How many levels should I have?

[Phil Steinmeyer]

I'm making a casual word game, very much targeted at the portal audience.

The game currently has 40 levels - each level has a different puzzle shape, sometimes special tiles and/or challenges.

The way the game is constructed, there is a unique background image for every level, so, unless I change that, there is a bit of a time and money cost to additional levels, beyond just whipping up a new design for the puzzle itself (the latter I can do pretty quickly).

The game can be played in classic (i.e. turn-based) mode and action (i.e. timed) mode. There aren't any other modes that really jive with the overall construct of the game.

I'm wondering if I have enough levels right now, or if I'm likely hurting myself a bit by not having more. Beta testers are reporting reaching anywhere from level 6 to level 15 (most commonly level 10), within the 60 minute free trial, so for the average consumer, they can see that they've played ~25% of the game in the trial, and for a few, faster players, they may have played ~35% of the game in the trial (not counting replays)

Thoughts?

[sparkyboy]

Hi Phil,
Well judging by your own figures, I'd seriously suggest at least twice as many levels, because with so many word games around that people play, they may be quite adept at these sorts of games.
I for one would not have much incentive to buy a game, if after only 1 hour of play, I had completed nearly half the game!

As regards the unique background screens for each level, I'd suggest re-using the earlier backgrounds in the later levels.I'm sure no-one who's concentrating on the game is gonna say 'hey that screen is the same as the one 20 levels ago'!!

However, if you are going to use the 'Unique background for each level' as a selling point, then you'd either have to do a load more screens, or take out that selling point.

But from my standpoint Phil, you definitely need more levels!! :)

All the best

Mark.

[Black Hydra]

I would probably remove that incentive of "unique background tiles". Nobody will buy a game because they think every single level has unique tiles, but if you give them the subconcious perception that the game has a lot of tiles (by not repeating any of the tilesets until later) you can probably give off the same impression and have more content.

I remember thinking this before I bought BreakQuest. Each of the levels in the demo had original music and I was wondering if that trend continued throughout the entire game. Well the music did end up repeating but there was a lot of tracks.

I really doubt anyone is going to complain (or be that surprised) when you start reusing background images to extend content, but if they don't see it during their trial period it will make them feel like there is still a lot more to discover.

But, what the hell do I know anyways :D ?

[Anthony Flack]

If it is really easy to do levels, then is it feasable to do a new picture every three levels? Then you'd have 120 of the suckers, which seems about right. And a new picture every three levels doesn't sound bad.

[James C. Smith]

I think you should stick with 40 good levels with unique backgrounds. Focus on quality rather than quantity.

But keep in mind, I am only saying that because I am working on a similar game and I plan to do the opposite. :D

[sparkyboy]

What will the title be James?

"Wiley Wik's World of Words" :p (Try that after a few Buds!!) :D


All the best


Mark.

[Andy]

There is pretty simple standard in the entertainment industry. For 20$ game should deliver something near 40 hours of play (not repeatable - meaning not to resolve the same puzzle 100 times in a row).

So, I'd just recommend to get the average player and ask him to play your better Phil. You will measure the time it could require and could calculate the number of levels based upon the basic price for upcoming game.

And sure all the words above about good pictures and fun game play are correct. As well. ;)

[luggage]

40 hours!!!

There's not many games about at the moment for twice that price which can offer that!

[Adrian Cummings]

40 levels I would say would represent good value for money.

Cheers,

Adrian.

[Phil Steinmeyer]

I double checked my player reports. Six beta testers had reported on how many levels they'd played in an hour.

One had played 15 (but he had also played an alpha and was really good at word games)
Three had played 10
One had played 9
One had played 8

So for 5 out of 6, they'd played 25% or less of the game by the end of an hour. I may bump up to 50 levels, but I'm not going to abandon the unique background per level idea (the backgrounds tell a kind of story, and repeats would be quite noticeable - my only real alternative would be 2 puzzles a crack, before I change the background, and I don't like that alternative).

James, are you doing a word puzzle?

[Hamumu]

Whoa! Where on earth did that number come from?? You don't get 40 hours of play out of most $50 console games! I've never heard anything like that, and I can't imagine that people in charge of production costs would consider anything of the sort.

I would say rather than spend time cranking out more puzzle levels, you need to think harder about more modes. Don't think of it in terms of "what other ways can a player use this exact ruleset?" Besides being too restrictive on yourself, modes like that really are lame. A lot of games have 3 "modes" which are just timed, untimed, and timed-with-limited-moves or something. That's the SAME MODE! Think in terms of what other games can be played with your existing art assets and a large chunk of your codebase. I'm sure a very simple Boggle type game would be very easy to implement with what you have. Throw it in! Give players more ways to play (most especially including ones that don't require levels, and can just ramp up until they lose). That's more meaningful than a larger number of puzzle levels (as long as your current number is decent).

But I also second the notion that there's no reason for every level to have unique art. If the levels are easy to make, make 3 to a background or whatever. That even adds to the progression aspect - you finish the level to see the next level, you finish the set of three levels to see the next background.

[Adrian Cummings]

Do 40 levels and change the background every 4 levels... so you will have 10 unique backgrounds to convey your story or whatever :)

Any more is a waste of space and your time.

I did this on Dweebs 1 & 2 for eGames and it sold fine (which is the point I think i.e. make money for less work!).

Cheers,

Adrian.

[Andy]

Ladies (and gents)! ;)

I said there is the industry standard. Why you ask me where from the digits came from? This is not my business at all to figure this out. :)

My business is to know that standard.
Want the comments ask? - managers at MS or EA.
Ask them after that why they step against their own standards. :D

[mahlzeit]

I think the 40 hours quote comes from one of Steve Pavlina's articles.

[Bmc]

i've got a beta I've of it and I think you would be safe maybe adding another 10 levels. not every game needs 100s of levels word games have replay value by their nature. so even if they beat the 50 levels they can try it again.

[merovingian]

Not having seen your game, I'd say you need at least 10 hours of entertainment there for $20 IMO. Demonically hard levels do not count towards this goal.

One formula I stole from Tempest 2000 is 10 levels of increasing difficulty using the same play elements, and adding a new play element on the next group. But that was a shooter so your mileage may vary.

[Black Hydra]

While Andy is certainly right that there is an "industry standard" about the amount of gameplay time, the entire concept is complete crap.

1) Gameplay time will vary from player to player. Expert players may be several times quicker than others giving to much variability to the system.

2) Games may artificially raise "gameplay" time by leaving large gaps between saving or having players needlessly redo sections. This is a corrupt system to artificially raise game length that adversely affects quality.

3) The games replay value is not taken into consideration at all. Some games have many choices available and can be replayed many times without losing considerable enjoyment. Other games are much less fun to play through a second time (particularly logic games).

Who in their right mind would pay more to see a 3 hour movie as opposed to a 90 minute one?

While the attempt to measure gameplay length is an admirable attempt, it fails horribly and I think people realize that. That said, people want more value for entertainment, but to use a statement like 40 hours is like saying a game must have 45% polish. They are qualitative statements not quantitative. A long or short game can exist but you can't really measure that in hours. Not effectively anyways.

I payed 30$ for Katamari Damancy and beat the entire game in around 5 hours. I couldn't be happier. So I think you have to be really careful when using gameplay length as a measure of product value as it is affected by many factors.

But I'm sure everyone has heard (and maybe agrees with me) but people will continue to use the term anyways...

[Andy]

If you'd ask my personal opinion I'd probably say something like "40 hours of FUN play".

Yeah. This is more subjective (different peoples/different games) but at least not so stupid and plain. My main concern with the original terms that no one would like to solve one puzzle for the whole his like. Such puzzle wouldn't be too hard to make - but that just has no sense (not in games! ;) ).

But the fact of such requirement (standard) exists.

REM: And you know what - I've got a story on that. When one of our friends - game designer presented us CD with his new game - he had phone called by a week later and said: "So what? Your 40 hours of gameplay are finished now. You probably have solved the game. Can we return back to our work now?"
Fun fact that I was exactly on the last (of probably 200) puzzle of package in that moment. So, go figure really how far from reality are their estimations - being released by fair way. ;)

[luggage]

There isn't a "standard" in the games industry for how long a game should last.

I've worked on lots of retail games and not once has anyone, developer or publisher, mentioned this standard.

The majority of games just don't have 40 hours of gameplay in them.

It's crazy to talk as if we have to meet this minimum requirement of how long a game should last.

I'd rather have two hours of fun gameplay than 40 hours of rubbish.

To be honest I don't think some of you realise how much effort it takes to generate 40 hours of game. Take Fable, played it all the way through, not rushing and exploring everything I could and it took 12 hours.

Once played Metal Gear Solid 2 through from start to finish skipping cut scenes and there's 2 and a half hours of gameplay there.

[Speckled Jim]

I'd rather have two hours of fun gameplay than 40 hours of rubbish.

Sadly I've made games with 2 hours of rubbish gameplay.

[Nexic]

40 hours is insane, unless we are talking about something like solataire which can be replayed a bazillion times and still be fun. But you said no repeating so... meh!

The only retail games I've ever played that genuinely had more 40 hours gameplay have been top notch RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Final Fantasy.

Really game developers shouldn't be trying to reach x hours per $, but instead they amount of levels they can realisitcally do in that genre. Can anyone imagine a pure space shooter that lasted for 40 hours? No matter how good it was I can't imagine anyone playing past hour 10, and even making it that long would take years.

[James C. Smith]

When I was working on $40 and $50 retail games the publishers wanted 40 hours of play. Should a $20 game deliver just as much?

Even if a casual game does contain 40 hours of unique content, many paying customers will never play that long. Other players are happy playing 3 hours of contents over and over for 200 hours.

40 Hours of unique content is a very generous (to the player) goal. I think 10 hours is more reasonable and many hit games have gotten away with 2 hours or less. One key is to have good replayability.

[Phil Steinmeyer]

When we did Tropico (traditional, high end $40 PC game), we were very nervous because, while the game primarily used random levels for essentially unlimited playtime, in our testing the game got boring after 10-20 hours (once you'd built up an island or two and had used most of the structures). We were very worried that there wasn't enough value there for 'full-price'.

In fact, the opposite happened - a lot of people played the game for hundreds of hours. I was bored with it quickly, but then again, developers are usually bored with their own games pretty fast.

[Robert Cummings]

You want about 1-2 hours of play time I'd think, so make sure you have enough levels for that criteria.

[Nexic]

I always thought that gameplay time was measured by how long the game lasts assuming the player got it right first time?

Working by this formula Desperate Space would probably last about 3 hours normally, 5 hours with all the secrets unlocked. Xeno Assault II would be 2 hours and Xeno Assault 1 would only be 1 hour :)

So for me it's hard to even reach James' 10 hours estimate. Although if hes refering to total time spent (including the times when you die) Desperate Space might make the mark for the lower skilled players.

[papillon]

I always thought that gameplay time was measured by how long the game lasts assuming the player got it right first time?


How would you determine 'right' in a branching-path game? :)

[Nexic]

In that case I'd assume they took the fastest route. I guess that's more like 'minimum gameplay time'. But even thats not true if they play for 2 minutes then give up. Oh well I guess it's just really hard to measure :)

[James C. Smith]

When people talk about how many hours of play a game has I always interpreted that to mean the average amount of time a typical player would take to get to the end of the game or the end of the unique content. In other words, it would include the time they spend failing and retrying. But not time they spend replying the game to do better a second time through. According to this definition, a game with 10 hours of gameplay could probably be finished in 2 or 3 hours by an expect such as a playtester who has replayed the thing a millions times.

Also, I thought 10 hours was a more reasonable goal than 40. But I also think you could get away with less then 10 hours.

[Black Hydra]

See 1-2 hours seems unreasonably short for most games I can think of. Although I suppose that is up to interpretation, 1-2 hours does not seem to warrant the 20$ price tag. If I had a lengthier 5-6 hours I could see the value, but 1-2 seems so short that it might as well be a demo!

[Speckled Jim]

I would have thought with a bit of effort you could come up with a level generator, along with re-use of backgrounds to give as many levels as you need.

Of course you may have specific gameplay elements that make a level generator more problematic, but it might be worth the extra effort if it means you don't need to hand build them.

Mainstream games seem to have gotten shorter lately. I really only play FPS, but in that genre the single player portion seem to have become very short. Of the order of 4 or 5 hours quite often. No doubt increasing art asset complexity plays a part in that.

[Anthony Flack]

Let's not forget my ole' favourite Sega Rally...

Time to complete: 4 minutes.
Actual time it's good for: About a week.