Time completion of games

[RedCloud]

After purchasing your game, one of the last things you want to happen is to finish it on the first day you bought it. It would seem in cases to me, that the only really lengthy games out there are RPGs. They could take anything from 30 - 70 hours to complete these days. And after completion in games, is there nothing else you can do except start again?

Are developers focusing on lengthy game play, or graphics to the best of their potential in a short time frame? What really keeps a player interested in the game? What added features should their be included to keep players captured?

[zoombapup]

Procedurally/randomly generated content

User definable content

There is NOTHING wrong with not requiring 70 hours to "complete". In fact, a lot of casual games offer gameplay that NEVER completes. There is no end. You simply play the game, like a hand of cards.

Randomness (like shuffling a deck) can add a huge order of complexity to the variations a game can have. I would highly recommend it as a starting point for any game which wants to involve players for a long time.

That doesnt mean huge completion times or long play sessions. It just means that if you want to make a game that is replayable, then make good rules and procedurally generate the game-state initially.

[Anthony Flack]

I like games that tell me how many hours I've been playing them. It's a recent trend that I'm definitely in favour of. And it tells me that most retail games that I buy are doing well to be played for more than 8-10 hours in total. Even games I thought I was playing quite a lot often haven't clocked up that much time yet.

I probably wouldn't even attempt (to play, let alone to write) a game that required 70 hours to complete. Somewhere around 15 hours is just fine, providing there are a few replay incentives and extras for people that really, really like it.

More than that, and I just find it unwelcome stretching. The game is probably getting you to do lots of repetitive chores to last that long. I hate threadbare games and I'd much prefer a short, action-packed game than the same amount of content spread four times as thin.

It all varies from game to game of course, but just filling up a couple of hours of "straight-through" gameplay in a way that is polished, varied and entertaining is usually more than enough to keep a developer occupied for a year or two.

[Ste Pickford]

Our game keeps track of how long each player has played, and we're offering a guarantee of at least 20 hours worth of gameplay for a $20 subscription (you buy credits to play Naked War, so you gradually 'consume' your $20 worth by starting new games). We're pretty confident that 20 hours is a safe bet, but what's surprised us is how much longer than that some players play for.

We only have a small number of beta subscribers at the moment, but a pretty high percentage of these players have their total playtime measured in days rather than hours, and that's in just about 40 or 50 days since the beta programme launched.

Its a lot of fun keeping track of how long people play, and I suspect it will also prove to be very valuable information in time.

[LilGames]

Depends on the kind of game. Alot of people were miffed about the length of Half Life 2: Episode 1. FPS games are typically played for long sittings, since the story engages the player and makes it difficult to stop and say to yourself "ok Ive had enough for now". So what happened is some people finished it the same day they bought it, and then of course felt jipped.

[Christian]

I find it unbelivable that retail games that where on the making for 5 years can be completed within 2 weeks, its ridiculous. This games are driven by content, that means that is the desire to see the content that keeps you playing (more or less). I prefer making games like soccer, or tennis, or a card game, they are "play" driven, the desire to play it is what makes you play it, not finish it.

Procedurally generated stuff = the best thing you can do for your players.

[Anthony Flack]

And a movie that was 5+ years in the making can be completed in an hour and a half. It's not ridiculous at all, it's just an extremely labour-intensive form of entertainment.

There's nothing wrong with content-driven games. Play-driven games are good too, and Ste's game is a good example of how much time can be spent playing this sort of game.

And of course, content-driven games should be play-driven as well, otherwise they're just content-grinders, and rubbish games.

But procedurally-generated content? I'm yet to see an example of it that wasn't dull. Procedural content generally isn't strong enough to drive a content-driven game.