Poll: Are games getting too long?

[DementedSheep]

When I was younger, I wouldn't buy a game unless it had at least 20 hours to it. My income was extremely limited when I was around fourteen, but I had plenty of free time on my hand, as long as I did well in school. I needed to buy a game that was going to last. Now I have work, and college, and other things. I have some money, but I don't really have a lot of free time. Games like Fallout 4 just feel too long now. There's too much to do, and I don't really have patience for a game that drags on for 200 hours. I'd much rather play The Last of Us, or Undertale, which can be completed in a timely fashion.

For me, it's not that games are suddenly too long, it's that I'm at a point in my life where time is more valuable then money.

Save options. A must. There was about a 15 year window where I was primary raising the kids. It was hard to grab a minute to game. During that same time, for the first time since the early 90s, no games seemed to have the ability to save (I was likely just playing the wrong ones). The Halo series, for instance, had checkpoints rather than the ability to save where you want. Not a good combo with kids. But Skyrim, Fallout 3? I could save when interrupted. I put about 150 hours into Skyrim and loved it.

On the other hand, things like The Order are supposedly about 6 hours long. That's $10 an hour new. Not a value.

The only thing to me about really long games is if they are padded with nonsense (Arkham Origins) to artificially lengthen them.

But as development gets more difficult and expensive as graphics quality increases, the danger is that corner cutting companies will either repetitively pad their games, make them too hard/unfair or just plain short.

To be fair The Order was usually short for a single player only game. It was basically a tech demo. I can't think of any other games that were released at full price and are that short without being primarily multiplayer.

 

[gorfias]

If The Order had been 6 hours of pure awesomeness, somehow I doubt there would be much complaint about length. Hell, CoD4 is about 6 hours long and I'm not sure I've heard anyone complain that it was "too short" because the game fits the length almost perfectly(aside from a few small loose ends which nobody really cares about).

This guy makes a good point, more on Skyrim below:

To be fair The Order was usually short for a single player only game. It was basically a tech demo. I can't think of any other games that were released at full price and are that short without being primarily multiplayer.

A lot of games have multi-player tagged on and are meh with core games lasting more like 10 hours. I've read of developers complaining about the costs and dificulty of doing 720P games. That, no doubt, added to the padding. Now that games are 1080p 60 FPS, I can't imagine the costs. At $60, still, since 2005 (Xbox 360: before that I think they were $50 most of the time) cutting has to be happening somewhere.

While I haven't played Skyrim yet, apparently there is enough content and a world large enough for 160 hours of enjoyment. OTOH, FFXIII may be 60 hours long, but very few people would argue that they actually enjoyed those 60 hours instead of feeling like they were stuck in a tube for 60 hours listening to unlikable people complain between monster battles.

I think length isn't nearly as important as enjoyment. If you aren't enjoying a game, it doesn't really matter how long it is because you probably aren't gonna see more then a fraction of it, or the few bits you actually liked won't make up for the filler that comprises the rest.

Skyrim was dull to me until, playing on PC, I modded the hell out of it. Then it was a hoot. FFXIII: great point. I never even got to the 25 hour point after which it supposedly got fantastic.

But if you are paying $60 for a game, and it is over in a few hours, even if you had a blast, I think you are going to be disappointed.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

I've always played RPGs and back on the Playstation and PS2, those used to sell themselves on their game length (story + sidequests), I think in the grand scheme of things, they're actually getting shorter or staying the same length for the majority (games that sell themselves on mass content, modifiable games, basically Skyrim are exceptions).

That being said, I actually prefer short games now, even a lot of the RPGs that come out today are too long. I want to experience them in their entirety and I just don't have the time for it anymore, part of my enjoyment of Journey was that the game could be completed in a few hours. I'd rather have a short game with a good, solid story and a little bit of well thought out exploration, than a long game with hours of mindless grind quests and padding.

 

[RJ 17]

Game length isn't something that can be universally applied as some games require more time than others. There's nothing wrong with a very well made game that does what it sets out to do in a short period of time. Anything more than that would make it feel like it was dragging things out just to fluff up the run time. On the other hand, a well made massive game could need 70+ hours in order to do what it sets out to do and anything less would make the game feel as though it were rushed.

Journey didn't need to be 60 hours long, so it wasn't made to be that long. The Witcher 3 DID need to be 60 (or more) hours long, and it never feels like it's dragging its feet despite its long run time.

 

[Dalisclock]

But if you are paying $60 for a game, and it is over in a few hours, even if you had a blast, I think you are going to be disappointed.

There is some truth to that, in which case, they should either retail for less to start out with(Ideally), or the customer should wait a while for it to drop in price(more realistically).

 

[Something Amyss]

I've always played RPGs and back on the Playstation and PS2, those used to sell themselves on their game length (story + sidequests), I think in the grand scheme of things, they're actually getting shorter or staying the same length for the majority (games that sell themselves on mass content, modifiable games, basically Skyrim are exceptions).

That being said, I actually prefer short games now, even a lot of the RPGs that come out today are too long. I want to experience them in their entirety and I just don't have the time for it anymore, part of my enjoyment of Journey was that the game could be completed in a few hours. I'd rather have a short game with a good, solid story and a little bit of well thought out exploration, than a long game with hours of mindless grind quests and padding.

Those really long RPGs really did end up padding themselves out with grinding and inane shit. And 90s me (and to some extent, 80s me) actually enjoyed it. Probably because I expected different things out of games and it translated to more "bang for your buck." But 2010s me can't even stand it when a 10 hour Assassin's Creed game does it, so I'm never going to make it through a 60+ hour game with grinding and padding.

There is some truth to that, in which case, they should either retail for less to start out with(Ideally), or the customer should wait a while for it to drop in price(more realistically).

The weird thing is the games industry has literally trained me to wait. I don't mind a short game if the game is fun, but I'm reticent to pay day 1 prices for any game. I deally, they would start charging a more reasonable price for less content, but since people will still buy even a broken game on day 1, they have no incentive to. So yeah, waiting is generally a good move.

At $60, still, since 2005 (Xbox 360: before that I think they were $50 most of the time) cutting has to be happening somewhere.

Except games are a bigger market than they were 10 years ago and by a pretty large share. The money isn't going to the developers, and often times it isn't even going into the development. Evil corporation talk aside, a good chunk of a game's budget is going into marketing more and more frequently.

 

[stroopwafel]

Except games are a bigger market than they were 10 years ago and by a pretty large share. The money isn't going to the developers, and often times it isn't even going into the development. Evil corporation talk aside, a good chunk of a game's budget is going into marketing more and more frequently.

For realz. About 50-60% of a game's budget goes into marketing(sometimes even more). When you consider annualized series with all their re-used assets this is really ridiculous. The games industry has obviously grown exponentially since its inception but with better hardware and bigger budgets come corporations that turned this industry into the bloated mess that it is. Sadly these are most of the time the only ones with access to the kind of funds needed to finance development of a modern AAA-game. So it's no surprise that in a lot of cases creativity gets thrown out the window in favor of what a corporate manager think will sell.

Anyways Order 1886 gets brought up a lot but my gripes with the game actually wasn't how short it is. Just that it's a boring, unimaginative chain of cutscenes linked together by some sparse and incredibly mediocre cover shooting. If this game was 6 hours of pure awesomeness I wouldn't have complained given the graphical quality of the game.

Ofcourse if you're short on cash I understand wanting a 'longer' game but in my opinion its always quality over quantity. I'd rather have 6 hours of pure fun than 30 hours of 'meh'. Unfortunately Order 1886 doesn't fit that bill.

 

[Something Amyss]

Anyways Order 1886 gets brought up a lot but my gripes with the game actually wasn't how short it is. Just that it's a boring, unimaginative chain of cutscenes linked together by some sparse and incredibly mediocre cover shooting. If this game was 6 hours of pure awesomeness I wouldn't have complained given the graphical quality of the game.

And that's exactly why I avoided it. Not the length, but what was there, what wasn't there, and the quality therein. Or the claims of reviewers and players, at least. If you can give me six quality hours, I will feel the money was well spent. If you can't? Well, the game's probably not going to be good no matter how long you make it.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

Those really long RPGs really did end up padding themselves out with grinding and inane shit. And 90s me (and to some extent, 80s me) actually enjoyed it. Probably because I expected different things out of games and it translated to more "bang for your buck." But 2010s me can't even stand it when a 10 hour Assassin's Creed game does it, so I'm never going to make it through a 60+ hour game with grinding and padding.

And to think we didn't even have achievements, all we had was a completion percentage and verbal bragging rights.

 

[Silvanus]

Some of my favourite games are absolute behemoths in terms of length.

On that basis, no. I don't see it as a minus at all (or, at least, haven't yet). It isn't as if they're films, in which the experience must be continuous; take a break.

 

[Something Amyss]

And to think we didn't even have achievements, all we had was a completion percentage and verbal bragging rights.

And exploration. And oh god, remember when it was common to beat a game multiple times?