I've noticed that downloadable games have a habit of
having A LOT of levels, 50 to over a 100.

I'm questioning the reason for having so many levels just
to have a selling point.

I notice that games with tons of levels, especially those
in the arcade/shooter/sidescroller category, tends to have
very dull/mundane levels spread over 2 or 3 times more than
those quality ones you'll find in the arcade such as Metal
Slug.

Is it necessary to have so many levels as a selling point ?
I'm finding it hard to even create so many levels yet still
keeping the game as fun as those arcade winners.

So which is the deal ? More levels or more fun but less levels?
I am wondering if you can even do this with side scroller games,
trying to do 12-20 levels is difficult enough without the game
ending up mundane, repetitive and boring and yet I see many
new games in similar category boasting of over 100 levels.

I'll be surprised how many times you can even use the sprites/
graphics resources before it gets too boring/repetitive, and
wonder if we'll ever have enough of graphics for so many
levels.

I think it depends on the nature of your game.

If it is a simplistic one-screen puzzler or arcade game ala Bubble Bobble or Breakout clone, you will need a lot of levels and with some foresight can be designed with optimal use of the game's features. In particular, the first few levels can be designed as tutorial levels by introducing features one at a time and this in itself increases the level count.

If it is a more complex game, perhaps a platformer, shoot-em-up, FPS or whatever than it makes more sense to create fewer but longer levels with a lot more variety. I think that a good approach is to have about 5-7 themes split into 2-3 sub-levels each. case in point: Sonic, Turrican

With arcade/platformers/shooters, the problem I see with number of levels is that most levels are of lower quality because the people doing the games AREN'T level designers. A shooter with 2 levels can be a hell nicer than one with 20, if the levels on the 2 version are well designed.

Currently, everybody and their grandma are level designers, and let's face it, it is hard enough for a programmer to find a decent artist for a decent price, I'm pretty sure it will be a hell harder to find a decent level designer at a decent price.

So what indies (and some non-indies) do is to make programmers/artists/musicians create a few levels and include them in the game, just for the sake of having more levels.

But we all know that Indies have to wear multiple hats.. and let's face it.. it's part of the fun!! :)

My vote is for fewer, better levels rather than lots of uninteresting ones. Of course the ideal is lots of interesting levels! I would start with a relatively small numbr of good levels, and create more in subsequent releases.

Use fewer, better levels then. Just make sure that it's apparent that the levels in the demo are of excellent quality and they invite the player to want to see more.

Cas :)

There isn't a general answer to this. There are alot of factors wich have to be taken into account. Genre, audience, overall playing time, playing time per level, amount of time needed to make a good level etc.

For example if your game is a puzzle, logic maze, breakout (whatsoever one screen game) and the playing time is rather short (eg 15 seconds to 2:30 per level) and progress is autosaved and the graphics aren't the essential part... then you would need of corse lot's of levels.

If the game is rather hardcore (total attention grabbing), playing time of 25-30min and a good replay value and good graphics are a must... then you wouldn't need that much levels (but it will need alot of time to do em anyways). So 5-6 levels with a approximative playing time of 5mins each would be enough.

Most games are somewere between those two extremes. Interpolate accordingly and go for a bit less levels wich nicer graphics just in case. Keep in mind that you can still add more levels in the next cycle (addon you say? ;)).

In my current game I'll have lot's of levels. Most of them will be pretty short (less then 30seconds playing time). The graphics will be ok, but quite unimportant - it's the geometry wich matters in this case. Overall playing time will be several hours (whenever you've got some minutes to waste). Depending on how good the level editor integration get's along I'll either have lot's of levels or tons of levels.

I myself am going for 81 levels in my new game. Each level is expected to last 30 seconds or so, for a total playing time of 40 minutes to complete the game - which is as long as it can hold anyone's attention for. The demo will be restricted to seeing just 20 of them.

Cas :)

20 level demo, PrinceC? That seems awfully generous given the full thing is only 4 time larger. Will it be time limited?

On the general subject of number of levels I say leave 'em wanting more. I recently played through the beta of Gish and it had 25 levels and I really craved more than that (which the full game delivers although not by a huge amount - fortunately it's replayable as heckerslike). I hate games which outstay their welcome and agree that truding through the same scenery for 10 levels soon grates (although ironically I think that if you combined the levels into 5 larger ones this effect would be lessened psychologically).

As for getting people to design it there's no reason you can't involve your games-playing friends. And especially your musician if they are open to it. Computer game musicians seem to have a pretty good mind for making puzzles for some reason in my experience.

But if you don't have a huge amount of graphics but want to have a long game then it's not out of the question. As long as you can introduce new ideas and experiences into the game on a regular basis - preferably making the way you play evolve as you continue if the genre supports such a thing - then hopefully people will forgive the graphical shortcomings.

I'm aiming to design 36 levels. Each level should take 5-10 minutes, so that's a reasonable amount of gameplay. I expect to have exhausted the posibilities by then. There will be a level editor too, I hope.

Originally posted by GrahamG

As for getting people to design it there's no reason you can't involve your games-playing friends. And especially your musician if they are open to it. Computer game musicians seem to have a pretty good mind for making puzzles for some reason in my experience.


Ahh, well, as I'm involved in the music too, I would suggest it's because composition involves a lot of "play testing". One is continually listening to the music, and going back to tweak this, that and the other. It's only by listening to the whole track do you get the feel of the balance of the piece.

Simon.

Even if I like a game, I won't buy it unless I feel that I am purchasing signficantly more entertainment. If I finish a game in a few days, and the full version offers only after 3 or 4 times more levels, I don't bother since I know that I'll be done the game well within a week or two.

Nearly every game that I have bought, the demo has lasted me several weeks, usually because it offers a high level of replayability. I must have beat the 3 demo levels of WarCraft 2 five or six times before getting around to picking up the full game. When a demo manages to addict me so much, I feel confident that my purchase will be something that I can enjoy over time.

The amount of play time that a game offers can consist of several factors, not just levels. This is important to remember, since you want to maximize what your game is able to provide to the player. Offering multiple difficulty levels, multiple character types, and a good scoring system (which is important in some games for replayability) can greatly extend game length. The Quest For Glory series were adventure games, but by adding some RPG elements, most notably three character classes which greatly altered how the game was solved, they managed to offer much more fun than most adventure games (which are generally short and have poor replayability).

You should add as many levels as possible, but also examine ways to allow your game to be played more than once. It's amazing how games with similiar development costs/times can offer such greatly varying amounts of play time. (I was playing Worms 2/Armageddon on a regular basis for over three years).

Originally posted by Lizardsoft
[....]but also examine ways to allow your game to be played more than once. [....]

I'll use a rather common (but good working) pattern to achieve that - multiple goals.

The first goal is just finishing the level, whereas the other goals can be accomplished at the same time, but are alot harder. So you can either do them later, when you get stuck or not at all.

It's something for the hardcore type of players, who will beat the game (goal #1 only) rather fast. In the end both kinds of players (and everything in between) will get about the same amount of playing time and both will get a nice challenge :)

Secondary goals can be about anything: beating the "par" time, not dying once, collecting special items... whatever. In addition if you offer some kind of visual feedback about your progress (indicating wich goals was already achived directly on the level selection map), you'll motivate the "collecting type" of players to beat your game 100%.

Btw there are more people, who react to "collect triggers", then you might think ;)

My game is one of the "one screen" variety. It is a shooter, but the style of it is different from other indie games I've seen. I am going to go for having a lot of levels because the levels are defeated rather quickly. I think I may also have a challenge mode where you play an individual level but with limited firepower and fuel (in the "arcade" mode these would be unlimited).

Also along with this topic: How much percent of the total game should be in the demo? It seems you need to make it quick enough so the player wants more but long enough to draw them in, but that is easier said than done.

How much percent of the total game should be in the demo?
This should be in a FAQ, eh?

The answer invariably is: pick some arbitrary figure, say, 25%. Then release several variations - 10%, 25%, 33% - and dole them out randomly to downloaders and see what the conversion rate is like for each percentage. Pick the best one, rinse, repeat.

Cas :)

Originally posted by Lizardsoft
Even if I like a game, I won't buy it unless I feel that I am purchasing signficantly more entertainment. If I finish a game in a few days, and the full version offers only after 3 or 4 times more levels, I don't bother since I know that I'll be done the game well within a week or two.

Why is it we ( me included ) are happy to pay £7 to watch a movie that lasts a couple of hours, but feel hard done by when a game 'only' entertains us for a couple of weeks?

No idea. I think £10 for an evening's entertainment is good value, let alone several evenings. A quid-an-hour is excellent value. I expect to get about 10 hours out of most indie games. Some have given me vastly more than this.

Cas :)

Originally posted by BongPig
Why is it we ( me included ) are happy to pay £7 to watch a movie that lasts a couple of hours, but feel hard done by when a game 'only' entertains us for a couple of weeks?

... why does everyone always say that, when there's no WAY I'm happy paying that amount of money for a couple hours of movie? :)

Originally posted by BongPig
Why is it we ( me included ) are happy to pay £7 to watch a movie that lasts a couple of hours, but feel hard done by when a game 'only' entertains us for a couple of weeks?
Expectations.

Why is it we don't balk at the price of a 24 oz. soda in a fast food restaurant, when it costs much more than an entire 2-liter bottle in the grocery store?

I know for *ME*, if I don't get 20 hours of gameplay out of a game that I like, I feel ripped off. Regardless of how much I paid. Beyond 20 hours is iffy... the game has to really suck me in to devour more of my life than that.

Why is it we ( me included ) are happy to pay £7 to watch a movie that lasts a couple of hours, but feel hard done by when a game 'only' entertains us for a couple of weeks?

I would gladly pay £7 to play even half an hour of game on a cinema screen! I'd pay that to watch someone else play UT2004 at an IMax

Mark

Originally posted by BongPig
Why is it we ( me included ) are happy to pay £7 to watch a movie that lasts a couple of hours, but feel hard done by when a game 'only' entertains us for a couple of weeks?

1) Like Papillion said, many of us AREN'T happy paying that much.

2) Like Coyote said, expectations are different for different things. There are plenty of games that provide tremendous entertainment value, so expectations have been raised pretty high. Since having long gameplay doesn't necessarily require a huge budget, these high expectations can actually be used as an advantage by indies.

Ultimately people will buy the thing that offers them the best perceived value. I'm the type of the gamer that likes getting attached to games and progressing through them over a long period of time. Longer games give me exponentially greater value, since they introduce ample time to learn the finer details of the game world and make getting really good at them a serious challenge. Often times they also have features such as level editors or full blown modding systems, which I enjoy tinkering with just as much as I enjoy playing the actual game. The game becomes an actual hobby.

Meanwhile, a game that can be completed and tossed out in a week reduces itself to nothing more than a lazy distraction, something that can just as easily be achieved without spending that much money.

Ultimately people will buy the thing that offers them the best perceived value. I'm the type of the gamer that likes getting attached to games and progressing through them over a long period of time. Longer games give me exponentially greater value, since they introduce ample time to learn the finer details of the game world and make getting really good at them a serious challenge.
I remember as a teenager being told by a friend who was helping me prepare for a party not to worry about over-doing it a little, "It's always better to have more party than people than the other way around!"

I don't know if that's entirely true in games or not. There's definitely something to be said for leaving the player hungry for more. So long as they feel they've gotten their money's worth. Satisfied, but wanting more.

One possible solution to satisfy the 10% of your players who will actually get to the very end of your game is to allow multiple gameplay modes. This is very common in fighting games, or in games like Diablo 2 where you can play as a new character, or try out the "hardcore" mode in Diablo 2 after you've won. Or move on to an advanced difficulty - same content, some changes to satisfy the hardcore.

Hm. This thread turned out kinda odd imo. Quantity hasn't anything in common with quallity. Alot of european and us games just focus on having a long playing time, but ultimately they totally suck.

Most japanese games focus on having a intense playing experience and that works out much better in most cases (depends on the genre).

For the same money you could either buy 1kg vanilla candy ice cream or 20kg pure sugar. 20kg pure sugar contains apparently more energy, therefore I should buy that instead huh?

Playing hundrets of repetative levels - who would do that? Not me. If there isn't a good rate of new aspects it feels stretched/washy/cheap/booring.

For example "Duke Nukem Manhatten Project" vs "Contra". DNMP offers about 8 hours playing time whereas Contra only offers about 30 minutes. Contra is a mindblowing experience and DNMP is absolutely dull. However, I would say that both games needed about the same amount of work.

Well, it depends on the genre and the audience how much watering down is acceptable. But I'll never aim for something like 4h+ for beating the game once. There are already enough dull games out there. Getting over these 4 hours by replay value is of corse a different thing.

I agree with oNyx. Length of play time shouldn't directly be associated with quality. I get extremely annoyed with games that try to artificially extend their play-time. This includes repetitive levels or useless treasure hunts.

I'm almost always wary of games that advertise something like "over 80 levels in 3 unique worlds". This tells me I'm going to have to play over 25 variations of the same level before I see something substantially new. 8 out of 10 times the game gets very repetitive after the 10th variation of the same level. No thanks.

Like Onyx stated, a lot depends on the type of game you're doing. But regardless, you should never make the player do "busy work" or just run through the motions. You should aim to make the whole game engaging for the player. Obviously people have different tastes, but as long as the game is well paced you'll find an audience regardless if the game is 2 or 20 hours.

Personally, I'm one of those who likes short and intense action over long drawn out games, which I'll probably never finish.

Chris and Onyx, you are right that a game has to be enjoyable for that length of time as well. If it isn't, then I think that as far as this discussion is concerned, the unfun portion of the game shouldn't count as gameplay length, since the player will hopefully stop playing if the game gets dulls.

I'm concerned with gameplay length, and not any of the specific elements that extend gameplay length. A game can have 5 levels, but if it's highly replayable, then that might be enough levels. There's a lot of gameplay that can be unlocked with relatively small effort from the developer, and many of them have been mentioned in this thread.

Ultimately, a game should deliver at least x amount of time of enjoyment. What the optimal x is, I haven't a clue. I just know what *I* like. However, the more ways you can increase x without removing the word enjoyment from the equation, the better. For example, a level editor should be a no-brainer for many of the simpler games. For many games difficulty levels take a day to implement at the most. Simply having a game that people enjoy playing over and over is another (Tetris has (I think) 9 levels, but how many games can even come close to matching its addictiveness and longetivity?).