Support NeoGAF

[Trogdor1123]

It’s like people don’t understand quality over quantity.

 

[West Texas CEO]

I can play and enjoy a game for 80 hours.
I can play and enjoy a game for 8 hours.

It all depends on what the fuck I want to do.

 

[oji-san]

I like long open world games like Assassin's Creed Valhalla, Odyssey and Origins, wasn't a chore or something like that to me, iirc i have 170 hours with Valhalla. What i think i was reading is more like some people want a 20-30 hours campaign instead of 100+ hours one. I still rather have the longer games and kinda disappointed that Mirage is gonna be smaller.

 

[mrmustard]

With most games my sweet spot is 8-12 hours. After that i usually want something new except the game is great like Hitman, Grounded, Terraria, Skyrim or Stardew Valley. If the gameplay is addicting, i can play a game for >100 hours. If it's heavily story focused i prefer shorter games. 5 hours for Route 96 for example were perfect.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

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

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.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

Not Angry Joe clearly. I think a lot of parents run into this issue.

 

[Art The Clown]

8-20 hours depending on if the game is entertaining or not.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Longer the better. But what I mean by that is I dont want a main quest to be 60 hrs. I dont mind if the main quest is 20 hrs. But I want enough meat and potatoes so the side quests and exploration are an additional 40 hrs. The best parts of open world games are the exploration. Not bee-lining the main quest.

As for other types of games, I dont want it it be one and done in a weekend. I want some value and replayability. Diablo can be plowed through in a weekend if you played enough, but the key is coming back for more. Same with shooters and sports. Replayability.

Looking back at old eras, paying for an $80 cdn cartridge to beat a side or vertical space shooter by the next day.... what a waste of money. And after you beat it, its so easy you can beat it again in half an hour the next go around.

 

[Agent_Nobody]

I felt Cyberpunk was a bit too short and my play-throughs in that average 70+ hours. *shrug*

 

[diffusionx]

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.

But if you really loved those games, the length is probably fine. I remember looking at my stats in GTA4 way back in the day and I put like 60+ hours into it, I just loved that game, and didn't regret my time. If you didn't like GTA4 like I did, that can feel like a real slog. A game like GOW Ragnarok, it got great reviews so I bet a lot of people buy it, and they think it's "ok" and sink the time in but at the end they're like, wow I wish it was shorter because I didn't love this that much.

Ultimately I think people need to find games they really like, possibly be more selective, and stop trying to keep up with the industry because it's impossible these days.

 

[Kindela]

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.

 

[Punished Miku]

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.

Wanted: Dead was like that for me. Beat it 4x already in the last 2 weeks.
Hi-Fi Rush was perfect length. But I immediately started another playthrough when I was done.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

You are talking to me. I like shorter games, because I have no time at all to play long ass games. I played Elden Ring and gave up after 90 hours, because I was playing the same fucking (awesome game) for over half a year now. Which makes me sad, because there's no closure for me. I feel like I failed that game.

Also my backlog is bigger than an elephant, so I usually don't pay more than 10/20 bucks for a game. I bought RE Village for 15 and it took me 10 hours or so to complete. Which was great.

 

[Missingnomer]

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.

 

[AV]

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?

 

[Ar¢tos]

Trying to imagine a 20h-40h remake of Journey....
It would be a great way to turn an amazing game into a boring chore.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

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.

Missingnomer is my new favorite forum member. Sorry IbizaPocholo

 

[saintjules]

Long ago, a 14 year old me would love to play these long games, specifically because I didn't have a job and getting a new game was not often at all. So a long 40+ hour game that I could replay once or twice when I was younger was considered gold. Now approaching 40, I'd definitely prefer the shorter experiences, with the small exception for some of the AAA games.

I wouldn't mind a 10 hour experience, especially since the backlog is quite long. I often find myself semi-retiring games because of length. It's sad, but the hard truth now.

 

[lachesis]

Shorter, and more intense storytelling in games with faster dev time with improved gameplay for each iteration.

100+ hour games are just way too much. If it's shorter, it's much easier to revisit and replay / enjoy. Long games are difficult to go back to back to, because it's a major time investment.

 

[MiguelItUp]

I think people just have a preferred sweet spot with certain games. I understand that some folks with families, etc. have a hard time of making time to wrap up games that are extremely long. Some want the opposite of that. I can definitely understand both sides of the coin. Personally, I don't really have a preference, as long as the game has a good flow that's all I really care about.

I put SO much time into Elden Ring, and by the time I was essentially done, I still wished there was more. That's not common for me at all. With Ragnarok, by the end of it I kind of felt like it was losing footing and I wanted to wrap it up already.

 

[64bitmodels]

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.

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?

 

[Imp the Dimp]

6-8h is pretty short but how far are you willing to take this idea? For instance, I cannot fathom that any movie could possibly be good enough for me to sit through if it was 4h long. I just don't have the patience for it and I don't want to watch a movie like that. I don't know that I would want a 200h or 300h single player game either regardless of how good it is. I'd probably never see the ending of that.

 

[64bitmodels]

Ask for games worth the 40-60 hour play time.

no developer has made a 40 hour singleplayer camapaign that's 100% engaging the entire way through. you can hardly find any like that

 

[Maiden Voyage]

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.

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.

With shorter, cheaper games, I am in and out and trying something different or new. If I don't like the game, it's less of a big deal since it cost less. Me getting bored with the FFVII Remake after a few hours was more disappointing than me getting bored of some $5 indie 20 mins in.

The quality of the gameplay should determine its length.

 

[phil_t98]

I think for main story 12-15 hours is decent but I want a lot of side content I can still do.

the Hogwarts game is amazing but I felt the main story to short for me personally but there is enough side content and quests to keep me going

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

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?

The last great 40+ hour SP game I played was this...

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?

 

[Fbh]

Because if that $5 pack of potato chips is is absolutely massive in size but the quality of the chips is shit, and it's the same for almost every other potato chip brand of the same size/price, then I know that realistically the two option to improve the quality of the chips would be to reduce the size or increase the price.

And now you are asking me "but wouldn't you rather have the size and price remain the same but the quality to become much better?". And sure, I would, but how many brands are really going to do that?

With that said I don't want full priced 6 hours long games either. But 15 hours for a linear single player game and something like 25-30 hours for the main story in an RPG is great IMO and improves the chances of it not being full of boring repetitive bloat.

 

[Gamer_By_Proxy]

I think every AAA game should be around 25 hours. Just the top quality content without the padding.
I also don't think you should have to play a game twice to get any platinum trophies.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

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?

Maybe they're not game design geniuses but rather marketing geniuses?

Go 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.

 

[AV]

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?

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? 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? 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. 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.

Also, this should have been obvious, but all 3 of those games have multiplayer, even if one is a mod.

 

[dcx4610]

Depends on the game but I’d much rather play six 10 hour games than one 60 hour game. I’d much rather get 6 unique stories and experience.

10 hours of gameplay is still a lot and you get a good story out of it, it can be really satisfying.

A lot of longer games are long because they are slogs. Games like Assassin’s Creed is 50 hours because the infinite amount of crap the map they entice you to do. It’s just filler and mostly a waste of time.

Games like Metroid though where the time comes from actually exploring and back tracking, I want those games to be a little longer.

But yeah, games like Horizon which I do want to play, sit on the backlog just because I know it’s going to be at least a 30 hour investment and I never feel like committing to that.

It’s like having a 700 page beloved novel in front of you. It’s probably going to be good but it’s daunting. Meanwhile, you could read an equally beloved 200 page book and get a full story in a fraction of the time.

 

[reksveks]

Very few single player games stay interesting past the 25 hr mark

 

[NeverYouMind]

Similar with how small food portions give the highest amount of flavor enjoyment, a shorter tailored experience could hit more high notes in a short time than something created to stretch the playtime. It is often best that games do not overstay their welcome. Though paradoxically dropping back in briefly to a grinding loop can be entertaining in and of itself.

 

[64bitmodels]

Go 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.

They're replaying those games or using mods

 

[Camreezie]

Bloated video games are a thing

 

[Maiden Voyage]

 

[Wildebeest]

Games are not commodities like toilet roll. 1 hour playing is not the same experience across all games.

 

[Roberts]

As long as the game entertains me all the way through. I don't really care if it 3 hours long or 100.

I have been playing Grounded with a friend since September (a before that when it was in ea) for 80 hours or so and I don't really want it to end anytime soon because we still get to do new stuff and discover new things.

And then it is nice just to breeze through a 6-10 hour game and have a good time, too.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

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?

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.

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.

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.

The games media DID lavish praise on all those games, by the way, they're all critical darlings. You actually played Stardew Valley?

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.

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.

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.

Truly an insane comment. No game designer would suggest such an idea so I'm not sure why you'd do it here.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

 

[lughnasadh123]

My guess is because they want to cram as many games and trophys/achievements as they can.

The ones I really don't understand are those who hate a 60 hour game but would love to replay a 20 hour game three times.

 

[AmuroChan]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

A bag of chips contains just chips and they all serve the same purpose.

A 100 hour game can consists of both great content and terrible bloated fillers, and everything else in between. Also, time has a cost to many people. If a 100-hour game can be made better by shaving off 25 hours of bloat, that's 25 hours I can use towards other things.

 

[SJRB]

It’s not about objective length, it’s about a game overstaying its welcome.

Prime example: Prey. Amazing game that builds up to a great finale and then out of nowhere it slaps on another hour or so where you run around Talos I dodging annoying new enemies. It adds nothing to the experience. If any, it diminished if.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

It depends on the game. TLOU Part II was too long for the narrative they were trying to tell. It felt disjointed and like two different games at times, which made the ending more of me wanting to just beat the game versus being patient and allowing the impact of the narrative to conclude.

 

[cireza]

Look at, study, and learn from games that retain players longer than their competition.

They are repetitive/bloated/tedious but people deal with it.

The AAA industry is mostly trapped with non-games, that's the issue. What is there to study when actual games are everywhere to be found in the past ? We already know the formula for good games with a lasting appeal, and they don't take 40 hours to complete. However, they provide so much fun that you will want to play them again and again.

 

[Halo2redvsblue]

No story driven game should be longer then 40 hours. Any longer and it's just Padding the time.

Also the longer the game is, the less I want to go back thru it.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

My guess is because they want to cram as many games and trophys/achievements as they can.

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.

Games media wants the public focusing on the next shiny object coming up. You won't tune in if you find your one game and ignore the rest.

This is the way.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It’s not about objective length, it’s about a game overstaying its welcome.

I don't think that's right.

It's about a game having the depth, complexity, and value to entertain you for longer than the blink of an eye.

 

[Fuz]

Hi.

 

[KXVXII9X]

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.

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.