Support NeoGAF

[SupremeHoodie]

I just turned 30. For the past 2 years now I’ve made a choice of not playing video games on the weekdays. On the weekends I play a few hours sometimes. Without getting into the details I believe this has made me a happier person. I love gaming though so don’t get me wrong.

So for me, a small single player experience sounds fun.

 

[AV]

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.

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.

But according to you these "doldrums" started in 1997. Single player ground to a halt with... Pokémon. The first one. The one that was superseded in every imaginable way by its own sequel. You're not talking about a draught of inspiration, you just don't like single player games, it's okay to say. If you can't come up with one single serious (recent) example of the thing you think there should be more of then you shouldn't expect anyone to take the criticism seriously. It's a silly premise to begin with, video games are too dissimilar to apply such blanket statements.

I'm making food now, I'll let others engage, but I think you know you're fishing here.

 

[Kadve]

A game designed and justifies its length sure. But if sad "length" simply exist to pad out the game (such as lengthy travel times between objectives) then i cant stand it,

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Unless you're BGS if I see a 150 hour monster like the modern AC games I'm not even buying it.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Im not rich enough to keep buying 8h games for 60+ euros. So if games get shorter and priced the same, well I guess Im putting my black hat then. Anything priced at 60+ should be at the very least 25hours minim and max 85. Anything below 25 hours should be at max 30-35euros.

 

[Ar¢tos]

I hear this said a lot now. "I wish they'd make more 6 - 8 hour games so I could actually get through them. I just don't have the time to play these 40+ hour epics."

Math Fact: Six 6 - 8 hour games = one 40 hour game.

This is Stockholm Syndrome right? These people have identified poor game design (gets boring/uninteresting by hour 6) and instead of wanting better made games, they want more, short, crappy games with no depth.

Who buys a $5.00 bag of Lays potato chips and says "I wish they made these bags 1/5th the size and priced each bag at basically the same price."

Here's a crazy idea...what about a 40+ hour game that's entertaining the whole way through? What if we wanted more of those?

Can we collectively (metaphorically) beat these people back into the dark corners they lurked from? It was a better time when people held these thoughts but were too afraid to voice their insanity.

Are you a 16yo with no job or responsibilities?
Try to find time and concentration/patience to play 40h games when you have a job, chores, assorted worries (bills, something broken needs repairs/replacement, etc) and a family that needs attention.

 

[stn]

Its definitely hard to play games while running a fulltime job and working to build a family. That said, as much as I appreciate shorter games sometimes, I'm okay with long games as long as they are not artificially long (ex. 200 useless collectibles that do nothing).

 

[Vlodril]

Quality >>> Quantity. It's a very rare game that will maintain it's quality throughout a big amount of time. Usually they will start to fill like filler or you get tired of them.

Personally there are maybe 3-4 games that i have played that i had as much fun in the 60+ mark as i did at the start. Most start to drag and in some cases go from positive experiences to negative (divinity original sin 2 for example or Assassins Creed Valhalla).

 

[64bitmodels]

the games that retain people's attention for hundreds or even thousands of hours do so not because they're that long but because they're consistently updated with new content and have a wealth of mods to choose from that make people come back again and again and again. Minecraft, Gmod, Terraria, Stardew Valley, Deep Rock Galactic, Destiny 2, BeamNG Drive, Assetto Corsa, the list goes on. and then there are the roguelikes who literally have replays built into their formula like Risk of Rain, Binding of Issac, Gungeon, Spelunky, & more

Singleplayer, AAA campaigns with a set story, any amount of sidequests and a lack of modding support can only keep a player engaged for so long.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Just don't make games with hours of searching for what to do next

 

[Holammer]

To develop the potato chip bag analogy. The problem is that many games start adding polystyrene packing peanuts to the bag to make the bag look bigger.
I would rather have a neat and trimmed experience than a padded 40h slog with copy/paste content.

Also depends on the game, imagine if a shmup took 20-40h to finish? That'd be dreadful, but I guess we're talking Sony style triple A walking simulators.

 

[SmokedMeat]

What these people are saying is they’d rather a more focused 6-8hr experience over the AAA norm of bloated 30hr-60hr games with copy paste activities all over the open world map.

Also, I’ve noticed that for some games the gameplay loop simply isn’t good enough to to sustain a long 20hrs. I’ve played games where 8-10hrs felt like a slog, and others where 20hrs went by in the blink of an eye.

 

[Krathoon]

Zelda games used to be just the right size before Breath of the Wild came along.

 

[Krathoon]

Mario games do it right. You beat the game and there is extra content.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

But according to you these "doldrums" started in 1997. Single player ground to a halt with... Pokémon. The first one. The one that was superseded in every imaginable way by its own sequel.

I went from not playing a single RPG to loving Pokemon Blue at age 12. Novelty obviously played a huge role in my extended enjoyment of that game.

Sure, subsequent Pokemon games probably improved the formula in minuscule ways but I don't consider that as true value. Pokemon very quickly became a formulaic assembly line franchise.

You're not talking about a draught of inspiration.

No, I am.

you just don't like single player games, it's okay to say.

I like fun. I pay to see movies, watch TV shows, read books. I value entertainment time spent in solitude. I'm clearly interested in the direction SP can go. Most people on NeoGAF have said something along the lines of "Most games are disappointing". I'm simply on the further end of that spectrum.

If you can't come up with one single serious (recent) example of the thing you think there should be more of...

Stardew Valley, Rimworld, Terraria. I mentioned those 3 earlier.

It's a silly premise to begin with, video games are too dissimilar to apply such blanket statements.

Proposing that SP games should strive to entertain players for longer than 6, 10, 15 hours is silly? We're on a videogame forum populated by adults who like discussing videogames.

I'm making food now, I'll let others engage, but I think you know you're fishing here.

Fishing for conversation and other people's viewpoints, yes.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

Linear games that are 30-40 + hours are usually a chore for most parts, and yes everybody would rather have the games get better than shorter theoretically, but that means way more time and money to make those games whereas shorter refined games with no filler are more easily achievable. I'd much rather play a great 8 hour game than an above average 40 hour game. Price to time ratio is an overrated way to compare games imo. All it does is incentivize filler and padding, in your analogy it would be like buying a $5 bag of Lays vs buying a way bigger bag of ok chips with some Lays sprinkled in. More does not make it better

 

[ozz ex machina]

40 hour games suck. Not many narratives and gameplay loops deserve such timespan. Most modern games that long are shit.

I have money and I don't have time. I'd rather cram 5 different experiences into the same time to complete just one.

 

[Vick]

I have no problem whatsoever putting 200+ on games of which I enjoy controls and gameplay, as long as they are well made and run at 60fps.

In some cases they don't even need good controls and gameplay apparently, since I put with pleasure 300+ hours in The Witcher 3 Next-Gen and thousands in RDR2.

When Forbidden West came out, I started from scratch Zero Dawn on Ultra Hard + no reticle and ended up putting 200+ hours in it including DLC, and immediately after started the sequel and loved the shit out if it for more than, again, 200+ hours.

So yeah, I'm definitely not one of those people. Even if I admit the longer the game, the less the desire to replay it.

 

[Hugare]

Poll results tells everything that you need to know

My favorite movie, Gattaca, is 1:46h long. Making a trilogy like the LOTR trilogy out of it would improve the story? Hell no

Same with games, there are experiences that only works in small runtimes. Saying that we wouldnt want a bigger game because the gameplay wouldnt be enough to hold it together is just nonsense.

Mirrors Edge, another game that I love. I replayed it 6-7 times already.

Would I have replayed it this much if it was 25-30h long? Fuck no. And there's enough gameplay variety there to hold a 30h game together.

I wont even start with you potato chip argument because it was the dumbest one that I've seen so far to justify this line of thinking

Games should have the perfect length for what they are trying to achieve.

 

[poppabk]

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.

Yeah for me story driven games with a beginning, middle and end I prefer to be 8-12 hours long. I picked up Miles Morales over Spiderman for exactly this reason and was happy with the choice.
And 8-12 hour game will take me a month or two to finish. That is a long time to commit to one story - I might watch a TV show over that length of time but it wouldn't be the only show I watched for those months whereas for games it will be the only story driven game I play.

 

[Gobjuduck]

I like long games more. But I also like short games, just wish the price reflected it. 70 dollars for a 8 hour game is bullshit.

 

[March Climber]

Here's a crazy idea...what about a 40+ hour game that's entertaining the whole way through? What if we wanted more of those?

Your OP isn’t acknowledging the reality. 9 times out of 10 the devs aren’t capable of this(usually due to time constraints) and instead copy and paste. So, instead of the usual constantly happening and the audience becoming bored by the needless padding, people would rather have a quality shorter game.

Back then, we were wrong. We just didn’t know it yet but now many do. Asking for games that were initially built to be short, to be much longer than 8-10 hours was a mistake that needs correcting.

 

[Danjin44]

Actual length of the game is irrelevant, the game can be only 10 hours long or 100 hours, ONLY thing that matters is the game is satisfying.

 

[SCB3]

Depends on the game, especailly story driven ones, they need to be a bit tighter and paced well,

For example, Alien Isolation for example is a game that drags on about 10 hours longer than it needed, on the flip side Dead Space is a perfect length for the story its telling, both amazing games in the same gnere but one is half as short and benefits greatly from it

For an example of a overly long game, Assassins Creed Valhalla is a fantastically made game, a great world and well crafted, but fuck its is one of the most tedious and padded out games I've ever played, the mere fact that I did all the main quests and the ending was added as free DLC 2 YEARS is laughable at best and its length actually hurt the game as it started to feel so drawn out it became boring

 

[Rubik8]

I like games that are 8-12 hr stories but have a ton of optional things to do, assuming the optionals are fun. Better yet, make the game highly replayable and you can make the story even shorter.

 

[Braag]

It depends on the game but I feel like majority of games these days are open world and they seem to take 50-100 hours to fully explore unless you rush through the main story. It can start to feel a bit daunting to start yet another new game and know this thing will take me a month at least to finish despite wanting to play other stuff too.

 

[HL3.exe]

Me, but would love shorter games that are open-ended linear with great pacing, or like a Immersive Sim.

Would rather replay a great short game where different approach are valid, than a bloated, samey and tedious slog with start and stop pacing.

 

[LaughingStock]

I just don't want games to be unreasonably long.

Some games have too much filler like GoW Ragnarok or lose steam after a while, like Bioshock, post twist.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Here's a crazy idea...what about a 40+ hour game that's entertaining the whole way through? What if we wanted more of those?

Awesome idea, care to give examples of 40mm sur+ game that introduces new mechanics all the time instead of just giving you everything in first two hours then it’s just different art assets?

Who are those people? People they understand time is much more valuable than money.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

I prefer shorter games, there's too much going in life to occupy it with a constant stream of 100+ hour timesinks; 7 hour is probably ideal for me.
Obviously I do play longer games, but I tend to pace them out and try not to play too many at the same time.

 

[RoboFu]

Most of the best games ever were under 10 hours.

Its not about length its about the whole package. MGS is a perfect example of this. no filler. everything has a reason and fits in the story. pacing is perfect.

 

[nowhat]

The poll is not really going the way you expected OP, is it?

 

[SteadyEvo]

Few games are interesting enough to warrant 20 plus hours of my time. I find a lot games drag on far too long for the sake of padding length.

 

[GametimeUK]

I find a myself accumulating more playtime in a game that's around 10 hours in length with great replay value than a game thats around 40 hours in length. There's just something about a well paced "shorter" game that just flows so well.

 

[jaysius]

Depends on if the game is made well, or just filled with filler like an Assassin's Creed/Far Cry/Any UBI game.

I want more Hogwarts and I'm almost afraid to finish because then it's over.

 

[Robbinhood]

Brother I won’t even start a game if it’s50+ hours, with very few exceptions.

The PS3 gen was sexy with its short games, people were playing everything. Note i play like 5-6 games a year.

Uncharted comes out, smash it in a week, Gow3, smash it, KZ2, smash it and move on. Then a huge game like oblivion comes out and it feels special and you engulf yourself in that for a month. Now everything thinks its that type of experience.

Other benefits of short games:
Budgets kept in check.
All the development resources went right into the gameplay and the meat of the game, which lead to more polished experiences, tighter mechanics and noticeable improvements in sequels.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

Very rarely is a game worth spending 30-40hrs in the story, specially games like Ass Creed that just overstay their welcome.

8-16Hrs is ideal if the story is tight

 

[gothmog]

I don't like any game that overstays its welcome. It does not matter if it is long or short. Just respect my time.

 

[Dr. Claus]

I hear this said a lot now. "I wish they'd make more 6 - 8 hour games so I could actually get through them. I just don't have the time to play these 40+ hour epics."

Math Fact: Six 6 - 8 hour games = one 40 hour game.

This is Stockholm Syndrome right? These people have identified poor game design (gets boring/uninteresting by hour 6) and instead of wanting better made games, they want more, short, crappy games with no depth.

Who buys a $5.00 bag of Lays potato chips and says "I wish they made these bags 1/5th the size and priced each bag at basically the same price."

Here's a crazy idea...what about a 40+ hour game that's entertaining the whole way through? What if we wanted more of those?

Can we collectively (metaphorically) beat these people back into the dark corners they lurked from? It was a better time when people held these thoughts but were too afraid to voice their insanity.

I think we should beat people like you back into the dark corners and basements where you came from. Why do you want a prolonged, bloated experience? God of War Ragnarok, Horizon Forbidden West, Halo Infinite, Any Assassin's Creed since 3, Hogwarts Legacy, and more - all pointlessly long, poorly paced, and filled to the brim with bullshit.

Give me an amazingly quality 5-12 hour experience that is highly replayable any day of the week. I can still go back and replay GoW 1-3 with zero issues and have a blast. I can't do that with the newer games.

 

[ByWatterson]

Adults with kids, LOL, that's who.

Also anyone who played Assassin's Creed Valhalla.

 

[8BiTw0LF]

40 hours to complete. 70 hours to platinum.

 

[AV]

Stardew Valley, Rimworld, Terraria. I mentioned those 3 earlier.

Which of those have you personally played for 40+ hours? Or did you just look at the top played games on Steam with SP components and assume that's what more games should strive to be?

They're all crafting/base building sandboxes. They're games with lots of playtime because they all rely on the user farming, in one case quite literally. Hold X to collect resource, use resource to build thing, use thing to generate resource, etc. This works great for that subgenre of games but nobody in their right mind would dream of adding those mechanics to most other single player games, as you know well from my space turnips example with Metroid. And again, I'll point out, 2/3 of those games have official multiplayer components now, one has a mod.

Some games are short, others aren't. Take my previous Metroid example, how do you turn a tight 10 hours into 40? Make 4 games worth of Metroid in one? Even Hollow Knight doesn't do that, a significantly longer Metroid game that's (in)famous for having the user meander around zones they're already seen for hours and that's enough to turn a lot of people off a 20 hour game - not me, I loved it, but I didn't want another 20. There's no one-size-fits-all solution because video games aren't one-size-fits-all. Give me an 8 hour FPS campaign and 10,000 hours in WoW, both are great.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Adults with kids, LOL, that's who.

Also anyone who played Assassin's Creed Valhalla.

I wouldn't even say that. Just anyone with responsibilities - teen or adult. I work 40 hours a week on top of going to school full time in an effort to work toward MD-PhD programs. Trying to add socializing in there as well as playing games (as it is my favorite hobby). If a game is long, it better be fucking worth the time and effort. Sadly, most of these long/bloated experiences are never worth it. They are only stretched out to "increase player engagement" metrics. Not to make a good, quality game.

 

[ByWatterson]

I wouldn't even say that. Just anyone with responsibilities - teen or adult. I work 40 hours a week on top of going to school full time in an effort to work toward MD-PhD programs. Trying to add socializing in there as well as playing games (as it is my favorite hobby). If a game is long, it better be fucking worth the time and effort. Sadly, most of these long/bloated experiences are never worth it. They are only stretched out to "increase player engagement" metrics. Not to make a good, quality game.

Yeah, for every Elden Ring, there are at least 10 AssCreeds and shitty loot grinds.

 

[Kacho]

I don’t need Dead Space to be 40 hours so it can have better engagement metrics

 

[b0uncyfr0]

'instead of wanting better made games, they want more, short, crappy games with no depth'

Incorrect, we want 6-8 hours where everything feels fresh. Most fail though.

I dont thikn youre advocating for AC Valhalla like games either - anyone who sits through that mess, has too much time on their hands.

 

[FullMetalx117]

I just want a tight experience like Bioshock again. No time to go around and explore massive barren game worlds. It's why I actually found the MW2 campaign refreshing (haven't played a cod campaign since Black Ops). That was a fun saturday roller coaster

 

[Apocryphon]

The first couple of seasons of The Office were great, but I definitely didn’t need 8 More isn’t always better.

I’ve pivoted hard to indie games this past few years. Most AAA games are full of unnecessary bloat and Ubisofts titles are amongst the worst offenders. I’ll take shorter, finely crafted experiences that come with a more attractive price tag. 20 hours is plenty, and in the case of Alien Isolation even that was too long!

Cultic episode 1 came out recently and people were complaining that it was unfinished and saying they’d rather wait until the game was done. Honestly, I thought the length of episode 1 was perfect and I was ready to move into something else by the time I was done.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Yeah, for every Elden Ring, there are at least 10 AssCreeds and shitty loot grinds.

Yep. I didn't mind hte Elden Ring length as it felt well paced. I was always expanding my repetoire, gaining new insight into the world, and moving closer to the goal. If I ever grew slightly bored of an area, it ended and I started a whole new zone.

Can't say the same for Valhalla. Or Odyssey. Or ragnarok.

 

[Majormaxxx]

13 to 14 hours is the sweet spot