-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
-
Hey Guest. Check out the Game of the Year Results Thread. Thanks for being part of this year's festivities!
"I wish games were shorter." Who are these people?!
- Thread starter Men_in_Boxes
- Start date
DaGwaphics
Member
But no sane person has ever, or will ever, make that argument to begin with. It's a complete strawman. The comments about game length are always in relation to games with excessive bloat or grind, no one is complaining about mind blowing 40hr or 500hr experiences.
Whether or not it is realistically possible to consistently create 40hr experiences that don't feel bloated to the end user is another debate.
I've got like 600+hrs in KSP and 400+ in AoE3, LOL so games do come along that some players will gladly put a ton of time into.
Ive never played a 40hr game that was awesome from beginning to end. For me thats some unicorn shit.
lame gag1990
Member
I prefer short games personally. If it's good, I'll replay it. Maybe multiple times. If it's trash, I have to painstakingly sit there and finish it and if it's long, it'll be a miserable experience.
Men_in_Boxes
Member
My comment was preposterous because it was the opposite of what the other member said.
Fun 40 hour experiences will be made when the market demands it. The market won't demand it because the business model has trained consumers to be satisfied with short, one and done, styrofoam games.
I've never played a great SP game in the last 30 years...that's some unicorn ****.
Personal preferences aren't on trial here. Get with the program C CGNoire !
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
The objective facts on percentages of players that actually finish games' stories/campaigns are staggering; purchased or "free" sub games. Lower the dev costs and time to develop, remove artificial fillers and deliver games players actually want to finish.
Hint: Way less than 50% of gamers finish games.
Source
Source
Hint: Way less than 50% of gamers finish games.
| Game: | Percentage of players who finished the game: |
| Crash Bandicoot | 12,6% |
| Dead Cells | 15% |
| Red Dead Redemption II | 22% |
| Assassin’s Creed Odyssey | 24,6% |
| Persona 5 | 34,8% |
| Far Cry 5 | 35,8% |
| Darksiders III | 37,9% |
| Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End | 41,7% |
| Yakuza Kiwami 2 | 49,1% |
| Spider-Man | 50,3% |
| God of War | 53,6% |
| Detroit: Become Human | 61,7% |
Source
| Game | Tutorial completed | Story completed |
| Arkham Asylum | 69.2 | 30.7 |
| Arkham City | 84.9 | 40.8 |
| Arkham Origins | 81.8 | 40 |
| Arkham Knight | 88 | 38.6 |
| CoD MW2 | 64.6 | 48.5 |
| CoD MW3 | 85.6 | 55.1 |
| CoD BlOps | 69.9 | 42.3 |
| CoD WWII | 78.3 | 44.9 |
| Sniper Elite 4 | 73.3 | 29.5 |
| Dark Souls 3 | 92.9 | 23.2 |
| Dishonored | 85.4 | 41.1 |
| Dishonored 2 | 91.1 | 37.9 |
| Hitman | 57.4 | 22.5 |
| Hitman 2 | 42.5 | 16 |
| Overcooked | 79.9 | 8 |
| Overcooked 2 | 86 | 19.8 |
| Shadow of Mordor | 88.5 | 36.3 |
| Shadow of War | 65.7 | 14.3 |
| Wolfenstein: New Order | 76 | 46.8 |
| Wolfenstein: Old Blood | 94 | 57.4 |
| Wolfenstein: New Colossus | 93.9 | 50.6 |
| Wolfenstein: Youngblood | 77.6 | 28.4 |
Source
Spyxos
Member
I think the publisher doesn't care if you play through it. The main thing is that you bought it. Or they could unload it on Ps Plus or Gamepass.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
And with that line of thinking they'd also care less about spending huge budgets and time or care in developing the story/campaign.
I'll take something like Titanfall 2 campaign over the latest Ass Creed filler. That's not to say I don't enjoy some good end game content or updates/DLC etc. I think overall I'd prefer really well crafted, high value for money 5-15 hour campaigns and a 1-2 year DLC planned cycle as part of the original dev budget.
For example seeing Halo Infinite 18 months post launch and cancelled story updates is terrible. Cut the fat, savour the flavour and keep us coming back for more.
Another example, look at Red Dead II with less than 1 in 4 players even finishing the game. Pathetic and I feel sorry for the devs hard work not being played through.
hinch7
Member
I prefer more streamlined games that respect my time. Long are the days I go for repetitive grinds or want unnecessarily bloat to pad out the meat of the content(s). Which rules out a lot of open world and RPG's.
Say, by the time I reach the 20h mark in long games, my interests starts to wain if the gameplay or story doesn't keep me invested in it. Which is why I'm a little put off some of newer titles that are 30hr+.
Say, by the time I reach the 20h mark in long games, my interests starts to wain if the gameplay or story doesn't keep me invested in it. Which is why I'm a little put off some of newer titles that are 30hr+.
Last edited:
Satansblade
Member
Not being very good killed it.
Satansblade
Member
See, I rarely replay games except for those I truly love (FF4,5,6,7,9, Xenogears, Chrono Trigger, Bloodborne, Dark Souls, Elden Ring etc). Far too many games to replay mid games i've already beaten.
Satansblade
Member
I absolutely love Elden Ring, but it's still full of bloat and reused bosses that didn't need to be there.
Satansblade
Member
Oh, you're just going all in on speaking nonsense, got it.
No great SP games in 30 years? Literally one of the dumbest comments I've seen on this forum.
Satansblade
Member
less than 1 in 4 finished RD2 because it was too long with too much filler and bloat, which is exactly why your OP rings so false to most people.
Also, typical horrible Rockstar controls.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Agreed, I tried RD2 via Gamepass and while I admire the production quality, body of work and characters those quests, slowness and shitty controls had me turn the game off within the first 1 to 2 hours. I never turned it back on. Similar shit happened for me after the first act of Witcher 3.
*not my OP and I too want shorter higher quality games not filler.
I would rather 6 diverse games with hit and miss across them so I can experience varied art, characters, stories, environments, action, strategy etc. One studio making a super great 40 hour game is still one studio's vision. I'll take 6 unique games with razor focus instead thanks. The current age of Indie/AA games banging out hits now is a thing of beauty. The AAA/AAAA 5-7+ years cycle of cookie cutter shite can die in a hot fire thanks, irrespective of how great the graphics might look.
Last edited:
Satansblade
Member
my bad, I misread the name when I replied to you, thought you were the OP.
fran.fernandez
Member
9 - 12 hours for me is the sweet spot. Everything else side quest.
There's a balance, as with everything.
I don't know exactly why it should be, but there's definitely a point when story driven games just feel artificially extended and bloated. TLOU2 was DEFINITELY too long, for example. I'm playing HFW right now and that's the same - I'd say they're both about twice as long as they need to be.
For me something like Spider-man felt about perfect. I'd prefer they just made shorter games but cut a year off development time: that's surely an underappreciated factor in how crazy long dev cycles have got these days.
I don't know exactly why it should be, but there's definitely a point when story driven games just feel artificially extended and bloated. TLOU2 was DEFINITELY too long, for example. I'm playing HFW right now and that's the same - I'd say they're both about twice as long as they need to be.
For me something like Spider-man felt about perfect. I'd prefer they just made shorter games but cut a year off development time: that's surely an underappreciated factor in how crazy long dev cycles have got these days.
LavitzSlambert
Member
It really depends. There are sometimes I can get lost for hundreds of hours and enjoy it, but there are often times where I just want to finish a game in a day or weekend and enjoy it the entire time, so good it makes me want to revisit in the future. Like I play RE4 every year or two, and that’s not something I’d be interested in if it was longer than it is.
Well, about 20h for the main story path should normally be more than enough (main story, I don't have something against 80+ hours filled with interesting but optional Sidequest).
If the game is longer it tends to drag the story to long and the player has already forgotten all the details on the way.
E.g. AC Valhalla. Much to long stretched story. To many things you had to do that have absolutely no impact on the world or story. The first few story hours were good, the last few story hours were good, but the 60-70 hours in between ....
And it always depends on the game. There are enough stories that are okay to be told in 6-8 hours. But there are far to many walking simulators that just stretch the playtime by walking to the next objective.
If the game is longer it tends to drag the story to long and the player has already forgotten all the details on the way.
E.g. AC Valhalla. Much to long stretched story. To many things you had to do that have absolutely no impact on the world or story. The first few story hours were good, the last few story hours were good, but the 60-70 hours in between ....
And it always depends on the game. There are enough stories that are okay to be told in 6-8 hours. But there are far to many walking simulators that just stretch the playtime by walking to the next objective.
Last edited:
Balducci30
Member
Depends on the game, but I’m not trying to spend 40 hours to get to the end of a single story every time. If the game has optional content after fine, but 40 hours is way too much time to dedicate to every game just to move through the plot.
DelireMan7
Member
I think shorter games are a nice thing in an era where most big games are 30+ hours.
I usually don't mind long games but since few months I have a bit a fatigue of them and look for shorter ones.
When you don't have as much time as you want to play, it's nice to play shorter games. It allows you to finish several games instead of just 1.
I see the argument of the price but I couldn't never truly get the price/playtime thing. If a game is great, it doesn't matter if it's short. Same can be said for a long one but you're more likely to get fatigue of it, adding that it's difficult to make a game consistently great for 30+ hours.
Anyway I buy 99% of my games long after their release, and mostly second hand, so I never pay the full price.
I think having both short and long games is a win for everybody.
I usually don't mind long games but since few months I have a bit a fatigue of them and look for shorter ones.
When you don't have as much time as you want to play, it's nice to play shorter games. It allows you to finish several games instead of just 1.
I see the argument of the price but I couldn't never truly get the price/playtime thing. If a game is great, it doesn't matter if it's short. Same can be said for a long one but you're more likely to get fatigue of it, adding that it's difficult to make a game consistently great for 30+ hours.
Anyway I buy 99% of my games long after their release, and mostly second hand, so I never pay the full price.
I think having both short and long games is a win for everybody.
Last edited:
Hayabusa83
Member
I enjoy both long games and short games. Obviously I prefer a longer experience, especially if the gameplay loop is enjoyable. I have put in almost 250 hours into Mechwarrior 5 and have enjoyed every minute of it. Conversely, there can be game mechanics in longer and larger games that are unenjoyable and tedious, some of the fetch quests found in Assassins Creed Odyssey come to mind. Origins was that perfect length.
When it comes to First Person Shooters, I prefer 7-10 hour linear and action packed experiences. I still play Modern Warfare 3 primarily because the campaign was absolutely crazy.
Replay value is such an important principle for me as a "gamer". I miss the days when we got games that included single player and coop campaigns, a variety of multiplayer options, and horde modes all packed into one sweet package. I was in gaming heaven from 2007 - 2013, Modern Warfare Trilogy, Gears of War 2 and 3, Killzone 2 and 3, Max Payne 3, etc.
When it comes to First Person Shooters, I prefer 7-10 hour linear and action packed experiences. I still play Modern Warfare 3 primarily because the campaign was absolutely crazy.
Replay value is such an important principle for me as a "gamer". I miss the days when we got games that included single player and coop campaigns, a variety of multiplayer options, and horde modes all packed into one sweet package. I was in gaming heaven from 2007 - 2013, Modern Warfare Trilogy, Gears of War 2 and 3, Killzone 2 and 3, Max Payne 3, etc.
rofif
Gold Member
That’s why each of mass effect games end at roughly 22h mark.
Imagine how much better forbidden west would be if it was not 40 hours of bloat.
Last edited:
GooseMan69
Member
Me. I want short, replayable games with intelligent level design and pacing. Sadly that is a lost art today.
If the rolling gameplay loop is quality I'll play a game for 1000 hours. If it's not quality, I'll play it till I'm bored of it. Game length doesn't matter.
Story heavy games over 15-20 hours get tiresome though. But, ultimately if the gameplay sits well with me I can largely ignore that.
Story heavy games over 15-20 hours get tiresome though. But, ultimately if the gameplay sits well with me I can largely ignore that.
Games of Today
Member
Saying it's not very good is obviously subjective. I don't know what people were expecting.
But I got a cinematic third person shooter where I get to play as one of the sickest characters ever created, in an incredible alternate history world with characters like Nicola Tesla and the use of the East India Company as the main villain to keep me grounded in that reality.
The guns were fucking awesome, the writing was outstanding and I got to be a part of the Knights of the Round Table in 1886, fighting along side 600 year old men.
The biggest problem with the game was the recuse of the werewolf boss fight and the stealth kills being a QTE.
And of course I'm not going to argue against that the game could have been longer because I would have loved for it to keep going. But as massive fan of Uncharted 1's six hour campaign, I'm perfectly fine with a well executed, short and sweet cinematic experience.
Last edited:
Games of Today
Member
Yep, 2007 to around 2012 was the peak of gaming. I think another peak will be coming in the near future but it's still not back there yet in my opinion.
The MW trilogy is awesome. I can't tell you how many times I played the nuke mission in CoD 4 because of how cinematic it was getting on and off that Chinook. But the EMP over D.C. and the subsequent assault on Whiskey Hotel in MW2 is also an unreal experience. New York is also really sick in MW3 but outside of that and the few Africa missions I don't hold it's campaign as high as the other two.
And man Killzone 2, what a time to be alive. That campaign is insane and the multiplayer basically just looks like the campaign but with actual players, that's how good the animations were. Killzone 3 was sick too but not as great as KZ2.
hinch7
Member
Yeah its the upper limit to what I find reasonable. Helps that the story is pretty great and lore so expansive and interesting. Then there's replay value as well in decisions with branching stories so each playthrough can/will be different.
Ngl, didn't much like Forbidden West or the series in general. Heard the story in the sequel isn't quite as good, so adding more to it doesn't mean better.
I felt the same for GoW Ragnarok. If they cut out some of the unnessesary stuff/scenes in there it would've made it a much better game. Whereas the 2018 release the pacing was so much better and older games (even more so). Similar thing to the TLOU part 2. Way too much bloat, for me.
Last edited:
Rhazer Fusion
Member
I prefer shorter, more linear games honestly, but I don’t mind some longer games as well. Not helping that there are so many games available and coming out to the point where it gets overwhelming trying to play and finish them all. One big problem for me is some really lengthy games are bloated and eventually wear out their welcome after a prolonged period of time. The gameplay has to be quite good typically to keep people’s interest and even then some gamers could just quit out of boredom. My favorite analogy for this is, would people enjoy 6 to 8 hours movies over 2 to 3 hour movies. Imo, larger or longer doesn’t equal better.
Last edited:
crackajack
Member
Practically no game is even a good 10 hour experience. Writing in games almost always sucks and often is only acceptable cause we are in it and it is not passive movie. But since a couple of years people seem to be convinced that piling shit over that improves anything. Quite the opposite. Almost every game I played in the past months could have been better if split into two or more games or just have less "content", focus on something, anything, and not try to be everything at once. Avengers could have been several sort of nice origins games, but everything needed to be crammed into one giant, still shallow, game and every individuality of its characters was forced into one repetitive gameplay loop. Every open world game would be better as a linear more guided experience instead of random nonsense on every corner like RPGs had forever. Fetch me 5 herbs was oh so great there already... 10 max 20 hours is what decently capable writers reasonable can do, anything else would need Cage+Kojima+Stephen King+GRR Martin working on this one project at their A-game. We get fan fiction writers, if we are lucky the main writer is above that, but the average side quest BS is probably written by some low payed intern or whatever. Nice that they have a job and they might get better later, but damn it is a waste of everyone else's time to create content around that level of writing and also our time asking us to endure all the unecessary filler.
Men_in_Boxes
Member
A lot of people are saying ~10 - 15 hours is the ideal length...but how did you come up with that number?
Why isn't 4 - 6 hours ideal? Or 2 - 3 hours?
Why isn't 4 - 6 hours ideal? Or 2 - 3 hours?
rofif
Gold Member
Exactly!
2018 gow is still a bit too bit but it is way more focused and less bloated than ragnarok )which I liked a lot). I know which gow I will replay.
If you cut out a lot of the open world game, Forbidden West is a 15-20 hour game. That is if you mainline it. Thats not bad.
Balducci30
Member
Because that’s the amount of time people enjoy spending with one game. 40 hrs is also arbitrary. That’s like saying why is is a movie typically 2 hours - or why don’t all TV shows go on forever. If it’s a story based piece of media there is only so long you can stretch that before you inevitably start adding unnecessary shit - no matter how good the narrative is.
rofif
Gold Member
Forbidden west is almost not possible to finish even on easy if you avoid every side stuff.
The level requirement for next missions is like +3 to 5... you die in 1 hit.
You really have to grind this game a bit. I did a lot of stuff and had to turn down to easy for last few missions because it was fucking sponge bob out there with the enemies since I was 2 levels underleveled
Balducci30
Member
For real I couldn’t get through it I just got super bored because it had all these menial tasks that I needed to do to move forward in the narrative. Which wasn’t that interesting from the start
Men_in_Boxes
Member
40 hours is definitely just as arbitrary as 10 - 15, no question.
Wanting more (quality) for your dollar is not as universal as I anticipated.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Dollars = time is the equation this market fucked itself and consumers with.
When budgets exploded and indies entered the fray, more content was needed to justify the full market price of AAA. The Order 1886 is one of the games that sealed the deal, full price was deemed unacceptable for that kind of length and AAA content has ballooned ever since because if your $70, 30-minute credits reel game doesn’t last 15 hours at the very least people will ask for your head.
blacktout
Member
This. I have no problem with short games, but they should be priced accordingly.
Men_in_Boxes
Member
The market was ****ed when we accepted giving publishers full asking price without playing the game, and with little ability to refund.
Buying is rewarded when playing should be rewarded.
The market is slowly but surely un****ing itself thanks to F2P.
Balducci30
Member
Well there’s a couple things at play. More doesn’t equal better. In fact making more of something often hurts the overall experience - it’s why editing and cuts exist. You can ruin a great story by stretching it past its breaking point. That’s not a fault of the story not being good enough, but that it’s just too long. This happens with anything, books, games, movies - anything.
There are some stories that take a long time to tell, and that CAN work, but it’s not feasible for everything.
Now if you’re talking a non-narrative game, or an optional post game section that’s more just gameplay and mini-narratives in the world, or multiplayer - those are areas you can really allow to be endless if you wanted.
Usually a story starts out with a set up, a goal, and an inciting event that drives the rest of the story - if I’m not even close to figuring out the mystery, or getting towards the confrontation I’ve been working towards the whole game by 10 hours in I’m gonna start to get frustrated, if there’s too many fake outs and false reveals (think lost the tv show, you find out the mystery, but then it turns out that doesn’t matter and another mystery replaces it) - I’m gonna get frustrated.
This doesn’t really apply to games where the narrative isn’t very important to the experience though.
It’s kinda like why not make all games open world with tons of shit to do and places to go - you could do that - but you often lose something in the process. A tightly designed experience has its benefits.
sobaka770
Member
OP got it partially right - the games need to be hitting that sweet spot on the curve between game length and gameplay interest.
Modern game design (for most popular AAA Action RPGs at least) actually has 2 interrelated issues that feed into each other:
- Games are too long and get boring towards the end.
- Game mechanics are neutered to allow more immediate gameplay choices.
Case in point: Horizon, God of War, Assassin's Creed - all of these RPG games are affected.
Ragnarok is 60-80 hours (too long really) and b they end of the game you have enough XP to be good at everything. This means that in a single playthrough the players will see everything the game has to offer. Now you read the same phrase with ominous intonation: in a single playthrough you will see EVERYTHING THE GAME HAS TO OFFER. There is no Axe or Chains build, no real customisation or commitment at all - you have to use all the tools and you will be upgrading everything and have enough xp to do everything, switch armor and abilities on the fly that lead to marginally different gameplay but R1 can still carry you through the whole game.
Because of that you cannot have different OP effects for each weapon - they all blend together and gameplay becomes stale half-way through. Same for Horizon and all latest Assassin's Creed games. The devs know that not a lot of people will replay an 80 hour game so they give players all the tools neutering the progression and diversification instead focusing on "in-the moment" diversity. And without commitment to a build - there is a lack of ownership and a dilution of ability power. I.e. there is no stealth build in AC really but you "can" choose to approach each situation in stealth mode vs going full berserk. . Because the game has to make all options equally viable, even a full stealth build will do fine in fighting for "average consumer" to be happy. Moreover you'll have enough points to max it out in first third of the game and will be branching out into other fields anyway! With that the feeling of a stealthy assassin is lost. And vice versa - the fighting build will do just fine if you want to stealth it out - you don't have to put any points in stealth to kill the whole enemy base from a bush.
Devs today are told that making longer games is great and that people must not miss anything in the game. That's why we get games that overlong and with characters who have very guided progression that everyone will achieve. My Eivor or Kratos is roughly the same as anyone elses. Did you notice how weapon upgrades for Kratos are kind of side-grades? Like all those cool moves are not even better than just spamming R1 in most cases? How Runic or Cooldown builds are just marginally different with most of the work done by dodging, parrying and light attack anyway?
Compare that to something old-school like Dragon Age where you choose a class and you commit from the get-go. You can have a very different Warden and origin combo. That game help up for 80 hours (as most CRPGs do) because sheer depth of options for each character and enemy is enough to make each encounter unique. For actiony stuff we get today - 30 hours is the limit. That's the length to completely finish MAss Effect 2 and I'd rather replay that game 10 times before even thinking about going back to God of War or Assassin's Creed. Because I saw everything these games have to offer there is nothing for me to experience there anymore.
Modern game design (for most popular AAA Action RPGs at least) actually has 2 interrelated issues that feed into each other:
- Games are too long and get boring towards the end.
- Game mechanics are neutered to allow more immediate gameplay choices.
Case in point: Horizon, God of War, Assassin's Creed - all of these RPG games are affected.
Ragnarok is 60-80 hours (too long really) and b they end of the game you have enough XP to be good at everything. This means that in a single playthrough the players will see everything the game has to offer. Now you read the same phrase with ominous intonation: in a single playthrough you will see EVERYTHING THE GAME HAS TO OFFER. There is no Axe or Chains build, no real customisation or commitment at all - you have to use all the tools and you will be upgrading everything and have enough xp to do everything, switch armor and abilities on the fly that lead to marginally different gameplay but R1 can still carry you through the whole game.
Because of that you cannot have different OP effects for each weapon - they all blend together and gameplay becomes stale half-way through. Same for Horizon and all latest Assassin's Creed games. The devs know that not a lot of people will replay an 80 hour game so they give players all the tools neutering the progression and diversification instead focusing on "in-the moment" diversity. And without commitment to a build - there is a lack of ownership and a dilution of ability power. I.e. there is no stealth build in AC really but you "can" choose to approach each situation in stealth mode vs going full berserk. . Because the game has to make all options equally viable, even a full stealth build will do fine in fighting for "average consumer" to be happy. Moreover you'll have enough points to max it out in first third of the game and will be branching out into other fields anyway! With that the feeling of a stealthy assassin is lost. And vice versa - the fighting build will do just fine if you want to stealth it out - you don't have to put any points in stealth to kill the whole enemy base from a bush.
Devs today are told that making longer games is great and that people must not miss anything in the game. That's why we get games that overlong and with characters who have very guided progression that everyone will achieve. My Eivor or Kratos is roughly the same as anyone elses. Did you notice how weapon upgrades for Kratos are kind of side-grades? Like all those cool moves are not even better than just spamming R1 in most cases? How Runic or Cooldown builds are just marginally different with most of the work done by dodging, parrying and light attack anyway?
Compare that to something old-school like Dragon Age where you choose a class and you commit from the get-go. You can have a very different Warden and origin combo. That game help up for 80 hours (as most CRPGs do) because sheer depth of options for each character and enemy is enough to make each encounter unique. For actiony stuff we get today - 30 hours is the limit. That's the length to completely finish MAss Effect 2 and I'd rather replay that game 10 times before even thinking about going back to God of War or Assassin's Creed. Because I saw everything these games have to offer there is nothing for me to experience there anymore.
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes
Member
You bring up some good points.
The only area I'd push back on is 10 - 15 hours is the appropriate length for a good story. I think 99.9% of videogame stories are garbage
Netflix produces higher quality stories and that service sucks (mostly).
If you care about stories in games, shouldn't you be wanting 3 - 6 hour games instead? God of War Ragnarok has plenty of story padding that people seem fine with for whatever reason.
Same guys who liked knack and Ratchet, can't accept their excuses, all they do if they are about to like something as soon they discover its lengthy story they forget about it and later on they talk about the ps6 release date, are they f serious? they should stop the nonsense and play the f games , jeez, it's too soon talk about ps6.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked