Full length something good?

[2ma2]

I have recently found myself favouring small adventure games. Although the amateur serious projects are admirable, there's simply more fun with smaller adventures.

It could be that I have less of spare time, and thus less time to put on games. This is true to an extent. A full length game is not you sit through playing, whilst a smaller game is a fun pass time, giving you the satisfaction of playing it through and you can write it off your list directly. But it's not that I seek mindless pass time, no, I still enjoy clever storylines and well crafted characters.

Is it just me being a weakling adventurer? Or is it me nurturing my adventuring needs in smaller doses, because I really don't play anything anymore. I tend to see this as the natural path of the amateur development; smaller projects for lesser playing time, and I don't find this to be something bad, no, not at all. It's not that I enjoy really small games (and I do put PD amongst them), it is just that I lack the ambition to play through 10 hours of gameplay.

Have you had similar experiences, or do you think I'm speaking complete horsesh*t? What is the natural course of amateur adventure development? Simulating the market, or being happy being skilled amateur?

[Kweepa]

It's an interesting point.
My take on it is that most amateur games are not at the quality level where I'd be prepared to spend ten hours playing - they're interesting enough to grab me for an hour though.
There's a point when playing a game when the novelty wears off and it better be damn good or I'll just stop.

[Ginny]

It depends on the mood I'm in, in my case. When I just want a little quick adventure fun, I like a short game, since for playing a long game through, I need to set the right atmosphere and give it my full concentration, as I dont like getting distracted. However, thats part of the reason I haven't played a lot of the full length games, lack of time.
Sometimes, for a story to be really immersive and make the right impression, a certain length is required. Some stories might have the best impact when made into a short game, and some, particularly those that involve character development and/or epic quests, require a full length game. It wouldn't make much sense to me to argue which is better for people to be making, since the appeal of the amateur scene is, in part, the fact that everyone makes whatever game they want.
Thanks god the Games page divides games by length

P.S. I always felt I can't really play games in sectors, I like to take it in all at once most of the time, and so I need to make a lot of free time to play a full length game. Perhaps I should get in the habit of playing those more bit by bit, that would let me play a lot more of the games I'm missing.

[2ma2]

Steve: Yeah, I agree to an extent, but on the other hand, I give some commercial games not even that decree of attention. The question is almost "Are you ready to spend 10 hours on one game?"

Ginny: The sectors can be utilized in several games, a trend I've seen being used more and more efficiently. Whilst the games before made me angry for showing a "To be continued", I can now see games making a seclosed game, making each chapter more or less independant, or enjoyable on their own. Even though, it ruins the posebilities of more open ended gameplay, such as multiple paths.

[Snarky]

To me, it's not that I don't enjoy a long game, it's just that the prospect of starting it is a bit daunting. I experience the same thing when choosing something to read. Start War and Peace, or glance through this week's magazine? Same when watching TV on my TiVo. Hmmm... Should I sit down to watch a 3 hour Altman movie, or a 20 minute sitcom?

It kind of makes sense if you tend to feel committed to finish what you started. It doesn't matter much if I'm not so impressed with a game it will take me less than a couple of hours to finish. If I'm going to be playing it for the next month, I have to be quite confident that it's going to be good.

With long games, I'll often start on them, and if they don't grab me within the first few minutes I'll stop playing them. With shorter games I'm more likely to give them more of a chance. (Partly for this reason I'm playing more AGS games than commercial games.)

[Ginny]

2ma2: Perhaps sector was a bad choice of words on my part. I didn't mean games are divided into sectors or chapters that are independant, I just meant that I should make a change in my habit of finishing games in 1-3 sittings, and instead play them bit by bit. Sorry for the incomprehensible sentence . It was, erm.. late..
I can also relate a bit to what Snarky said about starting games. I sometimes feel I need the right atmosphere, need to have all my focus on the game, all unrelated programs closed (except IRC. How could I close IRC? ), and if the game is important enough, I might turn off the phone and the lights for a complete experience of immersion. And much as this obsession of sorts can be annoying and hinder me from playing games, I feel it makes the gaming experience much better. I enjoyed Apprentice 2 intro immensly after such a setup, and did manage to quit later and take a break, surprisingly.

[Nostradamus]

Well in my eyes Quality > Quantity.

There are some great short-medium AGS games out there, like Ben Jordan, Apprentice, Rode Kill or Permanent Daylight (cheap pop 2ma2...) and I like playing the game but it doesn't compare to the fun and satisfaction you get from playing and finishing full length games like KQ2VGA, Larry Vales II and Pleurghburg.

So if you're talented to do quality full length games, do them. If you don't have the skills or time do short games, but make sure they are quality short games. If you're going to do a short game mind all the little details and make it as good as you can.

[GarageGothic]

I prefer full length games because they usually have better stories and more developed characters. Short games tend to stronger on humor and gameplay though.

However, I WOULD prefer a short but concluded story to a big game released in chapters. There's nothing to kill a story like having to wait another year for the ending (or even just a bit of plot development in some multi-chapter epos).To finish a great game like Bestowers of Eternity only to be left with a "to be continued" can't be anything but a letdown.
A good compromise would be independent sequels (like Ben Jordan's cases) with character development and perhaps some kind of bigger plot hidden in the background. It's the difference between an episode of '24' and an episode of 'CSI'. The former is pretty pointless to watch as a standalone episode while the latter can easily be enjoyed separately, but also contains bigger story arcs for the regular viewer. 

[Lord_Nipper]

I do partly agree with Gothic, but I gotta say that the short games are either made in spare time or to give someone a way to learn how to do things in AGS.  Short games are somewhat more enjoyable than full length games because you can get a quick laugh, its not too complex for someone to play through.  However, that point is easily destroyed when puzzles become obscure, and its just annoying to keep playing.

Full length games to me are more there for their stories than for the puzzles, when it just becomes difficult to figure things out after having a full inventory from some 30 other puzzles you just completed.  It's what separates the old Sierra games (namely Quest for glory, since its the only one i played) from regular puzzles.  You can take a break from any puzzle by going out and killing a few monsters, and come back when your mind is cleared

[Bill]

I'm going to try to do a full length game in the horror genre - I'm an artist,and I can assure you it won't be funny little comical cartoony characters running around in a primary colored toon land.It's gonna be good - and very disturbing,lol.