Well, a game that is too long sends a message or gets to a point but then it keeps going even though it has nothing else to offer. I actually find a lot of games are too long, but I also find I'm too picky.
Can a game be too long?
- Thread starter zega frega omega
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I beat it in 5 days, it's all about immersion man.One Hit Noob said:
If you spread it over a month's time you'll lose the connection to the events and things will be much less meaningful than they would if you had everything that happened before fresh in your memory.
FFXIII is all about the story, if you love the story you'll love the game. Oh and I played the Japanese import, maybe the rather pathetic dub ruined it in part for you. For me it was like the perfect mix of anime and FF.
When a game seems too long it's simply badly done, mostly they run out of content then patch in some random sh*t to prolong it, mostly they do it for a better Metacritic score.
The most shameless game that does this is Far Cry 2, they had practically no content apart from the environment so they just repeated the same missions, and once you get half way through they reset the game and you haveto repeat all of it again, that was truly a jaw dropping moment.
Alan Wake has the same issue, what they had was very good, then they padded it out with forest fights trying to make it a 20h game just on that, and eventually all that is good is drowned out by the same damn fights.
The most shameless game that does this is Far Cry 2, they had practically no content apart from the environment so they just repeated the same missions, and once you get half way through they reset the game and you haveto repeat all of it again, that was truly a jaw dropping moment.
Alan Wake has the same issue, what they had was very good, then they padded it out with forest fights trying to make it a 20h game just on that, and eventually all that is good is drowned out by the same damn fights.
Yeah, you do lose a sense of urgancy when you can put the main quest off and do other shit.Mr.Pandah said:
I think a game like Fallout could do good if there wasnt an actual main story, just a guy/girl leaves a vault because of some ritual deal, and from there what-have-you.
I would doubt that.It just seems to Rennfest to resemble real.This coming from someone who loves Renaissance FestivalsHankMan said:
It sounds like you're just talking about open world games in general. Personally, if I'm interested in the story (like I was in RDR) then I don't get distracted by the random shit that the game had to offer. I would just jump on my horse and book it to the next mission. Basically what I'm saying is that it helps to create your own sense of urgency, even if the game doesn't offer one.Mr.Pandah said:
Trust me, the urgency was there for the first portion of the game, but when I hit Mexico...the game fell apart for me. Just couldn't be bothered anymore. Fallout on the other hand, just completely falls on its face in terms of trying to get you to do anything massively important in regards to the main storyline.Colonel Alzheimer said:
A game is too long when you just want it to end, and that means it's a mediocre game. If you want to continue playing a game, whether it's an hour in, or 50 hours in, it's a good game and the only "long" game is the one that's overstayed it's welcome to the point of exhausting
Fallout New Vegas seems bloody damn long, and it gets painfully boring if you try to do the story and side missions in moderation. The side missions are often just go here, kill him, or go here, talk to him and if the latter was the case it would always turn into, go here, kill him. I'm not saying Fallout New Vegas is bad, but with what we were introduced in Fallout 3, it just doesn't seem as good, Fallout New Vegas just seems quite bland and fruitless in efforts to please, although it can be fun at good times.
I think a game could be too long if it was repetitive, hard and spanned over 4+ discs.
I think a game could be too long if it was repetitive, hard and spanned over 4+ discs.
I haven't played New Vegas, but from my experience with Fallout 3 I think you're right. I get really easily immersed in most games though, so I was still pretty much rushing to find Dad, or clear Jefferson Memorial or whatever.Mr.Pandah said:
As for Red Dead, I thought that the game did a decent job of giving you a constant, concrete goal to aim for. In Mexico it does kinda fall apart a little because the antagonists don't really come up as much in the plot, but I thought that was forgivable because the shit that was going on was still interesting.
CoD Black Ops wasn't too long IMO, but at one point i felt like "When will this end!?", then when it did end, i felt "That's It!?", i wouldnt say game length is the problem with CoD but more of the content in it. CoD has a hidden sense of repetition in its story mode. It also ended on quite a sudden note, and seemed a bit incomplete.
A game can not be bad just because it is too long. However, there are a few games that are bad because they're loaded with filler material. Those games aren't bad because the filler makes them longer, but because they're full of filler.
It depends on the story and what you personally like as a gamer. I wasted 60 hours on AC: Brotherhood because I LIKE dicking around Rome and completing side-quests, etc. Most people just want to go through the single-player campaign and then stop after it ends, but I personally like playing on and exploring the sandbox.
Not everyone likes that so some people will think it's too long because some of the side quests are mandatory. It's all based around what the player themselves chooses to do between the missions/goal of the single player.
Not everyone likes that so some people will think it's too long because some of the side quests are mandatory. It's all based around what the player themselves chooses to do between the missions/goal of the single player.
A game that is too short, you can complain about being ripped off, not getting enough content, and wanting to play more. If it's too long, you can stop playing and watch the ending on Youtube. Besides, even if it's boring, its hard to complain about getting too much of something. If you don't believe me, order a large soda next time your at a gas station. A game can certainly be too long, but it isn't as big of a problem as too short, and you are less prone to complaining.
The first game that comes to mind is Devil May Cry 4. Yes, that game is way too long. However, it is becuase the developers got lazy in the levels. If a good game kept having new level designs, enemies, missions, etc then I don't see how it could be "too long". Take Mass Effect 2. That game was massive. There was so much to do. I finished it and still wanted more. So i guess the correct answer is "depends on why it is long". If the game is long because someone copy-pasted levels to arbitrarily lengthen the game, then yes. If the game is long because there it is just a massive world filled with unique/interesting side quests then no.
How old are you now?zega frega omega said:
Agreed, the length of Okami was one of my main gripes with that game.Midnight Crossroads said:
The only game that springs to mind right off the top of my head is Super Smash Bros Brawl. Subspace Emissary was going just fine... until they made you replay the entire game, and beat every boss AGAIN. It kinda felt like they pulled a Ghosts and Goblins move on us right at the end.
I'm with all those who've mentioned Final Fantasy - and the problem is getting worse, because somehow the stories seem to be getting less engaging even as the graphics get better.
Don't get me wrong, I don't *dislike* Final Fantasy or JRPGs in general, it's just that FF games get interminably long after a while, because nothing much is really *happening*.
Don't get me wrong, I don't *dislike* Final Fantasy or JRPGs in general, it's just that FF games get interminably long after a while, because nothing much is really *happening*.