🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉

Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!

Back to Game Design and Theory

Standard Time

Freakshow · 2000-08-15T12:26:41

Well, I got to thinking. Most other media have a standard time that they fill. It''s like a contract with the user/viewer/reader; all pieces will generally take a common interval of time out of your life. Films are typically 2 hours, 90 minutes Euro, 3 to 4 hours if very epic. That''s only three variations. Television shows are in any number of half-hour combinations, although they rarely run over two hours in one sitting. Books; depending greatly upon the audience, tend to have a certain breadth the rarely carries them on more than 1500 pages. I''d say the majority are about 700. Plays come in acts, and it''s very easy to find out how many Acts you will be seeing, and how many breaks you get. This is somewhat crucial in entertainment. Time is money, it''s something people are usually very reluctant to part with. I feel that the lack of standard intervals of play-time in games is a large part of what prevents non-teenaged audiences from trying them. If we had some kind of contract with the viewer: "this game will take twenty hours to complete, which you can spread over however many sittings you like. Sittings should be at least an hour for your enjoyment" or something of the like... Now, there is a camp out there that is tickled pink by absurdly long games. People will look and think "300+ hours!". I love games, but that''s 300 hours out of my life, and I could have played and beaten 12 great games in the time that one would take me. On top of that, what the hell have they arranged for me to do for 300 hours?! I''ll tell you. Push one button repeatedly and slay monsters. That leads me to another benefit of standard time. If we can start viewing games in production as "too long for the player" we will start editing out boring crap rather than cramming more in to take up precious "hours". Imagine a Final Fantasy VII quality production without all the filler! Sure, it''ll be twenty minutes, but I think it''s worth it! I think that games will be getting shorter. if interactivity is as important in new games as I''ve been led to believe, games will start getting shorter and more replayable. If a game is only a half-hour long, but you can play through it in a dozen completely different ways, It''s contract, I''m more likely to fulfill than 300+ hours. I think the industry standard, however, will be around 20 hours with high replay. You see, length is a side effect of linear design. It''s technically impossible to design a truly interactive game with a 100+ minimum. You can''t do it. Too many options. With this step, we might open the medium for those who feel they are "Too busy for things like games". We''re only asking for a half an hour, and in that time we will give you a complete experience, beginning to end, with the option of you returning for a different story. What do you guys think? ===== Are you aware that the people who bring you television actually refer to it openly as "programming?"

Game Design and Theory Game Design

Started by Freakshow August 05, 2000 04:48 PM

40 comments, last by Freakshow 23 years, 10 months ago

dwarfsoft

1,237

August 15, 2000 04:31 AM

I just want a game which is playable for 600 hours, but can be completed in less time. The variety ought to be enough to warrant a second play... That way you can try a different linear story (pre-scripted linear, but branching

).

Thats all I ask, nothing too complex

Just fun

-Chris Bennett ("Insanity" of Dwarfsoft)

Check our site:
http://www.crosswinds.net/~dwarfsoft/
Check out our NPC AI Mailing List :
http://www.egroups.com/group/NPCAI/
made due to popular demand here at GDNet :)

- blog - twitter - LinkedIn

Anonymous Poster.

122

August 15, 2000 12:26 PM

This isn''t really for/against any one post, but it occured to me while following this topic, so I guess this is the place to post, yeah?

I kind of like the idea of an episodic structure, but not in-game, I mean as a distribution model. (and no, not for all games, but games like Final Fantasy might actually be more palatable this way) Use a single engine for the series, then expand the plot through monthly/bi-monthly serial installments, each affordable ($2.50/5-10hrs. each), but all taken together might actually be more money in pocket than a single game.

Now, I don''t give a hoot about the cash. I''m an amateur developer, and will stay that way until I have the capital to start my own company. But it seems like a win/win situation. (point out my errors, please?) As a player, I would love this! I could easily afford hours upon hours of gaming, and if it was a compelling gameworld, I would be out of my head waiting for the next installment. Plus, developers could do some really cool things w/ it. This post is to long already, but to list one example, you could have something like a persistent single-player world. If a set time period passed between each "episode", you could see characters age, have children, go off to wars, come back a hailed hero, (or just a heel) and the sense of time-scale alone would be awe-inspiring. In a continuous single-player game, the effect of time continuity breaking off every couple weeks to jump a decade could be jarring, but in this kind of subscription model, I have the gut feeling it would feel natural. Ever have that pleasing sensation where you finish one book in a series, then the next has the main char. aged and in a new setting/career, possibly a supporting character? It could be like that.

If you see the Buddha on the road, Kill Him. -apocryphal