Game length is overrated

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Celtic_34 (1241 posts) -

I've started to play more indie games because they are more enjoyable. Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive. It doesn't really make for a better game. I used to like games that were free and better. Growing up it was that way. I still think indie games are somewhat overpriced but the enjoyment is there at least. Too many games imo are about what review scores they get, graphic kings and how long and epic they are. This started last gen. It wasn't that way before.

Since i stopped reading the hype and reviews and just started to buy games that I think i'd like i'm enjoying htem more. Last gen there weren't many games like this though. It seems like the indie titles on ps4 are starting to bring that back a bit though.

#2 Posted by Jebus213 (8753 posts) -

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

#3 Edited by gameofthering (10150 posts) -

I'd rather have a short amazing game than a long drawn out boring one.

#4 Edited by LJS9502_basic (150474 posts) -

So you like casual gaming. Big deal.

#5 Edited by SolidGame_basic (16979 posts) -

that's what she said

#6 Posted by sts106mat (19074 posts) -

as time goes by, your tastes can change. I dont have the time/patience for slow paced stealth games that i used to.

I dont think game length is over-rated, but value for money is to many people. and for those people, especially if the game is a full price retail game, is very short and has little or no replay-ability, people struggle to see the value in it.

#7 Edited by Jebus213 (8753 posts) -

>videogames nowadays

>extremely long

you fucking wot m8

#8 Posted by Celtic_34 (1241 posts) -

So you like casual gaming. Big deal.

It has nothing to do with being casual. Most games are so dumbed down these days i don't even think people know what casual gaming is. I'd rather a short oldschool in depth game than a long one where i'm doing the same mindless stuff over and over again.

#9 Posted by freedomfreak (39374 posts) -

Eh, there are lengthy games that are (mostly) good throughout. And there are short ones that can be a blast, too. Vice versa, and all that.

I don't care much about game length myself.

#10 Posted by LJS9502_basic (150474 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

So you like casual gaming. Big deal.

It has nothing to do with being casual. Most games are so dumbed down these days i don't even think people know what casual gaming is. I'd rather a short oldschool in depth game than a long one where i'm doing the same mindless stuff over and over again.

You generalize way too much to justify your casual gaming.

#11 Posted by ShepardCommandr (2461 posts) -

i am not paying $60 for a 5 hour game and indies can suck my nuts

#12 Posted by groowagon (2761 posts) -

i have good news for you then! gimme $60 and i'll make you a game you can finish in 10 seconds! perfect for your casual, busy pleasures!

#13 Posted by bforrester420 (1375 posts) -

It depends on the price. If a game is cheap and replayable, I don't mind if it's short. However, I got more of my money's worth last gen out of the longest games (Elder Scrolls, GTA, Fallout, etc). I've gotten more value from Civilization IV than any game ever.

#14 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17378 posts) -

This is why I have yet to play any Assassin's Creed game and why GTAV inevitably got on my nerves.

#15 Posted by Heil68 (43585 posts) -

If the game is good it doesn't matter to me.

#16 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (17378 posts) -

i am not paying $60 for a 5 hour game and indies can suck my nuts

You know what company never has this problem but gets all sorts of crap on this site?

NINTENDO. Every game they make is worth the asking price. If you want length, there's bonuses, if you want challenge there's always the end game which always gets harder in most of their titles.

#17 Edited by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

I would agree. length of a game for me has never factored into my enjoyment. both journey and vanquish have extremely short campaigns, and they are two of my favorite games from last generation.

The whole length/price argument is not a factor for me, since I am successful, I have no qualms paying $60.

#18 Posted by Heirren (16639 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

#19 Edited by groowagon (2761 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

#20 Edited by stationplay_4 (443 posts) -
#21 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16336 posts) -

I'd rather have a short amazing game than a long drawn out boring one.

I'd rather have a long amazing game than a short amazing game

#22 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (7096 posts) -

I would agree. length of a game for me has never factored into my enjoyment. both journey and vanquish have extremely short campaigns, and they are two of my favorite games from last generation.

The whole length/price argument is not a factor for me, since I am successful, I have no qualms paying $60.

I thought you were banned.

#23 Posted by Heirren (16639 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

#24 Edited by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

@speedfreak48t5p: What has your Caesar done that would warrant a ban?

I sometimes have other business to attend to, citizen.

#25 Edited by groowagon (2761 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

i don't think i am. you are comparing Uncharted to some other more lengthy shitgame. you are missing the point. in that case, the length doesn't matter. shitgame is a shitgame, no matter how long or short. Uncharted would have been even greater if it would have been longer. that's the point.

#26 Edited by MBirdy88 (7827 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

no... he really isn't missing the point... the OP is.

I would be hard pressed to find even a fraction of the gamer population that considers a game like JOURNEY to be GOTY... and I'm betting simply on its lenght... a nice throw away experience, dwarfed by much bigger experiences.

Indie games are great, but the whole point makes no sense, as there are pleanty of repetitive crap and annoying indie games ect as well.

#27 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10555 posts) -

Welcome to The World of Padding and Crappy Filler Content !

Its the "Value for Money" type of thinking, I suppose its easier to value a game by length instead of by how much fun you had with it.....

#28 Posted by musicalmac (22933 posts) -

Within reason I would agree. Games like the new MGS are probably too short, though...

#29 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10555 posts) -

@ groowagon

Uncharted was fun at 1st.... Then it dragged on and on and it made me sick.... It wouldve been a much better game if it was Shorter.

Samething in The Last Of Us ! Too Long they overstayed their welcome.

#30 Edited by santoron (7702 posts) -

It's just a factor, and longer doesn't mean better. Still, I'm not paying full retail for a game I'll be done with in a couple sittings, so short games need to be priced appropriately. For example, Child of Light was an easy buy at $15.

#31 Posted by bobbetybob (19210 posts) -

Blame the idiots that complain when a game is "only" 15 hours long. Length and pacing, like lots of other areas, are things that need balance, even the best games usually screw it up at some point with an overly long section or a boss fight that drags on.

Obviously value plays a part too, even if you're game has a perfect 4 hour campaign $60 doesn't seem justified. That's the real problem with most retail games, they all get the same pricing whereas indie games cover a gamut of prices depending on their content (usually).

#32 Edited by Heirren (16639 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

i don't think i am. you are comparing Uncharted to some other more lengthy shitgame. you are missing the point. in that case, the length doesn't matter. shitgame is a shitgame, no matter how long or short. Uncharted would have been even greater if it would have been longer. that's the point.

You are answering the question, yourself. The concern is pushing length for the sake of pushing length.

#33 Edited by groowagon (2761 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

i don't think i am. you are comparing Uncharted to some other more lengthy shitgame. you are missing the point. in that case, the length doesn't matter. shitgame is a shitgame, no matter how long or short. Uncharted would have been even greater if it would have been longer. that's the point.

You are answering the question, yourself. The concern is pushing length for the sake of pushing length.

tell me an example of such game? wich game would be better if it was shorter? if you make a bad game longer, then yes, shit becomes a big shit, but in that case the problem is already in the bad quality of the game itself, rather than it's lenght.

#34 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (27402 posts) -

Depends on the game and genre. I think some linear games and some RPG's are very guilty of padding (back and forth fetch missions are the absolute worst), but most RPG's I want to be long, I love open ended strategy games and sims, where I can dump a few 100 hrs in them. Alternatively games like FTL brilliantly combine a short play through with addictive gameplay.

#35 Posted by ristactionjakso (5713 posts) -

Ya some of the best games are on the shorter side (Bastion, Guacamelee), but there are many great games on the longer side too. It's all based on gamer preference.

#36 Edited by gameofthering (10150 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@gameofthering said:

I'd rather have a short amazing game than a long drawn out boring one.

I'd rather have a long amazing game than a short amazing game

I'd also wouldn't mind that but I've only ever had one game like that, Resident Evil 4.

#37 Posted by Heirren (16639 posts) -

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@groowagon said:

@Heirren said:

@Jebus213 said:
@Celtic_34 said:

Video games nowadays seems like they are more trying to justify the price by making games extremely long and repetitive.

What the fuck?

Celtic makes sense, just fine. Essentially what he/she is saying is that developers will make a game longer just for the sake of having the ability to say "our game has 50 plus hours of gameplay"......but without putting much thought into its structure. And I complete agree with this statement. Long vs short does not mean hardcore vs casual, at all.

Look at Uncharted 2. Brilliant game, or at least to a LOT of people(so lets leave the people that didn't care for the actual gameplay out of it). Now, lets say we loved Uncharted 2. Would you rather have Uncharted 2 or one of the extremely mediocre third person shooter copy cat games that has 50 hours of gameplay? What the point of this thread is, is stressing that less thought is being put into a games design/structure in favor of hitting some points they can quote on a box.

"this game would have been better if it would've been shorter" said no one ever. i mean, have you ever played a good game that has been ruined by the fact that it's too long? i haven't.

I think you are missing the point.

i don't think i am. you are comparing Uncharted to some other more lengthy shitgame. you are missing the point. in that case, the length doesn't matter. shitgame is a shitgame, no matter how long or short. Uncharted would have been even greater if it would have been longer. that's the point.

You are answering the question, yourself. The concern is pushing length for the sake of pushing length.

tell me an example of such game? wich game would be better if it was shorter? if you make a bad game longer, then yes, shit becomes a big shit, but in that case the problem is already in the bad quality of the game itself, rather than it's lenght.

Current examples are tacked on single player experiences. There isn't much thought going into the campaigns. They are being thrown in there for the sake of having them. The topic isn't about a good game being long, but those that add tons of filler just, as I said before, to have the ability to make the claim, "our game has 50+ hours of gameplay."

#38 Posted by Celtic_34 (1241 posts) -

I'd rather spend $60 on 4 indie games that are short but keep me entertained throughout vs a $60 game that bores me to death.

#39 Edited by R4gn4r0k (16336 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

@gameofthering said:

I'd rather have a short amazing game than a long drawn out boring one.

I'd rather have a long amazing game than a short amazing game

I'd also wouldn't mind that but I've only ever had one game like that, Resident Evil 4.

Shooters these days are short to me. Like 4-6 hours. There are some amazing shooters that are older than are 8 hours or longer.

Now, 8 hours isn't long... but it's long compared to what we have now. So in that regard I can name many games that are both lengthy and of great quality.

Of course quality will always > length. But they aren't mutual exclusive :)

#40 Edited by BattleSpectre (5966 posts) -

#41 Posted by lostrib (34969 posts) -

@speedfreak48t5p: What has your Caesar done that would warrant a ban?

I sometimes have other business to attend to, citizen.

^this annoying crap

#42 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (17378 posts) -

I always wait for a price drop on every game. Never takes long and it's always the best way to pick up a few games for cheap. Makes no sense most games drop prices only a month or two after by at least ten beans.

#43 Edited by lunar1122 (665 posts) -

game length doesn't bother me, as long as the price matches the length. If one makes a 5 hour single player campaign and expects $60 dollars for it. They gotta be dreaming

#44 Posted by Gue1 (9570 posts) -

Within reason I would agree. Games like the new MGS are probably too short, though...

That's not a game, it's a paid demo.

#45 Posted by uninspiredcup (7976 posts) -

Bad pacing can be very annoying. IMO (which is right) the Playstation Metal Gear Solid, regardless of pantomime plotlines or bad writing was superior to Metal Gear Solid 4 because it snipped down and moderately efficient. Metal Gear Solid 4 by comparison was a fucking mess and reviewers who praised it should have been immemorially fired.

#46 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (13526 posts) -

The average game is shorter than it's ever been before.

Explain yourself.

#47 Edited by bbkkristian (14946 posts) -

Sorry, but if a RPG is under 30 hours, I'm not paying $60 for it. Xenoblade Chronicles was $50 and I got over 80 hours of enjoyment out of it. Completely worth it. Fire Emblem Awakening, $40, put in over 60 hours, completely worth it as well. Notice the trend, devs want you to pay $2 for every hour of enjoyment, but some of these great RPGs will give you charge you less than a dollar for every hour of enjoyment. I'll admit, RPGs need great battle systems and/or great stories for me to get hooked to their game and enjoy the ride.

Then there's Bravely Default, which said "f*** we need to extend the game" and then made chapters 5-8 a complete nightmare. I wasn't about to go through that much padding, it was completely more than necessary that ruined the game for most people.

There can be exceptions like South Park, which has to have a goal to make the player laugh consistently, if it were longer, it would be more of a challenge for the designers to keep the audience laughing.

#48 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17378 posts) -

Sorry, but if a RPG is under 30 hours, I'm not paying $60 for it. Xenoblade Chronicles was $50 and I got over 80 hours of enjoyment out of it. Completely worth it. Fire Emblem Awakening, $40, put in over 60 hours, completely worth it as well. Notice the trend, devs want you to pay $2 for every hour of enjoyment, but some of these great RPGs will give you charge you less than a dollar for every hour of enjoyment. I'll admit, RPGs need great battle systems and/or great stories for me to get hooked to their game and enjoy the ride.

Then there's Bravely Default, which said "f*** we need to extend the game" and then made chapters 5-8 a complete nightmare. I wasn't about to go through that much padding, it was completely more than necessary that ruined the game for most people.

There can be exceptions like South Park, which has to have a goal to make the player laugh consistently, if it were longer, it would be more of a challenge for the designers to keep the audience laughing.

Good grief. I'd rather put 80 hours collectively into eight games then sink all that time into just one experience.

The most time I ever put into a game was Demons Souls (80 hours) and Skyrim (100 hours.)

Besides those two I prefer shorter games.

#49 Posted by bbkkristian (14946 posts) -

@Bread_or_Decide: sorry if I really love a game, I don't want it to end, or I want to last as long as possible.

#50 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10555 posts) -

Games have to end... They need conclusions. Even the game with the best gameplay needs to know when to call it a day....