Poll: Are games getting too long?

[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?