Support NeoGAF

[Coffee Dog]

Metal Gear Rising was 6 hours long (at most) and I've beaten it 5 times. I'm probably going to be replaying this game every now and then until I die.

Bioshock Infinite was padded to shit and should have been half as long, and it's a fifteen hour game that I'm never going to play again.

Choice is easy.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Classic GOATs. Short and sweet.

 

[Mineshaft_Gap]

My issue isn't with short games, it's with unsatisfying resolutions. Sequel bait trash.

 

[AdmiralMikey]

For me, pacing is far more important than length. I'd rather be fully engaged for 5 hours rather than putzing along bored for a 50 hour adventure.

Now, if there are games out there who can handle both length and pacing well, than that's what I'm all about. For example, I'm about 50 hours into Dragon Age: Inquisition right now, and I really like the game, but I've hit the wall of enjoyment regarding wandering around and doing sidequests. I just kind of want it to be over. On the other hand, it took me all of 85 hours to get through Persona 4 Golden, and I was fully engaged throughout the entire experience.

Keep the story moving, keep the gameplay fun and drive me to want to do whatever's next, and I'll be happy to play your game for a handful, or for dozens of hours.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

As this topic has become more transparently directly about The Order, I think it is important to distinguish the difference between shortness of interactivity versus shortness of minimum critical path completion.

Making a game that is primarily composed of cutscenes and QTEs that cannot be skipped (and therefore setting a 'time floor') is hugely different to making a game that skillful play can reduce the average playtime in (eg something like sequence breaking)

For me, pacing is far more important than length. I'd rather be fully engaged for 5 hours rather than putzing along bored for a 50 hour adventure.

This is a really good point.

 

[gelf]

This assumes that a shorter game is inherently a tighter experience, more well put together experience. Often times, a 20 hour game seems like a tighter experience than a shorter game.

That said, who cares, buy what you want.

Its not a guarantee of a better game by any means as there are a lot of variables in making a good game. I'd say the idea is that all other things being equal with the same dev team, budget and man hours a shorter game should have more detail and be more fine tuned for enjoyment from moment to moment then a longer game as there has simply been more attention devoted to whats there.

Now it doesn't always work out that way but that's the idea.

 

[BumRush]

It's one of the reasons I'm most excited for the order. I like my longer games to be RPGs. Platformers, action titles, shooters, etc are best when they don't wear out their welcome.

 

[UberTag]

Short games are perfectly fine if they're replayable, offer gameplay variety and extensive challenge (difficulty trophies with improved AI at harder levels made replaying The Last of Us a treat).

Ditto if a game offers a unique, fresh and wholly memorable experience with amazingly well-realized characters that you want to journey with again and again.

In fact, I welcome them.

 

[Maxim726X]

I agree in principle, OP... But here's the issue: When we all know the game is 5 hours (with no multi) it will flood the used game market fast. Why would I spend 60 on a game I could get in a few months for 20?

Times have changed... This isn't the SNES era where paying 70 for a 5 hour game is acceptable. It's a really hard sell for a generation used to buying entire bundles of games for 5 dollars, and crazy steam sales and digital sales on PSN and the like.

I know I'll play it when it's below 20, which honestly won't take long.

 

[Mr_L]

If it's good who cares?

Yes. It's the only thing that actually matters. Whether it's a short experience or a long one, if it's good enough to keep you playing then the time you spent on it is irrelevant.

 

[Fbh]

I don't have kids and I don't have any issues with short games. Hell, some of my favorite games of the last few years have been rather short.

And I'm sure that if I ever have a Kid I'll probably find even more appreciation in short games.


Still won't spend $60 on them

 

[manueldelalas]

Classic GOATs. Short and sweet.

So you finished Megaman X, X2 and X3 in less than 5 hours the first time you played them? I've never known anyone that could.

This is false equivalence, because to finish those games, the general gamer needs a lot of hours to master stages; which is not the case of The Order, AT ALL. The average gamer will need 10 or 15 hours to finish each of those games.

You can also mention Ghouls'n Ghosts, Contra, or pretty much any arcade game ever made; Super Metroid, Sonic, etc.

I played Volgarr the Viking for 20 hours before I could finish it, and now I can finish in 35 minutes, it doesn't mean that the game is 35 minutes long.

 

[kingkitty]

It was a different time back then.

Today, ICO would have been a 20 dollar game.

 

[Sai-kun]

short games marketed at AAA prices are trash and i would never pay $60 for anything shorter than 8 hours.

anything under 8 hours is worth $40 or less to me, honestly.

 

[watership]

I love short games. Especially really simple, focused games. No fat, no extra multiplayer thrown for the wrong reasons. Not everything has to he 10 hours plus.

I won't pay 70 dollars Canadian for a short game tho. I'll wait for a sale. Just can't justify that unless it's a favorite series.

 

[More_Badass]

It was a different time back then.

Today, ICO would have been a 20 dollar game.

Which when you think about it, is pretty disappointing. We really value these kinds of experiences that little nowadays?

 

[Supermanisdead]

Metal Gear Rising and Vanquish are both hardcore action games meant for re-playability and challenging yourself to achieve higher rankings. On top of that, they have bonus features like challenge maps. The Order is an extremely linear, extremely scripted game with no bonus features, no multiplayer, no new game+, nothing that would ever be considered incentive for a replay. Honestly, I'm sorry for anyone who preordered this game.

 

[autoduelist]

This same barrage of negative attention regarding length happened to Vanquish when it was released. Vanquish ended up being amazing, with a huge amount of replayability.

 

[More_Badass]

Metal Gear Rising and Vanquish are both hardcore action games meant for re-playability and challenging yourself to achieve higher rankings. On top of that, they have bonus features like challenge maps. The Order is an extremely linear, extremely scripted game with no bonus features, no multiplayer, no new game+, nothing that would ever be considered incentive for a replay. Honestly, I'm sorry for anyone who preordered this game.

And again, replay value doesn't just mean those things. Uncharted games are relatively linear scripted games, and yet I've replayed them multiple times, replayed my favorite levels and moments

Like a good movie, it's something you can enjoy multiple times and still enjoy.

Replay value doesn't always mean new game plus, arcade modes, and whatnot. Something it comes down to a memorable experience you want to play again and again. Brothers, Limbo, Journey, Portal 2, etc

Replay value is not always some concrete quantifiable thing you can rate on a scale or list in bullet points, but instead comes down to personal preference and enjoyment.

Arcade modes and those kinds of things are fun, but they're not the only things that constitute replay value

 

[Messofanego]

https://twitter.com/RaveofRavendale/status/567621323732819969

It makes sense, really. All that filler and padding is to satisfy those gamers who need 10+ hours of content to feel good about their purchase. After all, developers are scared of their games not being bought for full price on day 1 so might as well feature creep to avoid used sales or rentals.

Back then, Disney wanted to avoid rentals so they told developers like Westmood to make games like Lion King and Aladdin super hard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kILeyo1iv0A#t=22m39s

That old strategy can't work anymore since difficulty settings are a thing.

 

[manzo]

As a father of 2 daughters (6 months and 2,5 years old), with a job and other hobbies, my younger days of playing 50-hour JRPGs are over.

For example, it took me 4 months to finish Alien Isolation and I pretty much rushed trough it. Now I'm trying to start Dragons Dogma DA. Even though I love the game, it saddens me that I'll probably finish the game around December.

As long as the game is good, I don't care if it's 2 hours. The shorter and tighter the experience, the better.

I understand when you're young and don't have much disposable income. You want to get as much out of the game you bought for 60 bucks, but when you become a parent, you might want tighter and shorter experiences.

 

[carlsojo]

Yeah in high school through college I wanted the LONGEST games only. I hated when games were short because I finished them so quickly and I didn't have much money so it felt like a waste to pay full price. Nowadays I rarely finish games at all just from not having time or being too tired after work. If I can finish The Order I'll be pretty happy honestly and feel like my purchase is justified.

 

[GeordieMark]

Game length is irrelevant really. The only thing that matters is whether it is fun and whether you feel like you have had value for money. It is possible to find both in a game 30 minutes long, or a game 100+ hours long.

Games that are long for the sake of it, and full of filler content (looking at you Ubisoft!) don't necessarily make for better games.

As this thread is quite obviously inspired by The Order 1886, I will say that in that particular case, the issue isn't the length of the game, rather how much of that time is actually spent playing. I have a limited amount of time to play games and I prefer to use that time playing, rather than watching

 

[AzureTranquility95]

Just finished a playthrough of WarioWare Smooth Moves. Had just as much fun in the 1.5 hours it took to clear all the characters as I did in the 10+ hours it took me to 100% Banjo-Tooie.

 

[Ochi]

The keyword in the title is "tighter".

A game that is not well designed or intriguing will always be unpleasant to play regardless of length, though bad games that are short fall into a weird place where the bad taste of the game might be forgiven if only due to the rapidity with which you can resolve the experience, but also may cause one to question the dollar to entertainment value ratio of the product just purchased.

 

[Nemmy]

Short games are fine when they have lots of replay value. Platinum's games are a perfect example. Most of them have finely tuned mechanics, higher difficulties that had actual effort put into them with remixed enemy encounters, bonus challenge modes, and scoring systems that encourage mastery. You could easily make a 6 hour long game last for a 100 hours because there's so much to do.

Then there are short games that have no mechanical depth or replay value whatsoever. Those games are perfect bargain bin or rental fodder.

Oh look, someone already said what I came here to post.

I actually like short games as long as I really feel they're polished. I always think that a game should only be as long as to contain every interesting bit of content the developers could think of - so make it short, but fun, intense, polished, with no padding or stretched-out bits.
BUT give me a reason to get back to it once I'm done playing.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

The problem is of course, is these short AAA games are not just short on length but also short on quality. Of course, there is nothing wrong with short games. Some of the greatest of all time are 10 hours or less. Vanquish, REmake, God of War, Sin and Punishment 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Mega Man 3, Super Metroid, Metal Gear Solid... I could go on. If The Order is up to snuff with those games, then bring it on.

 

[Taruranto]

ICO was a game-game, it didn't have QTE and log-ass cut-scene, you were constantly playing, moving around solving puzzles and whatnot.

 

[The Lamonster]

Arkham Asylum is a perfect game and a good example for this thread.

also: Shadow Complex

 

[score01]

I don't mind playing games that are shorter but it is harder to justify the full $60 price tag. Journey was amazing but who would have paid $60 for it?

I fully intend to get the order - when it's cheaper though.

 

[gelf]

The problem is of course, is these short AAA games are not just short on length but also short on quality.

Well yes a poor game is hardly going to be improved just by increasing the runtime so its pretty irrelevant to the debate. A bad game is a bad game regardless. If you hate The Order a few more hours of it isn't going to change your mind.