big brain hurty discussion.  But, since I have plans for the next week or two and am not sure if I will be able to get a post out, I feel I should at least do this much.  So, let's have a short talk about game length and the price/length ratio.

Diminutive Diatrubes: The Ongoing Question of Game Length

            Lately, something has weighed on my mind, while I've been debating another video review before a creator spotlight.  And that is the value of a game based on its length.  See, I had an interesting experience lately where I tried a game that boasted 60+ hours.  I was bored within about 10 and just stopped playing.  Then, I picked up Savant Ascent on Steam and spent almost the same amount of time playing it, loving every second.  The kicker though?  The game I stopped playing as a huge, spanning RPG that could easily last for hundreds of hours before being done.  Savant is a quick arcade title that I beat in 30 minutes.  However, I enjoyed the game so much I went back to it enough to equal the time I spent on the RPG.

Savant is 30 minutes of head bopping, Guy Faux DBZ powered, musical mayhem.  I've played it at least a dozen times.  Money well spent.

            So, how long is too long for a game?  Is a game worth the money if it's only got a few hours, or hell, even a few minutes worth of gameplay?  What about AAA games?  Should they be held to a different standard than Indies and, if so, should we forgive artificial padding?  How much is a game worth if measured in hours.

            Angry Joe has a meme that is something infamous now, where he played Kane and Lynch 2, noting that, for $60, it only lasted 4 hours.  Foooouuuurrrr...hoouurrrssssss!!!  Same thing for Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes, which can be beaten in 1 hour, 10 minutes or less if people ignore some of the extras.  And that game cost $40.  Savant Ascent, on the other hand, has about 30 minutes to an hour's worth of content, if you never replay it, for $3.  Is Savant worth the money?  Were Kane and Lynch and MGS 5: Ground Zeroes rip offs?  Or was the content delivered worth the money paid?

            Honestly, in the modern gaming landscape, this is a question that has no right answer.  It can only be examined on a case by case basis.  One series I absolutely love is Tiny Barbarian DX.  It had a free flash version and a Steam version for $10.  Both can be beaten in about an hour or less.  I was pretty satisfied with the amount of fun I got for my money, and even surprised that Tiny Barbarian was getting sequel-esque DLC episodes for free to anyone who'd bought the game, giving it an extra hour or two worth of play for each episode.  Yet, I can see how someone would say, "$10 for an hours worth of fun?!  That's such a rip off!  You can go to a two hour movie for less!" or something along those lines.  And...they're not wrong.  A valid point is made.  Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth squeezed out 10 hours before I quit it in frustration.  But those hours were so padded and wasteful that I felt cheated for paying the same $10 price tag as Tiny Barbarian.  And...I'm not wrong either.  If I wasn't having fun, that WAS a rip off.

It's like Conan.  But cute.  And tiny.  And fun.

            Price is a strange thing, as is the amount of fun to price ratio.  Many of us would be happier to drop $15 on Shovel Knight, play it for five hours, then be done, satisfied with a good experience.  Others would prefer to get value and pay $3 for two 20-30 hour RPGs in the form of Breath of Death 7 and Cthulhu Saves the World.  How can you argue with either?  You really can't, because all people are different and the games they go into are not always going to be conducive to providing a lot of value in terms of hours.  They will be able to provide value in terms of spectacle, satisfaction, or fun, however.  Usually, at least.  Some games will just blow either way.

Shovel Knight is a little short, but oh, is it ever satisfying.

            The best way of looking at it is this.  Did you enjoy the game enough that you don't feel bad you bought it?  Then, the money you paid for it was well worth it.  You can go back to it again to get more value or you can just enjoy the memories you made while playing at it.  If you have buyers remorse, like I did with Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the earth...then the game was not worth the money.

I'll take short but sweet to long and getting lost, wandering around, and replaying sections in frustration because you died, thank you very much.

            I bring this simple thing up, however, because it IS important to remember that satisfaction is a wonderful thing, but we should not always let it be the only overriding factor as to whether or not a game is worth the price.  Why?  Because a game like Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes released as a AAA game with the same length of an indie and the same price as a standard release.  This...is a problem.  Or rather, it could become one. 

Now, I can blow through a Metal Gear game like 2 or 3 in like 5 hours, but do we really want a game that's...an hour to beat and $40 retail?  Really?

            If developers, indie or otherwise, decide that they can get away with releasing a game piecemeal or without a lot of game time and selling it at the full price of $40 or $60, not only will we the consumer suffer, but so will the industry.  One of the reason games like Tiny Barbarian or Shovel Knight are successful is not just that they are good games, which they are, but because they are cheaper than the competition.  I could go and drop $60 on Titanfall or I could play the Forest on Steam for $15.  Will it sell as much?  No.  Is it the same genre?  No.  But can it be successful enough to fund a sequel or another game by the studio?  Yes.  Because it IS cheaper than the competition, or at least on the same level as games like Outlast or Amnesia.  However, if the Forest or Shovel Knight was released with a $40 price tag, like Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes, they would crash and burn hard.  Not because they're bad, but because in this economy, we have so many games to choose from and yet very little money to spread around.  Cheaper games are more likely to succeed than expensive ones by selling more units at a decreased price, even if they don't have the ad or hype train behind them.  If games ever go the way of MGS 5, where players feel it's okay to pay $40 for a very brief experience, then...we could be headed for another video game crash.  Because fewer and fewer games will get sold, leading to indie devs starving and the few game studios with the money to survive less willing to take risks and provide unique titles like The Forest, Shovel Knight, or Bro Force.

Survival horror wouldn't have survived as a genre if people weren't willing to drop the price and keep it low.  $15 for Amnesia, the Forest, or Outlast?  Yeah, I can afford that.

            The point I wanted to make with this little article is the simple idea that the only value a game has is what you take from it.  That being said, we do need to have standards.  In an ideal world, all games would sell for cheap, all the good ones would succeed, and everyone could play as much or as little as they want.  We do not live in an ideal world, however.  We have to differentiate between indies who are giving the best experience they can and AAA games who we should expect more from for the price.

This is just food for thought.  Don't let anyone else tell you what's really important when it comes to buying YOUR games.

            Ultimately, this question will remain.  But I leave it to you, the customers, the gamers, the players, to find your own answer.  This isn't meant to give you that answer...just food for thought.