Poll: Are games getting too long?

[The Enquirer]

They're certainly longer. I don't know if too long. Partly goes with the territory - all your examples are from the sandbox/RPG genre, where the whole point is "look at all the stuff you can do before even continuing the story".

It's all really about how you pace & structure your story. The Order 1886 is like 5 hours long, Journey is 2-3 hours. But nobody complained about Journey's length, whereas The Order's was its primary flaw. Kind of like movies - a critic can complain that at 120 minutes a movie is too long, even if there are plenty of other 120 minutes movies where length isn't an issue.

As for wanting to get your money's worth, you also have to factor in replayability. I've clocked in about 70 hours into RE6, a game I loathe, 35 of which are probably due to Mercenaries matches.

I'll agree with this. The one main thing you left out though was cost. Journey cost 15 dollars on release if I recall correctly. The Order 1886 cost 60 bucks if I remember that correctly as well. Plus it depends on your primary focus as well. With Call of Duty, at this point, I'd like to say almost everyone who buys one of those games is primarily buying it for the multiplayer. From there it's just a matter of how good the multiplayer actually is.

For the sake of giving a direct answer, in most cases I'm going to go with "no".

 

[MHR]

For me, the value of a game is about how much fun I can have with it, and for how long that fun can last. It's not about "finishing" a game.

 

[BoogieManFL]

A game is too long only if it doesn't hold your attention and keep you engaged.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

This is why I generally avoid RPGs these days. I mean, doesn't fighting the same group of enemies 100 times feel pointless after a while? You've proved you can beat them, then the game asks you to do it a couple of dozen more times. Why?

Because the gameplay is fun? Because the gameplay offers different kinds of approaches to beat them? Because they serve as practise for the real challenge, bosses? At least thats how I see them.

Doing the same thing over and over stops being fun by the 3rd or 4th time for me. Practice for more challenging battles is more viable, but most often these repetitive battles are only used to get more XP to level up, not for practice. I mean, how much practice do you need in a turn based game? Practice should be optional, you can go back and fight if you want but it shouldn't be mandatory if you want to get on with the game.

 

[Dalisclock]

There really isn't a simple answer for this. A games length isn't nearly as important as it's pacing and what it does with the length. If you get the end and feel unsatisfied or that there are things left unexplored/important issues left unaddressed, then the game is likely too short. If you're pushing through, just hoping to get to the end and have stopped really having fun, likely the game is too long.

Genre is also a factor. 6 hours would be incredibly short for an RPG but is more or less the right length for a shooter(And I've played shooters where even 6 hours felt too long). A JRPG is normally expected to clock in anywhere from 30-50 hours, depending on how involved you get. Adventure games are normally expected to clock in around 10 or less(Maybe a little longer for a longer one like The Longest Journey).

It's one of those things that really has to be taken on a case by case basis. Asking "Are all games too short/too long?" is a simplistic question that can't be answered simplistically.

 

[Ikasury]

as a fan of the original Xenogears which took 80hrs to beat WITH stat cheats and rushing and still love it and its storyline over most of the bullshit 5hrs or less games today... no, they sure as hell aren't getting 'too long' they just aren't that engaging anymore, ie: that good -.-

i like Xenoblade Chronicles X, as the latest in the Xeno-series on principle, but its main story is REALLY QUICK for a Xeno-series game, but all the extra stuff on the side is fun but is padding, i'm almost 200hrs on it and most of what i've been doing IS the extra side stuff... each is its own little story and while fun... doesn't add 'completely' the way XG's whole thing was, nor its predecessors Xenosaga, and while Xenoblade was... long, in its way, it was more padded out too then the previous too... if a series like Xeno is getting 'short' that's just weird... stories still... 'fun' in their own way, but neither Blade is like the big long dramas like Saga and Gears...

i don't care if the graphics are shit by todays standards, i'd still play something like Xenogears over and over compared to most of the games that take less than 5hrs to beat... they're just boring, worse when they're just padded to make you keep playing with no real story and it feels just for completion sake...

as a joking comparison of XBCX to XG: today i helped out at an alien wedding, by killing a buncha alien thugs boars for their tasty backsides and beat up the priest cause he was drunk, funny, but overall no point... while on the otherside there's a whole arc dealing with a gun-toting teenage priest former prostitute with a mute sister and a raging alcholic gun toting-swearing-murdering-jerk for a dad.. whose a total badass and kicks mutant zombie ass for the lord... i think i'll go with the jailbait-gun-priest as he gets us plot-healz :3

 

[SmallHatLogan]

There really isn't a simple answer for this. A games length isn't nearly as important as it's pacing and what it does with the length. If you get the end and feel unsatisfied or that there are things left unexplored/important issues left unaddressed, then the game is likely too short. If you're pushing through, just hoping to get to the end and have stopped really having fun, likely the game is too long.

Genre is also a factor. 6 hours would be incredibly short for an RPG but is more or less the right length for a shooter(And I've played shooters where even 6 hours felt too long). A JRPG is normally expected to clock in anywhere from 30-50 hours, depending on how involved you get. Adventure games are normally expected to clock in around 10 or less(Maybe a little longer for a longer one like The Longest Journey).

It's one of those things that really has to be taken on a case by case basis. Asking "Are all games too short/too long?" is a simplistic question that can't be answered simplistically.

So... it's not the size, it's how you use it?

But simplistic answers aside, I think the reason why the question of a game being too long (or more commonly, too short) comes up is because a lot of people these days have the "dollars spent per hours played" mentality. There's nothing wrong with that, and those people arguably do have a simplistic answer to the question which boils down to longer = better.

I happen to agree with you, I take it on a case by case basis. Gone Home was about 2 hours long, Persona 4 was about 80. Both were as long as then needed to be for me.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I have to agree with the cost issues a few people have brought up. If a game costs me $90 (I'm in Australia) then it better have 90 hours worth of content for me. " has multiplayer, which has more than enough to keep you going." No it doesn't. Aside from paying full price, you have microtransactions and new map packs tacked on to that cost. The base game has to have 90 hours of standalone content.

 

[Parasondox]

Too long? Are you kidding me? I am correctly playing Fallout 4, before I even reached Diamond City I was playing about 28 hours of the game. I took my sweet ass time, didn't fast travel and just took it all in. It's what gamers should do. Explore each bit of the game without the rush. Well... if its those straightforward shooters like COD with barely a story mode anymore, then I would see a problem with that.

Growing up, I wish games were longer cause it would at least justify the price. It's why many felt short with Titanfall because it was charging full price for a game with no story mode and all online multiplayer. Majority of the games today are quite long and is based on how you play the game and not "oh look, I finished the games in 8 hours because I am the best!!". That attitude is disappeared fast.

 

[RandV80]

Since when was 20 hours a "really long game?" That's about my bare minimum for a good mid length game.

10 - 12 hours is fucking short.

This.

A game I only consider "long" if you're looking at at least around fifty to a hundred hours of play minimum.

What I WILL concede, however, is there are way too many games today that 'pretend' to be long by just adding junk to fill space and time. The worst examples being stuff like Far Cry and Assassin's Creed. Games that add 'stuff to do' rather than content. By that I mean they add tons of pickups and random little things like the ever-present "Ubisoft Radio Towers" (which have taken various forms, but they're all riffing on the same theme) that don't really ADD to the game so much as just give you another chore to complete.

My version of this with RPG's is quest creep. Doing a side quest is fine, but when your quest log starts filling up with numerous tasks to complete as a competitionist I can really start feeling the strain and sometimes it turns me off a game when you start having to juggle 'what do I have to do where again?'. For example: Pillars of Eternity (still plan on finishing it eventually), Kingdoms of Amalur, etc. Probably why I prefer to stick with JRPG's over WRPG's, which a few exceptions like Xenoblade aside tend to stay more focused.

But the real answer to the posted question is there is a valid reason for both and games should be made to fit both perspectives. This should be a near universal answer to these types of questions, people are always going to have different preferences and there should be games available for everyone. I'd think the ideal type of game is something like No Man's Sky but where the user is given all sorts of parameter options to adjust before generating the game, like what you get in Sid Meier's Civilization series.

 

[wings012]

It's all about genre. The campaign of a single player shooter will probably last you 8-10 hours. A RPG will last you anywhere between 20-80 hours depending on the developer, platform and the level of completion to take it to.

Also feeling an RPG being too long is a bit naff, often you can just focus on the main story once you are bored of it and finish it off. And then comparing it to a different genre? If you had to wad through 20+ hours of a CoD campaign, I guarantee you that you will be feeling just as burnt out as you are on the 70th hour of an RPG.

 

[Strazdas]

what? games have been getting shorter, not longer, nowadays. i remmeber when anything bellow 20 hours was considered "Too short to bother with", meanwhile nowadays we got people complaining that we are allowed to refund after 2 hours because their entire game is shorter than that.

Also is everyone forgetting grand strategy games? if you played less than 100 hours of it you're doing it wrong.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

As many people have said, being long is far from a bad thing. It's when it feels long that it's a problem. Same with when it feels short. That said, I am in the camp of people that prefer longer games, for the most part. Too often do I wish there were more to do in games.

Example, just off the top of my head, Bioshock 2. Great game, so many improvements, and yet it felt too short. Not overly so, but I wish there was just a bit more to do. More time to play with the different plasmids, larger and more complicated scenarios to dig myself out of...

More is only bad when the game/part of the game is bad/dull/whatever, the majority of the time.

 

[SquallTheBlade]

This is why I generally avoid RPGs these days. I mean, doesn't fighting the same group of enemies 100 times feel pointless after a while? You've proved you can beat them, then the game asks you to do it a couple of dozen more times. Why?

Because the gameplay is fun? Because the gameplay offers different kinds of approaches to beat them? Because they serve as practise for the real challenge, bosses? At least thats how I see them.

Doing the same thing over and over stops being fun by the 3rd or 4th time for me. Practice for more challenging battles is more viable, but most often these repetitive battles are only used to get more XP to level up, not for practice. I mean, how much practice do you need in a turn based game? Practice should be optional, you can go back and fight if you want but it shouldn't be mandatory if you want to get on with the game.

It's fun as long as the battle system is good. Just look at Bravely Default, Final Fantasy X-2, Final Fantasy 13: Lighting Returns or any Tales of games. Their systems offer you so much that you can practically find new functional combinations infinitely. And I always do it for the practise, not the XP. In fact, getting XP is bad because it keeps making everything easier.

I like to think battle systems as sandboxes. They offer me the tools and I use the tools in a way that makes it fun. I can do that just fine in random encounters too.

 

[gorfias]

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.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

Lol I thought the complaint since the mid 2000's was they were getting too short and you people were demanding they be 20 hours or they weren't worth your buck?

 

[FPLOON]

Fucking "Banana", yo! That fucker can't make up its damn mind about how long it wants to be after it enters my mouth!

OT: I wouldn't say that they are or not... I would say that they are sometimes getting a bit too pad-friendly in the 100% department...

Other than that, no matter if it's too long or too short, if it's not enjoyable then it's just unsatisfying in my opinion...

 

[Dalisclock]

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.

Part of the issue is engagement. 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).

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.

 

[senaji]

sometime maybe, not for all games, Zelda are long but they doesn't seem short despite of they are good games



______________________________________________________________________________
reduction galaxy note 4 [http://galaxynote-4.com/bons-plans-galaxy-note-4/] note 5 [http://galaxynote-5.com/]