Are story driven games too long for their own sake?

One of the first games I got for the PS4 was The Last of Us. I never owned a PS3 and was curious to play the game, since it's one of the most acclaimed games last gen. I think it's a OK game but... I also felt that during most of the +/- 15h that took me to beat it, the game was struggling against it self. I mean, there's good writing there but the gameplay just felt like a filler. Too repetitive and generic. After the first 5h or so I just started to rush the game and by the end I was just too fed up with it for the story to have a real impact on me. Last night I remembered I still had the DLC to play and very skeptically decided to give it a try. Oh boy, what a surprise that was. Left Behind feels like basically all that the main game failed to be. And I feel like the main reason why is because the developer didn't had to follow what the market demands for a full release to last.

This is not a problem exclusive to TLoU. A myriad of games suffer from this same problem when it comes to carry a story over their length. The problem here is that the game doesn't offer nothing else apart from the story, the gameplay isn't polished at all, and the exploration elements are basic. But that doesn't have to be a problem I think. Not all games must have Super Mario Galaxy levels of gameplay, or rich worlds like The Witcher 3 (in fact W3 is another good example on how a story can fall flat, although it excels as an open world game).

We can also take a look at The Order. Terrible game... I know, and agree. But IMO it makes an excellent job at telling a story. And although I've disliked it as a game, I was entertained by the story telling. And being a short game helped a lot with that. I can't imagine The Order being a 15h game and me finishing it, much less enjoying it.

What do you think? Do you also feel like in 99% of the games the story suffers due to the length of the game? Would it be OK for you if story driven games were much shorter? As an example, would you be OK if the next big Naughty Dog game was a 5h game sold at 15/20$, instead of a 15h game sold by 60$? Would it feel as less of a game because of that, even if in the end delivered a much cohesive experience?

I disagree completely with you :)

I wouldn't say the gameplay in The Last of Us is generic. I never played a stealth game quite like it before. The mechanics were really interesting and engaging.

Yeah I love 3 hour games like The Order that cost 60 dollars, more like those please !

Story driven games like most games tend to have a lot of filler, and when it's done by the triple A side, it's usually at the expense of gameplay. Games in general when trying to tell a story make the mistake of "games have to be x hours long" without actually focusing on making it all consistently strong.

I wouldn't necessarily say story driven games are too long out right, but you tend to some have some noteworthy examples where certain chunks could have been cut and the main game would be better for it.

NFS The Run was a 2 hour campaign. (Of racing) Which is fine for me. Some of the best stories are short and sweet.

Maybe if you have A.D.D.

15-20 hours for a story driven game is the sweet spot.

Fanboy shitposting, nothing to see here.

The last of us was one of the best games ever made, no one in their right mind would want a game with such solid shooting mechanics to end sooner...idiot

@GhostHawk196: I guess I shouldn't complain for getting such a retarded reply, this is system wars after all.

whats up with the personal attacks ?

And he clearly gave credit to TLOU dlc...

Wtf man ?

I completely disagree with TLoU having subpar gameplay, especially the encounters. Truth be told, I've never played a game with such visceral, brutal, and exhilarating combat.

I have a confession to make. As an open world RPG lover, i don't really like The Witcher 3. This is game story related rant.

I've been trying to like it for 60 hours now, but i just can't. 80% of the "gameplay" is dialogue. I want gameplay! Other big disaster that kills the off-path gameplay is the fact that smiths sell up-to-level gear, which makes hunting of rare loot completely pointless when a basic sword is always the best option to buy, since it always matches your level. Oh, and 99% of the battles i've played through by tapping fast attack only. Very rarely you have to throw in a dodge or two.

Also lack of variation; you assume tho role of Geralt, and that's it. You play the game through with swords. Usually RPGs allow to build/choose a skill/weapon specific character.

Sure, the story and dialogue is well written, but that's not what i enjoy in games. I enjoy gameplay. I can't believe KVO gave this game a 10...

Now after 60 hours, i'm sitting here thinking whether to uninstall the game, or to suffer through the rest of the dialogue to see how the game ends. I would have to force myself to finish the game.

E: I'm also aware that my opinion is highly unpopular. This game gets so much praise, and i must say that it's the reason why it was so hard to admit this to myself too.

@groowagon:

80% of gameplay is dialogue? Don't start your rant with such stupid and factually wrong statements if you want be taken seriously.

Legacy Of Kain was a story driven game you played.

It wasn't developed by Naughty Dog.

I just want my money's worth. If I'm going to pay $60 for a game, it had better be worth $60. This is why I've stopped buying Call of Duty games since Black Ops 1; I just can't justify paying that kind of money for yet another 5 1/2 hour script-laden corridor shooter.

On the other hand, I see your point. Just because a game is 12+ hours long or an open-world epic doesn't mean it's worth it either. Too many games stretch things out and pad everything with filler, just to create an illusion of value for money. They just end up boring instead.

So no, in general, I don't want games to be 5 1/2 hour rushes like Call of Duty, but I also don't want filler-laden chores that overstay their welcome either. In the end, I just want my money's worth.

Awww... did i hit hurt your feelings? I've played the game. That's what it feels like.

Are you trying to make an apology for the flood of games with less content and value that we have these days?

@madrocketeer: My last question addressed the price point. I would rather spend 15/20$ on a short consistent game than 60 on a 3x longer game that loses some quality due to fillers.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that TLoU is a bad game, just that Left Behind is much better. In my opinion.

Sure. If Activision were to lop out Call of Duty's campaign and sell it separately for $20, I might buy more of them.

But that's not going to happen. Instead, we're getting 5 1/2 hour rushes and 12+ hour filler-fests being sold at the same price point. Neither are worth the $60 in my view.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

TLOU was the right length and was just right. The Gameplay was tense and engaging. I felt like I really had to use everything in the environment to survive.

5 hour games are horrible and don't represent vaue for money. TLOU is a masterpiece and story driven games are awesome when done right eg: Uncharted and horrible when done wrong eg: 50 cent Bulletproof.

The problem with TLOU is that sometimes encounters feel forced. As if devs didn't know what to do and just filled it with clickers for no reason. Encounter design is serviceable but nothing special which can make things a bit repetitive.

Similarly puzzles come down to pushing crates and making sure Ellie gets across. They could've made these silent moments more interesting by not treating players like kids and let them solve variety of different puzzles on their own but that's too much to ask from a AAA game of today.

This is something that Uncharted 4 lacked as well but luckily encounter design in uc4 is miles better than tlou. So I can see where you are coming from. I on other hand can ignore these flaws because rest of the game is solid.

Try playing on Death March.

I could imagine it would ramp up the difficulty, yeah, but does it fix the other problems? I think not.

If you were talking about Uncharted (esp. 4), I would agree with you. But I think TLoU actually had good and variable gameplay.

"Other big disaster that kills the off-path gameplay is the fact that smiths sell up-to-level gear, which makes hunting of rare loot completely pointless when a basic sword is always the best option to buy, since it always matches your level. Oh, and 99% of the battles i've played through by tapping fast attack only. Very rarely you have to throw in a dodge or two."

It solves all of that. As for the rest, well, the game can't help it if you don't like listening to dialogue and story. :P

It does solve those things?! HOLY CRAP! Thanks! Must try it asap!

But yeah, i'm still gonna have to live with all the dialogue lol

@Netret0120: How is a 5h 20/15$ game bad value compared to 15h for 60$? The ratio is basically the same if not better.

There are some games that feel like they drag on way too much. But it's usually just some parts I'd like to cut out / shorten. In the case of tlou for example I would have shortened the time between meeting his brother and playing the girl.

Ya let's just go ahead and dumb everything down. Who wants a good story anyways, go read a book nerd, video games shouldn't be deep

100% disagree here...while the gameplay is nothing to write home about, it did a good job at keeping me entertained while following the story, the fact that you have to face both humans and zombies, gave it a different feel...so yeah, not agree with this at all.

@phbz: Most games go for $60 new. I am assuming he is talking about new games.

I've played story driven games that last less than an hour. So it depends.

But not being a pedantic asshole, I find that AAA games that focus on story tend to suffer from pacing issues since the story is thinly stretched over several hours worth of gameplay.

A good story can be achieve in a short manner of time and one can be also presented well with large amount of content to it. It all about good pacing and not having excess of padding or filler, while also not making the characters and story itself shallow and weak.

Its only too long if its a chore to get to the end. While I understand that UC4 and TLOU are beloved, they have fairly shit gameplay. Its a lot of spectacle over substance and simplistic and mild challenges at best. Certain people like that kind of gameplay. Some people want the game to force them to try. A really good example of this gameplay differences is fallout 4 survival vs normal. Both are easy especially if you min max, but survival really requires to the player to put more effort in, plan a route with weapons and supplies before making any moves, and combat encounters have to be approached more tactically. Both are easy in the end, only 1 really requires the players full attention.

Naughty dog's latest games post ps2 do not require the players attention.

Last of Us did drag on a bit too long and the story started to lose focus in the later half of the game. I see high praise for the gameplay but it was just OK. Not great not bad just OK. The core of the mechanics were based on Uncharted with a little extra umph for stealth and even that was spotty at times. Not to mention the immersion breaking NPCs. With that said JRPG are significantly worse. They generally very formulaic with heavy dose of vagueness and obscurity in the beginning that always transforms into some ludicrous world ending conclusion.

@groowagon I can agree with you on the Witcher 3. The gameplay was mediocre and the story was overbearing. When I followed the campaign I found myself watching more than doing. I am not fond of watching "games" for I prefer to play my games.

Story can sometimes make up where the game fails, but the story has to be good enough. I thought for instance Beyond: Two Souls, I loved the story, but as far as QTE story games go was really lacking, and there wasn't much action-consequence to your decisions. Then there's games like MGS4, where both the game and story sucked; well, games like that just suck.

I also remember Enslaved, got decent reviews but gosh it was such an awful game, yet I really liked the story for it, I gotta admit they did a real good job there, but man the game sucked. Then there's a game like Deadly Premonition, a story driven game that felt so dated technically people joked that it was like a modern Dreamcast game. Reviews seemed divided though, and I understand why, despite being technically challenged, the game just oozes with its own unique quirky charm.

Games don't need intricate stories. Especially since they more than often suck really bad. In fact, stories often make games worse. I'm playing Inside right now. That game is fucking awesome. If I had to sit through cutscenes or text explaining shit, I would probably not have bothered with it.

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a good story. These are pretty much nonexistent in videogames though, and if the game maker is gonna waste time on some crappy half-assed story instead of what's fun to play, the **** is the point of playing the game?

They need to cut the filler out! A good example of this is alien isolation while an amazing game some of the middle parts felt like they just dragged on.

I wish they released the game for 20/30 bucks and made it shorter and more intense. Sort of like what outlast did.

I see what you're saying. Vanquish for example was a short game, but it had you by the balls from start to finish. If they had tried to pad it out to 15 hours, it probably would have been less enjoyable.