• 84 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by PeZ (112 posts) -

During the end of the pervious generation of consoles and the beginnig of this one, a lot of people got up in arms when games became under 10 hours in length. Not me though, I think 4-8 hours more often than not is a perfect lenght. But these past few years, games have started to get long again. I get that Skyrim has a lot of stuff, but does the main campaign have to be THAT long? Darksiders II, Borderlands 2, X-Com are all 20+, Dishonored over 10 on the first playthrough and so on. As someone who works and does shit, when I have a few hours of game time in day, if that, but still wants to experience those games, it's become pretty frustrating. And the worst thing is that a lot of the lenght comes from needless padding, too. So I'm looking forward to the next gen, when people need time to figure shit out and cut the length of the games. Anyone with me?

#2 Posted by theManUnknown (172 posts) -

You would have developers arbitrarily limit the amount of content in their games simply so you can have the satisfaction of completing them?

#3 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11025 posts) -

You are insane.

Moderator Online
#4 Posted by Genkkaku (735 posts) -

Nope.. As long as the mechanics are fun I can run that game into the ground..

#5 Posted by SomeJerk (3251 posts) -

Keep that 3-6 hour shit to $60 AAA FPS titles.

#6 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

I'm fine with short games as long as they're fairly priced. Last gen's games were anything but, though. I still remember the sting of paying full price for Onimusha only to finish it in two very short sessions (5 hours total).

#7 Posted by RPGee (759 posts) -

Yo man, games are expensive. I don't want to pay $80 for a game which will last me 10 hours max. I want as much content and as much replayability as I can get. If it's a cheap downloadable, then I care less about its length, but AAA games should be expected to have long amounts of content purely from the effort and resources put into them. So no, I'm not with you.

Plus, if you have a long game, and you can only play in short stints, then you get extra bang for your buck. Cater to that sort of interest by buying games that will help you with that. Or alternatively, just don't buy the games. Then you'll have more money for other stuff.

#8 Posted by Nightriff (5084 posts) -

I'll take my 70 to 100 hour persona games and move to the corner, we don't like to be around you kind...

#9 Posted by Vinny_Says (5709 posts) -

Every time this thread pops up I feel like I have to remind people that there is a HUGE market of parents who buy their kids games. Guess what, little Jimmy better have 6 months worth of fun with his new game cause he ain't getting another one until the next holiday.

How about you quit your job instead. That or go play dishonored (man that game is so damn short after coming off of Darksiders 2, Borderlands 2 and Sleeping Dogs).

#10 Posted by JoeyRavn (4974 posts) -

I don't see the problem. If a game is 20+ hours, wait until you're done with it to buy a new game. Why does it matter if you need two, three weeks to complete a game?

It seems to me you're not setting your priorities straight if the length of a game is such a problem in your schedule...

#11 Posted by RVonE (4638 posts) -

Persona 5 should be 6 hours long, same goes for the next Elder Scrolls; it's the perfect length for a game. OP agrees.

#12 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2341 posts) -

Go play Call of Duty campaigns if you want short games

#13 Edited by Tennmuerti (8104 posts) -

I think there are still plenty of short games on the market if you care to look for them. Walking Dead episodes, Orcs Must Die 2, Mark of the Ninja, off the top of my head as recent releases. New COD is out soon. Even bigger games can be made fairly short if you're just mainlining the story, instead of doing side stuff, like Sleeping Dogs or Dishonoured.

So i think if you're truly looking for shorter games, they are out there for you to find.

As far as the rest go, not every game is going to be tailored to your particular lifestyle. People who have more free time want bigger and beefier experiences. Or people with less spending budget who only play a single large game over a long period of time.

Needless padding can be bad, but of the games you mentioned almost none (except maybe arguably Darksiders 2) fall into that category. Borderlands 2 is basically a dungeon crawler loot game the whole premise of those games revolves around spending many many hours killing enemies, leveling up and getting better loot. Xcom is again free of padding, you don't have to grind anything if you don't want to and can play through normal relatively fast, it's longer by sheer virtue of being itself not padding. And Dishonoured can be a 20+ hour experience if you so wish or a 5 hour experience if you are lacking time/patience.

#14 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19342 posts) -

There are plenty of short games out there. Go play those, and let us who have the time enjoy the lengthier ones.

#15 Posted by PeZ (112 posts) -

You guys make me sound like I hate games or something :P

I just think there was nice medium for a while - the Halos, Gears, Arkham Asylum, Mirror's Edge, Uncharted 1-2, etc they were pretty good lenght for the campaign and had a bunch of extra shit for those who want it. I just want to play the big releases while they are new, you know, like I used to. And the worst thing is that a long game spread out like that - good luck remembering what happened in beginning. It's ok for Borderlands, for sure, that's a different kind of game, but for some more story heavy games it gets bad.

#16 Posted by jmood88 (394 posts) -

I literally work every day of the week and I still have plenty of time to play long games.

#17 Posted by sissylion (679 posts) -

I would much rather have a six-hour game with pacing and a consistent mood than have a sixty-hour one that's schizophrenic.

I have no idea how you people have so much free time that you can complain when games are under ten hours.

#18 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -

As much as I agree there are a lot of games out there that are needlessly long (Darksiders 2 and Resident Evil 6), you'll find no love for that argument. No one here is at the point when they recoil from padding or low quality content, they just want the hour count on the back of the box to be bigger.

That its endemic to games is also crazy. No one looks at a 300 page book next to a 400 page book and goes "well I'm gonna buy the 400 page book because it'll take away more of my time!"

#19 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@PeZ: You just named a load of recent games that fit for what you want and halo and gears have sequels we know are comming and apart from ME the others will get sequels as they are very big franchises. A Lot of people also want longer games. Your bitching seems pretty pointless. Just don't play the longer games if you don't want that as you have some stupid need to get every game out the way as fast as possible

You are an idiot.

#20 Edited by Tennmuerti (8104 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

No one looks at a 300 page book next to a 400 page book and goes "well I'm gonna buy the 400 page book because it'll take away more of my time!"

Lets make it a fairer comparison.

If books cost $60 and not say $12. I would look at a 40 page book next to a 1000 page book and probably go with the 1000 page book. (assuming both are said by critics (whose opinion is known to align with mine) to be at least good books)

Because if major game releases all cost as much as paperback books do, and the difference was a 3 hour game next to a 4 hour game, no one would field that argument/comparison much either.

#21 Posted by PeZ (112 posts) -

@Blimble said:

You are an idiot.

I love you, too.

The book metaphor was kind of what I was thinking of, and it seems weird to me, too. And it's not that I don't like these games. I do! But I just wish sometimes there would be an option to fast-forward a bit to see the story, and see all the scenarios, etc. Like LA Noir had an option to skip the action stuff and so on.

#22 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

I agree with you. I vastly prefer shorter games over longer games as they keep my attention for longer and don't drag out for too long. I also don't buy games at launch so I usually buy games for cheap. Some people on here are surprisingly rude on here. Games are meant to be finished now folks and the average gaming age is 30+ which means most gamers don't have a lot if time to play games. In short most games will continue to be shorter due to the majority wanting shorter games. Longer games will still be there but they will be in the vast minority. I'm fine with this

#23 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@PeZ: Again a lot of short games are made, you named some of them and a couple are definitely getting sequels. People want long games they can spend a lot of time on and if anything the industry is moving towards having less content in games. Don't play the long games if you have some stupid need to get every game finished as soon as possible and want less and less for your money. If you want a feature in Borderlands to fast forward to the stories bits (or most games really) then you missed the point of games. Buy a movie

#24 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Tennmuerti

@Brodehouse said:

No one looks at a 300 page book next to a 400 page book and goes "well I'm gonna buy the 400 page book because it'll take away more of my time!"

Lets make it a fairer comparison.

If books cost $60 and not say $12. I would look at a 40 page book next to a 1000 page book and probably go with the 1000 page book. (assuming both are said by critics to be at least good books)

So we're comparing a 4 hour game to a 100 hour game to be 'fairer'? The price thing falls apart as well; what if all books were 60 dollars? Then we'd operate under a different assumption of value. If all games were 5 dollars its not like we wouldn't be having this argument. We'd go "for 5 dollars I expect at least 20 hours of content".

The question is value. And I don't think a lot of games mentioned here (specifically Darksiders and RE6) are better games because they're longer. Even XCOM, I'd rather that 30 hour campaign was 10-15, and then I might play it 2-3 times. Instead of playing a 30 hour campaign once. For an example; Lee in the Walking Dead moves like a Goddamn snail sometimes. Doesn't make the game better, it just makes it longer.

There's a few games I can look at and go "that could've used a bit more time to stretch its legs" (ME3, Syndicate) and then way more that are just too much quantity not enough quality (Amalur, Darksiders, the story mode in Persona 4 Arena). There are more games that I look at and go "this game needs an editor" than "this game needs to be 4 hours longer".
#25 Posted by gamefreak9 (2359 posts) -

I don't agree that I we need more short games. Though some games are needlessly long and it feels like a waste of time just to get to the good content.

#26 Edited by Kidavenger (3554 posts) -

There are still plenty of short games being made, just as there have always been long games, picking out a few examples of long games to prove there are no short games is just about the most idiotic thing I've seen on these forums.

"Hey I wish they would get back to making longer games. The games they make now like Journey, Thirty Flights of Loving, Portal are all only a few hours long or less, why can't they get back to making games as they did last generation like Final Fantasy X, Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4 or Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic they all took 30+ hours and that's the way all games should be made!"

Online
#27 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@SomeJerk said:

Keep that 3-6 hour shit to $60 AAA FPS titles.

Yea but you get 100s of hours of online play.

#28 Edited by Tennmuerti (8104 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Tennmuerti

@Brodehouse said:

No one looks at a 300 page book next to a 400 page book and goes "well I'm gonna buy the 400 page book because it'll take away more of my time!"

Lets make it a fairer comparison.

If books cost $60 and not say $12. I would look at a 40 page book next to a 1000 page book and probably go with the 1000 page book. (assuming both are said by critics to be at least good books)

So we're comparing a 4 hour game to a 100 hour game to be 'fairer'?

My analogy is as faulty as yours. That was the point.

And yes we are comparing a 4 hour game to a 100 hour game, considering there are $60 games out there with both these time sinks. If you want to feel better about it we can say a 8 hour game versus a 50 hour one.

The extreme hour count was bringing into contrast the tiny difference in page count you used as an example, which is hardly the differentiation people have a problem with (6 hour game versus an 8 hour game say, 300 vs 400) but rather games with a much bigger time difference.

The price thing falls apart as well; what if all books were 60 dollars? Then we'd operate under a different assumption of value.

Again exactly my point. We are operating under different assumption of value. You can't make your book analogy applicable exactly for that reason.

The question is value. And I don't think a lot of games mentioned here (specifically Darksiders and RE6) are better games because they're longer. Even XCOM, I'd rather that 30 hour campaign was 10-15, and then I might play it 2-3 times. Instead of playing a 30 hour campaign once. For an example; Lee in the Walking Dead moves like a Goddamn snail sometimes. Doesn't make the game better, it just makes it longer.

I was not questioning the games mentioned in this thread, I was questioning a broken faulty book analogy.

The games I discussed and stated my opinion on in another post earlier.

Note: (I edited and extra line in the reply above to reinforce said point of why the analogy falls apart, but you replied meanwhile)

#29 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Tennmuerti The argument wasn't 4 hours versus 100 though, or even 8 versus 50. It was 6-10 versus 20-25. But whatever. That's only partially my problem.

The book reference was only to bring in that people's associations of value go completely out of whack when video games are concerned. No one gives a rip about the length of a book, or a movie because we don't do those activities to just _have our time taken away_, like it appears everyone here demands of video games. No one here has said "I feel like the game would've improved if it had another 2-3 hours on it" they've said "I need it to last that long for the money!" Talking about games more like drugs than an art form. I cannot dig that at all, and it's really my problem with the "Game has to last 30 hours who cares if its all rehashed!" stuff.

And personally, I really don't want to do anything for more than 40 hours, especially if a story is involved. I love sex but I don't want to fuck for 40 hours either. It's great that Skyrim is a bazillion hours long, but I played 50 and was sick of the low-rent storytelling and placeholder stuff. That game would've been better being 40 hours with three times the polish rather than 120 with the polish it had.
#30 Edited by Tennmuerti (8104 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Tennmuerti The argument wasn't 4 hours versus 100 though, or even 8 versus 50. It was 6-10 versus 20-25. But whatever.

Which is not 6 hours vs 8 now is it. You used a deliberately slanted comparison. As did I. To point it out.

The book reference was only to bring in that people's associations of value go completely out of whack when video games are concerned. No one gives a rip about the length of a book, or a movie because we don't do those activities to just _have our time taken away_, like it appears everyone here demands of video games

You speak of value associations, but don't forget the discussion we just had and you yourself pointed out of how the large difference in base product cost makes it a different assumption of value for people. I will repeat it again, if big budget games cost as cheaply as a book or a movie people would not demand as much for their $. (yay steam sales!) We can see this easily in the recent rise of the "indie" scene where almost no one ever complains about an $10 indie title not being a 20+ hour product and their length is rarely at issue overall.

I agree with almost everything else you said, length is not necessarily value. But it's also a different entertainment medium, an interactive one, with it's own nuances, so quantity is a factor for a lot of people in it. A RL football match wouldn't be any fun to play or watch say if it was 10 minutes long. But for a $5 priced coffee that coffee better be fucking excellent and of a large quantity.

All these comparisons to other things that give us pleasure are essentially pointless because they are all so different in how they give people that enjoyment and if quantity matters or not.

PS: Personally I don't care exactly how long the game is almost ever. Quantity is too irrelevant a factor baked into the Quality, for me. With the sole exception if it's for example a simplistic shooter of 6 hours for $60, that's pretty much the start and end of my care threshold to do with length. I'm not arguing for longer games here or that people should just accept that length is important. I only argue that we should not compare different mediums and price points so directly with each other nor advance then as any sort of decisive argument. You remember how pissed people get when someone in a DRM/piracy discussion brings up the analogy of used cars to try to apply the same rule set to both, like it's not a zombie horse with more sticks broken on it then .. ok I will admit I do not not how to finish this metaphor :(

#31 Posted by CptBedlam (4451 posts) -

Nope. You are always free to not finish a game and play just as much as you like.

#32 Posted by PeZ (112 posts) -

@Tennmuerti: See again - with food or drinks a tasting menu or a really nice glass of wine or scotch, isn't a lot of volume for money, but quality. Games are luxury items anyways, and I think there would be a lot to be gained in a short, tight and dense game in stead of a 40 hour behemoth.

#33 Edited by Tennmuerti (8104 posts) -

@PeZ said:

@Tennmuerti: See again - with food or drinks a tasting menu or a really nice glass of wine or scotch, isn't a lot of volume for money, but quality. Games are luxury items anyways, and I think there would be a lot to be gained in a short, tight and dense game in stead of a 40 hour behemoth.

Not true with all value placed on food, even luxury food. Many people value a decently prepared, normally priced but large steak over a super well prepared, tiny but overpriced steak for example. Others value the reverse.

Please see above discussion why these comparisons of other $ for enjoyment products are largely irrelevant in the first place. They function in why/how they provide said enjoyment differently and do so with distinct methods.

#34 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Tennmuerti I think you're looking at a different site than I am. People complain about game length on indie games every single time.

And no, the difference in product cost _does not_ lower people's demands on length. If all traditional retail games are now 10 dollars, they would _absolutely_ still go "why isn't this game twice as long?" Because people don't treat games the way they treat every other form of art. That is my entire problem. Treating games like they were some kind of drug you can inject to lose time, rather than something to enjoy. Then we wind up with little kernels of stories stretched into 90 hour 'epics' because the number on the back of the box has to be higher than that other game. You wind up with games that have a 10 hour tutorial like FFXIII. Games that just go on and on and on and on because it has to be this hour count, regardless of the quality of any specific hour.

I don't mind a game having replay value or the gameplay being rewarding enough to keep doing; I've played probably 60+ hours of Persona 4 Arena, I keep going back to NFS: Hot Pursuit. But P4A was not better because it took a story that was about 8 hours of ideas and stretched it to 30.
#35 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

In what weird alternate universe is XCOM: Enemy Unknown longer than 9-15 hours? 
At least on regular difficulty, classic is a bitch. 

#36 Posted by Shookems (474 posts) -

@PeZ: I agree with you dude. I appreciate short, concise experiences without the added padding. Portal and Journey are pretty good examples of this. I would definitely welcome more downloadable games with a 3-4 hour story.

Man do people get touchy on this board.

#37 Posted by Nux (2360 posts) -

No games are fine the way thet are time wise, some could be longer but over all if I'm paying $60 for a game it better be long. This is why I really like JRPGs they last forever.

#38 Posted by onarum (2089 posts) -

I'm fine with short games as long as they are priced accordingly...

Online
#39 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Tennmuerti If all traditional retail games are now 10 dollars, they would _absolutely_ still go "why isn't this game twice as long?" Because people don't treat games the way they treat every other form of art.

If that was the standard price for retail games and you could choose between two of the same quality that are very similar but one is longer which are you going to go with?

People want to get the best deal for there money. And yes this applies to other art forms as well just in different ways. You shouldn't make direct comparisons between games and other media as they are very different so the comparison doesn't work. That's why comparing it to a book doesn't work as an analogy

#40 Posted by Swoxx (3000 posts) -

@theManUnknown said:

You would have developers arbitrarily limit the amount of content in their games simply so you can have the satisfaction of completing them?

@MooseyMcMan said:

You are insane.

#41 Edited by Tennmuerti (8104 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Tennmuerti I think you're looking at a different site than I am. People complain about game length on indie games every single time.

Fair enough. I only speak from personal experience. And I don't see this phenomenon, then again I only play a few indie games now and again, not a lot. Nor do i bother with forums in regards to them most of the time to be fair, simply because their format leaves little for in depth prolonged discussion most of the time.

And no, the difference in product cost _does not_ lower people's demands on length.

Dude, you agreed with me that price makes a difference in how value is judged. Please lets not make it necessary to quote previous statements. I would think we should be above that.

If all traditional retail games are now 10 dollars, they would _absolutely_ still go "why isn't this game twice as long?"

We can speak of this hypothetical scenario again when it occurs then.

Because people don't treat games the way they treat every other form of art.

And they shouldn't treat them the same way imo. People don't treat or value paintings the same way they do movies do they. Nor do I treat books like I do movies or hold them to the same standards or quality interpretations.

That is my entire problem. Treating games like they were some kind of drug you can inject to lose time, rather than something to enjoy.

I simply have a different perspective. A more positive one. They treat it differently because it different. (I personally treat it like most other mediums with a focus on enjoyment foremost like you, only when quanity gets to extreme negative levels do i personally have an issue)

It's the kind of thing we will have to agree do disagree on, because it's purely personal perception of the issue I think.

Then we wind up with little kernels of stories stretched into 90 hour 'epics' because the number on the back of the box has to be higher than that other game. You wind up with games that have a 10 hour tutorial like FFXIII. Games that just go on and on and on and on because it has to be this hour count, regardless of the quality of any specific hour.

Hey, bad and overly padded games are bad. No argument here!

#42 Posted by The_Nubster (2147 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

As much as I agree there are a lot of games out there that are needlessly long (Darksiders 2 and Resident Evil 6), you'll find no love for that argument. No one here is at the point when they recoil from padding or low quality content, they just want the hour count on the back of the box to be bigger. That its endemic to games is also crazy. No one looks at a 300 page book next to a 400 page book and goes "well I'm gonna buy the 400 page book because it'll take away more of my time!"

I think there's something to be said for a developer who can show restraint and learn not to overstay their welcome, but asking for a limit on games is ridiculous. I don't care about hour count, as long as I have fun, but some games thrive on the amount of content they have. Almost every game OP brought up would be totally inconsequential if they were 4-6 hours long, because they have a little bit more going on in terms of systems and mechanics, and need a longer time for the player to soak in them and enjoy them.

#43 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Blimble

@Brodehouse said:

@Tennmuerti If all traditional retail games are now 10 dollars, they would _absolutely_ still go "why isn't this game twice as long?" Because people don't treat games the way they treat every other form of art.

If that was the standard price for retail games and you could choose between two of the same quality that are very similar but one is longer which are you going to go with?

People want to get the best deal for there money. And yes this applies to other art forms as well just in different ways. You shouldn't make direct comparisons between games and other media as they are very different so the comparison doesn't work. That's why comparing it to a book doesn't work as an analogy

You say we shouldn't compare because you already know "one is longer so its better" wont work. Two movies come out, you're interested in them both, but one is 90 minutes and the other is 3 hours. Obviously, you _must_ choose the longer one, right?

Someone brought up food, and the difference between finely prepared meals and fast food. Which goes straight to something I said about RE6; "the food is terrible, but such large portions!" Even then, food is a physiological need, entertainment is entertainment. I don't need to just find something to stuff my mind hole with, or I (and you) would be playing F2P MMOs and social games. I don't care if its 90 hours long, if it could've been better by just 40 hours long.
#44 Posted by JoeyRavn (4974 posts) -

Why people keep using analogies as the backbone of their arguments is beyond me.

#45 Posted by Blimble (302 posts) -

@Brodehouse: So all art forms are the same and we should judge them on the same merits?

Well paintings are shit, no dialogue at all. Not even ones popping up between shots like old movies. And don't get me started on the music.

Why can't people get that for games to ever become good art they can't just copy other forms of art?

Also you implied that every long game is bad and full of padding. Games should be the appropriate length and games like Borderlands should be long.

#46 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Tennmuerti I think you are misunderstanding. In a world where _ALL_ traditional retail games are 10 bucks, people would still be making those arguments because their perceptions of value would change. It's not "games cost so much so that's why people look at games based on length" it's "people treat games like time wasters before any other consideration". I staunchly dislike that idea.

In this very topic someone said "If I pay 60 dollars it better be long. That's why I love JRPGs, they go on forever!" Notice the thing he says is long, not good.

It all just reminds me of that Woody Allen movie where Daniel Stern is buying art from a painter and saying that he just wants them to cover up wall space.
#47 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@The_Nubster

@Brodehouse said:

As much as I agree there are a lot of games out there that are needlessly long (Darksiders 2 and Resident Evil 6), you'll find no love for that argument. No one here is at the point when they recoil from padding or low quality content, they just want the hour count on the back of the box to be bigger. That its endemic to games is also crazy. No one looks at a 300 page book next to a 400 page book and goes "well I'm gonna buy the 400 page book because it'll take away more of my time!"

I think there's something to be said for a developer who can show restraint and learn not to overstay their welcome, but asking for a limit on games is ridiculous. I don't care about hour count, as long as I have fun, but some games thrive on the amount of content they have. Almost every game OP brought up would be totally inconsequential if they were 4-6 hours long, because they have a little bit more going on in terms of systems and mechanics, and need a longer time for the player to soak in them and enjoy them.

You find where I said game length should be limited.

Games should be as long as they need to be (and preferably, they should have gameplay so rewarding its infinitely replayable). Stories should be as long as they need to be to suit the story. But that's not what people are bringing up, they're bringing up the dollar value. At that point, why would a developer make smart edits to their pacing? Everyone is more interested in an hour count than the moment to moment quality or pacing.
#48 Edited by Tennmuerti (8104 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Tennmuerti I think you are misunderstanding. In a world where _ALL_ traditional retail games are 10 bucks, people would still be making those arguments because their perceptions of value would change.

Ok now I am definitely misunderstanding, people would make the same argument because the value perceptions would change? Sorry, either you're not explaining it properly, or i am way lost, because that sounds bonkers. Maybe you meant to say "wouldn't" change? The way it is currently phrased in that sentence the logic is: if all games are 10 bucks, perception of value would change, therefore arguments wouldn't change

And I agree in fact they would still be making those arguments, because length is a factor them, I only argued that it would matter much less. The argument would not disappear (such is the nature of the medium), but they would change and be lessened.

It's not "games cost so much so that's why people look at games based on length" it's "people treat games like time wasters before any other consideration". I staunchly dislike that idea.

To the first quote: that's A factor whether you personally accept it or not to be a reason for such value judgement. How much of a factor is up to the individual to decide.

To the second: personal perception, you choose to see people treating it that way, i choose to see people having a different set of values to judge this entertainment medium. Just like they treat and value other media differently. But now I am just repeating what I already said earlier.

In this very topic someone said "If I pay 60 dollars it better be long. That's why I love JRPGs, they go on forever!" Notice the thing he says is long, not good.

One assumes a base level of quality is implied. C'mon dude. (and if it isn't, you can take it up and argue with that person)

It all just reminds me of that Woody Allen movie where Daniel Stern is buying art from a painter and saying that he just wants them to cover up wall space.

And ironically a huuuuuuge proportion of people who buy art do it for this exact reason.

#49 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

I'm confused: I thought games had this saving mechanism that allowed you to stop playing the game while not losing any progress, meaning you come back to the game later and pick up where you left off. Was I misinformed about this wonderful-sounding ability?

#50 Posted by Brodehouse (9950 posts) -
@Blimble

@Brodehouse: So all art forms are the same and we should judge them on the same merits?

Well paintings are shit, no dialogue at all. Not even ones popping up between shots like old movies. And don't get me started on the music.

Why can't people get that for games to ever become good art they can't just copy other forms of art?

Also you implied that every long game is bad and full of padding. Games should be the appropriate length and games like Borderlands should be long.

You're being horribly reductionist and I won't engage with that.