Support NeoGAF

[PleoMax]

Well, sometimes when i think "Jesus, does this game ****ing end? I just wanna see the conclusion christ sakes!" that means the game is too long and i am bored with it, wich affects in a negative way my enjoyment of the game because i may drop the game before finishing it and will never replay it (probably). (Final Fantasy games have given that feelling to me as of late, FFXII for example feels too long to me)

On the other hand, a game being too short never happened to me, i never played a game i felt it was too short, even Riddick and Max payne, i allways thought it was the right lenght, and because of its lenght the game kept exciting and fresh all the way through. What happens is not that you think the game is too short is just that you wish you had a follow up to it right away, but what happens in games like that is that i will pretty much replay them from the beggining, maybe multiple times.

And i just lied in the point above, saying i never played a game i felt too short, let me correct that, its actually very recent, Splinter Cell double agent on the 360 felt too short, it was like over before you knew it, the way the story wraps up in the end is so sudden that it feels weird. And that was bad.

 

[AAK]

That's strange... RE4 wasn't all that great initially. But from chapter 3 onwards it captivated my soul. RE4 was one of the most definitive gaming experiences ever because it always brought something new to the formula. It had countless superb ideas which other games very rarely match.

The only other game which can compare to RE4 was the original Devil May Cry... because it was generations ahead of its time. A short game but flawless gameplay system. I kept on playing it non stop until Capcom finally delivered DMC3.

A games length only irks me if it is too short in comparison to its predecessor. For example Jak 3 was tad bit too short when compared to Jak 2.

 

[StRaNgE]

it's all about the story to me. if the story starts to drag then even a 5 hour game session can blow.

if it rocks 20 hours can seem like only a few leaving ya beggin for more.

 

[Reilly]

RE4 is too god damn long.

Ico is too god damn short

 

[drohne]

i prefer shorter games -- even extremely good singleplayer games like re4 or okami start to lose me at the 20hr mark.

 

[duckroll]

I don't care about length in games as much as pacing. For me it's all about how well paced the game is and whether the gameplay stands up to the overall experience. A game which drags on too long would be less enjoyable, but so would a game that feels shorter than it should be with tons of ideas that are underused or forgotten. It also largely depends on the genre, since shooters and puzzle games are much more replayable than say RPGs and adventure titles. Length doesn't mean anything unless there's context.

 

[mikeGFG]

Assuming the mechanics are good, it's all about the pacing. Pacing from both the narrative, and game design. The game has to reward you in such a way that its always opening up new areas, giving you new equipment/moves, or droping crucial plot developments. If it's done right, youll have enough time to screw around with a new weapon or enemy but never really getting bored.

Assuming there was enough content, I could play Resident Evil 4 or Ninja Gaiden indefinitely.

 

[Carlisle]

Depends on the game.

Yup.

For example, Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime. Brilliant game. Perfect length at 12-15 hours. But as a 60-hr game, it would have bombed. And the reverse is true for a really short game that could have been much longer... you'd feel like you got ripped off.

 

[Belfast]

FFXII is a great length for me so far. Of course I'm enjoying every minute of it and I'd say the combat system actually makes things move *faster.* The breadth of the world is amazing and I'm loving these dungeons/areas that you can tool around in for an hour or more each. Some of them even have a fair number of hidden areas.

From my action/adventure games and RPGs, I demand at least 20 hours of play time these days. Capcom's usually good at supplying that (RE4, Dead Rising, Onimusha 3/4, Shadow of Rome, Okami, God Hand, Lost Planet likely will, too). Other stuff I don't worry about so much, to be honest.

 

[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.

More people need to read this post. It sums up the thread nicely.

 

[tnw]

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).

I disagree. Usually when I finish a long game, I always end up playing it again because I missed so much stuff the first time. And I don't mean collecting items, etc. I mean the story and why what happened to who. If it's that good, I usually keep it and play through it every so often.

Short games are good too if that's the way they're supposed to be.

I guess I would rather have a game leave me wanting more than wanting less. ICO, however, left me wanting too much more. It would have been nice if it was longer if it made sense for it to be.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

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).

I disagree. Usually when I finish a long game, I always end up playing it again because I missed so much stuff the first time. And I don't mean collecting items, etc. I mean the story and why what happened to who. If it's that good, I usually keep it and play through it every so often.

Short games are good too if that's the way they're supposed to be.

I guess I would rather have a game leave me wanting more than wanting less. ICO, however, left me wanting too much more. It would have been nice if it was longer if it made sense for it to be.

Yeah, I'd rather have a game force me to beg for more than to be discontent with how long it was and how boring the initally satisfying gameplay was.

Apparently Gears of War isn't like that....

Let's discuss the length of the game when more people buy it.

 

[Vangellis]

Its about quality. Length isnt that important and actually can make a game worse to me. I would rather buy a game that is super quality, totally fun and high replay value over a really long game. If a game is great, but long it still can lose me dues to misteps in pacing etc. Also when games are long and involved with overly complicated storys or mechanics it can be a downer to me. I cant tell you how many times ive started an rpg, then stopped for a few weeks... you come back and have no frickin idea whats going on. You then start over... and that not replay value, its annoying.

Amazing quality/fun with 15 hours of gameplay >>>>> good game with 40-60 hours gameplay

 

[itsme]

To me, 10~20hrs for action/adventure games, and 30~40hrs for RPGs are perfect lengths. I prefer having a sweet experience that leaves me wanting more rather than, "geez, it's finally over.".

With life and work, I only get 1~2hrs of game time a day; with typical 60+hrs RPGs, I have to play for 2 months to see the end! By the time, all the freshness went away, and found myself forcing through it... Plus, with several 60+hrs games lined up in my to-play-list, there is no chance I'll be playing the game again no matter how great the game is and how much good time I had with it, which is a shame.

 

[Tieno]

It really depends, ICO was such an amazing experience that I didn't 'fault it' or subtract the 6-7hours of gaming time. It just didn't matter. Same with God of War.

With Prey I did, because it didn't feel varied to me and was overall more of an average to good game.

But when you have something like RE4 that took me 24hours and was amazing, the length makes it even better for me.

 

[Hunahan]

Personally, I just look for how much enjoyment I get out of it.

I tend to look for aproximately two months out of my games, although that certainly puts me in a different audience than most of those here at GAF.

It doesn't really matter to me if I get that through a single playthrough (say, a lengthy RPG like Oblivion or Final Fantasy) or through replay value (say New Super Mario or Dead Or Alive 4, etc) as long as I'm not left high and dry with nothing to play inside 8 hours.

If a game is short and has no replay value, I think that's called a rental. It's gotta have one or the other to me.

 

[Angelcurio]

In some cases it affects me, since i have a job and have to spend time in some personal things my playing time is somewhat limited, so personally i have avoided a couple of titles after knowing that they would take 100 or more hours to complete like DQ8, Star Ocean 3 and the Disgaea Series.

There are nice exceptions though, like i bought Okami without knowing the lenght of the game, and now i already have 35 hours putted on the game when i was expecting it to be just like 20 hours long, but i dont complain about it since the game hasnt bored me even for a second.

 

[Ranger X]

With experience i grew out hating filler content. I prefer a 10 hours game but that was incredible over a 20 hours games with 10 boring hours.
Lenght doesn't do much for me. It's pretty much all about how awesome the content is.

Also, most shorter but awesome games are having more replay value.
I prefer to replay great games instead of finishing a long boring ass one.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

With experience i grew out hating filler content. I prefer a 10 hours game but that was incredible over a 20 hours games with 10 boring hours.
Lenght doesn't do much for me. It's pretty much all about how awesome the content is.

IAWTP

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

I like really, really fun games that are really challenging but that I can beat in under 2 hours with enough practice.

 

[Ghengis Cohen]

Length is less important than the overall feeling that everything fits as part of the grander game design. I don't feel cheated when I read stunning short novels (think Crying of Lot 49), and I feel the same about games. It's when the design feels incomplete that I feel that the developer/publisher didn't care enough to put that extra effort forth to complete the game.

 

[DSN2K]

it affects my choice to purchase, rent or pick up a used copy further down the line.

 

[Odrion]

15-20 hour games seem to be my G-Spot.

If a game is 6-8 hours, **** that shit. It ain't worth 50-60 dollars. Like Prey, I beaten that goddamn game in one sitting! Should of only costed me $20.

 

[Tarazet]

Not really. If a game can keep me going, it could be 400 hours and I'd still play it until I finished it (i.e. Lemmings, HSG: Open Tee if you want 100%). But then shorties are replayable, so I enjoy that too. Length is not a factor for me.

 

[Shig]

Single player non-RPG- 12-20 hours
Single player mode in a game with a broad multiplayer aspect- 8-20 hours
RPGs- 20-50 hours

Those are the sweet spots for me, anything less I'm gonna feel jipped if I pay full price, anything more and the game is way too heavy on filler.

 

[itslikethatyall]

i think it depends on the type of game. rpg's = longer the better (as long as theres something meaningful to do)

but now, i mostly play games for its multiplayer capabilities. so its not really the single player missions that concern me

 

[Sinatar]

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?

There is no such thing as "how much", there is no formula or science to it. It is how the game is crafted, pacing is a very important factor in a game. So how much is too much, that's easy, the moment the game starts to feel boring or repetitive whether that's 2 hours in or 50 hours in depends entirely on how well the game is made.

 

[davepoobond]

i particularly like games that are longer, if they're story based, or have really really good controls. but it doesn't only apply to story-based games. puzzle games, too. i dont want the puzzling to end ={

 

[Slurpy]

If its a good game, theres a certain enjoyment in the reassurance that the game isn't going to end soon. So yes, of course length affects enjoyment. If the game sucks, thats another issue entirely.

 

[DeathCabCute]

This ALWAYS matters to me. Games are too expensive to contain on 5-10 hours of content. I should always have the option of replay to find more secrets or an extended first run through (my preference). If a game is short then it should at least be extremely challenging, like the good ol' games of 8bit, this would make the purchase justifiable.

While we're on the subject of longevity may I say that it should be a rule for all rpgs to be able to play a new game with your previous games stats. I see no reason to replay any rpg just to start from scratch on my stats.

 

[BobJustBob]

If you were playing a game and always having fun, you wouldn't want it to end. Good games can never be long enough.

 

[darkbanjo]

If a game is always changing and throwing new situations and ideas at you, it doesn't really get old. I felt like that about MGS2, there were lots of different things going on, with a lot of variety, so it didn't get repetetive, but if there'dve been a lot of the same sort of sort of objectives, I don't think I'dve got to the end, I'd probably have grown bored with it. It doesn't happen so much in short games like MGS2, but in Oblivion I got fifity hours in, and I loved those fifty hours, but I couldn't play any more, it just got a bit stale.

 

[bumpkin]

Everyone knows it's all about girth, not length.

...except by girth, I mean the quality of the gameplay.

 

[vumpler]

Personal preference I enjoy the shorter games. I just don't have time to drop 60 hours in an RPG. With MMO's out there to me RPG's of long length are incredibly unapealing. I prefer no more than a 20 hour game. A 10 hour game would really hit the spot.

 

[sammy]

i guess i don't really give a damn ------ i can usually make it up to the 30 hour mark MAX, before i'm bored and move onto a new game .... so i'll actually finish 15-20 hour games with elation.

handhelds have their own set of rules, since they're more casual ------ i'll actually finish handheld RPG's, just playing in bed before i go to sleep ---- sleep function goes a long way with those. I like LONG handheld games, since i can leave teh console on (sleep) the whole time.

 

[Grayman]

If I won't get 40+ hours out of a game I won't buy it. This can be in the form of replay though. I prefer to get 80-100+ for my full price games(gta, gran turismo, rpgs i play twice or more)

Games that are exempt from these rules are masterpieces like Ico or SOTC. The experiance makes up for the length. Still around 10 hours should be minimal for a game even without replay unless it's very open(and then there should be a way to play it for 10 hours)

I would rather have a short game I want to play over and over than a 60 hour game now though. I always end up breaking up my play for other games because I have so many so rpgs are difficult to get through while still remembering.

I would really like an open rpg where you play it for about 3-10 hours per character you make and get some form of an ending and enough content to play the game endlessly.

Sandbox is my favourite option. I just like to keep playing and playing a game that is compelling for it's gameplay.

 

[Zerodoppler]

I prefer games that can be beaten within 30 minutes. Multiple replays for the win.

 

[dirtmonkey37]

I prefer games that can be beaten within 30 minutes. Multiple replays for the win.

Are you kidding?

 

[Artanisix]

Are you kidding?

Ikaruga for the win.

 

[Zenith]

yes it does. if a game is too short my enjoyment decreases 10 fold. no such thing as a game being "too long". 15-25 hours is optimum window.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

I'm starting to prefer games that don't last too long. I don't have time for that bizness.

 

[thefro]

Not really, since I'm going to just rent games that don't have length or replay value, or wait for the price drop to $20.

Michel Ancel's games are a pretty good example.