Game Levels amount

[XpMe_v1.2]

This post may be in the wrong forum location. But...

I have a scrolling game i'm in the middle of working on.
And I am wondering how many game levels
a player would like to go through for any game.
I know it would need to be shorter if the game
wasn't big challange.
May have put a save position if needed between levels if
the game levels are many.

[kevin]

Depends a lot upon the complexity of the game.   Classic games little Lode runner or bubble bubble have around 100 if not more.  Even though the mechanics of those games are fairly simple.     Mario/Giana sisters style games seem top have around 32 levels broken up into worlds.   Where as a block/rule based puzzler might need 100's to satisfy the really devoted players.   

     

[XpMe_v1.2]

My levels will be a few screens high by (variable)several screens wide
Requiring a player to aquire several objects to be allowed to the next level.
Then be shifted there(If the game ends up long then a save option during
this shift if player needs a break fom the game) to continue.

[kevin]

   Saving your current progress is a pretty necessary, really can't imagine players today being persistent enough to battle their way from the the start of the game each time in a puzzler. 

   If you're talking about a platformer like say a Shadow of the Beast III or Lode runner.  Then ignoring the quality of puzzles,  then where you allow save points could well impact the game length dramatically.   In a lode runner game (single screen platform puzzler, where work out how to get the gold and escape), it makes sense to have save points at the start of each level, then players can sit down and tackle the game in long or short sessions.

   In something like Shadow of the beast or Lego Star Wars,  where the levels are much longer and more action orientated, it's difficult to say where the player should be allowed to record their progress.  If they have unlimited saves at will, then they can just creep through the whole game.   ie..  Enter room, kill bad guys, pick up stuff, save progress & repeat..  Which really devalues dying..   If the levels are large enough, then check points within the level might be an option..   Mario/Gianna Sisters games have many path ways through them, allowing the player to warp over groups of the levels in some cases. Making It possible for a player who knows the game inside out, to make the end in a matter of minutes.   

  Ultimately it'll come down to how long each level takes to complete.  So If a brand new player can complete a levels in an average of say 5 minutes, and your aiming at a 3->4 hours of game play,  then that's a indicator of many level it might need.    Ideally as the puzzle become more complex the average would be higher.   Might be worth building in some player stat's to see what levels people found easy / hard / impossible..


   

[XpMe_v1.2]

I can see that you have traveled to many(lots and lots) different worlds.
I don't think I ever played a very large amount of games. But I played enough or
watched some being played.
I saw my brother playing a game on the Atari 2600 8bit.(Zelda or somename like that)
and he spent a week trying to escape a location he was in that he had saved 1 second
before being killed when entering a new location in the game.  He said he finaly managed
to survive and finish it later that month. Back then(1980's) he would play the games
with joysticks and get blisters from the joysticks from playing hours on end.
I not wanting blisters would stop way before then and set and watch the games
while he played them.
If you ever played Might & Majic series 1-10 and know where the end of the game is located at
and you got there before finishing a certian amount of quests you will get a person saying
"your not suppose to be here yet."