Hours as a measurement of quality : V - Skyrim

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:02 am

It really depends on the individual player's use of that time and the individual's enjoyment of said experience (as several of the above have mentioned).

What I believe 100+ hours really indicates about the game is that it's immersive and fun. $50-60 for hundreds of hours of fun makes this game some of the cheapest entertainment possible.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:15 pm

its a relative quality. far too many games today are pathetically short, so when a game comes along that gives you a tremendous amount of content its seen as a positive quality regardless of the actual quality.

how long you play really has little to do with how good you think it is. plenty of people will watch and play things they dont particularly care for simply because its a convenient time-waster. i have plenty of games that are better than skyrim, but ive beaten them already... i only play because there is really nothing else to play. the reason i anticipated the game was greatly influenced by the thought of actually having to something to do and not just staring into the wall on weekends. i guess its kind of expected of this series to occupy a lot of time so people are happy when they get to play for extended amounts of time.

of course in raw numbers im pretty sure past titles have had more time-consuming content, and by this judgement daggerfall is probably worth a good 1000$.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:44 pm

Exactly. Where the mistake happens is when a company says, "our game provides 40 hours of gameplay." Don't tell me how many hours of content it provides. I'll decide that. You can do every level in DOOM in a morning if you're good at it. How many hundreds of hours did I spend play DOOM when I was a kid, though? Probably as many as I have put into every TES game combined so far.

Yeah , haha I could play The Last Ninja on C64 the whole day, probably played it for hundreds of hours altogether. Now you can see playthrough videos on Youtube you see the whole game takes like 10 minutes to go from start to finish. But back then, even in that game, I felt I was "exploring". How times have changed

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:45 am

This is a very subjective discussion. People keep trying to "measure" quality but no one tried to define it. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have the same definition for everyone.

I spent 200 hours on Skyrim and my interest is only now going to other games. That's a lot of hours of entertainment for the money I spent and that's great, but entertainment isn't an on/off switch. There are degrees of entertainment and different types of entertainment. You can't just apply a simple money/hours ratio kind of math to rank games on their "quality". A game like CoD can hook me for 20 hours, but they can be very intensive hours. They're also hours spent on a different kind of entertainment (action oriented, cinematographic presentation) which may be impossible to stretch out as other kinds of entertainment (like the open world, sandbox focused kind of games).

However, the amount of hours spent in a game is an important factor that can't be ignored.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:34 pm

A: People won't play a game for 100 hours if they were bored in 8.
B: This shows how much bang for your buck you'll get.
C: You pay $12 for a movie (2 hours), it shows that $60 for 100+ hours is a steal.

If a game is PERFECT in every single way, and I get 4 hours of game play out of it, it's not worth $60. Amount of game play is an important thing to consider in judging a game.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:03 pm

What I've noticed lurking at these forums is that a lot of people seem to measure the quality of a game in hours:

"Hey, I've played for 100, 200, 500 hours already, so I've got my moneys worth."

That is strange, and new to me. Admittedly, I haven't really bothered browsing popular games before - probably justly, as those often are remarkably similar to some pits in hell.
You can see a lot of those apologetic time-measurement comments in complaint threads (lots of those complaints seem valid to me).

How is it, that out of all possible statements about the game, it is the one that pops out so frequently? That just makes an impression that the game is expected to be, and treated like, some form of cheap time filler. Like some crappy chew to fill your belly with.

It's like going to the restaurant and commenting afterwards: "I've just got a big sack of unwashed potatoes, but man, did I get my moneys worth! Solid 7,000 calories!"

Surely, that is not a category to judge a good meal by. You don't rate a book by how long it took you to read it (at least I hope you don't). Or a movie by its length.

I'm sorry if my english is confusing, or the grammar poor. Yes, I'm not a native speaker.

Movies, books and calories are not enjoyed solely by its interactive features. Video game quality is based on how replayable those features are.... So if you put over 100 hours into the features of anything, usually means you are either learning, interested, and more importantly, entertained.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:56 pm

I see it as a measure of how well it is a return on investment. I'm young and work for $8.50/hr as a cashier, so I like to get my money's worth. So to buy a game, that is maybe 8-9 hours depending on the cost of the game and taxes on my paycheck. If I have to go through 8 hours of crap to get the money to pay for something, it better give me 8+ hours of fun. A game giving hundreds upon hundreds of hours of fun is perfect, it means that it was worth my investment.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:48 am

Two of my favourite games of 2011 are Skyrim and Portal 2. I played Portal 2 for about 12 hours, and Skyrim for well over 100 (and will likely play for at least 100 more).

Both cost the same new, and I felt that I got my money's worth with both. It has nothing to do with how long I played each game for.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:42 pm

If you willfully play for 300 hours, It means you've enjoyed the game for 300 hours, which is a lot compared to most games.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:11 pm

What I've noticed lurking at these forums is that a lot of people seem to measure the quality of a game in hours:

"Hey, I've played for 100, 200, 500 hours already, so I've got my moneys worth."

That is strange, and new to me. Admittedly, I haven't really bothered browsing popular games before - probably justly, as those often are remarkably similar to some pits in hell.
You can see a lot of those apologetic time-measurement comments in complaint threads (lots of those complaints seem valid to me).

How is it, that out of all possible statements about the game, it is the one that pops out so frequently? That just makes an impression that the game is expected to be, and treated like, some form of cheap time filler. Like some crappy chew to fill your belly with.

It's like going to the restaurant and commenting afterwards: "I've just got a big sack of unwashed potatoes, but man, did I get my moneys worth! Solid 7,000 calories!"

Surely, that is not a category to judge a good meal by. You don't rate a book by how long it took you to read it (at least I hope you don't). Or a movie by its length.

I'm sorry if my english is confusing, or the grammar poor. Yes, I'm not a native speaker.

The time measurement assumes the game is good - and your examples leave out amusemant parks, sporting events, and other attractions that become more entertaining and fulfilling the longer you do them.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:59 pm

My brother was sitting behind me yesterday watching me play skyrim(let alone any video game in awhile). And he was so amazed how big skyrim was.

Cheers

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:47 pm

My free time is rare so I am pretty selective on where I focus it. When a game grabs my attention and I am willing to invest many hours in it then I can say it is a good game with confidence. The Elder Scrolls games always give me more hours of entertainment than I expect because of the open world. Other games provide a shorter but also enjoyable experience but those usually have a fairly linear plot and defined ending. Both types of game have value but it is unique for one single game, like Skyrim, to provide so many hours of enjoyment.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:33 am

Suikoden III still remains the only game I've played the most hours in(104). But Skyrim literally keeps me playing it ALL DAY.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:49 pm

My case:

I played for 80 hours and then ran into several quests I can not complete. (Causing me to stop playing, because my game is broke IMO [if I can't finish it, it is broke])

Most people would say I got my moneys worth.

I would say,

If I bought a new car, and I put 80k miles on it and then the engine broke, I did NOT get my moneys worth.

I feel like Bethesda sold me a lemon and all I can do is wait for it to be fixed. However, if I hadn't bought it at release and waited for them to fix it first, I would of been able to buy the game once it was once sale, thus saving money.

I did not get my moneys worth.

Moral of the story, don't buy a Bethasda game on release.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:58 am

It is a game... Games provide entertainment... entertainment is measured in time spent with the product, which is game-time, translatable into hours

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:04 pm

It is a game... Games provide entertainment... entertainment is measured in time spent with the product, which is game-time, translatable into hours

The quality of this entertainment matters as well. An hour spent walking around Whiterun selling stuff to merchants, storing goods, etc. over and over is not very high quality entertainment, when compared to what you go through in an hour of Portal 2.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:51 pm

The quality of this entertainment matters as well. An hour spent walking around Whiterun selling stuff to merchants, storing goods, etc. over and over is not very high quality entertainment, when compared to what you go through in an hour of Portal 2.

It's assumed that you're always doing the thing you like the most taking your possibilities into account, you're not forced to do anything by default (not even go to work!), so the time you decide to pour into the game (that only provides fun, It won't help you get laid, It won't satiate your hunger nor buy you things) is a good measurement of the joy you've overall obtained playing It. A very different matter is what memories you have afterwards.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:11 am

It's not a stretch to say I've enjoyed every minute of the 240 hours I've spent exploring Skyrim. As much as I enjoy the Uncharted or God of War franchises, I'm not gonna get as much playtime out of all those games combined as I do from just TES game. That's not to say they aren't great games, but the enjoyment is just on another level with Skyrim, or even a GTA type of game where you can finish the main quest in 25-40 hours, but never feel rushed to do so because of all the oher fun things to do. I feel much better spending 60 bucks on a 25+ hr game than a 10 hr or less game. As much as I want Uncharted 3, I'll be waiting to pick it up for $40 or less, like I did with the first two games. By the time I'll need a break from Skyrim, I'm sure it'll be easy to find at that price.

Um, so I guess it's both quality of the game and value. That's why folks comment on the amount of time played.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:57 pm

Its not about the time nobody plays a game for 300 hours and just sits there bored, whenever someone says that their saying they've been entertained for that long.

Exactly. By saying I played the game for 150 hours, that means I've been thoroughly entertained for 150 hours. That's nothing to sneeze at.

I noticed the 'STATS' tab last night and realized I've been playing roughly 142 hours to date (I'm still on my first character). I'm level 39, and the more I read on these boards, the more I realized how little I even know about the game (there's another thread I just commented on, embarassingly enough, where I just learned I could upgrade weapons... I hate myself enough as it is, please don't laugh at me LOL!)... So I've had all these hours of play time, and I haven't even scratched the surface of the game.

Seeing those hours I've burned just makes me realize how deep the game is, and how much time I've spent just being entertained by it and to me, that's a mark of a good game... As opposed to Fable III, where I was really hoping it would be deep, but my son and I played as a duo and knocked it out in a weekend, and were stunned... So I went back into it by myself earlier this year, without him rushing around trynig to push through quests, and I took my time, did side quests, did the real estate thing, explored everyehere I could think of to explore, married people and had kids, fooled around with sngle people, etc... I accidentally completed the game in two weekends... Now, I'm sure there is more to that game than that, and if I really FORCE myself to go back into it and take even MORE time it would take longer to play it... but why? To me, THAT would be the equivalent of the empty calories. Playing a game for the sake of FORCING yourself to make it last longer because you keep hearing and reading about how great people think it is.

Whereas, again, with this game, I'm not trying to take a long time or rush things, or anything. I'm just wandering around, exploring, doing quests here and there and suddenly 280 hours are gone and I didn't even know about marriage, or upgrading equipment until this week.

Cool post. I feel sort of the same way. I still feel 150 hours in, that I haven't uncovered all there is to learn about Skyrim. The game still has it's "secrets", and I enjoy slowly unraveling them over time. At this pace I will get a good 300 hours of entertainment out of it, just on my first playthrough. That's really amazing.

Pretty much covered, but the reason is simple: MOST people will not continue playing a game that is not fun. If you do, you really have some definite issues..

So, for most people, a measurement of how many hours they've played translates directly to how much fun they had playing it. In the end, the amount of enjoyment provided is really the only important measure of how good it is.

Yup.

Immersion hours is most likely one of the reasons sports games are so popular, when you think of it, although nobody talks about them, probably because it would make them realize how much of their life has vanished without a trace. Take Madden Football for example. One footbal game, using 5 minute quarters takes me roughly 45 minutes to play, (give or take). That means one season (16 games) = 720 minutes. Make it through the playoffs & Super bowl = 855 minutes (900 if you need wild card to get in). Career mode = 30 seasons, incl. playoffs+superbowl = 25,650 minutes of game time. This does not include the time you use between games checking your roster, free agency, trades... or off-season time with the draft, etc.

I've personally only played one complete 30 season career in my life because by the time I get 20+ seasons in, I want a new version of Madden, which I typically purchase every other year, or every third year, dating back to the first version for my Sega Genesis in 1988. Other sports games obviously take many more hours (Baseball = 160+ games in one season?!? - never been able to make it through one season, personally)

Point being, aside from people like me who allow themselves to get immersed into a sporting career, and aside from on-line gamers (which I am not), you almost NEVER get the ability to just sit back and lose yourself in a different world for several hundred hours and not even realize it. And that's the key. This game is a rarity, like Oblivion, but better IMO, where you jump into the game and before you know it, you look at the stats and say, "I've been playing this for 142 hours already?" So you're compelled to tell people about it because it only seems like a few minutes. It's a measure of quality. Like a movie... sometimes you can watch a 2.5 hour movie and leave the theater wishing it was longer, wanting to watch the next release immediately... Other movies you go see are about an hour and a half and your can't get out of there fast enough as you feel the precious minutes of your life slioooowwwwly slipping away from you.

Good point.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:50 pm

What I've noticed lurking at these forums is that a lot of people seem to measure the quality of a game in hours:

"Hey, I've played for 100, 200, 500 hours already, so I've got my moneys worth."

That is strange, and new to me. Admittedly, I haven't really bothered browsing popular games before - probably justly, as those often are remarkably similar to some pits in hell.
You can see a lot of those apologetic time-measurement comments in complaint threads (lots of those complaints seem valid to me).

How is it, that out of all possible statements about the game, it is the one that pops out so frequently? That just makes an impression that the game is expected to be, and treated like, some form of cheap time filler. Like some crappy chew to fill your belly with.

It's like going to the restaurant and commenting afterwards: "I've just got a big sack of unwashed potatoes, but man, did I get my moneys worth! Solid 7,000 calories!"

Surely, that is not a category to judge a good meal by. You don't rate a book by how long it took you to read it (at least I hope you don't). Or a movie by its length.

I'm sorry if my english is confusing, or the grammar poor. Yes, I'm not a native speaker.

Sorry you stuff your face like a pig at feeding time. If a meal is good, I will slow down and enjoy it. If a meal takes me a long time to finish, I enjoyed it and got my money's worth.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:43 pm

I will say this; Skyrim, 120+ hours and still going. MW3, less than 4 hours to complete the single player campaign...

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 11:50 am

I enjoy going to Casinos in LA. It takes roughly 8 hours to get there by car. I do not enjoy the 8 hours in car, but I enjoy the time once I get to LA. For many people, the time investment in Skyrim is the same thing. They might not like investing some or most of those hours in the game, but the end result and the reason for investing them may be important enough, the end goal. The game should be fun throughout the entire time, but for many people it is not. There are reasons for this, and those largely stem from some things being more of a chore than fun, or the fact that progression ends so it is just about sufficing the storyline. Time investment is a good measure, but does not tell you the entire truth.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 8:08 am

I don't measure the quality of a book by the amount of time it takes to read it but if I've reread it half a dozen times its certain I found it interesting. A game like MW or FONV that I keep going back to and playing again and have got many hundreds of hours of play out of is quality too IMO. Bit early to say for certain but I think Skyrim is going to be one of those games that I do want to keep making new characters for and replaying.

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:22 pm

Skyrim is a world and it has a story. I haven't been everywhere in the world yet after 262 hours and I don't know how my story comes out. Even after the main plot, I can stay in the world and do other things if I choose. That's how I use my time in Skyrim and last night the time went so fast, it was 1am before I even knew it.

Quality is a measure of what I find or don't find in that world and if quality wasn't there, I wouldn't spend the time there. I'm sure there's a math equation in there somewhere for those who love math.

I'm terrible at it but I know what I like and right now, I'm off to find more dragons so I can save the world!

:tes:

» Tue Jun 05, 2012 2:49 pm

I don't measure the quality of a book by the amount of time it takes to read it but if I've reread it half a dozen times its certain I found it interesting. A game like MW or FONV that I keep going back to and playing again and have got many hundreds of hours of play out of is quality too IMO. Bit early to say for certain but I think Skyrim is going to be one of those games that I do want to keep making new characters for and replaying.

What stops me from wanting to replay is the fact that there is not a lot of decision in there game. Any character can join every guild. The only real choice you have is, do you Join the Stormcloaks or Imperials - and even that isn't that glorious. You cannot really thrive as a truly evil character or good character. Your decisions and their impact are minimal and rather arbitrary. I wish that there were MANY more story branches where I would need to choose a path, with advantages and disadvantages for choosing a certain way. This makes me want to play through the game again. When I can basically complete everything with one character, what is the point of doing it over again with another?