It’s like people don’t understand quality over quantity.
It's extremely difficult to do that though. Sandbox/eternal games like Minecraft, Stardew, Gmod, and Terraria have the advantage of mods, but besides that singleplayer campaigns can't stretch themselves out because they don't have the type of physics or endless content those 4 have
it depends on the game.
I think there is an argument that Assassins creed, horizon FW and GOW Ragnarok could have been better games if they were half as long.
Wanted: Dead was like that for me. Beat it 4x already in the last 2 weeks.What I want is a game that leaves me yearning for more. I can't remember the last time I played a game and thought "that was so good, I really wish it didn't end yet". Literally, I don't know if it had happened in the last 10 years. But a lot of times I had a feeling that a game would be better if it had ended sooner, probably in 99% of the cases.
If I had to choose between:
- a game that ends too soon leaving me wanting for more
- a game that ends too late, meaning that it was the best thing ever at some point, but then it kept going
I'd choose the first one every single time.
I respect OP's take on correcting the approach people are taking about this topic. Ask for games worth the 40-60 hour play time. Not for games to be shorter. A lot of people in this thread are ignoring his point and are just saying we should have shorter games because they aren't worth the time. Well, ask for games to be made that are worth the time, then. There are only a few games I have more than 100+ hours on and they are some of my favorite games of all time. I wish that list was bigger.
except that even the literal geniuses of the industry- Miyamoto, aonuma, Shinji Mikami, Hidetaka Miyazaki, Gabe Newell, etc have a hard time doing that when they've made some of the best games in the medium. If they can't do it what makes you think anyone can?Quality and intelligent design have always been difficult to do. Those characteristics are a rarity in nature. Shouldn't they be held up as examples of the best the industry has to offer? Our games media sells styrofoam plates to consumers.
no developer has made a 40 hour singleplayer camapaign that's 100% engaging the entire way through. you can hardly find any like thatAsk for games worth the 40-60 hour play time.
Very few games are worth 100+ hours. I think I've only got 8 on Steam that are above 100 hours. Of those 8 only 5 or so were fun the entire 100 hours. These types of games depend heavily on genre. CRPGs, simulation games, strategy games are good uses of 100+ hours IMO.I guess my point is that your paradigm is all wrong. It shouldn't be "pick one of the following two options".
A. 50 hour game that gets boring after hour 15.
B 15 hour game that gets boring after hour 15.
Shouldn't it be...
A. 15 hour game that gets boring after hour 15.
B. 100 hour game that gets boring after 100 hours.
Men_in_Boxes what was the last great 40+ hour single player game you played that you would hold up as an example of something we should celebrate and that should be used as inspiration for future long experiences?
except that even the literal geniuses of the industry- Miyamoto, aonuma, Shinji Mikami, Hidetaka Miyazaki, Gabe Newell, etc have a hard time doing that when they've made some of the best games in the medium. If they can't do it what makes you think anyone can?
The last great 40+ hour SP game I played was Pokémon Blue..
Then again, I was like 12 years old when it came out and it was my first time playing an RPG so the formula didn't wear on me like all other RPGs have since then.
Rimworld, Terraria, and Stardew Valley seem to consistently be the most played SP games on Steam.
It would be nice if games media lavished more praise on those titles and less on the God of War "I wanted it to be done by the end" Ragnaroks of the world. In a sane world, if playing a big AAA title at hour 20 is a chore, maybe it's just a bad game?
They're replaying those games or using modsGo to Steamcharts and look at the single player games people are putting 100+ hours into. Maybe the designers of those games are the true geniuses of game design.
Or does it suggest that I get it more than most? I've long said we're in the doldrums of single player. The industry can keep producing these wasteful, shallow, one and done styrofoam cup games...or the public can wisen up and start demanding higher quality games. Games media exists to sell styrofoam. That doesn't help the earth. It makes Captain Planet cry.Doesn't you having not played a good 40+ hour SP game since 1996 kind of say it all and explain why you don't get it?
False. I am the market. I'm looking for fun. I pay for fun. I have nothing against SP in theory, I just think SP design has ground to a halt and the industry keeps pumping out the same games in different packaging. It's big styrofoam preventing people from wanting glass dishes and cups. The industry profits from one and done games. They want gamers to be a conveyer belt to profit. They don't want you cherishing a 100 hour game because then they lose sales.There aren't many, most are RPGs, and you're not the audience anyway. You want experiences that can be repeated ad infinitum because they rely on other users creating the experience for and with you a la every BR game.
The games media DID lavish praise on all those games, by the way, they're all critical darlings. You actually played Stardew Valley?
That's not really true though is it? There are plenty of games where you can watch the numbers go up, and do mundane things over and over. Very few of them get the engagement numbers the 3 titles I listed do. If you can't recognize that then you're not understanding their brilliant design.I loved it, but it's not got 40 hours of content, it's got 40 hours of repeating the same mundane tasks over and over and that's sort of the point of it. It's a farming game and you can play it for 4000 hours if you just like watching numbers go up.
Truly an insane comment. No game designer would suggest such an idea so I'm not sure why you'd do it here.That doesn't mean that 99% of other games need to be padded in the same way. Imagine if halfway through Metroid: Dread you got told to harvest space turnips for 12 hours. No thanks.
They are repetitive/bloated/tedious but people deal with it.Look at, study, and learn from games that retain players longer than their competition.
The real reason is that they want you bored by the time the next 20 hour one and done game comes out. They've created a conveyer belt and they know gamers will spend money once every 1 - 2 months. They're not incentivized to create a game that's engrossing for 6 months. They'd lose money that way.My guess is because they want to cram as many games and trophys/achievements as they can.
I don't think that's right.It’s not about objective length, it’s about a game overstaying its welcome.
Then we have the whole issue with games taking way too long to make. And then another group will want the graphics to be photorealistic, then people another that would want this or that. The more you try to add to please everyone, the less focus on any one part unless you want to wait a whole generation and a half for 1 game (nothing wrong with that if the game is of quality). 40-60 hours is still a ton of gameplay time. It may not be for you, but that would take me several months to complete. I burn out after 20-30 hours.I respect OP's take on correcting the approach people are taking about this topic. Ask for games worth the 40-60 hour play time. Not for games to be shorter. A lot of people in this thread are ignoring his point and are just saying we should have shorter games because they aren't worth the time. Well, ask for games to be made that are worth the time, then. There are only a few games I have more than 100+ hours on and they are some of my favorite games of all time. I wish that list was bigger.
However, if the game is primarily a vehicle for the story, then it would be very challenging to make a game with a story that is worth 40-60 hours. JRPGs and RPGs, in general, are notorious for wasting the player's time with mediocre or even terrible stories. I would say story-driven games should be kept within 20 hours of play time. Video game writers aren't reaching Tolkien levels of writing any time soon. The Witcher 3 was an exception, though. What a great game.