TASK LENGTH (NOT PLAYTIME LENGTH)

Posts

Pages: first 12 next last
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
A couple of disclaimers:
  • Discuss this as players, or as both players and developers, not just developers.
  • None of this "Not to advertise, but in MY GAME <feature feature feature>" malarkey. You know for yourself if I mean you or not. We're discussing an aspect of games, not plugging our own.


***

For the purpose of this thread, the term "session" is defined as "The typical amount of time it takes to accomplish progress of relevance in a game, such as clear a dungeon or level." The typical "power session" or extended period of play would then, logically, just be several of these in a row. When playing for a long period, the point when you have your bathroom or snack break would typically coincide with a lull between sessions.

***

Something that I've given thought to lately is the stretch of time a player might play a game. Typically, there's a set interval where you can expect to have done something notable, like fought a boss or seen a cutscene. This can be generalized as "about an hour or so," and called the session length of the game.

Take, as an example, Link's Awakening. A typical session breaks down to clearing part of a dungeon (marked by unlocking one of the dungeon's warps to the entrance), or by completing one of the tasks that occur between dungeons. Typically, one session takes "about an hour or so." Knowing a dungeon has two or three warps, and that there are eight such dungeons and seven such between-dungeon tasks, you can assume Link's Awakening takes "about twenty-five hours or so" to complete.

So, simply put, a session in a game is the rubric on which it can be expected that the player take a break. To use another example, SMT: Strange Journey takes place nearly exclusively in its dungeons, and a typical playthrough takes around 80 to 100 hours. Given that the game does not have eighty to one-hundred dungeons, then it can be assumed that Strange Journey's dungeons are not used to measure its session length. So what is?

Save terminals. Strange Journey is designed to be an exhausting game (the merits of which are outside of the scope of this thread), and therefore sessions tend to be shorter, to accommodate the more frequent breaks the player will desire. Thus, a Strange Journey session is defined as "the time it takes to discover about one to three terminals and explore some dungeon." So, in most games, the session spacing serves the game design, and only rarely vice-versa.

Now, how does taking sessions into account factor into planning a game? Several ways—a session-conscious developer might divide their dungeons with save points in order to ease the player's worry, or make sure that players can expect a pattern in how tasks are broken up, or try to make an in-game day line up with a typical play session. A developer may intentionally deny the player session breaks in a particularly important sequence in order to ratchet up the player's tension. Simply being away of this factor gives the developer a plethora of powerful design tools that bear discussion and evaluation.

That's your cue, ladies and gentlemen. As players, how long do you like your sessions and how many such sessions do you normally sit down for? As a developer, what are some techniques that could be used to take advantage of the session phenomenon? (Remember: "It's possible to X / You could do X", not "I did X / In my game, players X")
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Personally, when playing RPGs, I almost never quit after a major cut scene, a successful boss fight, or the completion of a quest. Partially because that sense of accomplishment re-energizes me to keep going, and partially because I sometimes find it hard to remember where to go next. I typically quit in the middle of a dungeon or some other ongoing task, at whatever point I am starting to get sick of the task. As a result, when I pick the game back up later, I start out in the middle of whatever I'm supposed to be doing, instead of having to try to remember where to go next.

If I'm playing the game a lot, and really enjoying the hell out of it, then the above isn't an issue. I'll be playing it three to five hours almost every day, and when I quit will depend on when I have something else to do, not on anything in the game. But if I'm playing several other games also, I might not come back to this one for a week or two, and the next time after that might be another week or two, and each play session might be as short as two hours. I basically never play a game for less than two hours if I can help it.

In contrast, my father typically only plays for 30-45 minutes, sometimes less. He also only plays a game about once a week, sometimes less often, so it often takes him 10-15 minutes to just get re-accustomed to the gameplay after turning it on. He has been playing Final Fantasy 13 since it came out and is in Oerba Village. He sometimes spends entire play sessions just re-learning things he forgot, and then forgets them again the next time. He is an extreme example of the novice player.

So, if you want to appeal to these kinds of casual players, make sure your game never assumes the player remembers anything from previous sessions. Rehash plot points every time they're relevant, have an option to show descriptions of skills, items and even stats, and always put a clear marker on the minimap to show the player's destination, even if it's five feet away or it's something the player's done several times before. Because anything that can't be figured out in a single session by someone who has never played the game before before won't be figured out ever at all.

However, if you're trying to make a game for people who play more than one game every two years, this advice isn't particularly relevant (or at least the reasoning isn't).

Non sequitor: Xenosaga has a save point 45 minutes into its opening FMV. The first two play sessions of the game are entirely noninteractive.
author=LockeZ
Non sequitor: Xenosaga has a save point 45 minutes into its opening FMV. The first two play sessions of the game are entirely noninteractive.

That's not true. I just played it and you need to complete the first dungeon/area before you get the hour long cutscene with multiple save points. It does happen, but it happens several hours into the game.

But, whatever. I don't want to derail this topic.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Well, Lord knows I wasn't about to replay it to make sure I was remembering right.

Anyway the most obvious suggestion I can think of for this topic, aside from my bigass post earlier, is that instead of guessing, it would be really super useful to figure out what the actual shortest session is that people generally play. There must be studies, right? If not actual studies, then at least a GameFAQs poll or something. Once you have an actual number, you can make sure you never go longer than that without a save point.

And okay, I realize the shortest shortest session is gonna be less than a second. So really I mean the shortest amount of time that people play, when they actually feel like they've played long enough that it was a "play session," not counting the bottom 1% of results.
I think when it comes to sessions an important aspect is to have the length of the sessions stay consistent. Sure maybe the tutorial area can be shorter but after that most, if not all, "sessions" should be of equal length. I don't really think that the length matters that much, what matters is that when you sit down to play you kinda know how long the session is going to be and it will be frustrating when it takes too long.

I'll throw in an example I remember. Vampire Bloodlines has a level where you traverse a bunch of sewers, hunting down some kind of boss and these sewers are full of strange monsters. Now these sewers are generally considered one of the worst parts of the game and I think this is partially because the session is just too long.

I remember when I played it the first time it was pretty late at night and upon chasing down said boss I thought "fuck yeah, just a little bit longer" Well this little bit longer turned out to be an hour (or maybe two or maybe more, who knows) of nerve-wrecking sneaking around monsters that looked really mean with no apparent end in sight.

Now the developers seem to have realized that the sewers were too long because about halfway through there is a door that leads back into the hub area where you can resupply and had I been even slightly smarter I would have realized that's where I could have taken the break and went to sleep. But to be honest the pause-place didn't feel that obvious and since the rest of the game up until that point had been fairly short and intense missions without break points like that it felt "unnatural" to pause at that point.

So I think consistency in planned session length is key. People will fairly quickly when playing a game realize what length a session is and depending on that they'll either stop playing or continue. Sure you might also want to design the game around having session lengths that appeal to the most amount of people but if you want to create an immersive experience you have to have slightly longer session lengths than the minimum.

I'll provide another personal example. Often I sit around browsing my Steam library thinking I should start up a game to play, but more often than not I don't. Or I start up a game with very short session length. It's some kind of perceived investment. "If I start up The Witcher/Hearts of Iron III I'm going to have to dedicate at least two hours to get a meaningful experience out of it but if I start up Audiosurf/Beat Hazard I can kick ass and feel good for/in ten minutes."
Well, in my game... Just had to say it. When someone, especially someone on the internet, suggests strongly that I do not do something, it triggers my contrarian streak. Asking for a discussion, then telling people what not to discuss strikes me as offensive.

Anyway, I prefer not to have to adhere to preordained session lengths at all. I like being able to save at any time I want, turn the game off, and go do something else. I really hated the save point culture of the PS2 era. Something comes up, I have to leave the game paused on a cutscene or whatever until I can get back to it. By the time I return, chances are the power either fluctuated (Florida weather) or a roommate hit the wrong switch and killed everything plugged in along the far wall in the front room instead of just toggling the porch light.

Dragon's Dogma is interesting, because it does both at the same time. It allows me to save whenever I want, but also forces "session" limiters. If I want to use an Inn to advance time or heal my team up, I have to sit through the standard "You're in an inn" sequence, as well as the time it takes to connect to the server and fetch information about who has been doing what with my pawn. The delay takes me completely out of the game and makes it very easy to just switch off afterward.

They do a good job of pacing the gameplay, though. You're never too far away from an Inn, a rest camp, or a Healing Spring. Unless you're underground, and then, just hope for the best.

The thing is, when I log in to any of my characters now, I usually just stick around long enough to see if my pawns got a new review before losing interest and logging back out. The third or fourth time I get a quest telling me to hike all the way to the other end of the map, when I was just over there really annoys me.

If I had to go with a set interval, I prefer something in the 45 minute to an hour range. Under normal circumstances, that is about as much time as I can give myself after a long day, before it becomes time to wash dishes/make dinner/drag my dog through the yard for her evening walk during monsoon season, etc.
InfectionFiles
the world ends in whatever my makerscore currently is
4622
In amateur gaming, I see no reason that you shouldn't be able to save at any given point.
In commercial games, I can bare with it. Like Resident Evil games, it's part of the thrill. But really, like Killer Wolf said, it's damn annoying when you have something that comes up or you just want to stop playing for the moment without having to pause and leave it going for hours, etc.

Just because save points were in FF (x) doesn't mean it has to be present in every single rpg game. Especially since it doesn't really help gameplay beyond frustrating you at points.
In the sense of fallout(or many other games) you can save and abuse that by redoing failed attempts, but hey I want to play a game to have fun, not to be pissed off.
author=InfectionFiles
In amateur gaming, I see no reason that you shouldn't be able to save at any given point.
In commercial games, I can bare with it. Like Resident Evil games, it's part of the thrill. But really, like Killer Wolf said, it's damn annoying when you have something that comes up or you just want to stop playing for the moment without having to pause and leave it going for hours, etc.

Just because save points were in FF (x) doesn't mean it has to be present in every single rpg game. Especially since it doesn't really help gameplay beyond frustrating you at points.
In the sense of fallout(or many other games) you can save and abuse that by redoing failed attempts, but hey I want to play a game to have fun, not to be pissed off.
I agree more than agreeing is possible.
-
Let's say a dungeon is a total of 4 hours long for the not-so experienced player. Have the dungeon spread itself out a bit, and introduce different concepts as the player clears it. So say the player only has 20 minutes to play. That should be enough time to finish a puzzle, gather some chests, or fight one or two side bosses.
I guess you could say it drives that "epic" feeling of gameplay, unlike extremely short dungeons. You just can't relay on one dungeon gimmick.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
KWolf: Well, you know where we would've been if I hadn't. As for what you said:
author=Killer Wolf
They do a good job of pacing the gameplay, though. You're never too far away from an Inn, a rest camp, or a Healing Spring. Unless you're underground, and then, just hope for the best.

This is the effect I want to vivisect. It can be said, then, that being Underground has a dramatic effect on your session length, or your length between breaks in tension. Quicksaving and leaving to do real-life things simply puts the current session on hold—you're still however far into the current session when you return.

LockeZ: Then, you still have the same length of session, don't you? Your sessions just start and end halfway through a given task, instead of when the task starts or ends. How does that affect your play experience?

Shinan brings up good points. Consistency is huge in terms of session length. Going back to Strange Journey, you could expect to find a terminal every "ten minutes or so," unless you were stuck. You could tell you were stuck by the fact that you hadn't found a terminal on time.

This brings up another clutch point. Saving isn't the only thing that defines a session. It can also be defined as the amount of time it takes to do something meaningful, and as such, if you haven't done anything within this time, you can call yourself stuck.

So, sessions aren't just save points. They can also be inns, or checkpoints, or any number of "relief junctures."
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
It's not the most crucial distinction, but what you're talking about is "level" length rather than "session" length. While some players (like me) try to break their sessions up into neatly bounded segments, for other players that's not possible, or simply not a priority, and for them a session might mean the first 35% of a given dungeon, or the last 20% of a dungeon and the first 15% of the next, or any other seemingly random, "messy" interval.

If a game is complex or addictive enough (Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout: New Vegas) I will sit down to play it for basically as long as I can get away with, even if a several hour session turns out to be mainly composed of twiddling my inventory, attributes, and skills around, or moving my things armload by armload into a new house and painstakingly arranging them.

My average session length seems far more effected by outside factors in my life than by anything to do with game design itself, which makes me question whether this topic is one that can truly be studied. I do know that what can terminate my session early is if I die in a frustrating way, like after not having saved for a while. I'd prefer to repeat the content after a break rather than immediately after having just played it.
InfectionFiles
the world ends in whatever my makerscore currently is
4622
I agree with Max, I'm not sure this whole topic has much to do with game design.
I'll play for as long as I want to and stop when I want to, I've never had the feeling that the game itself was the deciding factor.

If it is a fun addictive game, and I have time to kill, like Fallout: New Vegas then I'll play for hours. I'll take a smoke break or go to the bathroom, but that isn't the game's design, that's human choice.
Unless I am missing something here...

I guess I don't have "sessions"
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
C'mon guys, you know better than that.

Max:
The term "session" is used purely because "level" isn't enough of a catch-all. I've talking about a game's task-length, not the time between restroom breaks.

author=InfectionFiles
I'm not sure this whole topic has much to do with game design.


I've spent a good bit of text outlining how it's applicable by a wily designer.
'Session' is definitely the wrong word. Session fits what Max and Infection are describing much moreso. Hence the confusion over the topic.

Anyway, it's important to note that players progress at different paces. So even if two different players want to play exactly an hour, a given segment of the game might take them different amounts of time to complete. This is especially the case if the segment is not linear or requires some sort of skill to advance(of which puzzle solving is included).

LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
Nothing about how to establish a session length? Nothing about how to play around with session length effectively, and how doing so can establish or ease tension in the player?

Come on, RMN, you've had two whole years to contemplate gam mak.
Let me just say that as a developer, if you want to have some control over the time players should spend on a given segment, you shouldn't assume that all players will explore every corner and fight every enemy/encounter.
You should also take the critical path into account, i.e. the shortest route and minimal amount of foes/treasures you have to beat/find in order to reach the end of the segment.

I thought I had to mention this when you said Link's Awakening's dungeons can "typically" take about an hour to complete. It is actually possible to beat the whole game in about an hour by going through all of the critical paths.
I usually expect to play about an hour or so, but I make sure I have two hours worth of available time.

The time it takes to beat a dungeon can definitely take more than half an hour. Usually, there's cutscenes and such coming before and after the dungeon as well. So, about one hour to play trough both the setup for the dungeon and the dungeon itself. The time to accomplish something can definitely be shorter though, but I usually get bored if it takes much longer than that.

The player should be given chances to quit the game much more frequently than that though. If you have save points, I say no more than fifteen minutes between them.
InfectionFiles
the world ends in whatever my makerscore currently is
4622
author=Avee
Let me just say that as a developer, if you want to have some control over the time players should spend on a given segment, you shouldn't assume that all players will explore every corner and fight every enemy/encounter.
This is how I feel, very strongly actually.
The main reason I don't see the point in trying to create hard sessions on the player, because it just flat out varies waaay too much.
It's been said here already, but the fact is people play differently, what takes one guy 30mins takes another an hour.
So, even if you did create an intricate system of savepoints and tasks length it comes down to the player, and I'm not sure that's something you can control 100% of the time.
You can't really factor in optional content and if you do it might mess up the entire timeframe you were planning anyways.
author=Crystalgate
The player should be given chances to quit the game much more frequently than that though. If you have save points, I say no more than fifteen minutes between them.
Yeah, this.
And on the same note, not all tasks should be super long either, and if they have to be, break them up into segments and give the player a break. That then leaves it up to them if they just want to soldier through it or not.
LouisCyphre
can't make a bad game if you don't finish any games
4523
author=Avee
It is actually possible to beat the whole game in about an hour by going through all of the critical paths.


It's possible to beat in 87 seconds, but that has no bearing on the time it takes a first time player to perform each set "Task". You can expect a first-time player to take a couple of hours in the first dungeon, etc.

As for the "You can't control my playtime, maaaaaan!" posts, what I'm trying to collect opinions on are the ways the length of a Task can be used to communicate with the player.

RMN hasn't improved at all, has it?
author=LouisCyphre
Nothing about how to establish a session length? Nothing about how to play around with session length effectively, and how doing so can establish or ease tension in the player?

You're just not getting an answer you want, but they ARE answering. The current consensus is that there is no consensus on preferable playing time for a given segment.

And seeing how you can't accommodate all or even most of your gamers, the only thing you can work with is consistency. Have these relief junctures occur at reasonably similar times.

As for what those relief junctures can be, the most obvious one in RPGs is not save points(because I think you should be able to save very often), but rather healing spots. The end of the previous cycle of attrition.

If you're playing a dungeon crawl, you haven't hit relief until you're back in town selling item drops, repairing/buying equipment, hitting the inn. For action games, there's relief when you complete the level.

You can control it by doing things like limiting inventory. Say you can only hold 10 restorative items. If the gamer is forced to ration, they'll feel the checkpoint relief of seeing the next item shop.

Save points don't offer relief if there's no real threat of failing at the moment or from the section the gamer just survived, or if the gamer has no intention of stopping.

In order to use tension, you must create tension. But I've found in traditional RPGs that this isn't normally used, and that game segments are divided into dungeons and plot progress.

In any case, length of time should be irrelevant(since there's no consensus), and denying the gamer the ability to stop playing doesn't improve the game experience. That's what you can take from the discussion.

=========================================================

What the hell does length of a task have to do with communicating with the gamer? You must explain if you want the discussion to stay on your topic.

For me, the real discussion is building and releasing of tension. In neither case does this have to do with length of time for RPGs. I can play an RPG for 3 hours without feeling any tension whatsoever, or play a game with near zero gameplay like Heavy Rain for 10 minutes and feel immense pressure.

Generally this is more pertinent in action games, being that the gamer is on edge for the entire time before the next break in the action. So being on edge for longer means something.

In RPGs, you're not normally on the alert constantly like in an action involved game. So increasing the time you spend casually playing before a relief doesn't ratchet up the tension.

In essence, I disagree with your assertion that session spacing serves game design. I believe the game design, the degree of difficulty especially, dictate the reasonable period before you need to grant a relief. This is the case for all games. But in RPGs that's only a factor as to not frustrate the gamer, and not as a tool for building tension.
InfectionFiles
the world ends in whatever my makerscore currently is
4622
RMN hasn't improved at all, has it?

Yeah, fuck you too, dude.
Pages: first 12 next last