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.

>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 from
>hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
>hrs)
I dunno about 'multifaceted' but many larger 3rd person shooters
(Resident Evil, Last Of Us) fall here. Resident Evil 6 took me 27hrs,
that's a good length I'd say, as it had 3 separate interlocking campaigns.

>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 :)

rms

On Tue, 09 Aug 2022 17:31:27 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>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!

For most single player games I think about 8-10 hours is the sweet
spot. Maybe even a little less because 10-12 hours is about the total
time I'd want to spend in a game, so with a target campaign time of
6-8 hours it allows for a few hours of "freelancing" (side missions,
looking around etc)

Multiplayer games are a different story... I don't know how many
hours I sank into Red Dead 2 Online for example... except to say I
leveled every role to the max and played all but a few of the missions
for all of the online DLC so it has to be over 100.

Even some games I keep going back to every now and then like PUBG have
way more hours logged than I would ever want to spend on a SP game.

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.

On 8/9/2022 2:31 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> 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.

If its a game I like I'm a "G" (though I hate that description) but I
appear to be much "pickier" about what games I get than most here.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 2:31:39 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> 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)
>

If I have to pick one it's g)

I really don't like the learning stages of games, and I'm even more likely
to go back to one I've been playing even if I'm not feeling it, if I don't
find something else enjoyable (I'm looking at you Elden Ring.)

I have no idea how much time I put into Fallout 2, but it was a lot,
I've only finished it once that I remember for sure, maybe twice,
but I had to try builds and acting differently, it felt more like a
tabletop than most CRPGs with huge differences in outcomes
based on choices an actions though.

I put a hell of a lot of time into
Master of Magic ages ago too, all the different combos to try and
random opponents and maps, I even got a 3rd party tool to play
it online, though that didn't really stick. I probably would've played
it a lot more if it weren't that there was a bug on the highest difficulty
that crashed the game at some point in every play.

I've played over 1000 hours of each dark souls game, and BL2
meets that as well. DS3 is the highest with 1700 hours, and I'd still
be playing it if the PC servers weren't taken down, and I'll probably
go back if the servers ever come back up.

I've played very enjoyable games that are way under that though,
and don't mind if it's not too complicated, and it's fun, and I get
my money's worth, which is at least an hour per $1.

Though looking through my steam times, even games I felt like short
are over 120 hours like Star Control Origins is 141.

Looking at the least played games, the first that I actually liked
was Golden Axed at 8 minutes but that was more just a short unfinished
remake, so I won't count that one.

Nidhogg was 38 minutes, a very quick fighting game, that's the lowest,
everything below that was garbage that I gave up on.

I also don't feel like I really enjoyed the game unless I got the
satisfaction of finishing it. The next game I can see that fits that bill is
Superbrothers: Sword and Sorcery at 7 hours. But that's still a short
indy low graphics game.

How about AAA titles?

Deadly Tower of Monsters at 12 hours is by SEGA, a big name, but I
don't think it qualifies as AAA.

I guess that would be Portal 2 at 20 hours. But really I don't usually
much care for puzzlers and this is perhaps the sole exception to the
rule (no I didn't really like Portal 1 other than GladOS.)

So something more typically what I like. Far Cry Primal at 70 hours,
even that kind of game isn't typical for me, I'm more into the more
RPG like or looter/shooters than Ubisoft games.

Lowest of those that I enjoyed is probably BL3 at 309 hours.

- Justisaur

On 09/08/2022 22:31, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> 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)
>

I don't think I have a sweet spot as such but instead a sweet spot
depending on the game. Some examples.

A bit of an obscure freebie, If On Winter's Night Four Travellers.
That's only a few hours play and it seems perfectly pitched as almost
like reading a short horror mystery novel. Yes it could have been
extended but I really think that would have been a mistake as after a
couple of hours I just so wanted to see the end.

Next up Call of Duty which I think is about ten hours and that was just
about right as it was getting to the tipping point of I've seen all the
game can offer so let's not ruin the experience by carrying it on.

Half Life 1/2 is a few hours longer than CoD but I'd have bee happy to
have another couple of levels added on. The reason, one thing I think HL
does well is yes it's an FPS but each level has a varied playstyle so
although you are playing the same game you are doing something rather
different.

Now a bit of a jump up with Disco Elysium. That was about twenty five
hours and I'd say five hours off getting to the can we just finish the
story and wrap it up stage. You keep going forward and find new twists
in the plot that keep your interest.

The biggy that is Fallout:New Vegas. I played this one probably more
than any other single player single play though to complete game,
possibly Skyrim was more. There's just so much to do and I very much
enjoyed wandering about and pretty much doing nothing. It keeps giving
you something new to explore or just spend a half-an-hour taking in the
sunshine.

Overall though I think a lot of games are far too long and they over
stay their welcome to get to that magical 80hrs+ gametime that can slap
on their marketing.

So not really a conclusive answer but my answer nevertheless.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> e) A game should be a multifaceted gem that I can examine from
> hundreds of different angles and never be disappointed (20hrs - 60
> hrs)

I think KOTOR took me about 60 hours. I never played it again, I kinda
wanted to but it just felt like too much. So I might be somewhere
here, it's a pretty wide range after all. I want to be entertained or
entertain myself with the game.

Sure, shorter games are OK too and I also do multiple playthroughs
(full or partial) if I want to tweak my character in a different
direction or whatever the game allows.

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. ;-)

-------------
* Incidentally, Steam's 'play time' stats are worthless. It's
frequently reported times I /know/ are inaccurate (for instance,
despite having completed "Half Life 2", it shows my play time as just
over six hours. Similarly, it shows I've only played "Titan Quest" 15
hours, despite going through that game more than once.... and that's a
game where it takes at least five hours to get through the first act!

I rarely have time to play games these days so I'm OK with short games.
I still am on Xen level in Black Mesa! Sheesh, that's long! :( I do like
to check out those free demos, trials, weekends, etc. of other games
that I never played before. Assuming my PC hardwares can play them. Ha.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

--
Somewhat slammy and hotty Tuesday. Taking a break from beautiful and scary Xen for now. Dang old updates, leaks, spams, bodies, illness, bugs, crashes, deaths, etc. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 8/10/2022 2:48 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> 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.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

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!

On 10/08/2022 13:26, Mike S. 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.

Gee, well at least you get your monies worth! I actually wish I liked
the whole character build part but I can only say that I find it ok. My
problem is that what I enjoy about RPG's is the story unfolding and
character creation tends to be I think I'll play one of these and then
make whatever stats/skills seem to fit. Even when it comes to gaining
improved skills/stats I don't put that much thought into it.

Possibly an exception to this is Disco Elysium as although different
builds don't change the main story arc that do have quite a bit of
impact on how you interact with the story.

On 10/08/2022 22:48, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> 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.
>

I certainly agree with that, the scourge of some modern games is they
have to get to that 80hrs+ gameplay.

> 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.
>

Well if it helps I didn't think of that either. Linked with my comment
above, I'd rather that's how they got the how do you make a 20hr game an
80hr one. Answer make different play-throughs be able to be approached
in a different way whether through for example character builds. It's
not something that I'm personally that interested in but at I might buy
the game in the first place.

On 8/12/2022 2:10 AM, JAB wrote:
> 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!
>
Oh its definitely a niche gaming market. As I said it is what they 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've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

>I don't think I have a sweet spot as such but instead a sweet spot
>depending on the game. Some examples.

This is me. I'll look at that On Winter's Night game too.

rms

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:
>>
>>> 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!
>>
> Oh its definitely a niche gaming market.  As I said it is what they 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.

On 8/12/2022 12:28 PM, JAB wrote:
> 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:
>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>
>> Oh its definitely a niche gaming market.  As I said it is what they
>> 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.
>
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.)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 12/08/2022 22:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>> I believe I once heard the series referred to as the grognards,
>> grognards game.
>>
> 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.)
>

I'm not sure whether you've play it but Command Ops is a wargame I can
recommend as I think it takes the idea of kinda seems likes a boardgame
but really exploiting what a PC can do.

It really does give that feel of ordering units under your command who
then use the units under their command to act on your command. There's
also lovely things (depending on how much realism you want) such as
significant order delays and also not really understanding what your
units are doing.

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.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On 8/13/2022 8:43 AM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> 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? ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

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.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On 8/13/2022 11:04 AM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> 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.
>
Well at least people _have_ completed the long campaign in WitP. The
campaign I was playing was "won" some time before I lost the computer, I
was just continuing because I wanted to take Tokyo!! :D Apparently
there are even people who have completed the full war campaign against
other people! *gasp*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 13/08/2022 17:46, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> 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? ;)

I believe there is an answer to this. In the early war the British used
something know as a flimsy. As its name suggests it wasn't that good at
actually keep the fuel in the can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flimsy