Arkham asylum only 12 hours long? Games too short?

vegas-steven

I just finished watching the gametrailers review of arkham asylum and they say that the game is only 12 hours long...

A little crazy isn't it?

If I recall modern warfare was what... 20 hours?

So I did pre order it and get it at midnight. Started to play played it for around an hour and don't like the fact that I am now 1/12th through it lol!

But where does it stop. At what point do these prices vs game length start to equalize?
I can get xbla games with more game time.
As an adult with real world obligations it starts to matter to me.

Anyone else feel this way at all?

durandal4532

Modern Warfare was maybe 10 hours.

Also, as has been hashed out innumerable times: game length, replayability, and quality all interact in a complex manner. I'm more than willing to play, say, Portal and pay $30, than I am to play Final Fantasy 9 for 200 hours.

Personally, I really really enjoy the 8-12 hour length with something to replay later.

Lunker

First off, Modern Warfare's single player campaign was maybe 6 to 8 hours long. That aside:

As an adult with real world obligations it starts to matter to me.

As an adult with real-world obligations, you should appreciate when a game doesn't require upward of 15 hours of your life in order to get good. I vastly prefer games in the 6 to 10 hour range if it's good enough to inspire replays.

Robman

8-12 hours is a great length for a video game.

Jelloblimp

12 hours? Ahahaha, try Wanted. It was around 4-5 hours (normal difficulty) with no multiplayer whatsoever, you could replay the same levels again in a higher difficulty or as a enemy but that didn't help at all. There were other problems too, but game-length is one of the most obvious ones.

Marikir

I don't recall the length, generally, of games. I do, however, know that Portal was about 2-3 hours of sublime perfection. God of War and God of War 2 were also pretty damn good with their pacing. I always wanted to push forward on all of these games.

I don't think that 12 hours is too little...IF the game is good. Frankly, that's what I want most. A good game.

durandal4532

The four game types I find most enjoyable, in terms of length:

- Doesn't matter, it's just something you pick up and play (Rock Band, Street Fighter)

- Short, but excellent (Portal, Braid)

- Moderate, but with fun replayable bits (Call of Duty, Arkham Asylum, Gears of War)

- Long, but immediately rewarding with frequent opportunity to save and quit (Persona, Mass Effect)

All of those fit into a busier schedule. The thing I can't stand are games that are long as fuck, provide no opportunities to save, and require 20 hours to get past the rat-hitting phase. Lost Odyssey barely maintains good standing because it is pretty and has a few nice ideas.

Impersonator

By modern standards 12 hours is almost as long as a lightweight rpg.

vegas-steven

No I'm not saying games need to be 200 hours Euterpe but I think a good balance was fallout 3 which did nit require 80 hours to beat but which made the game seem like it could be a comprehensive 30 hours or so

and I mean to say that I would like more value for my money. A reason I'm gravitating more toward iPhone titles and sports games like madden NHL etc

jeddy lee

I think replayability is more important than length. Also quallity of that time is important. I would say mirrors edge packed more intensity and innovation in 6 hours than the entirety of some RPG's I've played that have maybe 10 hours of interesting things and 15 hours of random walking/fights that are mindless.

Also, remember some of your favorite games, think how long they were. I know some of my favorite games I can replay at any time, can be beaten in less than 6 hours:

Any Sonic game
Any Mario pre-64
Resident Evil 4 & 5
Mirrors Edge
Doom 1 & 2
DK country 1, 2 & 3

Etc... Etc...

InitialDK

While I do think that game prices, and subsequently how trade-ins work, is crazy BUT take in to consideration everything that is going on around us.

The way I justify my game purchases is on movie prices. Where I live movie tickets are $9.50. So if I go out to see a movie with my wife and we just want popcorn and drinks we're spending about $32+ on just that alone for an average of 2 hours of entertainment. That's about $16.00 an hour of "fun".

Even if a $60 game only last for 8 hours that's about $7 of entertainment per hour. And you can play it whenever you want and share it with friends or even play online sometimes which stretches it out some more.

Sometimes I do feel guilty for spending so much on this hobby but I don't really spend money on anything else that's not essential and if I truly can't afford it there is always rental services.

syndalis

Super Mario Bros. 1 can be beaten in 10 minutes or so. When Non-speedrunning its under 2 hours for sure.

Contra, one of my favorite NES games ever, is 20 minutes long.

Length =/= awesome, just be happy you get 10-12 hours to be the goddamn batman.

durandal4532

vegas-steven wrote: »

No I'm not saying games need to be 200 hours Euterpe but I think a good balance was fallout 3 which did nit require 80 hours to beat but which made the game seem like it could be a comprehensive 30 hours or so

and I mean to say that I would like more value for my money. A reason I'm gravitating more toward iPhone titles and sports games like madden NHL etc

Your definition of value is what matters.

I mean, I don't feel like Civilization gave me $8,000 value. I feel like I could play it basically for an infinite amount of time, but also that the creators were fairly compensated for their outlay of time and effort spent creating it. I feel like I could only play portal for maybe 8 hours if I go through it twice, but I don't think $30 is unfair compensation for a fantastic piece of work.


Hell, I occasionally pay $10-20 for pictures. Pictures which do not even let me pretend to be Batman.

Value is a weird, nebulous thing.

Delta Assault

Modern Warfare was something silly like 7-8 hours, not 12.

Captain Eleven

I think the genre needs to be taken into account as well. To take the example of Arkham Asylum, I think much more than 12 hours would get to be too long. I don't always want to play a massive Mass Effect/Fallout 3 type game (although I do enjoy those also, they do get a little tiresome after a bit).

Quality also comes into play. I'd rather play a shorter game with more polish, than a longer game of lower quality. Of course, that's a subjective measurement, and everyone will have their own opinions.

As an adult gamer, with a young daughter and other obligations, I find 10-15 hours of gameplay to be just about right. And as InitialDK already said, the cost per hour is much better with a video game than most other forms of entertainment.

KalTorak

durandal4532 wrote: »

Hell, I occasionally pay $10-20 for pictures. Pictures which do not even let me pretend to be Batman.

Value is a weird, nebulous thing.

Even Batman looks a pictures sometimes. You could pretend to be him... looking at pictures.

...standing in your house.

Witchsight

The most memorable games for me are... well the ones i can remember the best.

For years after playing Out of This world, God of War, and SoTC, i could still recall nearly each area with affection.
I know i enjoyed Okami, but my brain spreads itself pretty thin trying to recollect all that jazz.

Captain Eleven

KalTorak wrote: »

durandal4532 wrote: »

Hell, I occasionally pay $10-20 for pictures. Pictures which do not even let me pretend to be Batman.

Value is a weird, nebulous thing.

Even Batman looks a pictures sometimes. You could pretend to be him... looking at pictures.

...standing in your house.

Pictures of his parents.

His dead parents.

MY PARENTS ARE DEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

wakkawa

The only games that pissed me off with game length were the hl2 episodes. I beat both of them in less than 4 hours total, and I was taking my god damn time.

KalTorak

Captain Eleven wrote: »

KalTorak wrote: »

durandal4532 wrote: »

Hell, I occasionally pay $10-20 for pictures. Pictures which do not even let me pretend to be Batman.

Value is a weird, nebulous thing.

Even Batman looks a pictures sometimes. You could pretend to be him... looking at pictures.

...standing in your house.

Pictures of his parents.

His dead parents.

MY PARENTS ARE DEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

Don't forget that episode of Batman Beyond, where it's clearly shown that Batman keeps a "Ladies That Have Been Lucky Enough To Ride the Bat-Pod" picture folder.

SkyGheNe

I think a game with about 10-12 hours is fine because honestly, when games go longer than that it's filled with bullshit.

Tales of symphonia's first 15-20 hours was a rehash of final fantasy X. Could have been cut, or at least had less running around.

And besides - I play xbox live games nowadays because I know I'll be able to finish them. I'm afraid to play through games like Lost Oddsey, cause I never know if I'll get through them.

l337CrappyJack

The game is 12 hours long, it has a shitton of unlockables and challenge rooms. If all there was to the game was just blazing through the storyline, then sure, you could complain, but there's more to it than that.

Captain Eleven

Oh lord Tales of Symphonia.

I loved that game but honestly it dragged sooooooooo much I could never get through it. Perfect example of where longer != better.

RainbowDespair

The important equation to remember is:

Length of time the game is fun x intensity of fun

and not...
Length of time to beat the story mode.

Like with Mirror's Edge, that game has already been extremely entertaining for me for at least 30 hours and I still occasionally pop it in for a speed run or time trial. Saying it's a short game is misleading when I've spent far more time on it than many games that take longer to beat but were unable to hold my attention for their entirety.

jothki

Being long and dragging are two entirely different things. Take Knights in the Knightmare, for example.

Analrapist

I remember reading a article about game production and the average length of a game is 8 hours.
Which is fine with me, I seriously get frustrated when a game starts to drag ass and just keeps on going.
Kind of like any COD game on Veteran mode. Right when I think I'm nearly at the end I find out I'm only 50% through, thus there's still 50% more anger to be felt.

vegas-steven

Do u think it is fair to compare a game from 1985 (Mario) with one from 2009 (arkham asylum)?

I do t believe the genre arkham is in existed 24 years ago.
Better to compare say, eternal darkness for gamecube with it.

Analrapist

vegas-steven wrote: »

Do u think it is fair to compare a game from 1985 (Mario) with one from 2009 (arkham asylum)?

I do t believe the genre arkham is in existed 24 years ago.
Better to compare say, eternal darkness for gamecube with it.

Splinter Cell.
Also 8-9 hours long, depending on how anal you play it.


Heh, anal.

Kris_xK

"It's not the size of your boat, it's how you use it that matters"

Or at least that's what my GF told me.

syndalis

vegas-steven wrote: »

Do u think it is fair to compare a game from 1985 (Mario) with one from 2009 (arkham asylum)?

I do t believe the genre arkham is in existed 24 years ago.
Better to compare say, eternal darkness for gamecube with it.

Yes, because I have spent more time playing SMB1 than I probably ever will playing Arkham Asylum, and Arkham Asylum looks to be a fan-fucking-tastic game.

Do not fall into the trap of equating longer with better. It is a big mistake. Perhaps the quality of Arkham Asylum exists because they only alloted for a dozen hours of gameplay, and spent their time making them magnificent.

Litany

I'm pretty much with the crowd here. Mirror's Edge was almost too long at it's six or so hours. I feel the same way about both Resident Evil 4 & 5, and even Mass Effect. Whereas I'd tell you Fallout 3 dragged on a bit even sticking close to the main plot. As such, it's better to build your game that's exciting and fresh through it's ten hours then pad them with out to fifteen for the bullet point on the back of the box or in the review.

Brainiac 8

With a family, kids, and other obligations, I much prefer a game to be around the 10-15 hour range. It makes it much better for me.

SkyGheNe

Seriously - you run into this logical fallacy in writing as well. You go to a bookstore and see these mammoth-sized books which are filled with tons of shitty writing (I'm looking at you, ann rice) vs. something that may be shorter but full of awesome (Mysterious stranger ) but for whatever reason, people love to get fed shit for hours upon hours instead of taking in something made of quality for a shorter period of time.

I guess it happens for food. It's like going to olive garden for italian instead of somewhere else that is made of quality and is probably at, or a little above the same price tag.

Allforce

Are you basing the time per cost on the 59.99 model of pricing? Because I can rarely find a game these days that's worth paying that price for. Even top-notch games like Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc, I would have felt ripped off paying 60 dollars for.

Games no matter of length are just way overpriced for the cost that goes into creating them.

Brainiac 8

SkyGheNe wrote: »

Seriously - you run into this logical fallacy in writing as well. You go to a bookstore and see these mammoth-sized books which are filled with tons of shitty writing (I'm looking at you, ann rice) vs. something that may be shorter but full of awesome (Mysterious stranger ) but for whatever reason, people love to get fed shit for hours upon hours instead of taking in something made of quality for a shorter period of time.

I guess it happens for food. It's like going to olive garden for italian instead of somewhere else that is made of quality and is probably at, or a little above the same price tag.

Case in point: Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Wrote some of the best science fiction ever, and none of it was longer than a couple hundred pages.

OremLK

Yes, quality over quantity, please. I would love to get more games like Portal and less games like everything Square has ever released. Conciseness ought to be more valued in game design--efficiency. Repetition is overvalued, and this is not the designers' faults--people like the OP are to be blamed for games which drag out the same exact gameplay far after it ceases to be entertaining.

Allforce wrote: »

Are you basing the time per cost on the 59.99 model of pricing? Because I can rarely find a game these days that's worth paying that price for. Even top-notch games like Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc, I would have felt ripped off paying 60 dollars for.

Games no matter of length are just way overpriced for the cost that goes into creating them.

How would you know? Exact budgets are rarely released, but many, many games fail to even break even.

SkyGheNe

Allforce wrote: »

Are you basing the time per cost on the 59.99 model of pricing? Because I can rarely find a game these days that's worth paying that price for. Even top-notch games like Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc, I would have felt ripped off paying 60 dollars for.

Games no matter of length are just way overpriced for the cost that goes into creating them.

These games cost millions of dollars to make - and a lot of them don't do really well (dead space, mirrors edge, prince of persia, anything by clover).

I personally can't afford $60, but I wait for price drops on the games. I think a lot of games are worth $60, I just don't have the money to buy them at that point.

Warcraft 3 is one of those games. I probably sunk in somewhere around $200 worth of time into it over the years. I think I got more value out of it than my operating system.

akajaybay

Um, rent them if you dont think you'll want them beyond the initial playthrough.

Allforce

SkyGheNe wrote: »

Allforce wrote: »

Are you basing the time per cost on the 59.99 model of pricing? Because I can rarely find a game these days that's worth paying that price for. Even top-notch games like Fallout 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc, I would have felt ripped off paying 60 dollars for.

Games no matter of length are just way overpriced for the cost that goes into creating them.

These games cost millions of dollars to make - and a lot of them don't do really well (dead space, mirrors edge, prince of persia, anything by clover).

Millions yes. Hundreds of millions like a hollywood film? No.

Gears 1 cost roughly 10 million to make from the ground up, that's not including marketing. For someone to spend 10-20 million on a game like Dead Space and say it sold "poorly" because it only sold 1 million copies is a joke because they're laughing all the way to the bank.

aBlank

Kris_xK wrote: »

"It's not the size of your boat, it's how you use it that matters"

Or at least that's what my GF told me.

It's not the size of the ship it's the motion of the ocean!

tofu

I got over the "games are too short these days" with Max Payne