Support NeoGAF

[dirtmonkey37]

Upon listening to GameTrailer's FFXII review and how they mentioned that the game's combat system would been more satisfying and fun had FFXII been a 25 hour game (but it's 60), I began to ponder if length affects (significantly, not just a little. Clearly there are times when a game is short and we bitch and moan but the game is still regarded as no less than what it originally would be) one's enjoyment of a video game


Has there ever been a time where the length of a game, be it too long or too short, has affected your overall enjoyment of the experience?

For me, games like RE4 and Oblivion were no longer fun for me after the amount of time I played them. I played RE4 for 17 hours to complete the game, but I was really done with (read: tired of) the game at the 10-hour mark.

Same goes for Oblivion. I played that game for 50 hours and I couldn't take it anymore. The gameplay just didn't hold up for me. Yet, at the same time, I played SC: DA for 10 hours and was still hungry for more when the game's inevitable ending was slapped in my face (with a nice ending mission by the way).


So, does the length of a game's single player mode significantly affect how much you like a game or is it just a minor inconveniance?

 

[SnakeXs]

Yes, but rarely.

I almost always wish there was more to a game, but any game that's good enough to be put under a maginfying glass to that degree is fun enough to replay, either as a whole, or through bits and pieces. To this, there are very few expeptions.

 

[Oblivion]

I personally enjoy really long games, but as long as there's content, and not something that's just used to artificially waste time.

But yeah, quite a few games being short kinda ruined the experience for me.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm totally fine with short games. Only when they have been hyped as "epics" is it disappointing (MGS2 length, for example)

However, when a game is significantly longer than I'd expect (MGS3, FFXII) it pushes it beyond par into a whole new realm of **** YEAH! It's easier to put an insanely long game into your favorite games of all time.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

It's about CONTENT not how long it takes to win the game

 

[Dahbomb]

I like long games with lots of depth in them. If not then, I would just have a short game with some level of depth to it so I can replay it.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

Some game's gameplay/s are designed in a way that they can last a long while.


Other games, like let's say, RE4, can't last much longer than 10 hours. What factors do you think contribute to how long a game stays fun? Is it scenery, ambiance shifts, surprises?

 

[lyre]

Yup. The shorter the game, and the more awesome, the more likely I'll replay it.

1 hour game = 100+ hours of greatness

 

[dirtmonkey37]

It's about CONTENT not how long it takes to win the game

That's what I'm saying. How much is too much content. How much is too little content (which I classified as "game length"). And, how does it affect someone when there is too much or too little content? Does it significantly affect how much you enjoy the game?

 

[gutter_trash]

I apreciate shorter action packed games more because the re-play value is more old school-ish and I don't feel bad about goign through them, because they are short, I know I can replay them

long ass games need management, I always got to say: "this game is long, and I won't probably be able to go through it again,........ shelf it"

 

[dirtmonkey37]

I apreciate shorter action packed games more because the re-play value is more old school-ish and I don't feel bad about goign through them, because they are short, I know I can replay them

long ass games need management, I always got to say: "this game is long, and I won't probably be able to go through it again,........ shelf it"

Yeah, I agree with you on your second statement. Very true. After finishing an RPG, I will never ever touch it again (well, maybe I'll pop it in to reminisce).


However, games like Dead Rising, I always keep at hand.

 

[Fallout-NL]

The only game I ever felt was too short, was Full Spectrum Warrior on the xbox.

 

[Llyranor]

There is no such thing as too much content. There IS such a thing as too much crappy content. Most of the time I've felt a game was too long was when the game didn't have enough compelling content to sustain my interest for that amount of time. It had nothing with the length itself and more with how repetitive/crappy my time spent on it was.

As for too short a length, there was a time when I would have said that a game being too short would have been a deterrent. After finishing Dawn of Sorrow in about 6-7 hrs and it being my favorite DS game, this is no longer an issue.

 

[sprsk]

If I get bored of a game before it's over then yeah my opinion of it goes down.


And to answer the topic question, no, there is no Playing*Time=XFun formula.

 

[Ristamar]

There are too many factors to consider to give a complete answer, so, in short.... yes.

 

[Oblivion]

That's what I'm saying. How much is too much content. How much is too little content (which I classified as "game length"). And, how does it affect someone when there is too much or too little content? Does it significantly affect how much you enjoy the game?

Yes, if there's little content, then I won't enjoy it as much. Like say something under 10 hours.

I wouldn't mind over 50 or whatever hours of content as long as its not tedious or annoying.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

Games that I wanted to last longer (recently):

Psychonauts
Splinter Cell: Double Agent
All the Jak games. All of them.

 

[Tsubaki]

No.

If someone bashes a game for being too short, then either the game has other problems or the gamer has other problems.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

Some people seem to be interpreting this thread differently.



Yes, I know and can acknowledge the fact that there is no Playing*Time=XFun formula. I think everyone knows that. However, I can say that there are times when the content is no longer compelling because how much it's being reused.




I'm not asking people for hours and what hour-mark they need to reach for a game to become boring. I'm just saying, does length (not asking what length, just read the title of the thread) affect how much you enjoy a game? This "length" is different for everyone.

Can you mash the "X" button in KH2 for 40 hours straight without getting bored or is it fun for you all the way through because of the amazing particle effects. How much longer can you hold down the shoulder buttons/right trigger in Burnout before pushing the game aside and moving on.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Sometimes, it really depends on the individual game. Sands of Time for instance ended waaaay too soon in my opinion.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

double post

 

[dirtmonkey37]

Has anyone had a time where a game just keeps on going and you're tired of it, yet when you started playing it, it was fun as hell?

 

[gutter_trash]

let's take Genji 1 for example wich got critiqued for being a short game,

personnaly, it's shotness for the type of game it was good. It's an action hack-n-slasher, these games are better served short and sweet instead of long and repetitive.

Rewind back in the 8 bit and 16 bit days. Contra, Life Force, Streets Of Rage,... these are games were beaten a gazilion times and still return to beat them

 

[svenuce]

I'd happily pay $60 for an amazing 8-10 hour experience.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

let's take Genji 1 for example wich got critiqued for being a short game,

personnaly, it's shotness for the type of game it was good. It's an action hack-n-slasher, these games are better served short and sweet instead of long and repetitive.

Rewind back in the 8 bit and 16 bit days. Contra, Life Force, Streets Of Rage,... these are games were beaten a gazilion times and still return to beat them

Yes, so in that case, Genji's gameplay and design were not built around a long experience. They were built for something that was short and sweet, instead of long and Final Fantasy.

 

[pj]

I like long game as long as they're not long because of padding.

Paper mario TTYD is a real bastard about that. SO MUCH running back and forth, SO MANY stupid battles that take too long for various reasons. It should be a 10 hour game but it's pushing 20 and I'm not even done yet

 

[Space Runaway]

Yes. Prey is a good example of a short game thats still too long! The game blows it's load during the demo stages and outside of flight, offers nothing new for the remaining 7 hours(Or however long it was). So I of course was bored a little more than halfway through and had to force myself to finish it.

Off the top of my head,I can't really recall any games that bothered me for being too short. Usually a short game is short because it's designed with replay in mind, thus making it ok since you can easily sink in more hours than you would a longer game if it's fun. I know there are legitimate games that are too short and suffer for it but I'm drawing a blank right now.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

Other games, like let's say, RE4, can't last much longer than 10 hours. What factors do you think contribute to how long a game stays fun? Is it scenery, ambiance shifts, surprises?

Although in the extreme minority, I thought RE4 was way too long and I didn't really enjoy the game because of it. I have no doubt that a ~7 hour version of the game could be far better than what was shipped.

 

[Avalon]

No.

As long as the game doesn't feel rushed or too spread thin I'm completely fine with whatever length.

 

[LegendofJoe]

I can't beleive so many of you guys got bored with RE4. I was enraptured from start to finish, I couldn't put the controller down. I've played it multiple times in fact.

 

[Avalon]

I can't beleive so many of you guys got bored with RE4. I was enraptured from start to finish, I couldn't put the controller down. I've played it multiple times in fact.

I don't get it either. It's not like the battle tactics were the same from start to finish. They kept evolving right until the very end.

 

[beelzebozo]

i played resident evil 4 five times in a row and loved it every time.
the game could have been triple that length and i would have played it just the same amount.
it's a damn near perfectly paced game and does not belong in a conversation about bloated games.

srry.

 

[Pimpbaa]

If a game is short, it better have a high replayability. If a game is long, it better have good content. I usually always prefer longer games regardless. I hate when a game is really good but short and not much replayability. Like Tomb Raider Legends for example, the type of game it is (lots of puzzles), doesn't have much replayability (because you already know how to solve the puzzles). The only incentive to replay that game was to unlock costumes for Lara. It was just far too short of a game for it's type. God of War is another game that comes to mind as being far too short (Ninja Gaiden in comparison was a much more appropriate length).

 

[Brobzoid]

Can't take long games. 5-10 hours is great. But I like it when It's possible to complete a game under 3 hours, even two. Like Onimusha: Warlords, were you are rewarded for completing the game under 3 hours.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

I can't beleive so many of you guys got bored with RE4. I was enraptured from start to finish, I couldn't put the controller down. I've played it multiple times in fact.

I was bored by the first boss. :lol It felt like a game that didn't know what it wanted to be - action, adventure, horror? - and didn't nail any element, or feel like it was better because it was a hybrid. FWIW, I still thought the controls, though improved, were not as good as they should've been.

Anyway, yeah, length doesn't matter if the game is designed and paced right. I'll happily pay full price for an hour-long game that I can replay, or a hundred hour game if it holds my attention. I don't even want to guess how many hours I've put into replaying the same songs in Guitar Hero and fiddling around with all of the stuff in Advance Wars. At the same time, I was bored with Okami from the start.

 

[Ristamar]

I also thought the length of RE4 was close to perfect. It's a 16 to 20 hour game on your first run. Admittedly, had it gone on much longer, I might have started losing interest, but I think it peaked and wrapped up in the right places.

 

[Pimpbaa]

I was bored by the first boss. :lol It felt like a game that didn't know what it wanted to be - action, adventure, horror? - and didn't nail any element, or feel like it was better because it was a hybrid. FWIW, I still thought the controls, though improved, were not as good as they should've been.

Anyway, yeah, length doesn't matter if the game is designed and paced right. I'll happily pay full price for an hour-long game that I can replay, or a hundred hour game if it holds my attention. I don't even want to guess how many hours I've put into replaying the same songs in Guitar Hero and fiddling around with all of the stuff in Advance Wars. At the same time, I was bored with Okami from the start.

Why force yourself to play games you don't like? Just because others loved it, doesn't mean you have to play through these games.

 

[ronito]

I remember paying $75 for Strider on the Genesis and then finishing it after a mere 3 hours of play. Ever since I always make sure my games are good and long.

 

[J-Rzez]

I thought it wasn't length as much as width for enjoyment?

 

[dirtmonkey37]

I think a game like God of War was nearing the edge of becoming boaring by the end of the game but it saved it self with an amazing finale.


RE4 just didn't compell me. I finished it, and it was fun, but the game got extremely repetitive by the end. Maybe that's because it never provided for a scary ambiance or frightening mood. I don't know. The game just got to be a great shooter by the end, instead of the "intense horror game" it started out as.




The first 10 hours of RE4 are clearly 10/10 quality though. Those hours are incredibly fun.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Most games have a "natural length" that developers should strive to meet.

Too short, and the game mechanics don't get enough time and space to really breathe. The player won't learn the game well enough to really have fun, and elements like the story or characterization can feel rushed and incomplete.

Too long, and mechanics that are fun for the first X hours get boring. The story can start to drag on without satisfying resolution. The game can start to get too repetitive, as the player either masters the game or just sees the same situations over and over.

So yes, if a developer deviates from a game's natural length, it can affect my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Pimpbaa]

I remember paying $75 for Strider on the Genesis and then finishing it after a mere 3 hours of play. Ever since I always make sure my games are good and long.

:lol Same thing happened to me. I had some serious buyer's remorse after I purchased that game. I traded it like a year later or so with a friend for a small amp (got a nice pair of speakers to go with it), and I'm still using it to this day.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

I thought it wasn't length as much as width for enjoyment?

Awesome post. I mean it.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

Most games have a "natural length" that developers should strive to meet.

Too short, and the game mechanics don't get enough time and space to really breathe. The player won't learn the game well enough to really have fun, and elements like the story or characterization can feel rushed and incomplete.

Too long, and mechanics that are fun for the first X hours get boring. The story can start to drag on without satisfying resolution. The game can start to get too repetitive, as the player either masters the game or just sees the same situations over and over.

So yes, if a developer deviates from a game's natural length, it can affect my enjoyment of the game.

The thing with RE4 was that I felt I had mastered the game by the 11th hour. I learned when to kick to get rid of foes. I learned when to use my grenades. I learned blah blah blah.


That's an interesting point you make. How the gamer can master the game and see the same situations over and over because they've grown to be so good at it.


I hope more people quote your post

 

[gamergirly]

Most of the games I play are rpgs & action/adventure titles. Length is a factor, but in some cases like survival horror games(esspecially RE & Silent Hill), it's not that big of a deal....

 

[coldvein]

Most games have a "natural length" that developers should strive to meet.

Too short, and the game mechanics don't get enough time and space to really breathe. The player won't learn the game well enough to really have fun, and elements like the story or characterization can feel rushed and incomplete.

Too long, and mechanics that are fun for the first X hours get boring. The story can start to drag on without satisfying resolution. The game can start to get too repetitive, as the player either masters the game or just sees the same situations over and over.

So yes, if a developer deviates from a game's natural length, it can affect my enjoyment of the game.

good post.

 

[ronito]

Most games have a "natural length" that developers should strive to meet.

Too short, and the game mechanics don't get enough time and space to really breathe. The player won't learn the game well enough to really have fun, and elements like the story or characterization can feel rushed and incomplete.

Too long, and mechanics that are fun for the first X hours get boring. The story can start to drag on without satisfying resolution. The game can start to get too repetitive, as the player either masters the game or just sees the same situations over and over.

So yes, if a developer deviates from a game's natural length, it can affect my enjoyment of the game.

out of all the posts in this thread, this is definetly one of them.

 

[Defcon]

out of all the posts in this thread, this is definetly one of them.

Yours is one of them as well.

 

[NotMSRP]

RE4 Mercenaries is 7 mins of fun which is more than 7 hrs of most games.

 

[Shard]

Depends on the game.