Support NeoGAF

[SmokedMeat]

I agree that fun trumps length any day of the week, but for my money there's a million other cheap options that are fun. Many of them I've downloaded for free on my phone, and many of them are cheap digital downloads on the consoles.

Fun or not I don't see this selling well at a $60 price tag.

 

[Mudkips]

What about being long AND fun?

Fun but short. They promise you replay value, but once you finish, you're not interested in New Game +.

Long but tedious. Sometimes you don't even bother to finish.

Just like sex.

 

[Muchi Muchi Pink]

I finish almost every game I buy in days. So what?

He'll be glad to know that I replay them, a lot, and I think with this statement he's merely preemptively deflating the game length controversy briefly suffered by MGR. I must have beaten that about 6 times now, and Bayonetta despite its 10-15hr game is one of the most replayable games ever made.

Bayonetta is around 3hrs actually. First time it takes longer for sure.

I replay it 2-3 times a year.

 

[Himself]

People who value quantity over quality must value their money over their time. Sad.

No sense dragging a game on and on to appease people who only value having their time on earth obliterated by shallow, repetitive entertainment.

 

[BY2K]

If it's 60$ I won't buy it. I let Rising pass (5 hours on my first run), but not for this.

Sorry, Kamiya. See you when Bayonetta 2 comes out.

 

[Rootbeer]

Pretty much my exact reasoning... I'm not spending $60 on a game that is advocating itself as maybe having a two day completion rate. Nobody wants to hear that.

I remain excited about this game but until I know more I'm definitely not pre-ordering.

 

[Daingurse]

People who value quantity over quality must value their money over their time. Sad.

Except this isn't even happening. I can get a great game with great value for my money as opposed to spending $60 on a short action romp I know I won't play beyond the first play-thru anytime soon. I'm 60 hours into P4G and loving it. Next game I plan to buy is FE:Awakening, which I know is long as fuck. Hell, I got 2 copies of Don't Starve for $13.50, and that will provide possibly hundreds of hours of fun. I like action games, but i'm not paying $60 for a short one.

 

[Beermeister]

If u hate to finish a game the next day u buy it, u better not play TW101.

Okey, thanks, bye.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

I'm glad, make it 6-8 hours of amazingness

 

[BY2K]

I'm glad, make it 6-8 hours of amazingness

More like 4-5 hours.

 

[Himself]

Except this isn't even happening. I can get a great game with great value for my money as opposed to spending $60 on a short action romp I know I won't play beyond the first play-thru anytime soon. I'm 60 hours into P4G and loving it. Next game I plan to buy is FE:Awakening, which I know is long as fuck. Hell, I got 2 copies of Don't Starve for $13.50, and that will provide possibly hundreds of hours of fun. I like action games, but i'm not paying $60 for a short one.

But would you pay $60 for a good one? Something fresh and innovative?

Or does the amount of content tilt the scale more heavily for you than quality of ideas and gameplay?

These questions aren't necessarily directed at you, but hypothetical. I love Persona and Fire Emblem as well, but they aren't worth more to me simply because they take a long time to finish. If anything, those are one and done type games where action games beg to be replayed many times and ways over a longer period of time.

 

[Alchemy]

Good, a games value is not determined by how long it is.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

I think it's kinda disingenuous to argue that a game should be any particular length regardless of quality. There is no specific period of time or number of playthroughs that anyone can say is some perfect number across all people and all games that will keep a game fresh or interesting. I can play something I love like Vanquish twice a year and that satisfies me. I can play Bayonetta 3 times in a weekend and not touch it again for a while. I can play a 40 hour RPG and never touch it again, or enjoy it enough to play through twice before touching another game.

If a game is boring and is 20 hours you might not play ever play it again. If a game is 10 hours and lots of fun with lots of emergent systems, you might play through it twice in a weekend. If a game is only an hour long but is just plain fuckawesome, you might play it 20 times. Which one gave you more for your money?

 

[Himself]

Good, a games value is not determined by how long it is.

Apparently it is...

 

[Tyrant Rave]

If it's 60$ I won't buy it. I let Rising pass (5 hours on my first run), but not for this.

Sorry, Kamiya. See you when Bayonetta 2 comes out.

What if Bayonetta 2 is also 3 hours long? Are you not gonna buy that either?

This thread confuses me.

 

[Varjet]

It's like some people in this thread have never played a Kamiya game.

 

[Daingurse]

But would you pay $60 for a good one? Something fresh and innovative?

Or does the amount of content tilt the scale more heavily for you than quality of ideas and gameplay?

These questions aren't necessarily directed at you, but hypothetical. I love Persona and Fire Emblem as well, but they aren't worth more to me simply because they take a long time to finish.

Because my funds are limited, Yes and without hesitation. I value how much time I get out of a game heavily. I love games like Heavy Rain too, but my opinion with that genre is basically the same as with action games. I wait for the price to drop, simple as that.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

More like 4-5 hours.

Bayonetta lasted around 10 hours for me and Vanquish like 6, so I'm just guessing

 

[Superflat]

I beat plenty of my favorite games in 1-2 sittings, so it's fine with me. If it has solid re-playability, even better.

 

[Shalashaska161]

I don't mind a shorter game if it's awesome. Bring it on Kamiya.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

OK people, tell me when we hit $60.
1hr
2hrs
3hrs
4hrs
5hrs
6hrs
7hrs
8+Hrs
?

Keep going I'll tell you when to stop.

 

[tsab]

*reads op*

 

[Himself]

Because my funds are limited yes, without hesitation. I value how much time I get out of a game heavily. I love games like Heavy Rain too, but my opinion with that genre is basically the same as with action games.

Fair enough. I suppose my time is more limited/valuable to me than my funds (though I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination) so I'd rather have my money go toward something short and very high quality than something long/bloated with marginal/uneven quality. I value the quality of the experience over the duration.

Anyways, who's pumped for this game?!?! Gonna get my Wii U the day it comes out.

 

[OryoN]

Could never understand the fuss about a game's length. I really hate when people impose these 'unofficial requirement' on each game, regardless of genre or content. A lot of developers have folded to this perception, and it has a negatively impacted their games. You sense the team lost focus, with the game feeling unnecessarily bloated and uninspired, with a definite lack of polish as you progress further and further.

A Lengthy design just doesn't suit every game. Certain types of games are way better off focusing on a densely packed experience with high replay value. Star Fox is considerable shorter than any Zelda game, but it's not a game I'd play just one or two time through. Conversely, I don't have the desire to play a Zelda game multiple times, nor would I impose a "high replay value" rule on such a game. So why impose a "X-hours length" requirement on games with potentially high replay value?

Of course, you can always do like Kamiya says, and just not buy the game. As for me, if it's as good as it looks to be, whether it's 4 hrs with decent replay value, or 40 hrs with very little, I'll buy it at a high price!

 

[Jackano]

Honestly it's the shittiest thing I heard from Kamiya.
Sure it's better than a long non-fun thing but shipping a full price but sub-10 hours game (being conservative, IMO sub-20 hours sucks) is not worthing it.

However we will see how long is W101 first and discuss after.

 

[Daingurse]

Could never understand the fuss about a game's length. I really hate when people impose these 'unofficial requirement' on each game, regardless of genre or content. A lot of developers have folded to this perception, and it has a negatively impacted their games. You sense the team lost focus, with the game feeling unnecessarily bloated and uninspired, with a definite lack of polish as you progress further and further.

A Lengthy design just doesn't suit every game. Certain types of games are way better off focusing on a densely packed experience with high replay value. Star Fox is considerable shorter than any Zelda game, but it's not a game I'd play just one or two time through. Conversely, I don't have the desire to play a Zelda game multiple times, nor would I impose a "high replay value" rule on such a game. So why impose a "X-hours length" requirement on games with potentially high replay value?

Of course, you can always do like Kamiya says, and just not buy the game. As for me, if it's as good as it looks to be, whether it's 4 hrs with decent replay value, or 40 hrs with very little, I'll buy it at a high price!

Or simply wait for the price to drop. There is nothing inherently wrong with a short game, I value those experiences. There's just not enough value there for my money at full retail price, that's my honest opinion.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

Fair enough. I suppose my time is more limited/valuable to me than my funds (though I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination) so I'd rather have my money go toward something short and very high quality than something long/bloated with marginal/uneven quality. I value the quality of the experience over the duration.

Anyways, who's pumped for this game?!?! Gonna get my Wii U the day it comes out.

Same with me. 60 hour games just feel like a drain on my life most of the time. Even 30 hours is going to take me months most of the time. So 10 or under is fine as long as the game itself is great.

Of course, I grew up playing NES games which are all like 3 hours long so maybe I have a different frame of reference.

Either way, I'm there for this day one if it's as good as it looks.

 

[geebee]

Anyone complaining about length of games obviously did not spend much time in arcades during their heyday.

Or even purchase games before the 32-bit era if it's price point that's the problem.

 

[Daingurse]

Anyone complaining about length of games obviously did not spend much time in arcades during their heyday.

Or even purchase games before the 32-bit era if it's price point that's the problem.

Mom buying all my games while I was a kid skews that heavily, so yes.

 

[grimshawish]

After so much game media tried to jump down Revengeance's throat due to the way Platinum Games display their final game time clock, not surprised to see Kamiya getting his ducks in a row beforehand.

It showed the idiocy of 'reviewers'; they all claimed it was too short based on a number...not...you know - the experience.

 

[YAWN]

What about being long AND fun?

Okami.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

I like action games to last around 8-10 hours, only RPG's make me go crazy and I spend hundreds of hours on those.

 

[Wynnebeck]

If the game is fun enough to get multiple playthroughs in on $60 then length shouldn't matter. However, if the game is only good once and that's it. $60 can fuck right off.

 

[ThaneKrios]

What about being long AND fun?

DO YOU EAT SHIT?

 

[TreIII]

Not surprised. Viewtiful Joe was a game that you could easily beat in a day or two, assuming you knew what to do.

However, much like with Kamiya's other titles, the replay value more than justified the entrance fee. Hopefully, that much applies to W101, as well.

 

[Roto13]

It's like some people in this thread have never played a Kamiya game.

Or an action game.

 

[Village]

Fun but short. They promise you replay value, but once you finish, you're not interested in New Game +.

Long but tedious. Sometimes you don't even bother to finish.

Just like sex.

If your game is fun it wont be tedious.

 

[Varjet]

Or an action game.

Heh, pretty much.

 

[OryoN]

Or simply wait for the price to drop. There is nothing inherently wrong with a short game, I value those experiences. There's just not enough value there for my money at full retail price, that's my honest opinion.

Well yea, that option is always there of course, especially for people who are only slightly put of by this revelation. Not buying the game at all is really an option reserved for those who act as though a short game is an abomination, of sort.

 

[monome]

Game Will ne ace.
release date, that s all.

kamiya <3

 

[MightyHedgehog]

If your game is fun it wont be tedious.

Very few games are able to explore their brand of fun enough to have an overly long campaign that doesn't overstay its welcome. Yet, there are so many great action games that are relatively short (under ten hours or much less) and feel just right when it comes to the composition and pace of the experience. Almost all of those are highly replayable and come with built-in reasons to replay them rather than spend twice as long getting to the end. And that doesn't have to mean endless grinding, looting, or leveling. No, I think the list of great action games that are long is pretty short, actually.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

Fun and short is by far the best. Part of why I loved Portal 1 so much more than Portal 2 (other than Portal 2's incredibly dull "find they white wall!!" sections being such a drag).

If a game is short and replayable I'll play it over and over and have a hell of a lot of fun every time.


So many times with long games they become so tedious that I'm WAITING for it to end. Time does not indicate how much "value" a game is, a great game is great value.

 

[SaintMadeOfPlaster]

Do people really think Nintendo is holding this game back? Iwata has said repeatedly that he wishes that more games could be released sooner for the Wii U. Unless he's blatantly lying, you guys are crazy.

 

[KageMaru]

I don't think he's trolling. If anything he's just making a point because too many gamers focus on game length to determine value.

 

[faridmon]

Why can't we have both?

 

[Cdammen]

Make it short, too many high-profile games are too long this gen. I don't equate length with price. Ikaruga was expensive but I played it longer, more, and more often than most of the "AAA games" that I purchased last gen.

I've replayed Sunset Riders and Turtles in Times countless of time and I've probably clocked over 100h on those games, both take about 25 minutes to finish, and I replay them every now and then.

 

[Morfeo]

I am so in for this approach in gaming. I hate padding in games, will much rather have 5 hours of extreme awesomness than 5 hours of pretty good, 5 hours of decent, 5 hours of boring and 5 hours of cut-scenes - or whatever. Now give us the release date already!

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Anyone complaining about length of games obviously did not spend much time in arcades during their heyday.

Or even purchase games before the 32-bit era if it's price point that's the problem.

honestly all these complaints about game length, especially in regards to action games seem a bit strange. Has Clover/Platinum ever made a particularly long game? I cant think of one. 8 hours seems the absolute limit.

 

[Wickerbasket]

If he's selling it on re-playability then the gameplay better be very, VERY good.

Spoiler

It probably will be.

 

[Tyrant Rave]

honestly all these complaints about game length, especially in regards to action games seem a bit strange. Has Clover/Platinum ever made a particularly long game? I cant think of one. 8 hours seems the absolute limit.

Okami was massive.