Well, I got to thinking. Most other media have a standard time that they fill. It''s like a contract with the user/viewer/reader; all pieces will generally take a common interval of time out of your life. Films are typically 2 hours, 90 minutes Euro, 3 to 4 hours if very epic. That''s only three variations. Television shows are in any number of half-hour combinations, although they rarely run over two hours in one sitting. Books; depending greatly upon the audience, tend to have a certain breadth the rarely carries them on more than 1500 pages. I''d say the majority are about 700. Plays come in acts, and it''s very easy to find out how many Acts you will be seeing, and how many breaks you get. This is somewhat crucial in entertainment. Time is money, it''s something people are usually very reluctant to part with. I feel that the lack of standard intervals of play-time in games is a large part of what prevents non-teenaged audiences from trying them. If we had some kind of contract with the viewer: "this game will take twenty hours to complete, which you can spread over however many sittings you like. Sittings should be at least an hour for your enjoyment" or something of the like... Now, there is a camp out there that is tickled pink by absurdly long games. People will look and think "300+ hours!". I love games, but that''s 300 hours out of my life, and I could have played and beaten 12 great games in the time that one would take me. On top of that, what the hell have they arranged for me to do for 300 hours?! I''ll tell you. Push one button repeatedly and slay monsters. That leads me to another benefit of standard time. If we can start viewing games in production as "too long for the player" we will start editing out boring crap rather than cramming more in to take up precious "hours". Imagine a Final Fantasy VII quality production without all the filler! Sure, it''ll be twenty minutes, but I think it''s worth it! I think that games will be getting shorter. if interactivity is as important in new games as I''ve been led to believe, games will start getting shorter and more replayable. If a game is only a half-hour long, but you can play through it in a dozen completely different ways, It''s contract, I''m more likely to fulfill than 300+ hours. I think the industry standard, however, will be around 20 hours with high replay. You see, length is a side effect of linear design. It''s technically impossible to design a truly interactive game with a 100+ minimum. You can''t do it. Too many options. With this step, we might open the medium for those who feel they are "Too busy for things like games". We''re only asking for a half an hour, and in that time we will give you a complete experience, beginning to end, with the option of you returning for a different story. What do you guys think? ===== Are you aware that the people who bring you television actually refer to it openly as "programming?"

Standard time = good. Post = too long to keep my attention

I think that if you could divide up games into acts, then they should last about an hour of gameplay at minimum. Actually, that is far too short. Make it something like 3 hours minimum. Maybe it isn''t the entire act per ce, but instead certain "chapters" of the game that take this long to complete... But then again, what would I know?

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

Hmm, it''s funny you should mention FFVII. About a month after it was released in the US, the average gameplay hours was estimated between 60 to 65 hours. Of course I did every little last thing imaginable in the game, so my clock got stuck at 99:59. I think there was another 20 to 30 hours I played. The point? Maybe there should be different amounts of time depending on the type of player. Cattegories could include these {I took the liberty of mocking up some numbers}:

Rush-through: 15 hours. {aka. cheating with a strategy guide}
Casual: 20 to 25 hours
Deeply involved: 30 to 40 hours
Hardcore : 60 to 80 hours
Perfectionist : 125 to 150 hours

Another thought: didn''t they used to print about how many hours the game would take on the boxes. Hmm, maybe it was just their hype.

It was hype indeed, provided that the game was even finishable . But I still am going to say that there needs to be little breaks in the story (ie, chapters like I mentioned above) at which you can take at toilet and snack break. I hate having to sit there from breakfast until dinner and then realise that I missed lunch

Maybe I just play too hard


-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

Jeez! My Diablo II multiplay sessions usually end up being a MINIMUM of 6 hours! And we only stop because it is 2A.M. and we need some sleep

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

I''m looking at it as a means of expanding markets. I think more (normal) people would be able to enjoy games if they were of a more predictable length. I think an hour is a good segment for sittings, since it''s short enough to compete with TV (evil box) and short enough to have two sittings in one night if you''re really into it. So how many sittings/days should an average market game be? What is the minimum time your average game needs to be enjoyable?

And therte''s nothing to say longer games shouldn''t be made for the more Hardcore audiences. Like Kurosawa.

======
"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates

"Question everything. Especially Landfish."
-Matt

I think if you take into account the cost of a game, ($80 here in Australia.. in Aussie buks - the real dough! ) probably an hour per dollar to make it worthwhile. I was disappointed that I could finish Diablo II in under a week (only in Normal). I hated the fact that each of the Sonic the Hedgehog only took 3 days, and the third one only took me 2

Not really worth the money if it doesn''t occupy you

It doesn''t necessarily have to have that length though, if it is fun enough (and variant enough) to come back to and give you a different experience, then it may be able to be brought back down to 20 hours. It really depends on how good or how crap your game is

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

If you add depth over length, replayability becomes the prominent factor. Sonc the Hedgehog is platform game that is perfectly linear... the game I have in mind is also KINDA linear, but might have simultaneous events that the player cannot percieve both of in one sitting. If you like it, it''s worth playing another time. These kinds of games (like movies) would be ideal for rent. If you really like one in particular, you might buy it...

I think that the cost of games is too high at the moment, but I am not going to rant about it

Depth is DEFINITELY what is missing in games, what they need is a hook factor that is not solely due to powermaxing. A deep story is definitly intriguing and what would really do the thing in the story is if there were certain elements that REQUIRED them to play it a second time to see the details. Specifically thinking fight club (still... aint it brilliant ) where you need to watch it again to see all of the little things that you missed or The Sixth Sense (which I have not seen, but already think I know the ending to) also due to the little things.

More $(rant*2/100)


-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)