Articles
GameGuy: The
“How Long is Long Enough” Edition
By Mark H. Walker
I loved The Matrix.
It was gripping, thought-provoking, and well acted, but I don’t think
I would have been so enamored with a six-hour version. Would two more
Kenau/Fishburne karate scenes improve the product? Perhaps another
spat of bullet dodging? Probably not, the producer/writers /director
knew when to leave well enough alone.
I wish software publishers
would do the same.
Baldur’s Gate put me to
sleep, Septerra Core bored me, and Ground Control‘s
sole flaw was its 30-mission campaign. Are publisher’s making games
too long? Let me kill the literary suspense right now. The answer
is YES. All caps. The game has not been made –be it RPG, strategy,
shooter, or whatever– that can bear the weight of more than 50 hours
of play. Software companies forget that the terms “more”
and “better” are not synonyms.
We all like
to finish our games. Invariably, my favorite games have been those
that are not only good fun, but finishable (sic). Fallout, Parasite
Eve, Shogo, Odium (okay, Odium wasn’t really
a good game), and Shadow Watch. I finished each, didn’t forfeit
my life to do so, and loved every last minute of it. On the flip side
of the coin, I’ve played way too many games that take a good 15-hour
story, 7-level shootout, or 15-mission campaign and double it, adding
little more than several hours of tedium.
Who’s to blame? Two parties:
Publishers and journalists. Unfortunately, publishers are caught up
in a huge game of “keeping up with the Joneses.” For example,
if real-time strategy title “A” has 30 missions, then the
real time strategy title in development had damn well also better
have 30 missions. It doesn’t matter if it only takes fifteen missions
to craft a great campaign, having less missions than the competitor
looks bad on the back of the box. Please understand, many of the folks
making these decisions are not gamers, and quantifiable measurements
such as number of missions are easier for them to grasp than quality
of play.
But who (beside our entire
culture) gives publishers the idea that more is better? It’s us, the
gaming press. I remember reading the Fallout reviews; almost
all said the same thing: great game, but too little of it. It took
me about 30 hours to finish Fallout. That’s approximately $1.65
per gaming hour –way cheaper than the typical movie. That’s enough
bang for my buck.
Neither is Tim Cain’s classic
the lone gaming ranger of titles slammed for supposedly short-sheeting
their customers. Critics who liked (read –understood the subtleties
of) Red Storm’s Shadow Watch nevertheless diss’d its length.
To add insult to injury, most of these comments on length come from
critics who –let me whisper in your ear– never complete the game.
It’s easy to admire Wizardry 8‘s 70+ hours of play *if* you
haven’t trudged through it yourself.
Of course the problem isn’t
just too many similar levels, too much dead-dialogue story, or a glut
of look-a-like missions. Feature creep –the inevitable addition of
new characters/creatures/weapons/cars/spells/what-have-you as a game
develops grabs even the best developers. Case in point, Diablo
II ships with five character classes. Who the heck is going to
play through it with more than one?
Bottom line, publishers
are dumping too much development money into creating more,
when they should be creating better. By the same token reviewers
dump too many words into evaluating length instead of quality. Movies
aren’t judged on length, books aren’t judged on length, why should
games be so judged? I don’t know, maybe I better ask the Matrix
people.
© Mark H. Walker,
LLC 2001
Mark H. Walker is a veteran interactive entertainment
journalist who has written over 40 books including his recently released
Medal of Honor and Wizardry 8 strategy guides.
