Skip to Content
 

Lengthy problems

6 replies [Last post]
Fri, 10/28/2005 - 09:56
Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008

I have been thinking about game length lately and how it affects playability. I am speaking of more than just player preference. I think length exaggerates certain types of problems in game design so a small problem in a short game becomes a large one in a long game.

Here are a few design problems that might get under the wire in a short game but become a huge problem in a long game.

Player elimination: If you get knocked out of a 20 min game half way through its no big deal. In a two hour game it is.

Run away leader (Living Death): Much like the player elimination but you can’t go do something else since your still in the game. You are forced to keep playing without any hope of winning.

Down time: This one is at it worse when you have large number of players and a fairly simple decision to make in-between turns, a game that doesn’t keep you busy thinking or interacting becomes dull quickly exaggerated by a long game time makes down time a game killer.

What other problems do you think game length plays a part in?

Top
Fri, 10/28/2005 - 12:23
#1
Gamebot
Gamebot's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Lengthy problems

There is a greater need for sub-goals in lengthier games. The players need to achieve something that makes them feel accomplishment during all stages of the game. Waiting two or more hours for an emotional payoff is way too long especially if you don't win.

Top
Fri, 10/28/2005 - 14:59
#2
OutsideLime
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Lengthy problems

Quote:
What other problems do you think game length plays a part in

Finding the time to play. I love Axis & Allies. Looooove it. But only a few friends of mine will actually play it, because it involves a commitment of 4-6 hours on a good day. Then try co-ordinating schedules so that your 4-6 hour blocks of free time coincide with each other. We've tried "saving" games by playing a few hours and then leaving the board and components intact, but if it doesn't get returned to in a day or two, kiss it goodbye. That kitchen table needs to have meals served on it, you know. Thusly, sessions don't occur very often. Usually we end up playing Catan or something else along a similar 1 - 1.5 hour timeframe.

~Josh

Top
Fri, 10/28/2005 - 19:01
#3
jkopena
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Lengthy problems

I think one of the most basic things affected by game length is the players' perception of whether they're playing a game or just following a random process. It's funny that you asked about this, because I just posted a review on the geek of Tsuro, a new boardgame from WizKids. It's pretty clear it has this trait. The strategy elements are so slight and your actions so affected by the randomness of the tiles you draw that it's not clear anything you do has a major effect. More precisely, the game's just short enough that you feel your decisions have some affect---prolonging your life by a turn or two is a big deal since the game only runs for maybe 9 turns and takes about 10 minutes. If it ran any longer though you would feel much more that you're just throwing tiles down randomly and it would get tedious. At least, that's my take.

I think perception of value is also affected by game length, though perhaps its just correlated. I wouldn't put down $40--60 bucks for a filler game that runs in ten minutes, even though I may over the course of a year wind up spending as many total minutes playing it as I do a larger game that we only break out once in a blue moon. This is related to Lime's point about length affecting how often a game gets played, which is a major issue my gaming groups also face.

Related to some of the points already made, length also affects how much players are willing to accept a "turnover game" where, opposite to living death, the game can be completely reversed at the end. It sucks to play a game for a couple hours and lead the whole way only to have some bit of randomness throw it all away and hand the game to another player, or even for them to spring some surprise move at the end that takes it for them. This is much more acceptable if you've only invested a couple minutes in the game.

Top
Fri, 10/28/2005 - 22:29
#4
Emphyrio
Emphyrio's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/10/2010
Lengthy problems

Related to finding time to play is the learning curve. Typically with any game more complex than Monopoly, you have to play it a few times before you start getting an idea of what strategies work under what conditions and how different aspects of the game interact. But if a game takes so long that you only rarely play it, you may never get to that point.

Similarly, if a game is going to last for hours, it tends to discourage experimenting with unusual or less obvious strategies which are less likely to pay off. Although depending on the game, this can work the other way too -- if it takes a long time to achieve the victory conditions, you may be able to execute plans which take a long time to reach fruition, and you may be able to recover from a failed experiment or a bad run of luck more easily with more time.

For example, during the course of a six-hour game of Civilization, everyone can expect to be hit by several calamities, which tend to even out over time. If the game only lasted a half hour, getting hit by a calamity or two at the wrong time might knock you out of the game altogether.

Top
Sat, 10/29/2005 - 02:02
#5
Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Lengthy problems

For me, the question is how much did you the player actually do during the course of the game? This ties all the concepts of downtime, length, and runaway leader sorts of situations into a single abstracted emotional response. All the many reasons to feel let down by a game are felt at once, and game length is one of the few concepts where the players actually lose something of true value: their time. All the other issues of a game's poor play can be fixed by tweaks and revision, but you'll never get those hours back. Poor games are an investment, and poor long games are a bigger investment. It's as simple as that.

Top
Sun, 10/30/2005 - 09:58
#6
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Lengthy problems

Quote:
We've tried "saving" games by playing a few hours and then leaving the board and components intact, but if it doesn't get returned to in a day or two, kiss it goodbye.

When we played bells of war, we had a table in my basement and we where leaving the game there until the next week. Since we were seing each other each week, we could somewhat make sure that everybody would be there next week. Else we could exchange which player control which country. The game generally lasted 2 to 4 sessions. Each session last around 3 to 5 hours.

An alternative is to shorten the game by dividing it. For example create what I call scenarios. Which mean that you just use a part of the map, place a few countries and determine a specific goal for this game which can be complished inside a 2-4 hour game.

Or use the opposite view, start it small but make it possible to play larger games. For example, in my war game, you can play a 2 player game on 1 map. But you could play up to 5 players and play on 4 tiled map.

Finally, I like the idea of "how much does your investment worth". One of my friend said: If I buy a video game and I play more than 50 hours, whatever the method(one 50 hour game or 50 one hour game), then it worth it.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut