• 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.

10-15 years ago, games were considerably shorter, why have game length ballooned like this?

Tams

Gold Member
No one should pay that much for a short game.

What time? If you play video games, you really dont value your time.

Ummm, it's all relative. Is the game good? What about compared to other activities? I doubt you'll find much more entertainment for ~$10 an hour that isn't a subscription (which to get that value, you will end up having to wade through utter crap in the end) that has you tied in.
 

Godot25

Banned
Because most popular games now are open world. And that type of games can be relatively easily extended by bloatware of useless content. It's a "map game" which was popularized by Ubisoft. Days Gone, AC Games, Horizon, Ghost of Tsushima, Far Cry, Halo Infinite, etc etc. It's just tiring. Every game is designed to do "everything" instead of doing one thing great. I honestly just stay away from this type of games.

Kudos to Elden Ring and BotW. That are a long ass games, but at least it does not rely on annoying stuff like other open world games.

And in case of games like The Last of Us: Part II, it's narrative stuff and cutscenes. If you complete a game you can go through all combat encounters without cutscenes and narrative. And you know how long they are? Around 5 hours.
 

makaveli60

Member
Those smaller campaigns were handcrafted, now they throw in generic shit (almost like procedurally generated) and they can say the game lasts for 100-200 hours, and the braindead masses cheer for them. Win-win
 
Last edited:

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
then stop playing video games.
Or, he won't and just keep buying games cheaper and play others for free via game pass, EGS etc., with his whole family at that. What are you going to do about it now? He enjoys his hobby, he doesn't pay top dollar for it, it goes against all you believe in and all you stand for, what's next for you?

You can keep crying about it like an idiot who thinks the industry will be better off when all the kids/their parents, everyone not exactly wealthy or simply unwilling to believe games are worth more stops pouring any money whatsoever into it over having them offer it less than 100 per piece, lol 🤦‍♂️
 
Last edited:

NeoIkaruGAF

Gold Member
It’s basically the summation of everything about the evolution of the industry.

We had an industry where something like 10-20 games a month got released for a single system. Except on PC, one-man games from the genius garage coder weren’t a thing. You had a number of licensed devs making games on much smaller budgets than today. Some delivered, some didn’t. There was essentially a two-tiered price system with the bigger games costing top price, smaller/more obscure ones releasing at 20-30$ less; the occasional ”AAA” release could retail for a bit more than average, like special chip games, Phantasy Star IV, or some multidisc games on the Playstation.

When indies entered the scene, the pricing system had to change. Many more games got released, but the quality gap with the “proper” games was insane and still is in many instances, so the old price tiers couldn’t apply anymore. If - per silent agreement - the top releases had to stay at $60 to not scare customers used to the price, the smaller games had to be repriced accordingly. But now AAA games suddenly seemed to offer too little for the dollar. If a less ambitious game on the Wii or DS, or a good indie, could deliver tens of hours of playing for less money, how could AAA justify top price for a 8-to-12-hours experience? Then again, the costs of AAA had ballooned, so making even bigger games would be too expensive for the time. This is why DLC and horse armor entered the stage. Devs had to get more money for their biggest releases, beyond street price.

But the problem of AAA games being “too short“ was still there, and it exploded with games like The Order 1886. Beyond that point, paying full price for such a short game was deemed unacceptable. And since AAA games weren’t usually tailored for multiple playthroughs and different playstyles and approaches, the obvious solution was to make them longer. But they’re expensive to make, so how do you make them longer? Filler and padding. On top of the now ubiquitous DLC and MTX. Unfortunately, diluting a game’s length usually forces devs to toss in tons of useless, amateurish dialogue, fictitious “choices”, unengaging missions and sidequests. Oh, and this makes development times longer, too, so less big games get released and the ones that do have to milk the buyer even more and for longer. But people lap it up because hey, I payed $70 for this, it better last me a long time! This being the whole reason prices got to $70 and $80 in the first place, while it would have made more sense to keep the old system of $60 for the base game + extra money for the inevitable DLC. No, now everyone has to pay more because we all complained about games getting released incomplete because of DLC, and now everyone has to suffer 10+ hours of filler crap in every major game because the street price is too high to feel you’re getting your money’s worth otherwise.

So now we have higher cost of making games, gargantuan games that maybe 10 out of 100 people even finish anyway, higher launch prices for “proper” games, nobody plays a game twice anymore.


TLDR:
- more games get released than before
- some smaller games offer a lot of content at lower price
- AAA has to step up to justify the cost, but can’t raise street price for fear of pushing it too far
- here comes DLC, then MTX
- gamers complain about paying for incomplete games + DLC
- games get inflated with filler, costs and development time increase, street price goes up, and you still have DLC and MTX
- gamers now refuse to pay full price for a game that is “too short”
- we all have to suffer overly long games full of unfocused, uninteresting stuff and nobody got time to replay a good game ‘cuz there’s just too many
- congratulations, you played yourselves
 

01011001

Banned
due to shitty filler content.

if you took out all the slow walking sequences of GoW Ragnarök for example the game would almost literally be only half as long.

I out of interest randomly timed exactly 1 hour of "gameplay" with my phone, each time I was in control and when I was in a cutscene or slow walking sequence.

slow walking+ cutscenes in that hour was ~38min...
 

Wildebeest

Member
Games for the poor people who make up the mass market are doomed. Game Devs should transition to making short bespoke "luxury game" experiences for decent people with real wealth. Can't afford six figures for a game then sort your life out peasant.
 

Dick Jones

Gold Member
It turns out no-one really wants to pay full price for The Order 1886. Great IP potential but outweighed by an extremely short length with little replay value.
 

H4ze

Member
This is somewhat funny to me because I do remember pretty well how people entered rage mode 10-15 years prior because games like COD started to only offer 5-6 hour long campagnes.
Now it's the other way around, you will never satisfy everyone.
 

Handel

Member
The answer is obvious : the majority of consumers falsely equate game length to value, so naturally developers/publishers will make games so that they are artificially longer through padding/backtracking/filler side quests/grind so that they can market the game as having many hours of content. This isn't a new problem, this goes back decades and has tainted many games that would have been better without all that bloat(Okami is one of my GOATs but it suffers from some pretty bad bloat). It is an understandable perspective from a consumer standpoint though, as many people don't have the money to blow on a ton of games, so want to get the most for their bucks. This was even more pronounced in earlier generations when there considerably fewer adult gamers with disposable income in the market, before buying games digitally became commonplace so can't just wait for sales on Steam/PSN/etc., and before it was so easy to be informed about a game before your purchase so it was wise to be risk-averse with your purchases. Games back in the day were almost always full priced upon release as well, no matter the type of game it was/it's production values, whereas nowadays there is much more price variation with smaller titles like Pentiment being only $20.

I think things are actually improving in recent times, even if there are some outliers from the really big AAA devs.
 

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
It’s basically the summation of everything about the evolution of the industry.

We had an industry where something like 10-20 games a month got released for a single system. Except on PC, one-man games from the genius garage coder weren’t a thing. You had a number of licensed devs making games on much smaller budgets than today. Some delivered, some didn’t. There was essentially a two-tiered price system with the bigger games costing top price, smaller/more obscure ones releasing at 20-30$ less; the occasional ”AAA” release could retail for a bit more than average, like special chip games, Phantasy Star IV, or some multidisc games on the Playstation.

When indies entered the scene, the pricing system had to change. Many more games got released, but the quality gap with the “proper” games was insane and still is in many instances, so the old price tiers couldn’t apply anymore. If - per silent agreement - the top releases had to stay at $60 to not scare customers used to the price, the smaller games had to be repriced accordingly. But now AAA games suddenly seemed to offer too little for the dollar. If a less ambitious game on the Wii or DS, or a good indie, could deliver tens of hours of playing for less money, how could AAA justify top price for a 8-to-12-hours experience? Then again, the costs of AAA had ballooned, so making even bigger games would be too expensive for the time. This is why DLC and horse armor entered the stage. Devs had to get more money for their biggest releases, beyond street price.

But the problem of AAA games being “too short“ was still there, and it exploded with games like The Order 1886. Beyond that point, paying full price for such a short game was deemed unacceptable. And since AAA games weren’t usually tailored for multiple playthroughs and different playstyles and approaches, the obvious solution was to make them longer. But they’re expensive to make, so how do you make them longer? Filler and padding. On top of the now ubiquitous DLC and MTX. Unfortunately, diluting a game’s length usually forces devs to toss in tons of useless, amateurish dialogue, fictitious “choices”, unengaging missions and sidequests. Oh, and this makes development times longer, too, so less big games get released and the ones that do have to milk the buyer even more and for longer. But people lap it up because hey, I payed $70 for this, it better last me a long time! This being the whole reason prices got to $70 and $80 in the first place, while it would have made more sense to keep the old system of $60 for the base game + extra money for the inevitable DLC. No, now everyone has to pay more because we all complained about games getting released incomplete because of DLC, and now everyone has to suffer 10+ hours of filler crap in every major game because the street price is too high to feel you’re getting your money’s worth otherwise.

So now we have higher cost of making games, gargantuan games that maybe 10 out of 100 people even finish anyway, higher launch prices for “proper” games, nobody plays a game twice anymore.


TLDR:
- more games get released than before
- some smaller games offer a lot of content at lower price
- AAA has to step up to justify the cost, but can’t raise street price for fear of pushing it too far
- here comes DLC, then MTX
- gamers complain about paying for incomplete games + DLC
- games get inflated with filler, costs and development time increase, street price goes up, and you still have DLC and MTX
- gamers now refuse to pay full price for a game that is “too short”
- we all have to suffer overly long games full of unfocused, uninteresting stuff and nobody got time to replay a good game ‘cuz there’s just too many
- congratulations, you played yourselves
You already had to exclude one major platform to make your wrong point. Nobody buys shitty unknown unmarketed indie games over amazing AAA games just cos they're longer. Plenty successful indie games are short. Plenty aren't. If the few people who hear about them prefer them over any AAA game it's because it appeals to their tastes more at the given time. Also, they can probably afford both the indie game and an AAA game anyway if they really want to given the price gaps, or rather the indie game is not what stops them from being able to buy the AAA game at all. And for all the blaming you do, indie games probably offer experiences closer to what you wish for nowadays anyway, reviving dead genres and styles of gameplay AAA don't go for as they deemed them unprofitable compared to what they make now, so what, are you part of the problem now? Still, plenty AAA companies manage to make games worth their length and price (whether short or long). If others cannot and resort to bad design in an effort to do so then it's all on them. Chances are their long game would suck and be hollow even if it was short instead if that's their design capability. AAA games weren't even a thing back then. Rentals and piracy were far more so however. They have much bigger customer reach now but more competition as well, though said competition is from other large corpos rather than some unknown indie that claims their game takes 1000 hours to finish, lol. Nobody but themselves forced Ubisoft to grow to 1000 man teams and make every game Assassin's Creed, that was their idea of beating every other AAA, except everyone else with the means does the same anyway. It's just among each other (and will all buckle under their own weight). Others like Bethesda have always done long games so business as usual for them. Others simply want to make long games anyway. Nobody forced From Software to go open world, their games became success stories without that, it's just what they wanted and what that success enabled them to go for. Your story of how things went down is pure fiction. Also funny how the Nintendo games you cite as the bane of gaming and lesser, less ambitious or whatever, are actually more similar to what you wish for, maintaining their full price for ever more often than not. And people willing to buy them at that price, regardless of length as it wasn't just BOTW that became such a success. So other companies could do the same, if only they could make games as valuable. Some do. Still, the OP lumps together shorter and longer games and ignores old long successful and good games so whole thread is🤦‍♂️
 
Last edited:

Neolombax

Member
Remember when COD modern warfare's campaign was 4 hours long and people threw a fit over it? Overtime, the purchase decision for a game became about $/content in hours. Even professional reviews were measuring games in this metric.
 

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Remember when COD modern warfare's campaign was 4 hours long and people threw a fit over it? Overtime, the purchase decision for a game became about $/content in hours. Even professional reviews were measuring games in this metric.
And yet COD is still the same, trucking along and selling just fine as always, is that really the kind of quality single player content you pine for and think is missing from the industry? Seems like it's right there still and plenty companies attempted and failed to replicate it (Battlefield solo etc.).

I would think the length criticism was also because of the type of gameplay it had/has, shooting galleries with respawning enemies and some supposed to be awe inspiring set pieces here and there to finish, not exactly a lot of gameplay meat to sink your teeth into if you catch my meaning.

Also it had crazy good metacritic score regardless, I really don't think the criticism started with 4 which felt quite fresh at the time, probably more later games that simply attempted to recreate that with little new in the way of ideas and content. But of course they still rate well and sell great.

Meanwhile solo focused non open world FPS like Doom still exist and do just fine also, showing not everything has to be FarCry and Bethesda didn't force id to do that. If companies choose to go for the latter rather than the former school of design and/or fail either way then it's all on them.

Not just for FPS either, Devil May Cry 5 is also a thing, as are the Resident Evil games and their own great campaigns & success stories, why do you think other companies not going for this kind of game is somehow not their fault but everyone else's for not buying such games, when they do?

Capcom also has their vast amount of hours behemoth series, that is Monster Hunter, but again true to the series roots since the PS2 days, it's not really doing that with breadth of lame content, but with depth and quality, very replayable content as folks fight the same 30-60 bosses over and over, for the fun. Naturally it does have the meta game and grind to support that replayabiliy by presenting said bosses in a slightly different manner or having you "unlock" (get the mats for etc.) gear pieces with small drop rates and all that but if the core gameplay wasn't fun that wouldn't help it at all.
 
Last edited:

kuncol02

Banned
Because of Skyrim.
Actually, because GTA 3. That's first game I can think of that was praised for totally useless side activities like collecting packages.

Totally agree. 20 years ago only RPGs last 40 hours, meanwhile 10 or less hours games were common. Now days, RPGs last 100 hours and any single player campaign in a action adventure game must last 20 hours at least. Problem, however, is not duration, is quality of content. They produce content for 10 hours and then they make it artificially last 30 hours more.
HowLongToBeat says that BG2 is 80h for main campaign and side quests. 140h for everything. Is that much different from modern games? I did all quests in Witcher 3 (without DLC) and finished it in around 80h.
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Because they wasn't actually short and people just based that on the quickest time to beat and bitch about it when the average gamer would take longer to beat them.
So games become unnecessary longer to please those people.
 

Thirty7ven

Banned
Assassins Creed artificially balloons the game length but God of War and Witcher 3 do not.

At the end of the day other devs artificially balloon game length because this new generation of gamer is more worried about how many hours they get per dollar, the same people who spend 80 hours shutting their brain off.
 
Last edited:

SF Kosmo

Al Jazeera Special Reporter
The styles of games that were fashionable back then were a lot harder to make long. Linear first person and third person shooters dominated the sales two generations ago and those games require a lot in the way of hand crafted level design. They're hard to make long.

Open world games and RPGs are more fashionable now and those have big demands in terms of world but much less in terms of individual moment to moment level design, and they're easier to pad out with side missions and exploration rewards that don't require much in the way of new hand crafted assets.
 

Kamina

Golden Boy
A story driven game with a campaign of 6 hours isn’t worth it for many people.
Open world games are the antithesis to that.

Yes some games are bloated and shallow now, but that is just the other side of the extreme.

In the end it is a matter of taste. I prefer long games too so i am occupied longer.
 

tommib

Member
Anyone looking for a short AAA experience look no further than Ghostwire Tokyo. You can ignore all the side stuff and finish it in like 10 hours feeling fully satisfied.
 

Cyberpunkd

Gold Member
But the problem of AAA games being “too short“ was still there, and it exploded with games like The Order 1886. Beyond that point, paying full price for such a short game was deemed unacceptable. And since AAA games weren’t usually tailored for multiple playthroughs and different playstyles and approaches, the obvious solution was to make them longer. But they’re expensive to make, so how do you make them longer? Filler and padding. Unfortunately, diluting a game’s length usually forces devs to toss in tons of useless, amateurish dialogue, fictitious “choices”, unengaging missions and sidequests.
This is an excellent take. The only way to make games reasonably longer is padding, but that hurts quality and you get AC:Valhalla bullshit that people accepts because "wow, I got 100 hours from this game, even though 5 to 100 were exactly the same". Then the circle continues.
 

Neolombax

Member
And yet COD is still the same, trucking along and selling just fine as always, is that really the kind of quality single player content you pine for and think is missing from the industry? Seems like it's right there still and plenty companies attempted and failed to replicate it (Battlefield solo etc.).

I would think the length criticism was also because of the type of gameplay it had/has, shooting galleries with respawning enemies and some supposed to be awe inspiring set pieces here and there to finish, not exactly a lot of gameplay meat to sink your teeth into if you catch my meaning.

Also it had crazy good metacritic score regardless, I really don't think the criticism started with 4 which felt quite fresh at the time, probably more later games that simply attempted to recreate that with little new in the way of ideas and content. But of course they still rate well and sell great.

Meanwhile solo focused non open world FPS like Doom still exist and do just fine also, showing not everything has to be FarCry and Bethesda didn't force id to do that. If companies choose to go for the latter rather than the former school of design and/or fail either way then it's all on them.

Not just for FPS either, Devil May Cry 5 is also a thing, as are the Resident Evil games and their own great campaigns & success stories, why do you think other companies not going for this kind of game is somehow not their fault but everyone else's for not buying such games, when they do?

Capcom also has their vast amount of hours behemoth series, that is Monster Hunter, but again true to the series roots since the PS2 days, it's not really doing that with breadth of lame content, but with depth and quality, very replayable content as folks fight the same 30-60 bosses over and over, for the fun. Naturally it does have the meta game and grind to support that replayabiliy by presenting said bosses in a slightly different manner or having you "unlock" (get the mats for etc.) gear pieces with small drop rates and all that but if the core gameplay wasn't fun that wouldn't help it at all.
Didn't expect such a detailed reply, probably due to a poor choice of example haha. Cod 4 was from my own personal memory that people started to question the value of money over length.of course being a MP game, thats not where core experience is. But you do have games like Black Ops 2 and Infinite Warfare try to provide a lengthier and replayable single player experience in a predominantly MP game, to add value perceived by gamers.

For single player games,I personally prefer games that have a sense of meaningful progression, whatever the genre is. That probably why i hate rougelikes. Some sessions can have literally 0 progress (I dont count getting better at a game as progress).
 
Games can be as long as they wish as long as each content is unique and rewarding to play through. Padding and grind is what I find truly annoying this gen. You gonna use 100GB of my drive space, you better do a lot more than copy/paste assets.
 

rolandss

Member
I remember trawling review sites, forums and sites like N4G when new games came out, people would be decrying when games “only” took 12 hours or “only” 20 hours. The industry responded. Bloating shit over time.
 
excited-4hrs.gif
 

poppabk

Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Don't know about other people but if your game is only 10 hours long I'll just wait a few years until it's on a sale.

I'm older now and no longer care about playing what's trending.
That is me. Except if your game is 40 hours long or 80 or 200 I will also wait for a sale.
 
Last edited:

tommib

Member
You can replay ds1,2,3 and probably bloodborne all in the same time to replay ER. It's crazy how bloated it is
I get what you say but I want Elden Ring to be how it is. Epic, majestic, endless. I don’t think it’s bloat. It’s just ambition and grandeur and it results with intimidating the player. That world wants to crush you with its size. Just those lifts to the underground cities are some of my most impactful experiences.

Having said all that my favourite structure is the Demon’s souls one. 1 hub with 5 small worlds fractured into 3-4 levels. And you can jump around as needed.
 

JimmyRustler

Gold Member
Personally for me, the irony in terms of the bang for the buck argument is that I used to get more out of games, even though they were shorter. For example, I prolly got more hours out of each God of War prior to the 2018 one because I replayed each multiple times. 2018 on the other hand I finished only once and wasn’t able to play again ever since.

Bottom line, this trend is killing gaming for me and unless AAA gaming makes a U-turn I will probably stop gaming in general. I know there are still Indi games and all but it’s just not the same 95% of the time.

I do sincerely hope they bounce back, make games like the original MGS, Soul Reaver, Syphon Filter, Onimusha, Mass Effect… Tight and short without bloat and grinding.
 
Because people throw hissy fits when games can’t be played for more than 100 hours anymore.

I think its a knock on effect to all the F2P garbage out now. People play the same games all day, all year.
Right everyone like 23 years old and under are cheap as shit and love to complain about game length and content.

Here I am like a smackd ass, enjoying the ever loving fuck out of The Order 1886's 5-6 hour campaign after I payed full price for it on launch day.

And who else members when you just bought a game, played it, ranked up and unlocked stuff in multiplayer and the only DLC content was usually 4 maps for $15 bucks. That needs to come back.

Oh and just for context. I'm 27 and I'm a chad Uncharted: Drakes Fortune lover which is also a short campaign. LoL
 
Last edited:

sachos

Member
I think its a knock on effect to all the F2P garbage out now.
It is totally this, Season/Battle Pass has completly fried a lot of gamers brains. They need constant updates to keep playing, otherwise you get "were is the content???". What happened to playing just for the sake of fun?

About game length, i wonder if it would be possible for first party devs to make smaller "AA teams" within their studios, like give a small team of Sony Santa Monica devs a small to medium budget today like say 15 million and go "here you go, make an 8hr game, only condition is that it has to be replayable". The investment would be small so the sell figures shouldnt be that high to get profit, and the chances you get a "hidden gem" from such talented devs is high enough.
 

NinjaBoiX

Member
I have a simple solution, I very rarely pay full price for a game.

I don’t need to have the newest game as soon as it launches, it’ll still be just as good 6 months later.

Don’t even get me started on the pre-order folk, I’ll never understand why you’d choose to hand over cash before you receive the goods unless it’s an actual barrier to entry.
 

iorek21

Member
Competition, I think.
The same thing happens in the Stream Wars with each service releasing new stuff every week.

Once upon a time, a game released for $60 and had 100h of content. Why would the average costumer accept to pay the same for 6h, 12h, 20h?

We might think differently but the average costumer just wants more pew pew pew for their buck.
 

kuncol02

Banned
The longer you play the game, the longer they can try and sell you microtransactions.
It is totally this, Season/Battle Pass has completly fried a lot of gamers brains. They need constant updates to keep playing, otherwise you get "were is the content???". What happened to playing just for the sake of fun?

About game length, i wonder if it would be possible for first party devs to make smaller "AA teams" within their studios, like give a small team of Sony Santa Monica devs a small to medium budget today like say 15 million and go "here you go, make an 8hr game, only condition is that it has to be replayable". The investment would be small so the sell figures shouldnt be that high to get profit, and the chances you get a "hidden gem" from such talented devs is high enough.
It's way older than that. It started with GTA3 or even earlier.
 
I get what you say but I want Elden Ring to be how it is. Epic, majestic, endless. I don’t think it’s bloat. It’s just ambition and grandeur and it results with intimidating the player. That world wants to crush you with its size. Just those lifts to the underground cities are some of my most impactful experiences.

Having said all that my favourite structure is the Demon’s souls one. 1 hub with 5 small worlds fractured into 3-4 levels. And you can jump around as needed.
Exactly my feeling.

I’m against bloat but the size of Elden Ring is an artistic statement. It’s the culmination of all those intimidating boss battles. It is the boss battle.
 
Games got longer to justify the cost.

If you don’t want to commit 30+ hours to a game then just don’t buy long games lol.

Also keep in mind kids and teens are still the biggest audience for most video games and they have tons of time to commit to these long games, it’s never going to change so you just have to become more selective about the games you play.
 

Synless

Member
Games got longer to justify the cost.

If you don’t want to commit 30+ hours to a game then just don’t buy long games lol.

Also keep in mind kids and teens are still the biggest audience for most video games and they have tons of time to commit to these long games, it’s never going to change so you just have to become more selective about the games you play.
This is false. Games cost more back then and you got less.
 
Gamers decided they didn't want to pay $60 for 8-12 hours of quality content and instead now they get 8-12 hours of quality content spread out over 50-100 hours. Lately there's been a pushback against bloat but whether that succeeds in actually making games their correct lengths is another matter entirely.
 
Right everyone like 23 years old and under are cheap as shit and love to complain about game length and content.

Here I am like a smackd ass, enjoying the ever loving fuck out of The Order 1886's 5-6 hour campaign after I payed full price for it on launch day.

And who else members when you just bought a game, played it, ranked up and unlocked stuff in multiplayer and the only DLC content was usually 4 maps for $15 bucks. That needs to come back.

Oh and just for context. I'm 27 and I'm a chad Uncharted: Drakes Fortune lover which is also a short campaign. LoL

I’m so old i remember buying a 2-3 hour game and replaying it non-stop for years
 

GymWolf

Member
Thank god for this, i don't wanna pay 60-80 euros for 6 hours (or less) campaign anymore.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom