moving away from long games
why long games?
it is a core part of the videogame orthodoxy that games should be big and long, anywhere upwards of 20 hours all the way to a hundred or more, with tons of deep mastery and side content to dig into. to a smaller but still substantial group, it is the highest aspiration for a game to be "infinitely playable". this typically means random generation or an update cycle. the first is a very economic paradigm, but not inexhaustible. the second always comes to a point where one party (the players or the developers) will inevitably become tired and ready to move on. and likewise, a game with a fixed length will always reach its endpoint, where it will be evaluated in part for its playtime to price ratio.
this aspect of games culture arose starting from the early days of videogames, where you would pay 100 for an arcade-style game that you can theoretically play through in an hour or two. these prices were necessitated both by the novelty of the medium, the lack of certainty in sales volumes, and the basic cost of retail logistics and physical media. it was a common point of frustration how much 'replayability' one could get, so pressure was put on games companies to make bigger and longer experiences. the trend has continued to this day.
these demands have shaped and guided the development of game design as a discipline. the way we conceptualize games is strongly influenced by the consumer-producer relationship it has grown around. many of the techniques used in game design were developed to fit these criteria, such the language around "game loops" to name a simple example. much of the way we talk about games involves creating repeatable elements, both because computers are very good at doing that and because it's economical in effort.
these developments have been excellent at honing the craft of a specific type of experience, one that is typically systems-driven and involves mastery (since improvement is an inexpensive form of novelty and longevity) or has a very large volume of 'content'. by natural consequence, other forms of game experiences have been less developed and primarily in grassroots indie/freeware communities.
we've gotten very good at using game elements economically and to evoke compulsive engagement. we're still not very good (though we are pretty good now) at using game elements to convey themes and meaning, to name one example.
where things are now though, we have the opposite predicament as we did in history. there are too many games, and no one has enough time to play any of them. the volume of games available to through the internet is inexhaustible, now attainable either free or at low prices. many popular games aim to be lifestyle experiences, something you invest a dozen or more hours into each week and invest significant money into indefinitely. in this cultural moment, people have way more games to play than they have time, with a varying degree of satisfaction towards the quality of experience waiting for them.
it's my guess that roguelites and multiplayer games (such as fortnite or among us) have seen success through these times in part because they can be both a satisfying, complete experience in a single session while also offering a high price-per-hour. (another big part they're good for streaming)
can this change?
rather than argue for this change, I instead want to argue that this change is arising on its own. not in a total rejection of "forever games", but rather a tipping of the scales that brings the cultural dynamic closer to balance.
everywhere I look online I see a diverse range of people expressing frustration and disappointment with having a backlog they'll never see through. I see many instances of burnout from the compulsive engagement cycles of live service games. increasingly I see people asking for recommendations for shorter more impactful games, typically looking to spaces like indie games, retro games or nintendo. the discussion is shifting more towards enjoyment and fulfillment. in many cases people are simply fatigued with genre oversaturation or the general quality level of big, long mainstream games.
as wallets and free time shrink, the status quo becomes increasingly questioned. whether people want fun, novelty, comfort, catharsis, reflection, socialization or intellectual stimulation, I think in these circumstances people's standards are bound to increase, especially with the abundance of alternatives that have become increasingly available and known. I expect there to be a moderate surge in the general popularity of freeware games for similar reasons, which shares a close relationship with smaller commercial games. (and can be the same game except with a price tag)
fundamentally, people want good games. the trouble can be sometimes that the ideas people have about what makes games good doesn't necessarily match reality. during this small breaking point, more reevaluation of ideas is going to happen which will open up doors that were previously closed. "I want more games with worse graphics and I'm not kidding" picking up as a meme shows us that the way people think about games is changing.
distribution has changed since the 80s. now, without retail or physical media logistics, games can be distributed at a wider range of price points in a less centralized fashion. with that, expectations can be remeasured accordingly. it's taken a while for this to catch up, but I believe we are close to a point now where a game's price is detached from perceptions of quality or otherwise seen as strange. (the high amount of 'shovelware' in early digital storefronts didn't help in this regard)
a similar decentralization has also taken place in production, with the indie movement being its main symptom. games are being made at a wider scale now, including both non-professional and semi-professional environments with much smaller overhead. ironically, while certain parts of the industry have continued bloating, the indie world has been becoming more efficient as tools advance and communal knowledge develops. as games become easier to produce, less investment needs to be made into "one big game" by economic necessity. one of the most beloved, most mainstream-penetrating indie games, Undertale, was made with a budget of approximately $50k by two people on average computers. such an occurrence would be unthinkable even 20 years ago.
even marketing has become more accessible. with video and streaming platforms, algorithmic discovery and social media word of mouth, sometimes relatively little marketing is required to get eyes on a game. while it's still not a great situation, it has only ever been more difficult than now. making smaller more frequent projects lends better to having something "stick" in this environment, compared to the all or nothing gamble with a single large game. the shift we've seen throughout the last 10 years is that this dynamic is no longer a rising alternative but instead the new norm, with little sign of fading (for now). it is also easier for reviewers to give complete, quality reviews of shorter games, and they are likely eager for any kind of lightened load in their overburdened schedules.
and finally, more kinds of people than ever are playing games. these people come into gaming with less entrenched expectations and more of an open mind. these people are less white, less US American, less male and less gen x/millennial. that demographic created many of the expectations that we have today, so as the diversity of people who play games increases those expectations will become an increasingly smaller voice in relativity.
there remains certain obstacles, such as platform fees to put your game on stores like Steam or Google Play, minimum fees on credit card transactions and the still-significant difficulty of marketing. I expect all of these factors to temper the momentum and reach of this change.
what comes next?
as shorter games gain more interest, there will be more opportunities to explore new or underdeveloped types of experiences in a commercial context. if short, impactful experiences become more appreciated there might be more room for novelty and experimentation, as those can be the most difficult things to stretch into "full" games. I believe that in general we'll see a blossoming in the diversity of games, building off the momentum that already exists.
personally, I think it's a good time to take risks on these types of experiences, especially as the horror stories of indie forever project burnouts continue to mount. smaller projects are a smaller risk and the winds are beginning to favor them, so it seems all-around like a solid direction.
this is what I am beginning to prioritize in my own craft: make a lot of small stuff and see what sticks, both for what inspires me and what speaks to others. it feels a little scary since it's against the current norm, but at the same time the current norm is working well for only a small group of people, and the practicality of this new approach is apparent.
big, long games will always have a place. I'm looking forward to an environment with increased appreciation towards small games, especially as it might better serve small creators and widen the diversity of appreciated and respected games. just like games only get better when the diversity of people playing them increases, I think the same goes for when the kinds of games people enjoy and are willing to support becomes more diverse. even if it only winds up being a small shift over the next few years, I hope it's one that helps continue laying the building blocks for increased creative flourishing and sustainability in the years to come.