Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
GAME LENGTH AND MAINTAINING PLAYER INTEREST
Posts
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Sooz
View playlists
CloseSo the Tagline Thread derailed a bit with this topic, which means it's an interesting discussion for devs.
So, game length.
Why do people feel like they need to make games longer than a full day?
Should most games even need to take more than a single afternoon?
What can devs do to better wrangle their scope creep?
In a similar vein, how do you maintain player interest in the starting levels? LockeZ put it p. well:
So, game length.
Why do people feel like they need to make games longer than a full day?
Should most games even need to take more than a single afternoon?
What can devs do to better wrangle their scope creep?
In a similar vein, how do you maintain player interest in the starting levels? LockeZ put it p. well:
author=LockeZ
Starting out really boring is an overwhelmingly common problem in RPGs. Depressingly common. I'm surprised any time the beginning of an RPG is enjoyable. If your game takes two hours before you have options other than Attack/Defend/Potion, it's in good company with FF5, FF13, and Dragon Quest 4.
If a game is so bad that no one can bring themselves get past the first dungeon, it probably should get removed from the site, rather than just getting a low score. Problem solved.
I think LockeZ's criticisms speak to a lot of common flaws of RPGs, but the lack of battle options is a big one. Having a skill loadout at the very start of the game that allows you to do more than Attack/Defend/Potion is a great starting place. It doesn't have to be super-robust right out of the gate, but should give you a few skills to let you know how each character is meant to play. The developer can keep adding skills as needed as the game progresses.
Getting in fun gameplay ASAP is essential for hooking new players, and skills can go a long way in achieving that. On the other hand, just giving them Attack/Defend and having to wait three levels to get a unique skill is often pretty boring.
Diversity is cool, too. Starting with three characters who all learn Body Slam at Level 3 and First Aid at Level 5 is pretty dull, but adding in skills that are different and can be used to give the characters meaningful roles or promote strategy are great.
Getting in fun gameplay ASAP is essential for hooking new players, and skills can go a long way in achieving that. On the other hand, just giving them Attack/Defend and having to wait three levels to get a unique skill is often pretty boring.
Diversity is cool, too. Starting with three characters who all learn Body Slam at Level 3 and First Aid at Level 5 is pretty dull, but adding in skills that are different and can be used to give the characters meaningful roles or promote strategy are great.
I dunno - I think the way you phrased the question implies that long games are inherently bad, or worse, than short games, and I don't believe that to be the case.
To answer your question, I felt that I needed to make a game that lasted a full day because that's how long it took to play all of the content I wanted to put into it. Is that a bad thing?
To answer your question, I felt that I needed to make a game that lasted a full day because that's how long it took to play all of the content I wanted to put into it. Is that a bad thing?
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=kentona
I dunno - I think the way you phrased the question implies that long games are inherently bad, or worse, than short games, and I don't believe that to be the case.
To answer your question, I felt that I needed to make a game that lasted a full day because that's how long it took to play all of the content I wanted to put into it. Is that a bad thing?
I... don't see the implication you're picking up on? I asked three separate questions under one subject heading.
Edit: I went ahead and separated the questions to try and avoid people assuming they were related to one another beyond subject. Does that help?
Darken
3952
I honestly want more games to just be 5 hours in length, yes, even RPGs.
Recently I've been playing a lot of launch titles in my library (Luigi's Mansion, Ace Combat 4, Pikmin, Onimusha etc.) They were all games rushed to meet the deadlines for their respective console launches, not to mention new console specs forces them to adapt quickly. As a result they're 5-10 hours in length. If you read all of their old reviews they'll probably read something like "It's good! But it's a little on the short side...rent it" But retrospectively for me I find them more enjoyable as each game's mechanics and/or gimmicks don't overstay their welcome. It's short development time for the developer, and likely better pacing for the player.
Granted some of these games don't reach their full potential, not due to the lack of length, but the lack of polish in general. Developers after the console launch period tend to just focus on making more chunkier games for the sequels. Pikmin 2 for instance got rid of the time limit in the previous game and made it more of a collectathon making the game longer.
Recently I've been playing a lot of launch titles in my library (Luigi's Mansion, Ace Combat 4, Pikmin, Onimusha etc.) They were all games rushed to meet the deadlines for their respective console launches, not to mention new console specs forces them to adapt quickly. As a result they're 5-10 hours in length. If you read all of their old reviews they'll probably read something like "It's good! But it's a little on the short side...rent it" But retrospectively for me I find them more enjoyable as each game's mechanics and/or gimmicks don't overstay their welcome. It's short development time for the developer, and likely better pacing for the player.
Granted some of these games don't reach their full potential, not due to the lack of length, but the lack of polish in general. Developers after the console launch period tend to just focus on making more chunkier games for the sequels. Pikmin 2 for instance got rid of the time limit in the previous game and made it more of a collectathon making the game longer.
author=Soozauthor=kentonaI... don't see the implication you're picking up on? I asked three separate questions under one subject heading.
I dunno - I think the way you phrased the question implies that long games are inherently bad, or worse, than short games, and I don't believe that to be the case.
To answer your question, I felt that I needed to make a game that lasted a full day because that's how long it took to play all of the content I wanted to put into it. Is that a bad thing?
Edit: I went ahead and separated the questions to try and avoid people assuming they were related to one another beyond subject. Does that help?
It's the wording you used:
Why do people feel like they need to make games longer than a full day?
The use of the word 'feel' in this context implies that they are wrong to believe this. With a strict time defined of 24 hours, you imply that games longer than that are making a mistake.
Should most games even need to take more than a single afternoon?
The use of 'should' in this phrasing in this case implies an answer of 'no, they should not'. The use of 'even' further reinforces this implication.
And yes, like you said, the 3rd question only implies something if you take it in context of the previous two questions, as it then implies that scope creep is the leading cause for game developers to make the mistake of making a game that is longer than a single afternoon, or feeling the need to make 24hr+ long games.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=kentona
It's the wording you used:
Why do people feel like they need to make games longer than a full day?
The use of the word 'feel' in this context implies that they are wrong to believe this. With a strict time defined of 24 hours, you imply that games longer than that are making a mistake.
These are implications I 100% did not intend; I've seen a lot of talk about how games have to be dozens of hours long to be worth playing, and wanted to know why people hold that belief. The day thing was chosen simply as an arbitrary large number, and I feel that, by your logic, any such number would read as "this is the maximum reasonable cutoff."
Shouldmost games even need to take more than a single afternoon?
The use of 'should' in this phrasing in this case implies an answer of 'no, they should not'. The use of 'even' further reinforces this implication.
...sooo... how am I supposed to phrase this question to start a discussion surrounding the amount of time it should (sorry, can't think of a good alternate word!) take the average person to complete a particular game?
Like seriously, how the heck am I supposed to phrase these questions without having some kind of implication being read into them? Especially given that "a game should last as long as possible" seems to be a default assumption for a lot of devs?
ANSWER ME DAMMIT! :V
Here's a go at it:
Why does "a game should last as long as possible" seems to be a default assumption for a lot of devs?
Why does "a game should last as long as possible" seems to be a default assumption for a lot of devs?
WolfCoder
3554
Especially given that "a game should last as long as possible" seems to be a default assumption for a lot of devs?
A game should not be longer than you have unique content for. If a new section plays too much like all the existing ones, the game will be too long.
Milennin
2060
A classicial RPG that lasts only a couple of hours will have a hard time telling a big, epic story if it also want the player to be actively playing a significant amount of that time. Combat generally takes up a lot of the game time, and a single dungeon can easily take up to 30 minutes or more to play through in your average RPG.
My current game was planned to maybe be 5-6 hours at most before I started working on it, but even the current demo is already halfway that point, and the main villain hasn't even been introduced yet. Still, the player goes through the introduction, 2 dungeons with plenty of boss fights and an explorable area - it's not like there's a lack of stuff to do. Everyone I've seen my game playing has been wanting to play to the end of the demo, so I think my game's doing fine.
Scope creep isn't bad at all in my opinion, as long as it's handled well and the developer is determined to finishing the game.
Having playtested a bunch of RPG Maker games the past year, I noticed this too. Combat is almost always one of the most neglected things, and it's seriously hurting those games. Too many games start you off with either:
-not any skills at all (inexcusable and instant turn off)
-have only a deal more damage skill (yay for originality)
To maintain player interest you need to present the player with a meaningful choice from the start, and build from there.
My current game was planned to maybe be 5-6 hours at most before I started working on it, but even the current demo is already halfway that point, and the main villain hasn't even been introduced yet. Still, the player goes through the introduction, 2 dungeons with plenty of boss fights and an explorable area - it's not like there's a lack of stuff to do. Everyone I've seen my game playing has been wanting to play to the end of the demo, so I think my game's doing fine.
Scope creep isn't bad at all in my opinion, as long as it's handled well and the developer is determined to finishing the game.
author=Sooz
In a similar vein, how do you maintain player interest in the starting levels? LockeZ put it p. well:author=LockeZ
Starting out really boring is an overwhelmingly common problem in RPGs. Depressingly common. I'm surprised any time the beginning of an RPG is enjoyable. If your game takes two hours before you have options other than Attack/Defend/Potion, it's in good company with FF5, FF13, and Dragon Quest 4.
If a game is so bad that no one can bring themselves get past the first dungeon, it probably should get removed from the site, rather than just getting a low score. Problem solved.
Having playtested a bunch of RPG Maker games the past year, I noticed this too. Combat is almost always one of the most neglected things, and it's seriously hurting those games. Too many games start you off with either:
-not any skills at all (inexcusable and instant turn off)
-have only a deal more damage skill (yay for originality)
To maintain player interest you need to present the player with a meaningful choice from the start, and build from there.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I know a common complaint we see on Remnants of Isolation's reviews is that it's "short," which puzzles me, because what more do they think we need to put in there? vOv
I can understand complaints about a short game that costs AAA money, but one that's less than the price of a paperback?
I can understand complaints about a short game that costs AAA money, but one that's less than the price of a paperback?
People will complain about the same thing if a movie is less than 1h30m hours long. But I wonder what they mean? Maybe it's that they liked your game so much they wish that they could experience it for LONGER. Take it as a compliment.
As for the topic at hand, I think that maintaining the player's interest from the getgo depends heavily on giving the player a clear purpose, and maintaining it throughout the game. The purpose can change of course, but they should always be working towards a goal at any given time. If the goal/purpose is being diluted by padding the game, then the game suffers overall. Or if the game has no stated purpose, like say Minecraft, people are likely to get bored quickly and play something else.
As for the topic at hand, I think that maintaining the player's interest from the getgo depends heavily on giving the player a clear purpose, and maintaining it throughout the game. The purpose can change of course, but they should always be working towards a goal at any given time. If the goal/purpose is being diluted by padding the game, then the game suffers overall. Or if the game has no stated purpose, like say Minecraft, people are likely to get bored quickly and play something else.
I'm very much of the opinion that a game should only be as long as it needs to be... or even shorter, honestly. Maybe it makes sense for kids with lots of summer breaks and free weekends, but as the semi-responsible psuedo-adult that I am, I don't have a lot of free time to play games! A game that lasts >24 hours might take me a month straight to play. I've had the new Zelda game for 3DS sitting around my place since April! I know it's gonna be good when I play it, but I don't have time!
My point is, like, I would way rather play a game that's fun, exciting, interesting, and 2 hours long, over a 20 hour long game that has lots of boring or half-assed stuff. In terms of games on this site, I usually think this comes from a combination of wanting to tell epic tales instead short stories, and a desire to come up with new systems like alchemy / crafting / quests / etc. Skyrim is great, but you know what was also great? Portal! That game is short, fun, hilarious, and doesn't feel padded all to hell.
Overscoping is a pretty huge problem for everyone (it's the biggest reason why games, from AAA to indie, fail). My personal advice here: to do your best to figure out what makes your game fun - story? battles? exploration? jumping mechanics? and then cut out as much as you possibly can from your design plans while still keeping that fun core. Like Sooz said, you gotta kill your babies. If you miraculously end up with spare time at the end, feel free to add them back in! My other recommendation would be to participate in lots of game jams and short-timeframe projects, because you will quickly start learning how to make short, fun, interesting games with a limited timeframe.
My point is, like, I would way rather play a game that's fun, exciting, interesting, and 2 hours long, over a 20 hour long game that has lots of boring or half-assed stuff. In terms of games on this site, I usually think this comes from a combination of wanting to tell epic tales instead short stories, and a desire to come up with new systems like alchemy / crafting / quests / etc. Skyrim is great, but you know what was also great? Portal! That game is short, fun, hilarious, and doesn't feel padded all to hell.
Overscoping is a pretty huge problem for everyone (it's the biggest reason why games, from AAA to indie, fail). My personal advice here: to do your best to figure out what makes your game fun - story? battles? exploration? jumping mechanics? and then cut out as much as you possibly can from your design plans while still keeping that fun core. Like Sooz said, you gotta kill your babies. If you miraculously end up with spare time at the end, feel free to add them back in! My other recommendation would be to participate in lots of game jams and short-timeframe projects, because you will quickly start learning how to make short, fun, interesting games with a limited timeframe.
Darken
3952
author=Sooz
I know a common complaint we see on Remnants of Isolation's reviews is that it's "short," which puzzles me, because what more do they think we need to put in there? vOv
I can understand complaints about a short game that costs AAA money, but one that's less than the price of a paperback?
The main problem is that there are a lot of indie games with hours of content with the same price, add to that you got a lot of old games that are 30+ hours long but are cheap for people who never played them before. Thus you're competing with a very strong standard. There's not much you can do to overcome this other than offer replay value or some sort of depth but that also costs more dev time you could spend adding more content.
People were willing to pay 20 dollars for Journey, which is only a 2 hour game, but a very very polished one. It took 3 years to make via tons of revisions and one would wonder why that would all output into a 2 hour experience. It didn't sell as well as expected but at least it left a lasting impression.
Arcade-style games which focus on the perfection of manual dexterity for a given task don't need to be very long, because the challenge is in achieving the perfection. This is accomplished over many episodes of playing the same game.
RPGs are different. There is very little skill involved in the manual interaction. Instead, the draw of the Role-Playing Game is the journey: the opportunity to role-play. This involves having the player make choices which create his or her role-play identity. Choices such as, "which character class should I become?" or "I'll buy this spell now and save up my money for the bigger one later," or "I'll take the left fork in the path," or "I have to guard Moat Castle and Treasure Fort, but I can only post to one before the monsters arrive." The more choices, the more the player has role-played, which is the meat of the game.
RPGs are different. There is very little skill involved in the manual interaction. Instead, the draw of the Role-Playing Game is the journey: the opportunity to role-play. This involves having the player make choices which create his or her role-play identity. Choices such as, "which character class should I become?" or "I'll buy this spell now and save up my money for the bigger one later," or "I'll take the left fork in the path," or "I have to guard Moat Castle and Treasure Fort, but I can only post to one before the monsters arrive." The more choices, the more the player has role-played, which is the meat of the game.
author=WolfCoderEspecially given that "a game should last as long as possible" seems to be a default assumption for a lot of devs?A game should not be longer than you have unique content for. If a new section plays too much like all the existing ones, the game will be too long.
People play Tetris and it's repetitive as fuck. Same with games like Fire Emblem which are essentially very similar in gameplay from stage to stage. It's not about repetition but about how fun the game is. If you have a fun gameplay, coupled with interesting characters, neat plot and great music, people are going to want to spend more time in that game.
You can have fun grinding for hours on end if you feel the pay-off is worth it and it doesn't bore the ever-loving hell out of you. I mean, how else do you explain games where grinding is the main draw?
That said, you do need a hook, and fast. You need a reason for people to want to keep playing if you're going for the long game. You need to have either a great story/characters/world or great gameplay that is addictive.
But that's the main thing - length doesn't matter if you have content that is enjoyable for however long the game lasts. You could have a 10 minute game that is highly addictive with gameplay and it'll be replayed over and over (hello, Tetris) or a 100 hour epic that, as long as it's FUN, will be played for that long. It's all about how the content stacks up - and from the get-go.
author=Liberty
That said, you do need a hook, and fast. You need a reason for people to want to keep playing if you're going for the long game. You need to have either a great story/characters/world or great gameplay that is addictive.
Yea, thinking about it more, it really is important to show off the best part of your game as soon as possible. Like, you gotta hook 'em in with your selling point, your core, right away. If your game's about a super cool battle system, you should open with a sweet boss battle! Don't put it off for an hour. If your game is about wandering and building stuff out of squares, just have players hit Start and drop them into a huge mystery world full of squares, don't show 'em a long scrolling prologue.
You don't wanna overwhelm people with stuff beyond their skill level, of course, but you don't have to ease them in so slowly they get bored. You gotta find a way to tease 'em with a taste of what the rest of the game is gonna be like right away! Compare the intro of FF7 to... well, any RPG that starts with a monologue. FF7 kicks you in the face - this game's about dystopia, technology, a mystery girl, a train maybe? Then you meet Barrett and Cloud super fast, like boom boom boom, the game is knocking you back and forth with stuff, but it also doesn't really care if you remember all of it. You're blowing up a thing, the reactors are bad, Barrett swears a lot, gotcha. It's exciting!
Meanwhile, some kid playing Skyrim is still stuck in a cart with some prisoner spewing the contents of his 6th grade Elder Scrolls History Book.
I mean, Skyrim and FF7 even have the same start screen! But one jumps into a cutscene and a battle, and one fades into some guy rambling at you while you look at a pretty boring forest. There's a reason everyone remembers the FF7 intro (also, it had more hype music).
EDIT: This video goes over the Skyrim intro pretty well, IMO.
I gotta be honest - the thing that hooked me in right away with Skyrim was a three-parter:
- I'd seen parts of an LP that was a lot of fun
- The fucking title music just got me straight out of the box
- Knowing I'd be able to explore everything around me, during the opening scene I was scoping out the terrain like a motherfucker. "Oooh, that mountain looks interesting! I wanna go climb it! Oh, and those plants? Want to pick. Can I use them in a potion? Oh, cool, that path looks like it's leading to another area, too. Oh, town. Hm... houses. I wanna ransack 'em! Let's see... hm... that one looks like an interesting place to- Oh character creation time! ... I look like a very pretty kitty~ Oh, beheading? Something'll save FUCKING DRAGON DUDE OMG RUN RUN RUN AND WHERE DO I GO OMG" and that was fine from then onwards.
Granted, in future playthroughs I made big use of the Alternate Starting mod which lets you pick different stats/starts/classes and dumps you out in the world with a small amount of items and some simple backstory.
(Ask me about the time I randomised and got stuck in an ice cavern with a fucking redguard healer. There was an ice troll. I had a fucking dagger. Fun times. ;p )
You do have a point though - I wasn't really engaged in the whole 'this guy is talking about stuff guys you should pay attention now you're being killed create a character' thing. It took a dragon to get the excitement going, and even then it dropped off a little until you got out of Helgen. Then again, ES ain't great at the excitement factor. Comes from being an open-world-type game I guess.
- I'd seen parts of an LP that was a lot of fun
- The fucking title music just got me straight out of the box
- Knowing I'd be able to explore everything around me, during the opening scene I was scoping out the terrain like a motherfucker. "Oooh, that mountain looks interesting! I wanna go climb it! Oh, and those plants? Want to pick. Can I use them in a potion? Oh, cool, that path looks like it's leading to another area, too. Oh, town. Hm... houses. I wanna ransack 'em! Let's see... hm... that one looks like an interesting place to- Oh character creation time! ... I look like a very pretty kitty~ Oh, beheading? Something'll save FUCKING DRAGON DUDE OMG RUN RUN RUN AND WHERE DO I GO OMG" and that was fine from then onwards.
Granted, in future playthroughs I made big use of the Alternate Starting mod which lets you pick different stats/starts/classes and dumps you out in the world with a small amount of items and some simple backstory.
(Ask me about the time I randomised and got stuck in an ice cavern with a fucking redguard healer. There was an ice troll. I had a fucking dagger. Fun times. ;p )
You do have a point though - I wasn't really engaged in the whole 'this guy is talking about stuff guys you should pay attention now you're being killed create a character' thing. It took a dragon to get the excitement going, and even then it dropped off a little until you got out of Helgen. Then again, ES ain't great at the excitement factor. Comes from being an open-world-type game I guess.
