Optimal gameplay length of an indie game?
by Thomas \"Man of Ice\" Lund · in General Discussion · 08/14/2004 (1:08 am) · 18 replies
I am getting more and more comfortable with TGE and what I can do/what I cannot. Designing the games is not too difficult either.
BUT
I am very much in doubt on what the optimal gameplay length should be for an indie game that costs $15-$20.
Some commercial titles that sell at $50-55 have maybe 20 hours worth of gameplay. I read somewhere that some senior Nintendo designers aim for 10 hours gameplay as the optimal for their titles (also for full price titles).
Does this apply to indie games too? 10-20 hours gameplay seems like a lot for $15-20 compared to "real" commercial games. Naturally a lot of those have big teams, lots of art and great quality - which is not always possible with indie games.
Some people advocate "less is more", and I myself would rather have 4 hours great fun than 20 hours repetitive gameplay. But I'm not the typical consumer.
Can someone point me to some links, or share some of their personal experience on this matter?
Thanks!
BUT
I am very much in doubt on what the optimal gameplay length should be for an indie game that costs $15-$20.
Some commercial titles that sell at $50-55 have maybe 20 hours worth of gameplay. I read somewhere that some senior Nintendo designers aim for 10 hours gameplay as the optimal for their titles (also for full price titles).
Does this apply to indie games too? 10-20 hours gameplay seems like a lot for $15-20 compared to "real" commercial games. Naturally a lot of those have big teams, lots of art and great quality - which is not always possible with indie games.
Some people advocate "less is more", and I myself would rather have 4 hours great fun than 20 hours repetitive gameplay. But I'm not the typical consumer.
Can someone point me to some links, or share some of their personal experience on this matter?
Thanks!
#2
If you really want a long game, I think it really easy (although cheap) to simply reuse alot of level structures, reuse enemies, etc. You could draw out the game indefinitley. That's one thing you can do with a game that you cant do in a movie to make it longer.
08/14/2004 (2:02 am)
Replay value is just as important as the time it takes to finish a game. Make fewer levels and a smaller game, but make it so fun you want to play it over and over.If you really want a long game, I think it really easy (although cheap) to simply reuse alot of level structures, reuse enemies, etc. You could draw out the game indefinitley. That's one thing you can do with a game that you cant do in a movie to make it longer.
#3
Forget about the "hours" and shoot for something you feel is worth the money. IMO just asking the question "how many hours fun should I give for X dollars" is a recipe for failure. Sure, it works for the big boys who have the big bucks to slam mega-cool ads down your throats until the weak minded cough up their dollars, but IMO it's not a good idea for an indie to think in those terms.
Me personally, I'm shooting for Tribes status with anything I make. Meaning that I want people to enjoy my work for as long as it takes for them to get really really sick of it. Not bored with it, sick of it. There's a big difference between giving up a game because it's consumed your life, and giving it up because you beat it twice in two days.
08/14/2004 (2:30 am)
Tribes gave me over two years of great fun. It ranks as one of the greatest games of all time in MY book. I personally am very skeptic of companies like Electronic Arts simply because I have been ripped off to many times for 50 bucks due to buggy games that dont work or ones that i can beat in a night. If I wanted to blow 50 bucks on nothing I can go bar hopping and catcha buzz that will last till the next day at least, and maybe even have a great story or two to tell.Forget about the "hours" and shoot for something you feel is worth the money. IMO just asking the question "how many hours fun should I give for X dollars" is a recipe for failure. Sure, it works for the big boys who have the big bucks to slam mega-cool ads down your throats until the weak minded cough up their dollars, but IMO it's not a good idea for an indie to think in those terms.
Me personally, I'm shooting for Tribes status with anything I make. Meaning that I want people to enjoy my work for as long as it takes for them to get really really sick of it. Not bored with it, sick of it. There's a big difference between giving up a game because it's consumed your life, and giving it up because you beat it twice in two days.
#4
But, as Gonzo T. Clown said, the game has to have enough content that it's worth playing.
Reusing level structures (as Will Harrison suggested) is a great idea. For most kinds of games, you can 5 or so different sets of art. Use 1 set of art for each level. Alot of professional games do this, and only having 5 different sets of art is fine for a 30-level game.
In fact, as an indie developer, you might want to have more like 3 sets of art. That should be sufficient, especially if you set up the levels in creative ways.
The character art is usually more of a problem. What you can do is have "types" of enemies. For instance, the goblinoid type might be goblin, orc, ogre, and troll. Have the weakest one drawn first. Then just change its main colors and make it look tougher for each stronger enemy. The goblinoid type isn't the best example because orcs, etc. are generally bigger than goblins. But, depending on the game, it might just be that goblins are a few pixels shorter (it's not always reasonable to have enemies of vastly different size).
But I'm sure you've played some RPG that had "slimes" or something that came in several colors. This is a perfectly fine idea.
Have some sort of random level option if you can. That adds alot of replayability to the game for a relatively small amount of work. Don't spend huge amounts of development time on this though because only some people will use this feature. It's just like anything else - some people will like and some people won't.
Music is another issue. In some games, you need different music for different areas. In this case, just try to use each kind of music more than once. For instance, have 3 cave areas that use cave music instead of having a cave area, a cloud city area, and a swamp area.
If you just play a piece of music per level, don't specify which song is played on which level. Instead, choose a random piece of music for each level. If you can load the music quickly enough, have a new random song start every time a song ends.
08/14/2004 (7:48 am)
What's more important is that it doesn't take you long to create the game content. That's a big problem for indie developers because we never have sufficient personel.But, as Gonzo T. Clown said, the game has to have enough content that it's worth playing.
Reusing level structures (as Will Harrison suggested) is a great idea. For most kinds of games, you can 5 or so different sets of art. Use 1 set of art for each level. Alot of professional games do this, and only having 5 different sets of art is fine for a 30-level game.
In fact, as an indie developer, you might want to have more like 3 sets of art. That should be sufficient, especially if you set up the levels in creative ways.
The character art is usually more of a problem. What you can do is have "types" of enemies. For instance, the goblinoid type might be goblin, orc, ogre, and troll. Have the weakest one drawn first. Then just change its main colors and make it look tougher for each stronger enemy. The goblinoid type isn't the best example because orcs, etc. are generally bigger than goblins. But, depending on the game, it might just be that goblins are a few pixels shorter (it's not always reasonable to have enemies of vastly different size).
But I'm sure you've played some RPG that had "slimes" or something that came in several colors. This is a perfectly fine idea.
Have some sort of random level option if you can. That adds alot of replayability to the game for a relatively small amount of work. Don't spend huge amounts of development time on this though because only some people will use this feature. It's just like anything else - some people will like and some people won't.
Music is another issue. In some games, you need different music for different areas. In this case, just try to use each kind of music more than once. For instance, have 3 cave areas that use cave music instead of having a cave area, a cloud city area, and a swamp area.
If you just play a piece of music per level, don't specify which song is played on which level. Instead, choose a random piece of music for each level. If you can load the music quickly enough, have a new random song start every time a song ends.
#5
It could also be that I'm an RPG fanatic.. so I'm used to playing 20+ hour games. I also favour online games because of the replay value.
-Jase
08/14/2004 (9:01 am)
Usually when I buy a game I expect atleast 10 hours of good gameplay. Anything less in terms of gameplay or hours I feel disappointed/cheated. But thats just my personal preference.It could also be that I'm an RPG fanatic.. so I'm used to playing 20+ hour games. I also favour online games because of the replay value.
-Jase
#6
For me, it's more along the lines of how much content you think the player will be satisfied with, without being/seeming repetitive, yet with steady breaks in order to recover and prepare for the next area/level. It's a balance that will depend solely on where you want your players to go.
If it's multiplayer, and you use levels from the single player game, make sure there's plenty of areas that are designated interactivity/combat zones, or places of interest that make it worthwhile to play that level over and over again.
Don't think in terms of time, but content and replayability.
- Ronixus
08/14/2004 (9:11 am)
To me, game length and it's representation of time consumed is only evaluated after the game. In other words, it's not necissarily true that one should plot on a set timeframe, but rather enough content and gameplay to balance out a game in replay value. A puzzle game goes by increasing the difficulty of the levels, making the time played being as long as you can keep up with the game. FPS games give you places to explore and areas to do battle, traveling from one to the next - first time through you explore and maybe (example) spend 30 min. on a level. Next time through, it'll probably be about 5-10 min. game time because you know the area.For me, it's more along the lines of how much content you think the player will be satisfied with, without being/seeming repetitive, yet with steady breaks in order to recover and prepare for the next area/level. It's a balance that will depend solely on where you want your players to go.
If it's multiplayer, and you use levels from the single player game, make sure there's plenty of areas that are designated interactivity/combat zones, or places of interest that make it worthwhile to play that level over and over again.
Don't think in terms of time, but content and replayability.
- Ronixus
#7
In general, I would consider 10 to 20 hours of gameplay acceptable if I was following a "walkthrough" document, but otherwise I would expect a certain amount of exploration, experimentation and/or practise to be required first.
Of course - as mentioned by others - it also depends on the game genre and personal perference.
Only using the prices of new commercial games as a guideline wouldn't be a very accurate indication of expected sales. You would also need to consider products which compete at the same price level, such as used or budget label commercial games, and shareware offerings.
08/15/2004 (2:47 am)
How do you even measure gameplay length consistently? Unless the game is completely linear and it is impossible to "die", it is dependant on the player's skill level and knowledge more than anything else.In general, I would consider 10 to 20 hours of gameplay acceptable if I was following a "walkthrough" document, but otherwise I would expect a certain amount of exploration, experimentation and/or practise to be required first.
Of course - as mentioned by others - it also depends on the game genre and personal perference.
Only using the prices of new commercial games as a guideline wouldn't be a very accurate indication of expected sales. You would also need to consider products which compete at the same price level, such as used or budget label commercial games, and shareware offerings.
#8
If you want to make an FPS, you should make a single player game with at least 15 hours... You would also want a modding system and multiplayer to add replayablity...
If you want to create an RPG like Baldur's Gate you want a major quest, side quests, exploration, storyline. You will get alot of hours out of it but it might not add replayablity...
Arcade Games are good because their replayablity is superb because you want to beat your times, scores, etc just too see how good you are... Lots of hours if you get obsessed..
Sorry I went on for soo long
08/15/2004 (3:51 am)
Depends on the game...If you want to make an FPS, you should make a single player game with at least 15 hours... You would also want a modding system and multiplayer to add replayablity...
If you want to create an RPG like Baldur's Gate you want a major quest, side quests, exploration, storyline. You will get alot of hours out of it but it might not add replayablity...
Arcade Games are good because their replayablity is superb because you want to beat your times, scores, etc just too see how good you are... Lots of hours if you get obsessed..
Sorry I went on for soo long
#9
I know its very dependant on gametype, how to measure gametime in the first place etc.etc., so I might not have phrased my question the correct way (to get to what I really would like to discuss).
What I'm interested in, is your point of view on the "size" of indie games vs "real commercial games" (you know what I mean)
Can I get away with "half size" because the game is half prize?
Do I need double gameplay time to make up for the fact that the art content will not be on par with commercial games?
It must be a thing all of us need to think about. If one doesnt have a plan and a goal (e.g. 30 levels of shoot'm'up fun, 100 hours of single player FPS, 20 multiplayer levels of XYZ, etc) how can you even finish a game? Just continuing until the game is "good enough" doesnt seem to be a very professional approach to me. At least thats not how I approach business software which I've been producing for 10+ years. In that world you make up roadmaps, milestone plans etc. and I'm really missing someone with indie game dev experience to transfer some knowledge ;-)
I know there is no magic formula. But there must exist some guidelines.
How do you approach the level design issue and "how much is enough" question for your game? I bet a lot are interested in knowing a little about this side of game design. I am at least :-)
(If it matters I'm making a single player action adventure with a main story and a few side quests. Replayablity will not be high once you've been through it once, so it needs to be "long enough" to not make the player feel cheated)
08/15/2004 (8:29 am)
Thanks for all the replies.I know its very dependant on gametype, how to measure gametime in the first place etc.etc., so I might not have phrased my question the correct way (to get to what I really would like to discuss).
What I'm interested in, is your point of view on the "size" of indie games vs "real commercial games" (you know what I mean)
Can I get away with "half size" because the game is half prize?
Do I need double gameplay time to make up for the fact that the art content will not be on par with commercial games?
It must be a thing all of us need to think about. If one doesnt have a plan and a goal (e.g. 30 levels of shoot'm'up fun, 100 hours of single player FPS, 20 multiplayer levels of XYZ, etc) how can you even finish a game? Just continuing until the game is "good enough" doesnt seem to be a very professional approach to me. At least thats not how I approach business software which I've been producing for 10+ years. In that world you make up roadmaps, milestone plans etc. and I'm really missing someone with indie game dev experience to transfer some knowledge ;-)
I know there is no magic formula. But there must exist some guidelines.
How do you approach the level design issue and "how much is enough" question for your game? I bet a lot are interested in knowing a little about this side of game design. I am at least :-)
(If it matters I'm making a single player action adventure with a main story and a few side quests. Replayablity will not be high once you've been through it once, so it needs to be "long enough" to not make the player feel cheated)
#10
Replayability is critical from most indie games.
Two other considerations are:
1) Level editing or mod-ability. Giving players the tools to build custom levels and a place to share them is still a huge advantage for games made for PC. It can add to the length of gameplay especially if your game is fun to mod or build levels for.
2) Multiplayer mode - when your gameplay involves a community (especially an online game mechanic) the length of gameplay is much more social and dynamic. In the game of risk, chess or football do we think about length of gameplay - thats because most games involve a social dynamic in terms of replay.
I think when we asked (and most people had to guess because that wasn't how they approached the game) the average time it took people to play through Marble Blast Gold was between 8-20 hours depending on skill - to get Gold times I think most people quit tracking
08/15/2004 (8:33 am)
With online distribution most of the purchasing decision and the consumers preceived 'value proposition' will be determined before they purchase while playing a demo. How easy to access and fun the game is drives what we call the conversion rate (# of people who play and then purchase). Once you have a fun play mechanic and an addictively fun game you can work out with players what the right level of "poundage" (my word for amount of content that usually translates somewhat to length of gameplay). Replayability is critical from most indie games.
Two other considerations are:
1) Level editing or mod-ability. Giving players the tools to build custom levels and a place to share them is still a huge advantage for games made for PC. It can add to the length of gameplay especially if your game is fun to mod or build levels for.
2) Multiplayer mode - when your gameplay involves a community (especially an online game mechanic) the length of gameplay is much more social and dynamic. In the game of risk, chess or football do we think about length of gameplay - thats because most games involve a social dynamic in terms of replay.
I think when we asked (and most people had to guess because that wasn't how they approached the game) the average time it took people to play through Marble Blast Gold was between 8-20 hours depending on skill - to get Gold times I think most people quit tracking
#11
Replayability is critical from most indie games.
Two other considerations are:
1) Level editing or mod-ability. Giving players the tools to build custom levels and a place to share them is still a huge advantage for games made for PC. It can add to the length of gameplay especially if your game is fun to mod or build levels for.
2) Multiplayer mode - when your gameplay involves a community (especially an online game mechanic) the length of gameplay is much more social and dynamic. In the game of risk, chess or football do we think about length of gameplay - thats because most games involve a social dynamic in terms of replay.
I think when we asked (and most people had to guess because that wasn't how they approached the game) the average time it took people to play through Marble Blast Gold was between 8-20 hours depending on skill - to get Gold times I think most people quit tracking
08/15/2004 (8:35 am)
With online distribution most of the purchasing decision and the consumers preceived 'value proposition' will be determined before they purchase while playing a demo. How easy to access and fun the game is drives what we call the conversion rate (# of people who play and then purchase). Once you have a fun play mechanic and an addictively fun game you can work out with players what the right level of "poundage" (my word for amount of content that usually translates somewhat to length of gameplay). Replayability is critical from most indie games.
Two other considerations are:
1) Level editing or mod-ability. Giving players the tools to build custom levels and a place to share them is still a huge advantage for games made for PC. It can add to the length of gameplay especially if your game is fun to mod or build levels for.
2) Multiplayer mode - when your gameplay involves a community (especially an online game mechanic) the length of gameplay is much more social and dynamic. In the game of risk, chess or football do we think about length of gameplay - thats because most games involve a social dynamic in terms of replay.
I think when we asked (and most people had to guess because that wasn't how they approached the game) the average time it took people to play through Marble Blast Gold was between 8-20 hours depending on skill - to get Gold times I think most people quit tracking
#12
I would be prepared to pay "full price" only if a game includes the following features:-
Professional, attractive packaging.
Printed documentation.
Supplied on physical media (CD or DVD).
Contains a large game environment and/or extended gameplay.
Provides a challenge (but not an impossible one).
Technical support.
The "fun" factor.
Professional graphics, sound and music.
It is less than 3 to 6 months old.
The amount I would be willing to pay would be reduced for every feature from that list that is either missing or reduced. It would also increase if additional features were added or existing ones expanded upon, compared with whatever was considered the "norm" for that type of game.
As a game designer/developer, I would attempt to set the price based on similar factors.
08/15/2004 (9:58 am)
As a game consumer, several factors determine whether I consider a game to be good value for money.I would be prepared to pay "full price" only if a game includes the following features:-
Professional, attractive packaging.
Printed documentation.
Supplied on physical media (CD or DVD).
Contains a large game environment and/or extended gameplay.
Provides a challenge (but not an impossible one).
Technical support.
The "fun" factor.
Professional graphics, sound and music.
It is less than 3 to 6 months old.
The amount I would be willing to pay would be reduced for every feature from that list that is either missing or reduced. It would also increase if additional features were added or existing ones expanded upon, compared with whatever was considered the "norm" for that type of game.
As a game designer/developer, I would attempt to set the price based on similar factors.
#13
08/15/2004 (11:47 am)
How much would you pay for a game that shipped in a solid gold box? :)
#14
Generally no matter how good the game, I'm usually bored within 15 - 20 of gameplay hours and will never play it again.
08/15/2004 (12:18 pm)
Longest amount of time I have spant playing a single game in the last 10 years is probably about 60. The last one I recall being KOTOR.Generally no matter how good the game, I'm usually bored within 15 - 20 of gameplay hours and will never play it again.
#15
08/15/2004 (2:40 pm)
Quote:How much would you pay for a game that shipped in a solid gold box? :)It depends if the game inside is also solid gold. ;o)
#16
I still have a hankering to do a (spaghetti) western RPG... and with any luck, this'll be the next game... yeehaw!!!
-Josh Ritter
Prairie Games
08/15/2004 (6:59 pm)
We are going episodic... so all marketing, patches, support, expansions, interviews, news items, community, etc feed back into our one (and currently only) title. This is the plan for the next couple years (at least)...I still have a hankering to do a (spaghetti) western RPG... and with any luck, this'll be the next game... yeehaw!!!
-Josh Ritter
Prairie Games
#17
Then I think it should have unlimited gameplay via multiplayer modes (at least an online high score ranking) and mods. Don't drag out the single player game just for the sake of making it take a long time. Make the single player sweet ... however long it takes it takes. If it becomes repetitive and boring then you're dragging it out. Multiplayer should always be fun due to what other players bring into the your little sandbox.
Basically, though the reason independent games online are cheaper is not because they've got less content or gametime. It's because they have to try 2X as hard to get people to look at them. Thus you should also offer more gameplay if you can.
Everything about being independent has to be more and better in the areas we can compete to draw players away from the mainstream titles. You can't expect to offer less just because the title is cheaper (with no box) than a 'AAA' game. You have to be competitive in every respect or at least in the ones that really count.
08/15/2004 (8:23 pm)
You need to add as much gameplay as possible. For single player games I don't like to see them drawn out too long personally. I like 10 - 15 hour titles or less ideally. If it's really really really good then I'll put more time in but most games aren't that good and I end up feeling like a loser for not completing it. I think it's important that the player complete the whole experience. Then I think it should have unlimited gameplay via multiplayer modes (at least an online high score ranking) and mods. Don't drag out the single player game just for the sake of making it take a long time. Make the single player sweet ... however long it takes it takes. If it becomes repetitive and boring then you're dragging it out. Multiplayer should always be fun due to what other players bring into the your little sandbox.
Basically, though the reason independent games online are cheaper is not because they've got less content or gametime. It's because they have to try 2X as hard to get people to look at them. Thus you should also offer more gameplay if you can.
Everything about being independent has to be more and better in the areas we can compete to draw players away from the mainstream titles. You can't expect to offer less just because the title is cheaper (with no box) than a 'AAA' game. You have to be competitive in every respect or at least in the ones that really count.
#18
The emphasis should be on the playability of the game, its interface, its story content, its continuity, and overall prescence portrayed to the player.
The difference between an indie game and a "Commercial Game" is that an indie game is crafted by people who actually play games and know what they like to have in games. No quick and easy formulae describing how many levels or length of playtime versus the big name game publishers is going to make your game special. Only you the indie game developer can do that by crafting it with your intimate knowledge of how games should be. TGE is a great start to an amazing game -- just put your spirit into it and it will be great.
ID software for example put their hearts into their games and it shown thru. Yes in later games they did find big name publishers but they still maintained creative control and produced some of the best games in their genre.
This is the approach i would encourage you to explore.
08/15/2004 (11:19 pm)
IMHOThe emphasis should be on the playability of the game, its interface, its story content, its continuity, and overall prescence portrayed to the player.
The difference between an indie game and a "Commercial Game" is that an indie game is crafted by people who actually play games and know what they like to have in games. No quick and easy formulae describing how many levels or length of playtime versus the big name game publishers is going to make your game special. Only you the indie game developer can do that by crafting it with your intimate knowledge of how games should be. TGE is a great start to an amazing game -- just put your spirit into it and it will be great.
ID software for example put their hearts into their games and it shown thru. Yes in later games they did find big name publishers but they still maintained creative control and produced some of the best games in their genre.
This is the approach i would encourage you to explore.
dakz0rz