Game Length and Box Size

There's a widespread misconception -- and I've been guilty of this in the past, myself -- that longer games are somehow a better value. It sort of makes sense, I guess. If you play Twilight Imperium III just once, you've gotten around 6 hours of play value out of it. That's equivalent play value to something like 8 games of CARCASSONNE. Ultimately, though, the play value of a game is determined not by its length, but how many times you actually play it. Of course, that assumes that a game is fun or interesting enough to merit repeated play. Too often, that assumption is not borne out.

Just last week, I realized that all of the FFG coffin box games take 3-4 hours or longer. I wish they'd issue something in that format that I could play with the same friends that enjoy TICKET TO RIDE; something fast and simple, but HUUUGE and full of cool plastic bits.

Would the market support something like this, or would the hobbyists reject it for being too undemanding and therefore a lousy value? Does anything similar exist now, apart from stuff like the CARCASSONNE BIG BOX?

Have we mentioned Space Hulk recently?

The new box is the size and weight of a cinderblock and plays in an hour or so, though it only plays two (I do know folks have talked about playing more with people playing individual Terminators; I've just never played it that way.)

That said, I think you're up against a perception issue--big boxes mean lots of parts, which usually means high price and, not incidentally, longer set-up times.

A full Memoir '44 set is also the size of your average cinderblock, but plays pretty fast. Again, you're up against the limited number of players issue though, unless you go Overlord, which drags out the playtime.

This is an interesting question...

edit: what about Starcraft? I've always felt that the base game was over far too quickly for what one gets in that box. I never clocked it, but it struck me as a 60-90 minute game.

The biggest threat to all board gamers is the partner (wife, etc.).

Playing a long game, especially on weekends, connotes to a big expenditure of hard earned brownie points, which could be better spent on something more worthwhile, e.g. avoiding watching a schmaltzy movie or dodging diet courses.

Size is one of the biggest obstacles for the incognito smuggling home of board games. As a rule of thumb cutting size by two equals a fourfold decrease in difficulty, i.e. it's about as tough smuggling in one FFG coffin sized box as is smuggling in four standard size FFG boxes. (You could go several times, etc.)

Juniper wrote:

Ultimately, though, the play value of a game is determined not by its length, but how many times you actually play it.

I'd say that:

play value = game length * replayability

I think setup time would be the biggest problem with a short but huge game. Even Starcraft which plays quickly with two or three players take lots of time sorting out before the actual game begins.

But that being said a huge game that somehow wouldn't need you to sort out counters, deal lots of card and that would be great.

Heroscape is a little different in that the setting up of the board and drafting of armies is to many people a big part of the fun. Just like all the painting and set up involved in something like Warhammer for matches that can be over pretty quick.

I think a lot of the flashy big box stuff is just really hard to condense into something short and easy yet still remain meaningful. By necessity, the more stuff the higher the cost. So to prevent a lot of people complaining about how they would have much rather payed half as much for the game and not gotten an enormous amount of extraneous flash, the flashy bits would really need to make the game significantly better. I do think Heroscape does a good job of this, where the game just wouldn't be near as fun if it was little minis or chits on a hex paper map.

I think Mousetrap is an interesting example of this. In general I think kids games can be a lot more "toyish" and be simple yet retain their perceived value.

Juniper wrote:

Ultimately, though, the play value of a game is determined not by its length, but how many times you actually play it.

I disagree with this. If a monster wargame takes literally ages to play to completion, but me and a friend get literally hundreds of hours of enjoyment from it, playing a single game over many sessions, before stopping the game and arguing about who would have won if we had the time to finish... that game is worth MUCH more than some little "filler" game that will end up being played 10 times in all.

For me, it's all about how much enjoyment I get out of the game.

Tide of Iron is about two hours for most of the scenarios once it is set up. Those last five words are the showstopper for this and many more big heavy games.

Sag.

Too many players already object to games that take more than two hours to play. Setup time is even worse, because it's time spent with the game and yet not even playing it yet.

The biggest box = Fireball Island. Not too long to set up or to play.

Shellhead wrote:

Too many players already object to games that take more than two hours to play. Setup time is even worse, because it's time spent with the game and yet not even playing it yet.

Get less whiny friends. 2 hours is a good length for a long game.

Setup also generally doesn't take THAT long, especially if you pack the game well and coordinate setup with others.

I spend about half an hour before everyone arrives setting up the bigger games. I actually enjoy this time and use it to get in the zone for the evening. I love poring over my game components.

But then I'm one of those annoying people who enjoys sorting and organising stuff almost for the sake of it.

I really enjoy setting up battlefields for Heroscape. In fact, it's not uncommon for me to set up a battlefield and then disassemble it again before even playing on it. It's a form of modelling I guess. But if you don't enjoy the Lego type appeal of constructing a battlefield for Heroscape, I can see how this game would become a huge turnoff.

Schweig! wrote:

I'd say that:

play value = game length * replayability

I'd agree with this formula.

D&T, I'm the same way. Listening to some good tunes and setting a up a game for play is fine by me -- assuming that it actually gets played, of course.