Poll: Game Content Legnth

[MechaBlue]

So I hear a lot of complaints about games when they are too short and games that have too much filler content. Which is the worse of two evils and why?

Personally I think that I'd rather a game that's short over a game that has a lot of backtracking and repetitive side quests. At least then you'll enjoy most of the game and won't have those parts that turn beating a game into a chore.

 

[Something Amyss]

Filler material is marginally less problematic.

 

[lacktheknack]

Depends. Is the filler used ad nauseum?

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Depends. Short games can be unsatisfying, and games with a lot of filler content can feel like it drags on forever without going anywhere. Of course, it really depends on the skill of the team making the game: as long as the game elements are interesting, even the longest of filler material isn't that bad.

I would've enjoyed a "Depends" option in the poll, so I just picked filler material, since that's easier to screw up.

 

[crudus]

Games that are just padded or arbitrarily lengthened are worse. Example, Devil May Cry 4 had you do the missions twice(and that stupid dice thing). Short games I can play over and over again (ex. Portal). However, those stupid lengthened games I can't stand to play more than once.

 

[Arkley]

If a game is sweet, short and packed with action, not overstaying its welcome, I'm more likely to play it all over again, perhaps on a higher difficulty or to pick up some more Achievements/Trophies.

That's why I'd rather have a game that's too short than too long. Packing a game with filler side-quests and back-tracking means I'm likely to be less excited by the genuinely good bits and even less likely to replay it. In many ways, I get more play time out of shorter AAA titles than longer AAA games, 'cause I'm more likely to revisit the shorter ones at some point, if not immediately.

Notable exceptions to this include story-driven games that are too short. If the reason I'm willing to call a game a AAA title in spite of gameplay flaws is that its story is what compelled me to keep playing, then I'm unlikely to revisit it - afterall, I know the story and the mechanics aren't forgivable anymore. Also, games that are too easy. If I have to bump the game up to its highest/second highest difficulty on the first playthrough the get any kind of challenge out of it, I probably won't revisit. I'm looking at you, Alan Wake.

 

[Limie]

Depends. Is the filler used ad nauseum?

I don't mind a little filler but as you said if it is done ad nauseum then i can't stand running around for ages. I'm having this problem with Nier at the moment. However i'd rather play a game with filler than a short game as it feels more like i've acomplished something when i get to the end. Short games mostly make me feel a little cheated.

 

[scrambledeggs]

I'm quite the sucker for long games, so I'd say too short is worse.
However, Portal is one of my favourite games, and it's only about 2 hours long...
It really does depend.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

eh depends

i prefer a short game if its good shit and has replay value, because filler content is just annoying as heck and can really bring down the replay value, i fucking hate having to do some parts in games because of the filler/annoyingness of it.

 

[Jackalb]

Quality not Quantity, lover.

 

[bob1052]

Among the many things that made Halo: Reach not live up to what it was meant to be was that I beat the campaign in five hours.

 

[LazerStallion]

Wow, the poll is quite even right now. I'd say filler is worse, because as mentioned above, Portal was bloody amazing, and I probably have more time into that than many longer games just because it's fun to replay. The Witcher was a game that was very long, but felt drawn out. It was great, but I'd rather have had it shorter.

Either way, a game should be made with every part serving a purpose, even if the game is short because of that.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I hate filler. One thing I can't stand about Morrowind is the constant backtracking with limited fast travel options. And the long walks around Vivec. It's awe inspiring the first time you go to Vivec, but the 100th time...not so much.

Vanquish is only 5-6 hours, but I beat it three times since Tuesday because it's all so high in quality.

Look at Portal. Short, and oh so sweet.

 

[KaosuHamoni]

I'll put it like this.

I hated Final-Fucking-Fantasy XIII, but it took me 65 hours to not-beat it.

I adored Bioshock and inFamous, but they respectively took less than 10 hours to beat their stories.

Does that answer your question?

P.S. FFF XIII is known to me as Final-Fucking-Fantasy XIII permanently, as it was a complete waste of my time and money. And yes I spelt is as "FFF XIII" deliberately

 

[internetzealot1]

Short is worse. If you're game isn't garbage, all you need to is throw in some more enemies, some more spikes to jump over, whatever.

This is why I hate MW2. Its now set a precedent for games: That campaigns don't need to have much length to them. Halo Reach did this, and the worst offender so far is SC: Conviction, because it didn't even have a strong multiplayer component.

I used to think that I wouldn't mind short games; that I would just be able to replay them, and it would all be fine. I was wrong as fuck.

EDIT: Since I see some things about fast travel coming up, I would just like to say that I hate them. Whats the point in having an overworld if the player only needs to travel each part once? What was the point of the overworld Assassin's Creed? You only had to travel through it three times.

 

[Good morning blues]

I dunno. I usually don't pay full price for video games ? I either borrow them from friends or buy them once the price has gone down. As a result, a short game doesn't seem so much like a slap in the face. I would prefer to have a short experience that is thoroughly excellent than a game that is boring for long stretches of time. I liked Half-Life: Blue Shift and Modern Warfare 2 but don't have much love for the Halo franchise as a result of this.