Support NeoGAF

[SoraNoKuni]

If you are an adult how the f can you play so much, work, GF, exercising and cooking plus more hobbies already amount a lot of time, the main reason I can't start a JRPG or an RPG in general, and I am pissed off especially when the extra hours are cheap filler content.

 

[RSLAEV]

Who are these guy's who want shorter games?

Very few games are engrossing enough to warrant 30-60 hours of my life, but a lot of these same games would be worth playing if their length were cut in half.

 

[Killer8]

Very few people finish games. If you look at the trophy stats for some of the longer games out there, the completion percentages can fall into the single digits. It ends up being a monumental waste of developers efforts. We wait 3-5 years for a new game when they could easily cut 30-50% of the content out of the game and release more frequently. Gamers would be none the wiser, since they don't reach the end anyway, but then they would kick up a stink because number not go up.

There are also design issues with making longer games. Very often the playtime is padded out with boring shit, particularly in longer open world games. This seriously hurts pacing and stops many games from being truly interesting. It's why many AAA games aren't truly memorable any more - "gaming is le bad" - because you end up just remembering running around these elaborate $100 million sandboxes for dozens of hours. The layout of a map is not a fun replacement for a tightly designed roller coaster of set pieces.

Despite modern gaming's shortcomings, there is still a ton to play these days. Far too much, in fact. If everything is set on being 'the one' game that you devote your life to for months on end, then you won't have nearly enough time to try everything you want to. It's quite a self harming thing for the industry to do in a way, because instead of a person buying multiple games per year, they're still grinding away since 2021 on the last 100 hour epic.

Then again - very few people finish games. So people do probably end up buying multiple games per year before they've even finished the last one. The trophy stats start to make a lot of sense and everyone is walking around with a dozens (if not hundreds) long backlog.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Also want to add that people now have more entertainment options ever in history. Travel is now easier than ever in history. There's just more in life now that competes for our time. Knowing you're going to have to use 40 hours of your precious life (which really translates to a month+ gametime for most people) its difficult to have a commitment with massive games. I want to be able to try lots of different games depending on what I'm in the mood for. I don't want to get in a committed relationship with a single massive game. I won't even start that game if I know I won't finish it. And then nothing is worse than having to learn the controls/style of the gameplay again after not touching it for 2 weeks for various life reasons.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I prefer games that respect my time and don't mistake wasting my time for offering value. Quality over quantity every day of the week.

Too many open world games are filled with time wasting which adds no value. Even Hogwarts Legacy is guilty of this. But the Ubisoft games are the most notorious.

 

[GeekyDad]

...game that's entertaining the whole way through? ...

Though perhaps not communicated well, that's probably what most folks want.

 

[coffinbirth]

LOL

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

You cannot possibly be this dense.

 

[GymWolf]

If you are playing the game and want to be over as soon as possible, clearly you are not having much fun with the game to begin with.

 

[ChoosableOne]

It really depends on the game.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

LOL

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

You cannot possibly be this dense.

That’s thinking like a publisher

 

[coffinbirth]

That’s thinking like a publisher

I'm sorry, what?

 

[itshutton]

Let’s take one studio, Naughty Dog as an example. I love The Last of Us, I loved the first 3 Uncharted games.

Part 2 and Uncharted 4 started strong, but became a real slog after the first 20 hours. When you have a limited gameplay scope, a short game can be great. No matter how fun it is, doing it for 40 hours becomes overly repetitive. And that’s without considering that a 40 hour story is rarely compelling.

 

[MP!]

Its not the time ... it's the game overstaying it's welcome... almost all games I've beaten in th elast 10 years should have ended at the 75% mark... leave a good taste in my mouth and also leave me wanting more... then possibly I could go and tie up loose ends ...
But no... they trail on for 20 more hours than they should ... in uninteresting ways and become tedius. It's Bloat... not quality time.

not to mention if the game is fantastic ... I would rather play a fantastic game twice than an average game for twice as long. Like metroid dread... I beat that 4 times. ... if it was 4 times as long it would have been terrible.

 

[soulbait]

10-15 hour long games are the sweet spot for me.
20-25 hour games, for worlds I love to be in.
100+ hour epic, one per generation is fine enough for me.

Even 6-8 hour games can be great. I love the RE:Remakes due to their more shorter time. Makes them fun to play through, and then if you want more just do it again.

 

[Denton]

Yeah I like long games as long as they can actually stay interesting all the way through. Good examples of long games (100 plus hours) that actually offer quality right up until the end, and make me sad when they are over:

Witcher 3
Red Dead Redemption 2
Kingdom Come
Cyberpunk
Enderal
Archolos

But then you have shitty long games that are filled with busywork filler - and those can fuck right off with their padded length, such as Assassin's Creed Origins and all those after, or Dragon Age Inquisition or ME Andromeda.

But I would definitely prefer Witcher 3 over something 8 hours long, even if those 8 hours are great.

 

[TheGodfather07]

It depends on the game. I don't mind a long game as long as the loop is good and there isn't repetitive bloat. Assassins creed is a perfect example of repetitive bloat. If they cut the whole thing down by half it would have been a much better game. Personally I lean in the middle. 20-30 hours is good.

 

[Golgo 13]

Highly dependent on the game itself. God Of War Ragnarok was a bloated mess and way too long, even without side quests. I truly believe that game, and many other overly long games, would benefit greatly from an editors hand.

On the other side of the spectrum, games like RDR2 are 50-100 hours (depending on side quests etc) and stay absolutely interesting right until the end.

I also don’t subscribe to the “longer is better” theory of game design. I can be satisfied with a 4-8 hour game depending on the content therein. Like another poster said, there’s room for both.

 

[TonyK]

I have money not time, so I want shorter games to experience more diverse themes, gameplay genres and mechanics, etc.

 

[Aion002]

Tell me you have never finished AC Odyssey, without telling me you have never finished AC Odyssey - The Thread.

Anyways... I rather have a great time for a couple of hours and complete a cool game, than have a couple hours of fun and drop the game because of repetitiveness and never see the end of said game.

 

[TonyK]

We have VNs that can go up to 100 hours and are pure story, no game filler at all.

Honest question, are visual novels games? I ask it because for me are not games, are visual books. In the same way an audio book is not a movie.

 

[Sethbacca]

If you are playing the game and want to be over as soon as possible, clearly you are not having much fun with the game to begin with.

I think the point most people have made to this point is that they're having fun up to a point, and beyond that point it becomes a chore. The devs need to stop padding games with bullshit, and stick to an all killer no filler mentality.

 

[GymWolf]

I think the point most people have made to this point is that they're having fun up to a point, and beyond that point it becomes a chore. The devs need to stop padding games with bullshit, and stick to an all killer no filler mentality.

I think it depends on how good the core gameplay\story are.

If i'm having fun or i'm fully engaged in the narrative, i'm ok with some fillers to have just more to play.

Sure if you play stuff like AC games where combat AND narrative is meh, you get bored after 10-20 hours of doing the same thing.

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

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.

You are right but the problem is spending 40 hours on 1 game is still a big investment when you have 30 mins to an hour a day to game. Having a job, significant other or kids can really limit your free time.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

It's more like, they should make better games. I wanted Elden Ring to keep going and I spent over 50 hours on first playthrough.

Resident Evil 4 back in the day just kept going and going, but I couldn't get enough. Was so disappointed when it finally ended.

If I want a game to be shorter... why am I playing it in the first place?

 

[OZ9000]

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.

Games are too long and too bloated.

Quality > quantity.

I am a busy person with limited time. Most games feel like a damn chore nowadays.

 

[OZ9000]

I prefer to replay 10-15h focused game few times rather than open world.
The problem is that open world games are just not fan on replay. You know there is no reason to explore.
When I replay half-life 2 or uncharted 4, to this day I am finding new stuff.



I will replay souls as I always do. I dont want to replay Elden Ring

I completely agree. I love replaying good short games than wasting hours and hours on some openworld shitfest.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I don’t need every game to be 20+ hours. I don’t have the time. I did when I was a kid. Maybe I will again when my children are grown up.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I’ll add this, most games aren’t worth my time. So if it’s too long, or I’m not having a blast, then I drop it.

I will say this, growing up and having game pass/PS+ has made it easier to drop games, even after putting 10 hours into it. Recent examples are Atomic Heart and Horizon 2.

 

[Kev Kev]

I prefer shorter games with New Game+ that have interesting challenges to complete and stuff to find/unlock on multiple replays. RE2 and 3 Remake being a couple of my favorite short games with great replay value.

 

[UnNamed]

I used to play games that took 2 hours to beat and still they took weeks or months to finish and months for replaybilty.
Now those days are gone because people think you have to play hours and hours collecting things and doing the same missions over and over to complete the game. Gaming is like a work nowadays.

 

[Filben]

Enjoying games isn't math facts and a bag of chips.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

I'm sorry, what?

That by making the game longer you don’t have to buy other games, you can just keep playing that one game.
It’s how a publisher thinks: make sure you create enough content so we can market it as a 100+ hour game, even if it means hitting the ctrl-c/ctrl-v. So much value for your money!

GaaS is the next step in that thinking. Why ever buy another game if you can just keep playing ours forever?

In other words: you think like a publisher.
You are a publisher.

I’ll just call you publisher from now on, publisher.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Honest question, are visual novels games? I ask it because for me are not games, are visual books. In the same way an audio book is not a movie.

matter of opinion really. Some prefer to call VNs with linear stories and no player input 'sound novels' or 'kinect novels'.

However there's still plenty of VNs with game mechanics and story affected by player decisions, to varying degrees. Its a bit harder to deny those as games.

 

[Elitro]

Majority of games are filled with boring filler anyway to pad time.

This.

There isn't a direct correlation between the cost and the size. I would rather pay less for a game with no filler, even if i had to pay 20% less for 50% less content.

And even great games could benefit from having some content trimmed. I loved Elden Ring, but i ended up rushing the last part because my playthrough was already over 120h.

 

[Leonidas]

3-8 hours is a great length when your backlog is in the 1000s.

 

[coffinbirth]

That by making the game longer you don’t have to buy other games, you can just keep playing that one game.
It’s how a publisher thinks: make sure you create enough content so we can market it as a 100+ hour game, even if it means hitting the ctrl-c/ctrl-v. So much value for your money!

GaaS is the next step in that thinking. Why ever buy another game if you can just keep playing ours forever?

In other words: you think like a publisher.
You are a publisher.

I’ll just call you publisher from now on, publisher.

LMAO
I'm literally arguing the opposite.
I'm saying his argument is dumb, because OBVIOUSLY 8 games are better than 1 bloated piece of shit.

I'll just call you illiterate from now on, illiterate.

 

[Sethbacca]

I used to play games that took 2 hours to beat and still they took weeks or months to finish and months for replaybilty.
Now those days are gone because people think you have to play hours and hours collecting things and doing the same missions over and over to complete the game. Gaming is like a work nowadays.

I swear there was an article in either EGM or Gamepro back when the OG Xbox was getting ready to drop warning exactly what microtransactions and achievements would lead to, and we're living it. I really wish I could find that article, because it was 20+ years ahead of its time.

 

[Tg89]

the real problem is the people that won't buy a game unless it's 50+ hours. those people are the reason we're stuck with all these garbage ass padded open world games.

the reality is most studios nowadays can't make a good 20 hour game let alone 50+.

 

[SF Kosmo]

Being married with kids reframes your idea of free time.

I just don't have that much time to play anymore, and 40+ hour games might take me months to geth through. I like something a little more manageable.

 

[Drizzlehell]

15-20 hours is usually my breaking point unless I really get into it. Like, yeah man, there's just so much more crap coming out these days that I can barely keep up as it is, even though I literally play TWICE as much as I used to because i just have more free time on my hands. Either the game respects my time, or I won't bother playing it because there's like a dozen more waiting in queue and vying for my attention.

 

[Astral Dog]

Quality not Quantity

I prefer shorter replayable games because most of the open world games i find lame , because they make them bloated with filler and slow ass pacing

You can balance somewhere between

For example one of my favorite games last generation is Resident Evil 7, i also far prefer Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3 over Elden Ring

 

[kutthoat5150]

Married and working full time, my days of playing single player games for 20+ hours are long over. Last one I played was RDR2 and as good as that game was, I was ready for it to be over half way through. I still have Cyberpunk 2077 on my list which I may make an exception for

 

[kurisu_1974]

I don't know but I'm 70 hours into Ishin and still have to start the game.

 

[Kamina]

I’ve been playing Skyrim for close to 4000 hours, so you know how i voted.

 

[Efren is G.O.A.T.]

I totally agree with the OP!

1 hour for 1 dollar baby!

I really like long games as well but I can understand the bloat factor. That being said, there never was a single game that I liked where I said "I was ready for it to be over half way through".

 

[killatopak]

You’re missing a few more words in that sentence. I wish games were shorter if the bulk of the game is just padding. It’s about quality of the time spent playing. You don’t see people complaining how massive Elden Ring is.

Also most of the complaints come from games with pacing issues. Look at RE games for instance. Very short games but very replayable that make play time add up.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Give me a quality experience that is varied and fun throughout over some boring mess with tons of grind and repetitiveness. Good and bad games exist on both sides of the spectrum to be sure, but games are definitely leaning into excess bloat and grind (which is unfortunate IMO).

 

[Pelao]

For me, the sweet spot is 25 hours. I have no problem with a game being shorter than that, but don't expect me to pay 60 bucks for it, much less 70, unless it's highly replayable. If I enjoy a game too much, then I have no problem with it lasting longer than that, for example Elden Ring and Breath of the Wild.

 

[93xfan]

I’m here to say I love Okami!!

 

[Jack Videogames]

Honest question, are visual novels games? I ask it because for me are not games, are visual books. In the same way an audio book is not a movie.

This my friend is something we VN fans have been asking ourselves for ages. The answer is a resounding "kinda?". Some VNs are undeniably games. Those with action segments, strategy or stat raising. Like Digimon Survive, Danganronpa or Long Live the Queen.

Then you have those that are purely reading, but keep track of relationship or death flags and have different endings... in my opinion those are games, just like Choose your own adventure books are a kind of toy. Not everybody agrees, but most VN fans do. Games like Muv-Luv, The House in Fata Morgana, Clannad... Most dating sims fit this bill, too.

Finally there's "kinetic" novels, that is, VNs with no choices or inconsequential choices, and a single ending. For me those are basically glorified manga or "bookified" anime. Some of the "best" in the genre are like this (Most of the "When They Cry" series, for example) but they're not really for me.

Sorry for the impromptu lecture. Carry on with the thread (A vote for shorter games, I like JRPGs too but honestly I'm 40 and I can play like 2h a day...)