Are action / adventure games too short?

Whether you prefer 'more bang for your buck' or a 'short but sweet' campaign, have you been feeling a sense of satisfaction with campaign lengths of recent games? I've seen numerous complaints about games like Metal Gear Rising, Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite being pretty short. Ranging from 3 - 6 hours total.

Well I think a game like Batman Arkham City does it right. Sure, you can reach the credits in 7-10 hours, but you'd be crazy not to play the well over 40 hours of gameplay it offers you through side missions, Riddler puzzles, and an extensive/addictive challenge mode. It has fantastic bang for your buck.

Also, Zelda continues to clock in over at over 30 hours of gameplay for the campaign not including getting everything 100%.

No. Games like MGR are just the right length. I actually found Infinite to be almost too long.

Well I think a game like Batman Arkham City does it right. Sure, you can reach the credits in 7-10 hours, but you'd be crazy not to play the well over 40 hours of gameplay it offers you through side missions, Riddler puzzles, and an extensive/addictive challenge mode. It has fantastic bang for your buck.

Pikminmaniac

A lot of that extra content is really boring though.

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

Well I think a game like Batman Arkham City does it right. Sure, you can reach the credits in 7-10 hours, but you'd be crazy not to play the well over 40 hours of gameplay it offers you through side missions, Riddler puzzles, and an extensive/addictive challenge mode. It has fantastic bang for your buck.

Pffrbt

A lot of that extra content is really boring though.

Well it was all extremely entertaining to me

It really depends on level of fun. If I am enjoying my time blasting through a game at a 4-6 hour range, of gameplay, then I'm fine with shorting titles. Some games add so much padding it's get very laborious to trudge through them. If the story is engaging and the gameplay is varied, I want them to last forever.

-

I think of a game like Journey. It can be completed in 2 hours easily. If you want to. It took me a good amount of time to finish it the first time(6+hrs) because I was searching for goodies and enjoying the scenery. The OS was wonderful too.

SotC is another game that one can complete it in a rather short amount of time if you don't explore and rush towards your next mission. But you'd be missing so much.

If I am having fun playing the game, I don't really care how long the game is.

some are short some are not short.

Yes.

I would like them to be longer.

Red Dead Redemption was pretty long. The Saboteur as well. Bioshock Infinite was pretty long as well, at least for me (i like exploring)...

I took my time with Bioshock Infinite. I explored and gawked at the scenery and screwed around with new combat tactics. It ended up taking me around 14 hours to complete my first go, which I think is great for a shooter. 

I did the same thing with Tomb Raider. There were times I'd stop and admire the detail and care that went into that game, bumping my play time of doing hardly any of the tombs and upgrading Lara completely to 16 hours.

Guess I'm just a different type of gamer. I seem to always get my money's worth, unless of course I just didn't like the game.

Whether you prefer 'more bang for your buck' or a 'short but sweet' campaign, have you been feeling a sense of satisfaction with campaign lengths of recent games? I've seen numerous complaints about games like Metal Gear Rising, Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite being pretty short. Ranging from 3 - 6 hours total.

HipHopBeats

If you are completing Infinite in 3-6 hours, you're doing it wrong. There is so much to explore and find in that game.

Quality over quantity...I'll admit Bioshock and Dishonored do feel too short, but that's just because I want more of a good thing.

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

Whether you prefer 'more bang for your buck' or a 'short but sweet' campaign, have you been feeling a sense of satisfaction with campaign lengths of recent games? I've seen numerous complaints about games like Metal Gear Rising, Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite being pretty short. Ranging from 3 - 6 hours total.

speedfreak48t5p

Various reviews I've read. Most likely from speed runners. No way would I pay $60 + tax and blow through a modern day adventure game in 3 - 6 hours.

Depends on the game I guess. I don't have some universal expected length for every game to adhere to. Sometimes a 7-8 hour experience is better for me than a 15-20 hour experience and vice versa.

I'll gladly purchase Max Payne or Uncharted titles knowing their 7-9 hour length without regret, if a game is good enough I will go back and play through it again shortly after my initial playthrough. I'm not looking for the most content, I'm simply looking for a great experience wether it be Arkham City or Uncharted 3.

You don't find anybody searching for the longest movie they can find simply because it gives them more "bang for your buck". I never find myself picking the longest song to listen to simply because it has the longest playtime. I choose what I like, **** the rest.

[QUOTE="speedfreak48t5p"][QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

Whether you prefer 'more bang for your buck' or a 'short but sweet' campaign, have you been feeling a sense of satisfaction with campaign lengths of recent games? I've seen numerous complaints about games like Metal Gear Rising, Dishonored and Bioshock Infinite being pretty short. Ranging from 3 - 6 hours total.

HipHopBeats

Various reviews I've read. Most likely from speed runners. No way would I pay $60 + tax and blow through a modern day adventure game in 3 - 6 hours.

You would never blow through that game in under 6 hours unless you literally went from point A to point B without exploring one bit. So much to see and hear in that game, a 6 hour completion would be ridiculous.

Any person who goes through it that quickly missed the whole point and they should stick to their military campaigns and games that encourage that kind of dull progression.

Well I think a game like Batman Arkham City does it right. Sure, you can reach the credits in 7-10 hours, but you'd be crazy not to play the well over 40 hours of gameplay it offers you through side missions, Riddler puzzles, and an extensive/addictive challenge mode. It has fantastic bang for your buck.

Also, Zelda continues to clock in over at over 30 hours of gameplay for the campaign not including getting everything 100%.

Pikminmaniac

Depends.

If it has a great atmosphere/gameplay/story/characters ect. then I feel fine paying $60 for it if it offers at least 20hrs. If not ill wait for a price drop.

Other good but not great games could be shorter if they are less expensive. 

I tend to take my time playing through a game because I like to explore the game world.  So my play time is usually longer than the 'expected' play time of a game anyway.  Generally I would say I'm satisfied.

[QUOTE="Pikminmaniac"]

Well I think a game like Batman Arkham City does it right. Sure, you can reach the credits in 7-10 hours, but you'd be crazy not to play the well over 40 hours of gameplay it offers you through side missions, Riddler puzzles, and an extensive/addictive challenge mode. It has fantastic bang for your buck.

Also, Zelda continues to clock in over at over 30 hours of gameplay for the campaign not including getting everything 100%.

Minishdriveby

Bad game!

i think they are too short, but with those kind of games it would feel dragged on if it was longer. when it comes to action games, the ones i really like are the open world ones like Assassin's creed and Arkham City would be a great example too. if you do the main quest you can finish around 10 hours but with the open world and side missions there is always stuff to do and thats something i really like about the AC series because it has a bit of that RPG element. I've always gotten the best unlockable outfits in all the AC games and have spent 25-30 hours on each game in the ezio trilogy.