Support NeoGAF

[Balducci30]

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.

I think with games it’s a balance - most game stories aren’t great but they’ve gotten better over the years - however when you add the gameplay element and make that part really fun you can extend how long it takes to tell the story - so by 10-15 hours you’ll be good. Games are often more like a season of television or a miniseries - like a bit more episodic in their storytelling than a movie.

And god of war had waaaay too much padding - it was a detriment to the experience for sure.

 

[Satansblade]

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.

Mass Effect 1&2 are damn near perfect games to me, there's very few worlds I've enjoyed playing more, and the story was incredible. (And frankly, so was 3, until the last hour or so).
Still my favourite game trilogy.

 

[Satansblade]

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.

Ok, while I agree with a lot of what you said here, in what world is GoW:Ragnarok 80 hours? It's 30-35 hours (which was still too long, imo, but I still love that game)

 

[Dust-by-Monday]

Shorter games means:

Shorter dev time
Quality over quantity
No repetitive side mission fetch quests
More memorable experience
More replay ability since you don’t have to slog through 40 more hours of crap

 

[Sethbacca]

More replay ability since you don’t have to slog through 40 more hours of crap

Controversial opinion maybe, but replayability shouldn't even be a factor in most games outside of RPGs (or other games) where choices actually affect the story, roguelikes, or arcade style games. Linear stories shouldn't even be graded on whether or not they're replayable, just whether they're good enough to be finished even once. We needed games to be replayable as kids because we didn't buy our own games and needed to make the ones we had last forever, but as adults we have literally 10s of thousands of games available to us, and most of us have massive backlogs.

Most games, just like movies and books, just shouldn't be designed with replayability in mind since I'm guessing only a small fraction of players will ever even bother doing so. I'd rather all the effort go into making something that is absolutely amazing on one playthrough rather than catering to a small subset of hardcore gamers that have 1000 hours to play the same shit over and over again. Then if you want to play it again, it's because you loved the story enough to do so.

 

[K2D]

Probably mentioned two dozen times already, but:

Too much padding ~ game's to long.

I'm looking at certain numbered, installent series (x titles every so many years).

 

[HazukiSensei]

Depends, right now we're getting alot of bloat and generic looter algorithmic game play, with equally as algorithmic quests.

God of War ragnarok vs God of War 2 is a great example of this. There was a time where where direction and pacing had more value even if it was shorter. Whereas Ragnarok is a symptom of a beloved series following a trend/current mentality that being a story driven action game isn't enough, and making everything an "RPG" is "real hard-core gaming."

Now then you have the Witcher 3 which actually painstakingly made sure each quest and side activity was hand written and nothing was a fetch quest, and had full engrossing storylines and creativity.

But not every game dev is willing to take the time to do that, hence why you'll see more breath of the wild emulators than Witcher 3 emulators because the Witcher 3 you have to alotttt of writing and directing, not just a sandbox with puzzles, enemies and loot.

 

[HazukiSensei]

Controversial opinion maybe, but replayability shouldn't even be a factor in most games outside of RPGs (or other games) where choices actually affect the story, roguelikes, or arcade style games. Linear stories shouldn't even be graded on whether or not they're replayable, just whether they're good enough to be finished even once. We needed games to be replayable as kids because we didn't buy our own games and needed to make the ones we had last forever, but as adults we have literally 10s of thousands of games available to us, and most of us have massive backlogs.

Most games, just like movies and books, just shouldn't be designed with replayability in mind since I'm guessing only a small fraction of players will ever even bother doing so. I'd rather all the effort go into making something that is absolutely amazing on one playthrough rather than catering to a small subset of hardcore gamers that have 1000 hours to play the same shit over and over again. Then if you want to play it again, it's because you loved the story enough to do so.

Eh if something is good you replay it. In the same way you rewatch a great film. You don't just watch a film you love one time and that's it. That's borderline soulless and I would say that person doesn't really like movies as much as they think they do. Same goes for games.

I don't think any short game is designed around replayability in mind, they are designed with PACING in mind and thus are highly replayable as a byproduct. A la uncharted 2, God of War, metal gear solid, etc.

Its actually the western/FROM/Ubisoft rpg's with new game plus and looter mechanics, and some different classes that actually are designed with replay in mind more so than the older shorter games. And pacing and narrative usually suffer because of it.

 

[angrod14]

I wouldn't say I want them "shorter", but "leaner". There's a lot of bloat in most of current releases, and it's put there in order to give players a false sense of having greater content at disposal. The reality is much of the side content (or even main content) is complete repetitive grinding trash that eats away your time and doesnt give you any substancial experience.

That's why I get so happy when I see releases like Dead Space Remake, GOW Ragnarok, TLOU, RE do well. That's gaming at its purest.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

I kind of wish games were shorter. As an adult, I don't really have much time for gaming. Maybe 1 or 2 hours a day. That means a 100+ hour game will take me over 3 months to play. And often times a lot of that content is filler or low effort quality, particularly for RPGs.

 

[WoJ]

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?

There are some banger 2-3 or 4-6 hour experiences out there. For me personally 10 to 15 hours is where I personally feel the sweet spot is between the amount of money spent on a full price game, getting the experience of the game and what it offers, and not having my time wasted.

There are exceptions to this, but generally speaking I have found this to be true.

 

[Lupin3]

A Short Hike had the perfect length. Fuck I love short games. They should make them shorter.

 

[HazukiSensei]

I wouldn't say I want them "shorter", but "leaner". There's a lot of bloat in most of current releases, and it's put there in order to give players a false sense of having greater content at disposal. The reality is much of the side content (or even main content) is complete repetitive grinding trash that eats away your time and doesnt give you any substancial experience.

That's why I get so happy when I see releases like Dead Space Remake, GOW Ragnarok, TLOU, RE do well. That's gaming at its purest.

Really I feel like GoW ragnarok and TLOU are a representation of devs who once "got it" Now following trends and losing their way....

Then again I'm 32, so if you're in your 20's I can see how you feel that way. Somebody say...23, was only 5 years old when God of War came out lol sigh...

 

[Sethbacca]

Eh if something is good you replay it. I

Agree with what you’ve said, I think I was just unclear in my point. My point was that replayability or lack thereof plays a large part in a lot of reviews, and it really shouldn’t be a factor for most games.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

Replayability isn't a thing I really care about anymore. I don't even have time to play new games anymore, much less replay old ones.