• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The "They should just make shorter games" talking point needs to die.

Should the industry focus on making shorter games to help increase profits?

  • No, it's a sorry talking point.

  • Yes. What you misunderstand is...

  • Undecided


Results are only viewable after voting.

nkarafo

Member
They need to make cheaper games, not shorter:

- Stop using expensive voice actors or celebrities. Maybe use less voiced lines and more text or "show don't tell" parts.

- Stop using expensive DRM that all it does is piss people off.

- Stop virtue signalling by hiring useless people who burn your money or studios like Sweet Baby.
 

Neolombax

Member
I want more games like Granblue Fantasy Relink. Its got an average length to its story, 15-20hrs. And there's optional content to grind post-story. I've been grinding the endgame content from time to time because the game feels really good to play.
 

Noxxera

Member
Agree, there can be both, both short and long games, they aren't exclusive to one only. Personally I dig both but I'm in favour of longer games probably but don't mind short cinematic feeling ones either but it needs to be good of course.
 

thief183

Member
I want more games like Granblue Fantasy Relink. Its got an average length to its story, 15-20hrs. And there's optional content to grind post-story. I've been grinding the endgame content from time to time because the game feels really good to play.
I'm in the team 1 dollar =1 hour, so I'm waiting to buy it at MY right price
 

Eiknarf

Banned
I always check the bans at the bottom of the page to see if any comrades or particularly annoying posters have been hammered. It's some kind of reptile brain need to assert dominance over the perceived masses (of banned people)

Also, sometimes it tells a little story. You'll see like

ToddsRUs89 - get over the console Warring. Upgraded to perm because you're a sopping cunt.

ToddsRThem89 - Alt

SddotRsu98 - Alt

ModsRCucks69 - Alt

FuckEviloreNDGAF - Alt



...


And you can practically cut the seethe and cope with a knife so thick and heavy it is. A descent into madness featuring some 14 year old in Brazil who literally sits there all day making GAF accounts or whatever. It's fucking lifeblood for me.
Ahhhhh
At the bottom of the homepage? I don’t see it
 
Also, let's be real. Short games have always been fools gold. They just end before their gameplay loops get exposed for being shallow, repetitive, and boring.

If you want a game to end, it's because the looming threat of "suck" is about to hit.
Games just need to know when they need to end. Mileage may vary vastly of course but generally I doubt that the majority of people wouldn't say that 30+, at least 50+h games are not usually bloated and would improve by cutting some fat. Depends certainly too on if it is a story driven game, where bloat distracts from a steady story flow or if it is an exploration driven game and there is no story dictated urgency at all to progress, ie the extensive journey can be the goal.
 
I'm in the team 1 dollar =1 hour, so I'm waiting to buy it at MY right price
This way of thinking led us all into the collective AAA mess full of padded games with filler content present throughout the campaign, just so that it can be a tagline on the game’s store page.

And before anyone says ‘they should make the side content meaningful then’…they won’t. Most devs never do.

Imagine how much better FF16 would have been if they had cut the fat of MMO-like side quests and story quests.
 

deriks

4-Time GIF/Meme God
Games are getting too long for sure

I love Alan Wake 2, but could easily be cut a lot of stuff and everything still gonna make sense. Persona 5 is way too long, and if you compare with the past games, doesn't need that much time. Last of Us 2 has a lot of walking sessions and takes 20 hours just because they wanted, and doesn't add shit to the game
 

KungFucius

King Snowflake
If they can increase margins significantly by reducing bloat in games, then they should do it. The problem is that most of the bloat is not very complex and probably doesn't add much cost. A lot of it feels like copy and paste.

If they can turn a 40 - 50 hour game into 2 tight 20-25 hour games separated by 2-3 years then they should absolutely do that.
 

Bernardougf

Gold Member
I always check the bans at the bottom of the page to see if any comrades or particularly annoying posters have been hammered. It's some kind of reptile brain need to assert dominance over the perceived masses (of banned people)

Also, sometimes it tells a little story. You'll see like

ToddsRUs89 - get over the console Warring. Upgraded to perm because you're a sopping cunt.

ToddsRThem89 - Alt

SddotRsu98 - Alt

ModsRCucks69 - Alt

FuckEviloreNDGAF - Alt



...


And you can practically cut the seethe and cope with a knife so thick and heavy it is. A descent into madness featuring some 14 year old in Brazil who literally sits there all day making GAF accounts or whatever. It's fucking lifeblood for me.
Any particular problem with Brazilians mate ? Lets talk and be friends.
 

Sakura

Member
I would agree OP.
There seems to be two main reasons people ask for shorter games. One is ballooning budgets and stuff, but that isn't really solved by a game being shorter. If game A was 20 hours long instead of 40 hours, it wouldn't have half the budget or dev time. Gameplay systems, assets, etc are generally going to be shared regardless of the length of the game, and those are the most time consuming aspects. The marketing budget (which can be huge) is also going to be the same regardless of how long the game is. So they still are going to sell the game for the same price of 60 or 70 dollars, but if the game is short, it's a harder sell.

The other reason is that some people say games are too long. This is a bit of a matter of preference, but I personally would disagree here. If the game is fun, then you won't care about how long it is. I think a lot of the problem is that many games these days have a lot of filler content to artificially pad the length of the game, detracting from the experience. A simple example would be something like the gathering of the pieces of the triforce in Wind Waker. So people conflate bloat/filler with games being "too long".
 

Guilty_AI

Member
I would agree OP.
There seems to be two main reasons people ask for shorter games. One is ballooning budgets and stuff, but that isn't really solved by a game being shorter. If game A was 20 hours long instead of 40 hours, it wouldn't have half the budget or dev time. Gameplay systems, assets, etc are generally going to be shared regardless of the length of the game, and those are the most time consuming aspects.
There is a * that needs to be added here tho. Many AAA games rely on set pieces and cutscenes to feel fresh from beginning to end, and the money/time costs of those do increase with game lenght. I'd argue set pieces are probably one of the most costly aspects of AAA games since they require a lot of QA as well as the development of mechanics and systems that will be used in those parts and those parts only.
 
Last edited:

Sakura

Member
There is a * that needs to be added here tho. Many AAA games rely on set pieces and cutscenes to feel fresh from beginning to end, and the money/time costs of those do increase with game lenght. I'd argue set pieces are probably one of the most costly aspects of AAA games since they require a lot of QA as well as the development of mechanics and systems that will be used in those parts and those parts only.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by set pieces. I'm assuming cinematic sequences that may or may not be interactive? Probably like the stuff you would see in an Uncharted game or something?
 
"Nobody asked for this" was bad.
"They're just following trends" was worse.

Now we have a new phrase flying around that makes us all look bad. That of course is "They should just make shorter games."

This is always brought up in response to the industries shrinking profits.

As if 10 hour AAA games weren't everywhere 15+ years ago. (They died for a reason)

As if no one making games today has thought "What if we just made a shorter game?" (It's not a novel idea)

As if 10 hour games are generating a ton of revenue right now. (Nobody buys these games)

Nobody wants to spend $70 dollars on a one and done game you can beat in a weekend. Can we collectively move on from this embarrassing talking point once and for all? People clearly don't want this.
All opinions. Whats your fucking goal with this?


Nobody wants to spend $70 dollars on a one and done game you can beat in a weekend. Can we collectively move on from this embarrassing talking point once and for all? People clearly don't want this.
Since I'd happily pay that kind of money for a short game if the quality is there, this argument is allready null and void. Stop dragging people along in your opinions.

I wont have any of it. You don't decide for us. You decide for you. But this comes across like you're some kind of fucked up gaming oracle who knows best for everyone.

YOU DONT. Get off your high horse and get a damn pony.
 
Last edited:

LordCBH

Member
“They’re just following trends” was a pretty valid complaint though, especially back when every single game included some form of multiplayer that was dead about three days after launch because COD got big.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by set pieces. I'm assuming cinematic sequences that may or may not be interactive? Probably like the stuff you would see in an Uncharted game or something?
Yup, those. Can also be like those vehicle segments in COD games, or levels with certain gameplay or visual gimmicks.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom