Memes come and go in the blink of an eye on Twitter.
It’s relevant only for a moment, then it’s forgotten while a better format comes in to replace what was there prior. The idea is still the same, but the style will always change.
This format here is built on an expectation of upping the ante — as the subject grows in scope, our reaction (juxtaposed by the WWE’s Vince McMahon) grows more and more intrigued right up until the point where it reaches a climax.
But note that while Vinny Mac’s expression scales up to levels unimaginable, the subject matter is in fact… scaling down? What?
Yep, this is about the length of a game - the ideal length of a game. This topic has been fiercely debated in many circles on the Internet for as long as gaming’s continued to be relevant - so practically forever, in Internet years.
The (not-so) recent talk about game length is more about why a game with a shorter runtime ends up being the sweet spot that hits just right, whereas a game with 100+ hours just leaves you flaccid and without much joy. Of course, the meme is only an extension of the thoughts from who created it (Daniel Lucic / @danny_hr), so it’s very clear that their stance on game length is simply put: the shorter, the better.
I’m inclined to agree outright, but I’m writing all this down because there’s a surprisingly large amount of disagreement and discontent towards the idea.
“I really don't get this attitude,” says user CruxConvertible (@ProtoCopy). “If you enjoy the game, why would you want it to end as quickly as possible?” I feel like I would’ve been asking the same question a decade or so ago when I was completely submerged in gaming culture. Don’t you want your favorite game to last longer? I surely would appreciate a never-ending Mario Kart or Rhythm Heaven if done right, and games seem to be built to last nowadays with the recent rise of games-as-a-service. Epic Games’ Fortnite, miHoYo’s Genshin Impact, Electronic Arts’ Apex Legends, there’s plenty of heavy hitters that have hours upon hours of playtime derived from near-endless replayability, a consistent stream of content, and a very low barrier to entry.
“Absolutely not,” says user Jeremy (@deathwish11120). “I'm not paying $60 for 5 hours of a game. This was made by a game journalist for sure.” Trite and boring insults aside (the meme’s creator works for Devolver Digital’s marketing department), you can see where price is a heavy factor in a game’s length being considered worthy of its price of admission.
I’ve already noted how most service games end up passing the filter of “long game length = worth the price”, as the price might not even exist to begin with. But when you start asking for a price of admission from the get-go, the scrutiny is much higher. Most gaming enthusiasts nowadays are trying to save themselves from paying a full $60 for a game. They wait for an eventual sale, they check to see if there’s a simultaneous release on Xbox Game Pass, they pirate the game outright, or they simply don’t play. User @LonelyGoomba confirms this by saying “I generally prefer longer games now on the basis it costs a lot of money buying games.”
The difference with gaming now compared to our first steps is clearly measured on the scope of free time we had as children. When homework and chores were done, your game systems were the primary choice for spending time. The long car rides to family gatherings and the like were prime time for gaming. Your friends also owned game systems, and you wanted to keep yourself in the loop as best as you can.
As adults, our free time is more of a luxury than ever. In my time working an outside job, I would rarely want to hop right into a game session as I got home — my bed was frequently the first (and last) stop. Maybe my commute is supplemented by browsing social media or listening to music. Your friends are definitely still gaming here and there, but not all friend circles are created equal - I’ve personally found myself just talking more in Discord group calls, using the company to get through tasks I’ve set for myself like re-organizing files or planning non-related matters. User @Saga_The_Reaper feels that they “just don't have the time to play games that take 100+ hours when I have all these other goals in life. I wanna experience them but I just don't have the time.”
The 100+ hour dream of gaming feels like a fantasy as a child, but the reality is that it’s become so much of a marketing wet dream that you feel that maybe someone’s bullshitting about it to get clicks. Polish-based developer Techland recently revealed on social media that the upcoming Dying Light 2 game will take about 500+ hours to complete, and that genuinely feels like a nightmare to me. Where in the world will all that time come from? What’s the reward for that time investment? Don’t get me started on the dilemma of game completionists, they’ve already been through the wringer with trophies, achievements, and the like. My backlog practically quakes in fear with every new game added, because there’s just hours and hours of content right there for you to endlessly consume and there’s no time that you can reliably invest. You pick and choose your time investments, so the 500+ hour game feels safe because it’ll keep you around for a good long while.
It’s my intent to experience as many games as I can before I’m no longer able to enjoy them (probably when I’m gone-gone), so I’ve never sat right with the forever game. It’ll hold my interest, but I can’t rely on it to pacify me forever. The newer games will come along, and will steal away my gaze - it happens constantly for growing games that don’t get a foothold in your life, because the developer/publisher knows damn well that as the population dwindles, that growth reverts and the death march begins. Perhaps that game also boasted a long runtime of content too, but when something shinier comes along, it’s a fight for your time - your very limited time.
Service games are there to be with you forever, they’re designed to be with you forever, and they just might exist past your lifetime too.
Of course, not all games are service games.
Games come in all shapes and forms. Not every game is $60. Not every game is a 100+ hour experience. Some games are guaranteed to not waste your time. A few of them are made to be as impermanent as possible. There’s a type for everyone. Looking at more responses in the thread, the consensus shifts ever so constantly to the need for something meaty to hold their attention, the lack of time to spend on said meatiness, noting that the experiences vary for longer/shorter games, and so many other takes that I won’t be able to dig into for the sake of not wasting any more time.
I’ve been more of an advocate for shorter games because I find that more modern games beat around the bush for far too long. Like any movie or book that you felt could’ve ended at a certain point, the same rings true for games. I feel that developers shouldn’t have to strive for 50-100 hour epics just because that’ll ensure your game’s played for a long time. At the same time, if a game’s runtime ends up failing the intentions of what it tries to impart, that can also be a hollow experience for players.
All I ask is that developers are mindful of the time being given to their works, and to maximize their efforts in delivering an experience that rewards players for that time investment.
Otherwise, you’re probably wasting time that can never be returned.
Sylverstone Khandr is a self-professed multipotentialite who makes art, plays + designs games, streams weekly content on Twitch, and tries to appear somewhat human. Don’t ask about that last part.
This was a joy to read! The dilemma of game completionists is too real for me. 😅 The Gameboy gif also got me in the nostalgia!