Support NeoGAF

[Neo_game]

I don't play long games anymore, if a game is 30+ hours I usually avoid it.

Same here. Except for racing sims. Though if a game I really like, I replay it couple of times. I do not play online games and usually buy very few games. Most games on sale or a year later which comes with complete edition.

 

[Kuranghi]

Obviously quality over quantity, but then if it's something I love and I'm hooked I never feel a game overstays its welcome no matter how long it is. I played RDR2 campaign for almost 300 hours and never thought I want it to end.
That's also a scenario when I become a total OCD wall kissing completionist, play it slow taking it all in, reading all the in-game books etc, so if a game campaign lasts 100hrs on average that translates to 150hrs for me.

The weird thing is those mid-tier games I immediately check out from if I know they're just too long. I could never play something live AC Odyssey or Valhaala, or Watch Dogs. I guess they're OK but I just don't like Ubisoft open-world formula enough to get involved, and taking a bite casually for a couple of hours is just kind of missing the point. I'd gladly give them a shot if they had 10-20hrs long campaigns that wouldn't require such a commitment.
Maybe I'll finally try one of them when it lands on gamepass but I'm not in a hurry.

My issue with post-Unity AC games is that after 15-20 hours I was bored of what I was doing and started to find making the combat fun (ie min-maxing upgrades and doing all the filler stuff to get XP for the skill tree) was a chore, meanwhile with the old games I was like your example of RDR 2, I would be 15-20 hours in and then it would open up and I'd be fully hooked and want to devour every ounce of the game world just because I was so immersed in it.

The bugs of AC (and FC) games used to be a funny bonus on top of me enjoying the game the underlying game but now I feel like they really ruin the experience for me and make it into too much of farce.

 

[Kenpachii]

Tell me about it, I yearn for the days of single player games that took between 10 to 20 hours at most.



One of the most insane posts I have ever read in my life. When having both time and money goes wrong.

Your standards imply you need videogames to act as substitutes for your life.

Video games are my hobby, so is triathlon which involves swimming / running / biking i also sit in a group that organises one of the bigger races in my country which also actually cost me money and doesn't earn me anything but its the love for the sport. I spend anywhere from 10-20k on just that. As it involves lots of material / extra food / travel / races ( race can cost me 1k easily ) "and renting roads for a day isn't cheap" ).
video games are cheap for me, i spend ton of hours in games but also out of those games while they still run on my PC with inflates numbers, which simple is going to happen in mmo's anyway. for example 3k hours in bdo is probably in reality 1k, as i leave it online when i am not at my PC for afk fishing. Wow is probably really 3-5k hours. That game was basically my breath and butter when i was in high school / college / university and even after it whenever i had free time or when i couldn't train because of injury's / weather as basically everybody played it at the time even my boss at my job next towards school. Big lan party's also helped raking up many gaming hours that shit was so fun back in the day.

Tons of games i play run on my main screen while i do work on the other screen, its very unusual for me to play games non stop behind eachother, i mostly move away from my PC for example after half a hour of playing or a hour and come back half a hour later which also rakes up time.

Other things i do is besides doing work at the same time while waiting on a queue for a dungeon or something on a second screen. Is play multiple games at the same time on different screens. Its not unusual i play a single player game on one screen and play a mmo on another screen. And do work on a 3rd screen. i am kinda a multitasker like that. so a lot of times in mmo's rake up by me playing multiple ones at the same time. Fishing in bdo, while raiding in wow for example and in death spots i either do some work related stuff or watch a movie.

That's why i like grindy longer games, i can fit them really well into my schedule and playstyle.

So while for example 3k + 3k + 5k looks like a lot of time, most of that time is probably interweaved with eachother and besides that i already play games for about close to 3 decades now which makes it look like pretty high but the reality is with free time its easy to get that high over such a period of time.

 

[Ballthyrm]

My standards are simple.

1-10 hours = failure, your game has no content even if i got it for free.
10-50 hours = demo, wouldn't spend a cent on it.
100+ hours = cracker of a game, but could be interesting if priced right and the content of the game is amazing ( like walking throgh ac origin was incredible to look at the architecture in that time period really well done ), its acceptable then.
500+ hours = successful game but light on content ( mostly builders / bf games / rts )
1000+ hours = your game ia a success in my book, still not sure if i will buy your next product. ( eso/ff14 )
2000+ hours incredible game will buy absolutely again the next one
3000+ hours totally worth it no matter the price ( wow, probably spend 5-10 grand on it )

In short games need hours for me to care about.

Playing the same game for that long would bore me to death.

different strokes for different folks , I guess

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

With the abundance of new game releases nowadays and less time to play them all, I generally prefer shorter games. I like to play a lot of different games with my free time. I suppose if you rarely buy games though, that they would usually appreciate lengthier games though.

Imo, length does not equal quality like so many think. Give a me an amazing experience for 6 to 10 hours over an average experience that lasts 100 hours probably filled with filler, pointless side quests and tedium. One thing I noticed with very long games is they usually start to feel really repetitive to me after awhile unless their gameplay is great.

Unfortunately, the majority of gamers think much longer games are mandatory which generally forces developers to polute their games with bloat and filler to satiate gamers. Of course longer length can be advantageous to some games and genres, but I don’t think it needs to be a requirement for all games.

 

[Loope]

Quality has nothing to do with game length. And playing a lot of shorter games means you are also prioritizing quantity, just in the number of games you play instead of the length of each game. Check mate.

 

[Kataploom]

If you look at the completion rate for most AAA games, it makes no sense why developers are doubling down on bloating their games with boring crap just to pad out that playtime.

Give me shorter, higher quality games.

Cause they're are selling "acceleration packs" or whatever Ubisoft is putting in their games these days...

I'd prefer shorter games, if I'm gonna be over 40 years on anything non-Nintendo or JRPG it gotta be so fucking good I won't feel like playing something else after 20 hours. I liked the Mass Effect approach where most of the content was optional, even tho I got all crew members on ME2 cause the game was very good, but after 35 hours even tho I wanted to make other things, I felt it was already enough so I went to last mission and finished it.

 

[DelireMan7]

Weird title. Shorter games doesn't mean necessarily quality and longer game only quantity.

But also what is a short game ? For me up to 20/25h, a game is short. Then 30-40h is what I would called "medium length" game. Long games are stuff around 50h+

Overall I don't have a preference over long or short games. It depends on my mood and what I've played lately. Going for several long games (50/60h) back to back can be too much sometimes and I specifically choose a shorter game to play before jumping into other long one.

But in general, the playtime is not a decisive criteria for me.

 

[arvfab]

It's easy for me:

A quality game, is a game which - no matter how long it took - I would like to continue to play/get more of after beating it.

If I can't wait to finally beat the game or worse, if I feel like finishing the game is not worth it, then it's not a quality game.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Shorter games are better for me. I started playing persona 5 recently but have completely dropped it because it seems so long! some of it is such a drag too. It depends on the game though. I spent like 250 hours on witcher 3 but never got bored of it once. I even wished there was more but like I said, shorter games are easier to get into.

 

[Hypereides]

Depends mostly on how they're designed imo. Both long and short can be cool. It all comes down to how well crafted the gameplay and what the intent behind the game design is, personally. The length doesn't matter as long as the game has the right kind of depth.

E.g. both a short, arcadey and long, intricate, complicated experience can be great. Most modern AAA games really suffer from this inane idea that they have to be everything and appeal to everyone at the same time. It makes them really unfocused. Such games like the latest Assassin's creed, like you namedropped, that become tedious because they're poorly designed.

 

[phoebe2021]

Sign up for ThisWin[/URL] to enjoy the most exciting live baccarat, blackjack, roulette, the most professional and beautiful online croupiers are waiting for you in ThisWin
ThisWin[/URL] accepts money without commission, pays without delay.

 

[Rock And Roll]

I'll take a tight 8-10 hour experience over a drawn out 40-50 bloated game any day. I have the same views on music and film. Give me a solid 40 minute album over a double album crammed with experimental filler, or a 90 minute movie over a 3 hour snorefest. Length does not make something better. If you can make a game 50+ hours and it's engaging the whole way through, I'm definitely down to play it. But those seem to be rare.

 

[Wildebeest]

I don't know why a game that gets old in a couple of hours, and you are begging for it to be over, is considered "quality".

 

[Chukhopops]

I think length is a requirement sometimes, take Red Dead Redemption 2 for example, the story would not have the same impact if it was shorter. It wouldn’t be possible to show the evolution of the gang as members die, change, create new alliances, etc. Dutch only makes sense in the context of the world around him changing, he wouldn’t be a good « villain » otherwise.

Persona 4 Golden also only works because you have a long time to get used to the characters, with the story taking time to detail day to day interactions.

Assassins Creed is the worst possible example of a long game because it’s a small gameplay loop repeated over a long game (although some AC games had good stories like Origins or Odyssey), without it the games would be significantly shorter.

So in short the quantity vs quality is a false premise, I’d rather 70 hours of P4G / P3P than 10 hours of Uncharted 4.

 

[DarkTom]

A long game needs to be really really good or I won't play it. I just do not have the time.
Last one was Breath of the Wild, it took me 8 months to beat it.
I like my games to be quite short so I can experience something else. I'm lucky to love platformers for that.
Most games I play are shorter than 8 hours.

I just remembered I got the route E ending of Nier Automata last year. It took me 4 months but this one worthed it too.

 

[MikeM]

Shorter games with quality/varied gameplay > Long games with repetitive gameplay, fetch quests that provide no real value, same 3 attacks over and over again, huge map with nothing interesting going on.