20-hour games are "short"?

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Well, this is obviously going to be different for other people, but quite frankly I think I would get extremely bored after about the 60-80 hour mark, because how much more of the world would actually be unique and different compared to everything I've seen up to that point? I'm not the type of person who explores every single nook and cranny, which I suppose is where the problem really lies.

(Non-hypothetically speaking, I got bored of New Vegas after about two hours, because I didn't particularly care for the mechanics and in that short amount of time I had run into three or four pretty serious bugs that just killed any enjoyment I had been having.)

That's definitely true that no game is going to be well-suited to all players. The point I was getting at though is that the content is there. If you don't want to invest the time to explore and side-quest and whatnot in a game like Fallout: New Vegas, you don't have to. You can stick to the main story and be done with it in 20 hours or less. But there's still enough stuff to do in the game that a single playthrough could potentially be over 100 hours. Most games these days don't have all of that extra stuff.

To go with the cereal analogy (still hungry), you may have spent that money on a single box of Cereal, finished it, and been happy with your purchase. Meanwhile, I spent the same amount of money, got three times as much, and was happy with it. Even if I got sick of Lucky Charms after the second box, at the end of the day, I still got twice as much delicious cereal for my dollar even if I never bothered to eat the third box. And that third box will still be there later, should I change my mind and want to go back to it.

I'm a big fan of getting the most for my money, regardless of what I'm buying.

It's more about the journey than the destination for me, too. I meant that question literally. In Assassin's Creed, there's very little traveling time that's more than, literally, just running around. And as I stated in another post, while I think the free-running is fun in Assassin's Creed, I don't feel that by itself, it's enough to hold up the rest of the games. Maybe other people disagree.

When I was at college I picked up a copy of Dead Rising for my X-Box 360. I played through the game, had a blast with it. I felt that rescuing the survivors and figuring out what happened were awesome, and that the zombie killing was mostly just filler between objectives.

One of my roommates asked to borrow the game when I was done, and he also had a blast with it. I was watching him play while working on an assignment for class, and I noticed something kinda odd about how he was doing it. He completely ignored all of the survivors, and didn't bother with the story at all. He spent the entire 72 hours until rescue running around the mall beating zombies with stuffed teddy bears, chucking handfuls of diamonds at them, shooting them with squirt guns, laughing his ass off as they clumsily fell down stairs.

Content that I honestly saw as filler was what he ended up focusing on entirely. So to each their own, I guess. At the end of the day all that really matters is that the person is having fun I suppose.

I'm going to be honest here, I think that if Crysis 2 had had a 30-hour campaign, I would've been sick of it halfway through.

Like your experience with Fallout: New Vegas, Crysis 2 is a game that I quit after about two hours. I loved the hell out of the first game and its expansion. Those games were a blast to me. When I got to Crysis 2, sure, things were prettier... but pretty much everywhere I looked I saw things that had been cut down, simplified, and "streamlined" to the point where it felt like I was wasting my time. I never beat Crysis 2. I have friends who did, though, and judging by what they've told me, I probably would have been highly disappointed with its shortness anyway since I would have gotten fewer hours out of it for my dollar than the first game and a less enjoyable gameplay experience.

Games like Deus Ex can subsist on a longer story because the actual gameplay calls for more than just "Shoot guy in face", but for games like Resistance, Serious Sam, Killzone, Crysis, Halo, and even Borderlands, there isn't really a lot of depth behind the mechanics that would call for them to have RPG-length stories without getting monotonously repetitive.

I'm a hardcore fan of the original Deus Ex. It's always my #1 whenever someone asks for my top 5 or 10 or whatever game lists. I'm also a pretty big fan of shooters, it being the genre that I pretty much exclusively played until Deus Ex came along.

Deus Ex isn't strictly an FPS. It's an RPG/FPS hybrid, and one that you can tell the FPS component got far less focus during development. I'd never lump Deus Ex into the same genre of games as Resistance, Serious Sam, or Killzone because "shooting guy in face" is the definition of what a true "pure" FPS is all about. Games like Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Battlefield... despite their "realistic" trappings, they're in the same group as Serious Sam - not Deus Ex. Their campaigns are entirely about "shooting guys in the face." The only gameplay variety comes in "shooting guys in the face with mounted gun in a rails section" or "shooting guys in the face with a story-mandated different gun." Considering we tended to get more length for our dollar in those older "pure" FPS titles than in the current ones, yeah, I'd say the current ones are definitely shorter.

If you feel like they're still worth the price, that's great - but I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that they are objectively shorter games, not worse games in any way. Whether you get bored with them or find them repetitive or whatever is kinda irrelevant, since that's not really the point. The point is length, and yeah, they've gotten shorter.

 

[Jason Rayes]

I played all three back to back when 3 came out and it took me about 240 hours. That wasn't "standard" as you probably guessed, plus I had all the DLC this time.

DLC would probably had 10 or so hours overall (mabye more) not to mention all that side stuff in ME1 which even I didnt bother with

also ME3 was probably thr shortest wasnt it? I think it was about 35 hours for me

Actually Lair of the Shadow Broker and Overlord gave me about 15 hours between them in ME 2, solid DLC. I did do a lot of dicking around on this playthrough though, completed every side quest, visited every planet etc. Yeah ME 3 was definitely the shortest of the games, I knocked it off in about 50 hours but a good 10 of that was in multiplayer. There aren't many side quests and the ones there are are mostly "Scan the planet, go back and talk to the person who mentioned it" variety. Even with my OCD I didn't finish all of them

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

The problem isn't the length of the games, it's with how easy they are these days. And honestly, it's the consumer's fault more than the developer's.

oh bugger off...seriously, its a chicken or the egg thing

No, it really isn't. Developers saw how gamers were reacting to extremely hard games (avoiding them), so they reacted accordingly. It's simple cause and effect, not nearly the existential debate to which you want to compare it.

See, here's the thing; games used to be short. SHORT. We're talking you can beat them in under 30 minutes short; maybe under an hour if it's a longer game. The catch is that the games were also legendarily hard; hard to where even to this day people can brag about being able to beat the first Castlevania; 25 years after it was released!

to me that doesnt sound like a good thing....sound more frustrating than fun, while I like challenge I also like to have a big old adventure...like assasins creed or mass effect, I like story

Then the gaming scene of the 80's and 90's was not for you; not unless you were a big RPG fan, anyway. Even then there wasn't any guarantee of a story (or even a good one). Back then, the story in (nearly) every game was basically "those are the bad guys, that's all you need to worry about, now go". Yeah, the manuals sometimes gave a little more detail - or in the case of arcades there was maybe a story that you could maybe hear through word of mouth - but the games themselves were always just straight to the action.

But that's neither here nor there. Your initial reaction is the bigger tell of why games are the way they are today. People no longer play games to challenge themselves. Any death in a game is seen more as a nuisance to be avoided rather than a lesson to be learned, so any game which has the player dying a lot is often going to be dubbed as "more frustrating than fun".

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

So either way you slice it, today is a very sad time for single player content in the Triple-A market. If you want a good single player game, stick to the indie market, or play yesterday's Triple-A games.

Sleeping Dogs, Dishonored, Borderlands 2, Hitman, Far-Cry 3, The Walking Dead, Mass Effect 3...

What more do you want?

So you have to list... (Edit: In no particular order, mind)

a GTA clone that's barely deserved mention before this moment
a game that was designed for multiplayer and just lets you play alone if you want
a game that made headlines for disappointing its fanbase
a game that's barely been out for more than a couple weeks
and a game that's so new I honestly had to look it up because I didn't even know if it was out yet (it's been out for a few days, apparently)
Oh, and a game that, while not quite indie, isn't a Triple-A title...

... That's how desperate you were for games to try and disprove that statement about the state of single player games in the Triple-A market today. Just saying.

As for Dishonored, it's called the exception that proves the rule [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule]. So yeah, great. You got one non-multiplayer-based game that's generally considered to be a great game for this entire year, and a couple newer titles that may or may not stand up to the test of time after the initial release hype dies down. So to answer your question about what more I want... how about more than a few good games per year that I don't need a group of people to enjoy?

But I guess that's what the indie market is for.

 

[jbm1986]

Its at least partially related to pricing.

Taking some games I've played this year.

Dishonored cost 70 odd bucks and can be largely taken down in 6 hours (or less). Some folks will replay it to hit other paths, but many not.

AC3 costs the same amount, and hovers in around 8-10ish hours.

Skyrim's still at the same price point, and is probably going to eat up at least 20, even taking it pretty head on.

Hell Yeah only lasts 3-4, but also only charges 12 bucks.


It's not necessarily that the games are too short, its that if they start dipping below 7 hours and don't adjust their pricing, they're becoming a very dubious investment, effectively costing more then a theater ticket, or (as 10/hour is min wage here) requiring you to actually outwork the time spent playing the game to pay for it.

I agree with this mostly but you can also wait for the price to drop or get it through a sale on steam. You'd get the same game, same length of gameplay, and a cheaper price. Also, if you wait long enough, some games even get released as GOTY editions with all the DLC (or most of it) included.

 

[Dr Pussymagnet]

I don't understand people who try to measure an abstract concept like enjoyment by time spent.

I've played 3-5 hour games that I've gained more enjoyment out of than even the longest RPG slogs. I wish games were shorter.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

short game are not a problem the only problem that exists with them is when there too expensive
some long games are great and others are artificially lengthen games that should have been a much shorter games.
whether 20 hours counts a short game depend on the game(the type of game,its quality, and does it drag on too long) and the price.
by type game is mean for example 3 hour rpg is laughable.

that being said i don't recommend getting most AAA games at full price because there usually too short to justify the price.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

There have always been short games. The original Sonic the Hedgehog can be speedrun in less than an hour. There have also been long games, such as Final Fantasy. And this trend has continued to this day, where the only difference, strictly speaking, is two things: People who grew up playing games like Banjo-Kazooie (itself only something like a five-hour game depending on how well you know where everything is)

You don't base game length off of a speed run. Halo 3 took me less than 3 hours to complete on normal without trying to complete it in three hours that is a short game. An RPG that is less than 20 hours is a short RPG.

OT: Yes 20 hour RPGs are short but that said there is no point in having a 40 hour RPG that isn't fun. Even then it depends on depends on how the game feels as others have said. Halo 1 not short Halo 3 short as fuck and took me less than 3 hours on Normal first time through and around 3 - 3 and 1/2 on Hardened. No just because a game is 60 hours doesn't mean you have to finish it to get your money/fun worth. So I don't accept the argument that this is done to make games more accessible to college students/workers given that most people can't even finish the appetisers we have out now. Given that I am a college student doing a course with a relatively high work load I would still feel robbed if I got Halo 3 new and blasted through it in 3 hours.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

Games seem about the same. Based on PSX being 'old', that is. Action games have always been 10-15 hours first time through. JRPGs were pretty stable around 40 hours, I can't really compare this to today.

Being the end of the year, with no releases to look forward to and a number of holiday sales, I find myself buying more and more of the critically acclaimed games of the past few years. However, as my free time is pretty limited I find more often than not I'm on message boards asking how long a game is because I want to beat it and set it aside, just so I can play the next game all while credibly talking about the game I have actually finished.

Dishonored was a bit short, but I'm rationalizing that by setting it in it's own niche as a sort of exhibition rather than a full on action game. I think if I rushed Bioshock I could beat it in a similar time frame, and the games are arguably similar.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Really, the problem is that games are often both short and incredibly linear. In extreme cases, the problem that people often arrive at is they don't think that the value they received was sufficient to justify the cost they were asked to pay. For example, if there was no multiplayer component in Black Ops, most would not consider the 60 dollar price tag justifiable.

To the larger debate of game length, simply consider that short is a relative term of length. The first person shooter genre for example used to produce games that took dozens of hours to play through the first time. Even RPG's have had their content culled. Sure, Skyrim can be played indefinitely but in terms of true story you'll find the game can be fully completed inside of 20 - 30 hours - sufficient to finish the main quest, the civil war quest, and all faction quests. By contrast, Baldur's Gate 2 required about 200 hours to play from start to finish. Thus even though Skyrim is a relatively long game by modern standards, within the genre itself it could easily be considered short.

 

[MikeTheMugger]

It also depends on just how much time you want to invest in a game. I know it's possible to blast through FFVII in 17 hours, but you'd really be missing a great game. Genre has a big part in this as well. If you know you're not the kind of person who wants to put 50+ hours into a game then you probably have no business playing Star Ocean in the first place. And while I love FPS games to death, I also realize that these titles tend to be in the 30 hour range, on the high end.

I'm noticing a trend in responses here that is a bit discouraging. The phrase "padded out for length" keeps popping up and it is driving my insane. Just because a game has an average playthrough length of 60 hours does not mean the game was padded. I would like to assume that everyone knows what padded means, but for those of you who do not: a game that is lengthened or extended by artificial means. Seems redundant, but by artificial I mean that a padded game has purposely included time consuming elements that have no real purpose in the game other than to make it longer. I've seen a great deal of games that are long, not because they are padded, but because the have actual content and depth. Admittedly, I'm seeing less and less of these games released each year.

 

[Panorama]

Zeno clash, i played it though once thus far, 2.5-3 hours that is it, but its really good fun, but i admit i only payed i think 69p. But if were talking AAA i can't think of an fps that takes 20 hours to complete, RPG'S mass effect 2 for me was 30 hours that was with the dlc, and skyrim not sure that counts well over im like 150 hours or so and still going.

 

[Smeggs]

If it has no replay value, or provides no incentive for replays, and is twenty hours, it is short.

Dishonored did an okay job of this, being able to replay to try different paths and approaches, and Stealth really strings out the game time.

Fallout 3, even with its pathetically small campaign, did a good job, because it has a shitload of content to find other than the main story.

 

[MikeTheMugger]

If it has no replay value, or provides no incentive for replays, and is twenty hours, it is short.

Dishonored did an okay job of this, being able to replay to try different paths and approaches, and Stealth really strings out the game time.

Fallout 3, even with its pathetically small campaign, did a good job, because it has a shitload of content to find other than the main story.

Replay value seems to be an unsung hero, but I think its just as important as an initial play. Want to see how well those four weapons you never got around to upgrading your first play of Deadspace frag enemies? After beating the game you get to do just that! Yay for weapons unlocks! Seriously, a game that has replay value is a beautiful thing indeed.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I think Darksiders 2 is a good lesson on game length. Just because it took me ages to finish the main campaign, it didn't make it better, it was just padded.

 

[tautologico]

The fixation on price versus length seems a bit silly to me. People say they want to play 60 hours if the game cost $60, so how much do you spend going to the theater? Including transportation costs (gas, parking, etc) and food? Most movies are about 2h or shorter, with few exceptions, so if you spend even $20 going to the theater you are already paying $10 per hour, but a game must "cost" only $1 per hour? Why?

 

[epidemia]

I base my xbox game purchases based on the idea that 60 bucks is a lot of money and I cant go around throwing money away on a game Ill finish in one night and never play again. Ive noticed that all of these "games are NOT too short!" threads usually state that some people have jobs and lifes etc etc, dont have enough free time as they used to etc etc. So basically what you are saying is short games are for people who have better things to do than play games. So the inevitable question is why dont you just stop buying them so maybe us shut ins can get a decent value for our money?

 

[Mert Matthews]

Personally i think the games' length should be optional just like in skyrim,fallout 3,new vegas or 4X titles if you want to just review the game you can complete it in 10 hours maybe less. But some people miss the point here. Length is good if the game is fun and keeps itself interesting then length becomes a factor for example i had 155 hours on skyrim before my saves got corrupted and 224 on fallout new vegas (Took me over 6 months) but 8 on darksiders 2 and i don't even intend to return because its a boring sequence of jumping puzzles.

Imo a long game is a game that can last over 150 hours 20 hours would is criminally short meaning developers couldn't find ways to keep players interested for that long.Some padding elements can be the effort you spend to get to the interesting parts such as traveling in skyrim and fallout (Never used fast travel). So scattering this "padding" and content is vital to keep audience interested and ofcourse having an engaging world is also vital or replayability can be the way but no matter it is there are ways to keep games interesting and long just don't lower your standards. Do not forget 1st thing is the quality of gameplay, story, presentation such as we see in the walking dead, it ended where it should because it was story driven and episodic so there are some games that should last long and some games that shouldn't, game length is not universal not even can be categorised in genre.

 

[Zeldias]

What I think a lot of folks don't realize is that games felt longer when we were kids because we were worse at them and lacked experience. I can play through Chrono Trigger in like 11 hours. The first few times it took me at least 30 hours or so. Now I don't talk to unessential NPCs and avoid a host of other things.

 

[Musette]

I am of the opinion that the length of a game should be determined by how long is needed to fully flesh out a game without resorting to padding. I personally poured 220 hours into my first run of Persona 4, and really enjoyed it. However, I also put at most 3 hours into my first run of Journey and had no problems with the length. There is frustration to be had when a game is too brief to really establish itself, but I find that I have more problems with games overstaying their welcome instead. It's the difference between eating one too few or one too many cookies; too few and you're still hungry/craving sweets, too many and you start to feel sick.