c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)I'll put Titanfall 2 campaign into this category. It's a straightforward fps with a A->B plot, so this length is best.
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)This is what I want adventure games to fall into. Observer System Redux took 19hrs, just perfect.
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine fromI dunno about 'multifaceted' but many larger 3rd person shooters
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)Bigger openworld games fit here.
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)Elden Ring, Left 4 Dead :)
So where do you fall on this crap (darn, I mean C.R.A.P.) poll? Or
maybe you don't have an optimum and game length is never a
consideration? Usenet wants to know!
a) I'm a butterfly jumping from game to game; gimme a taste and let me
move on (1m to 2 hrs)
b) A good game is like a good meal; it fills you up and then you go do >something else (2hrs to 6 hrs)
c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)
I'll have you know that it stands for "[C]ompletely [R]andom [A]nd [P]ointless", and is not just an opportunity for me to make a
sophomoric joke! ;-)
So, yeah, a poll about game length. As in, when considering what game
to play next, what would you consider the optimal length of a game?
Now obviously, there will be a lot of variation to any answers given.
A mobile-port that lasts 120 hours? There's probably not enough
content and variety to carry that. But an RPG you can finish in 60
seconds?* That might be going a bit too far in the opposite extreme.
And how exactly do you calculate the length of a game for something
like "Overwatch" or "Civilization" or (a particular favorite of mine) "Eurotruck Simulator"? Is it one match / campaign / cargo delivery?
What is the game length of games that don't have a definite end? What
if I put this sort of game away for a few months then return; is this
a new playthrough or continuation?
I get that. It's tricky calculating game lengths. Plus, moods and
taste change. "Too short" and "too long" can vary depending on when
you're asked. But pretend you've just finished "AWESOME SUPER MEGA
GAME I LOVE IT!!!! XVIII" and are looking for the next thing to play,
but you aren't sure what sort of game you want. You probably have an 'average' length in mind; something you can finish in a sitting, or
something that will take a week or two to see the end of, or maybe
your next big obsession that will occupy you for months if not years.
Where is your optimum?
To make things easier, here are some non-exclusive options:
a) I'm a butterfly jumping from game to game; gimme a taste and let me
move on (1m to 2 hrs)
b) A good game is like a good meal; it fills you up and then you go do something else (2hrs to 6 hrs)
c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)
Myself, I generally fall between 'c' and 'd'. That is not to say I
don't have games I play for longer than that - I probably poured sixty
hours into "Witcher 3" a few months back - but when scrolling through
my Steam library, games boasting 'hundreds of hours' are more likely
to get a pass than a game I know I'll finish in three or four
sessions. A shorter game will also tend to be better paced and have a stronger narrative, which is more important to me than extremely
complicated mechanics (not that there's anything wrong with that,
tastes vary).
So where do you fall on this crap (darn, I mean C.R.A.P.) poll? Or
maybe you don't have an optimum and game length is never a
consideration? Usenet wants to know!
--------------
* Yes, I know it's been done.
I'll have you know that it stands for "[C]ompletely [R]andom [A]nd [P]ointless", and is not just an opportunity for me to make a
sophomoric joke! ;-)
So, yeah, a poll about game length. As in, when considering what game
to play next, what would you consider the optimal length of a game?
Now obviously, there will be a lot of variation to any answers given.
A mobile-port that lasts 120 hours? There's probably not enough
content and variety to carry that. But an RPG you can finish in 60
seconds?* That might be going a bit too far in the opposite extreme.
And how exactly do you calculate the length of a game for something
like "Overwatch" or "Civilization" or (a particular favorite of mine) "Eurotruck Simulator"? Is it one match / campaign / cargo delivery?
What is the game length of games that don't have a definite end? What
if I put this sort of game away for a few months then return; is this
a new playthrough or continuation?
I get that. It's tricky calculating game lengths. Plus, moods and
taste change. "Too short" and "too long" can vary depending on when
you're asked. But pretend you've just finished "AWESOME SUPER MEGA
GAME I LOVE IT!!!! XVIII" and are looking for the next thing to play,
but you aren't sure what sort of game you want. You probably have an 'average' length in mind; something you can finish in a sitting, or
something that will take a week or two to see the end of, or maybe
your next big obsession that will occupy you for months if not years.
Where is your optimum?
To make things easier, here are some non-exclusive options:
a) I'm a butterfly jumping from game to game; gimme a taste and let me
move on (1m to 2 hrs)
b) A good game is like a good meal; it fills you up and then you go do something else (2hrs to 6 hrs)
c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)
To make things easier, here are some non-exclusive options:
a) I'm a butterfly jumping from game to game; gimme a taste and let me
move on (1m to 2 hrs)
b) A good game is like a good meal; it fills you up and then you go do something else (2hrs to 6 hrs)
c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 17:31:27 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
a) I'm a butterfly jumping from game to game; gimme a taste and let me
move on (1m to 2 hrs)
b) A good game is like a good meal; it fills you up and then you go do >>something else (2hrs to 6 hrs)
c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)
My favorite games I have put more then 1000+ hours into. I have no
desire to jump from game to game as I hate learning how to play a new
title. I hate dealing with the learning curve. Especially with a
strategy game.
Also, I artificially extend a game's length by playing them 'wrong'.
When I play Baldur's Gate or Dungeon Siege 2 (both party based games)
I play them with a solo character which may take longer to finish that
way but definitely creates more replay value as I can then try a
different character build next time. I get literally 100s more hours
out of these games this way.
Using your scale, I start from E and it easily goes up to G for me.
I'll have you know that it stands for "[C]ompletely [R]andom [A]nd [P]ointless", and is not just an opportunity for me to make a
sophomoric joke! ;-)
So, yeah, a poll about game length. As in, when considering what game
to play next, what would you consider the optimal length of a game?
Now obviously, there will be a lot of variation to any answers given.
A mobile-port that lasts 120 hours? There's probably not enough
content and variety to carry that. But an RPG you can finish in 60
seconds?* That might be going a bit too far in the opposite extreme.
And how exactly do you calculate the length of a game for something
like "Overwatch" or "Civilization" or (a particular favorite of mine) "Eurotruck Simulator"? Is it one match / campaign / cargo delivery?
What is the game length of games that don't have a definite end? What
if I put this sort of game away for a few months then return; is this
a new playthrough or continuation?
I get that. It's tricky calculating game lengths. Plus, moods and
taste change. "Too short" and "too long" can vary depending on when
you're asked. But pretend you've just finished "AWESOME SUPER MEGA
GAME I LOVE IT!!!! XVIII" and are looking for the next thing to play,
but you aren't sure what sort of game you want. You probably have an 'average' length in mind; something you can finish in a sitting, or
something that will take a week or two to see the end of, or maybe
your next big obsession that will occupy you for months if not years.
Where is your optimum?
To make things easier, here are some non-exclusive options:
a) I'm a butterfly jumping from game to game; gimme a taste and let me
move on (1m to 2 hrs)
b) A good game is like a good meal; it fills you up and then you go do something else (2hrs to 6 hrs)
c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)
Myself, I generally fall between 'c' and 'd'. That is not to say I
don't have games I play for longer than that - I probably poured sixty
hours into "Witcher 3" a few months back - but when scrolling through
my Steam library, games boasting 'hundreds of hours' are more likely
to get a pass than a game I know I'll finish in three or four
sessions. A shorter game will also tend to be better paced and have a stronger narrative, which is more important to me than extremely
complicated mechanics (not that there's anything wrong with that,
tastes vary).
So where do you fall on this crap (darn, I mean C.R.A.P.) poll? Or
maybe you don't have an optimum and game length is never a
consideration? Usenet wants to know!
--------------
* Yes, I know it's been done.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 08:26:46 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 17:31:27 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
a) I'm a butterfly jumping from game to game; gimme a taste and let me
move on (1m to 2 hrs)
b) A good game is like a good meal; it fills you up and then you go do
something else (2hrs to 6 hrs)
c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)
My favorite games I have put more then 1000+ hours into. I have no
desire to jump from game to game as I hate learning how to play a new
title. I hate dealing with the learning curve. Especially with a
strategy game.
Also, I artificially extend a game's length by playing them 'wrong'.
When I play Baldur's Gate or Dungeon Siege 2 (both party based games)
I play them with a solo character which may take longer to finish that
way but definitely creates more replay value as I can then try a
different character build next time. I get literally 100s more hours
out of these games this way.
Using your scale, I start from E and it easily goes up to G for me.
Interesting.
There are a number of games I've devoted a lot of time too. According
to Steam* spent 500+ hours on Skyrim. I keep coming back to the SCS
truck simulator games month after month (300 hours on ATS alone). And
there are some games - the FarCry games, the Tomb Raider titles - that
I can't help but complete 100%, scouring the map until every gimcrack
has been found and every quest completed. Some games <cough cough Civilization cough> I purposely limit myself because I find them just
too compelling.
But when looking for 'what to play next', a game that offers 'hundreds
of hours of gameplay' frightens me off more than it attracts. Partly
this is because of my aforementioned preference for a more structured,
better paced adventure. But I think it is also because a lot of games
- especially modern games - artificially pad out their games with a
lot of repetitive grind (I'm looking at you, Ubisoft!). I'd much
rather see what a game has to offer and what makes it unique, and then
move on.
But it occured to me after starting this thread that - even though I acknowledged the opposite - the poll does have an underlying
assumption that the default preference /is/ to for finite length
games, which usually implies something with a narrative. Many
players, of course, are more interested in the mechanics so length of
the game isn't even on their radar when chosing what to play next;
they'll keep playing it for as long as it interests them and there is
new content to keep up that interest.
Still, it was just a CRAP poll largely designed to spur dialogue so I
hope you'll forgive that little faux pas. ;-)
A lot depends on the type of game. I had a game of 'War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition'* that took me longer to play than the actual war
lasted. :D
*WitP:AE is a operational level "grognard's" wargame. Hex based at 45 nautical miles per hex, turns are 1 day, units are individual ships,
aircraft squadrons and ground units from battalions to divisions. The
map covers from the US West Coast to eastern India, the north polar ice
cap to just south of New Zealand. Starts on December 7, 1941 and
continues until Japan loses or somewhere in 1947. Planning and
logistics are the most important aspects of your command. I was
marching my way up the Home Islands enroute to Tokyo in late 1945 when
that computer died on me.
On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 17:31:27 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
a) I'm a butterfly jumping from game to game; gimme a taste and let me
move on (1m to 2 hrs)
b) A good game is like a good meal; it fills you up and then you go do
something else (2hrs to 6 hrs)
c) I want an experience, not a lifestyle (6hrs to 10 hrs)
d) Gimme something with meat but no gristle (10 hrs to 20 hrs)
e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
hrs)
f) Imma gonna discover ever secret this game has (60hrs to 120 hrs)
g) Will you marry me, Game? (120 hrs to Rick Astley)
My favorite games I have put more then 1000+ hours into. I have no
desire to jump from game to game as I hate learning how to play a new
title. I hate dealing with the learning curve. Especially with a
strategy game.
Also, I artificially extend a game's length by playing them 'wrong'.
When I play Baldur's Gate or Dungeon Siege 2 (both party based games)
I play them with a solo character which may take longer to finish that
way but definitely creates more replay value as I can then try a
different character build next time. I get literally 100s more hours
out of these games this way.
Using your scale, I start from E and it easily goes up to G for me.
But when looking for 'what to play next', a game that offers 'hundreds
of hours of gameplay' frightens me off more than it attracts. Partly
this is because of my aforementioned preference for a more structured,
better paced adventure. But I think it is also because a lot of games
- especially modern games - artificially pad out their games with a
lot of repetitive grind (I'm looking at you, Ubisoft!). I'd much
rather see what a game has to offer and what makes it unique, and then
move on.
But it occured to me after starting this thread that - even though I acknowledged the opposite - the poll does have an underlying
assumption that the default preference /is/ to for finite length
games, which usually implies something with a narrative. Many
players, of course, are more interested in the mechanics so length of
the game isn't even on their radar when chosing what to play next;
they'll keep playing it for as long as it interests them and there is
new content to keep up that interest.
On 11/08/2022 04:24, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
A lot depends on the type of game. I had a game of 'War in the
Pacific: Admiral's Edition'* that took me longer to play than the
actual war lasted. :D
*WitP:AE is a operational level "grognard's" wargame. Hex based at 45
nautical miles per hex, turns are 1 day, units are individual ships,
aircraft squadrons and ground units from battalions to divisions. The
map covers from the US West Coast to eastern India, the north polar
ice cap to just south of New Zealand. Starts on December 7, 1941 and
continues until Japan loses or somewhere in 1947. Planning and
logistics are the most important aspects of your command. I was
marching my way up the Home Islands enroute to Tokyo in late 1945 when
that computer died on me.
I have seen The War in The X series and although I kinda admire the
people who play them I also think are you mad!
I used to play games like The Operational Art of War but after a while I realised that I much preferred games with no more than twenty units to control and even that was pushing it. Probably my most played wargame is Combat Mission and even in that I avoided that large sized missions as I found them more a chore than enjoyable.
As always, the normal caveat of horses for courses and all that!
I don't think I have a sweet spot as such but instead a sweet spot
depending on the game. Some examples.
On 8/12/2022 2:10 AM, JAB wrote:
On 11/08/2022 04:24, Dimensional Traveler wrote:Oh its definitely a niche gaming market. As I said it is what they call
A lot depends on the type of game. I had a game of 'War in the
Pacific: Admiral's Edition'* that took me longer to play than the
actual war lasted. :D
*WitP:AE is a operational level "grognard's" wargame. Hex based at
45 nautical miles per hex, turns are 1 day, units are individual
ships, aircraft squadrons and ground units from battalions to
divisions. The map covers from the US West Coast to eastern India,
the north polar ice cap to just south of New Zealand. Starts on
December 7, 1941 and continues until Japan loses or somewhere in
1947. Planning and logistics are the most important aspects of your
command. I was marching my way up the Home Islands enroute to Tokyo
in late 1945 when that computer died on me.
I have seen The War in The X series and although I kinda admire the
people who play them I also think are you mad!
I used to play games like The Operational Art of War but after a while
I realised that I much preferred games with no more than twenty units
to control and even that was pushing it. Probably my most played
wargame is Combat Mission and even in that I avoided that large sized
missions as I found them more a chore than enjoyable.
As always, the normal caveat of horses for courses and all that!
a "grognard's game", intended for people who enjoy complex, highly
detailed games. But if you are that kind of person there can be great satisfaction in executing something like a successful amphibious landing operation, putting all the combined arms pieces in the right places at
the right times.
On 12/08/2022 11:43, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 8/12/2022 2:10 AM, JAB wrote:
On 11/08/2022 04:24, Dimensional Traveler wrote:Oh its definitely a niche gaming market. As I said it is what they
A lot depends on the type of game. I had a game of 'War in the
Pacific: Admiral's Edition'* that took me longer to play than the
actual war lasted. :D
*WitP:AE is a operational level "grognard's" wargame. Hex based at
45 nautical miles per hex, turns are 1 day, units are individual
ships, aircraft squadrons and ground units from battalions to
divisions. The map covers from the US West Coast to eastern India,
the north polar ice cap to just south of New Zealand. Starts on
December 7, 1941 and continues until Japan loses or somewhere in
1947. Planning and logistics are the most important aspects of your
command. I was marching my way up the Home Islands enroute to Tokyo
in late 1945 when that computer died on me.
I have seen The War in The X series and although I kinda admire the
people who play them I also think are you mad!
I used to play games like The Operational Art of War but after a
while I realised that I much preferred games with no more than twenty
units to control and even that was pushing it. Probably my most
played wargame is Combat Mission and even in that I avoided that
large sized missions as I found them more a chore than enjoyable.
As always, the normal caveat of horses for courses and all that!
call a "grognard's game", intended for people who enjoy complex,
highly detailed games. But if you are that kind of person there can
be great satisfaction in executing something like a successful
amphibious landing operation, putting all the combined arms pieces in
the right places at the right times.
I believe I once heard the series referred to as the grognards,
grognards game.
I believe I once heard the series referred to as the grognards,Its not as bad as the game set in WW2 North Africa with the "pasta"
grognards game.
rule. :D (I don't remember the name of the game but there was a rule
that all Italian units had to end the turn someplace with water so they
could cook pasta. Never played that one myself but heard about it a lot.)
Its not as bad as the game set in WW2 North Africa with the "pasta"
rule. :D (I don't remember the name of the game but there was a rule
that all Italian units had to end the turn someplace with water so they
could cook pasta. Never played that one myself but heard about it a lot.)
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Its not as bad as the game set in WW2 North Africa with the "pasta"
rule. :D (I don't remember the name of the game but there was a rule
that all Italian units had to end the turn someplace with water so they
could cook pasta. Never played that one myself but heard about it a lot.)
You're talking about The Campaign for North Africa, a 1978 "monster"
board game:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campaign_for_North_Africa
The pasta rule wss actually a bit different, Italian units consumed
more water than other units because needed more to prepare pasta.
Wikipedia mentions a similarily absurd rule:
In a retrospective review almost 40 years after CNA's
publication, Luke Winkie called the arcane complexity of the game
"transparently absurd", pointing out the example that each turn,
every unit loses 3% of its fuel due to evaporation, except for
British units, which lose 7% because historically they used
50-gallon drums instead of jerry cans. But he admitted that due
to its complexity, "The Campaign for North Africa will seduce
new players for the rest of time."
I'm not sure either rule can be justified by historical facts, like
actual records of water and fuel usage from the war, and are likely just something the designers surmised would be true.
Thanks for the correction and info. That's reaching a level of detailed >complexity that even I don't want to deal with.
As for the fuel evaporation, why would fuel in sealed containers
be evaporating? ;)
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Thanks for the correction and info. That's reaching a level of detailed
complexity that even I don't want to deal with.
What's scary is that it's a level complexity that is still apparently "seducing new players", as the quote in the Wikipedia article states.
When I used Google to search for the game, the Related searches section included things like:
the campaign for north africa board game for sale
the campaign for north africa board game amazon
the campaign for north africa board game price
Plus this as well:
has anyone finished the campaign for north africa
I'm guessing the answer is no. There's probably precious few players
that have played more than a couple of turns. I can't see anyone playing
all 100.
As for the fuel evaporation, why would fuel in sealed containers
be evaporating? ;)
Yah, I don't know. It appears to be complexity for complexity's sake.
Apparently though the pasta rule was intended to be a joke:
It was a joke, by the way. Richard Berg, the legendary game
designer and author of The Campaign For North Africa, says
so himself. He'll happily admit that this was an unreasonable
game for unreasonable people, but still, a pasta point? There's
attention to detail, and then there's taking the piss. As Berg
explains, the rule wasn't even entirely factually accurate. "The
reality is that the Italians cooked their pasta with the tomato
sauce that came with the cans," he says. "But I didn't want
to do a rule on that." Yes, at the pinnacle of North Africa's
ridiculous excess, even Berg couldn't help but poke a little
fun at the obsessives in his wake.
https://kotaku.com/the-notorious-board-game-that-takes-1500-hours-to-compl-1818510912
Oh, and of course:
Berg has never completed a playthrough of The Campaign For
North Africa.
Thanks for the correction and info. That's reaching a level of detailed complexity that even I don't want to deal with. As for the fuel evaporation, why would fuel in sealed containers be evaporating? ;)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 343 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 31:12:32 |
Calls: | 7,557 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,733 |
Messages: | 5,655,711 |