• 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Animasta (14638 posts) -

I mean just because guys have a 4 inch-

haha JOKES (see you thought I was going to talk about penises but NOPE)(this is called a misleading headline you see)

now serious topic (well not that serious because it's about video games but)

Okay so I have my own little personal top 10 games list that's not going to change because I have no money, and I was thinking about the top two games on my list; Binary Domain and Crusader Kings 2

both really the same game, I know, but still

It took me 10 hours or so to get through BD I think. I loved it, it was incredible and amazing and funny and sad and what not, but I played it, said YEP and sold it to gamestop to buy something I completely forget now (it might've been tales of the abyss for ps2) anyway, I can still mostly remember the game at least. It's no Nier which I can still basically remember the most detailed descriptions of the plot to this very day and it is still my favorite game of all time. but BD was only like 10 hours, and there were parts of that game that were mad boring or not great (sewer level in particular)

Crusader Kings 2, on the other hand, I still play regularly. I have 192 hours of it according to steam, and that is kind of a lot for a game released this year. It's amazing in a completely different way, though; I love it, but I don't love it because it's revolutionary like I think BD was, just that I think it's a really good game, and it's gotten plenty of laughs out of me this year too because it's fuckin random as shit. It also has it's problems (why can I only do absolute cognatic with the Basque culture this is bullshit)

Here is Ingegerd of the Bjork dynasty who has the homosexual trait FOR EXAMPLE (sadly she is not ruling in Iceland but I'll take what I can get)

so it's like, yeah. Binary Domain was definitely more impactful to me, but does that mean it's better than CK2? I don't know and I don't think you can tell me how i feel so this is a terrible question anyway. I was just wondering what y'all think of my predicament, and whether a game's length really matters to you in terms of whether it should have an impact on your favorite games of the year.

#1 Posted by Animasta (14638 posts) -

I mean just because guys have a 4 inch-

haha JOKES (see you thought I was going to talk about penises but NOPE)(this is called a misleading headline you see)

now serious topic (well not that serious because it's about video games but)

Okay so I have my own little personal top 10 games list that's not going to change because I have no money, and I was thinking about the top two games on my list; Binary Domain and Crusader Kings 2

both really the same game, I know, but still

It took me 10 hours or so to get through BD I think. I loved it, it was incredible and amazing and funny and sad and what not, but I played it, said YEP and sold it to gamestop to buy something I completely forget now (it might've been tales of the abyss for ps2) anyway, I can still mostly remember the game at least. It's no Nier which I can still basically remember the most detailed descriptions of the plot to this very day and it is still my favorite game of all time. but BD was only like 10 hours, and there were parts of that game that were mad boring or not great (sewer level in particular)

Crusader Kings 2, on the other hand, I still play regularly. I have 192 hours of it according to steam, and that is kind of a lot for a game released this year. It's amazing in a completely different way, though; I love it, but I don't love it because it's revolutionary like I think BD was, just that I think it's a really good game, and it's gotten plenty of laughs out of me this year too because it's fuckin random as shit. It also has it's problems (why can I only do absolute cognatic with the Basque culture this is bullshit)

Here is Ingegerd of the Bjork dynasty who has the homosexual trait FOR EXAMPLE (sadly she is not ruling in Iceland but I'll take what I can get)

so it's like, yeah. Binary Domain was definitely more impactful to me, but does that mean it's better than CK2? I don't know and I don't think you can tell me how i feel so this is a terrible question anyway. I was just wondering what y'all think of my predicament, and whether a game's length really matters to you in terms of whether it should have an impact on your favorite games of the year.

#2 Posted by MAGZine (435 posts) -

Length is important, but you're not impressing anyone without girth.

Yes I'm talking about videogames.

#3 Edited by MonetaryDread (1987 posts) -

I think that the length of a game is important for as long as developers charge $60+ for a video game. If I have a choice between a game like Skyrim and a game like Darkness II, I choose the Skyrim type game. At $20 or less, I don't care how long the game is. If Activision released a $20 Call of Duty campaign that was only an hour and a half-long, I would buy it every year.

TL:DR -- $20 is an impulse buy, $60 isn't, so if a developer charges full price length matters.

#4 Posted by Animasta (14638 posts) -

@MonetaryDread: maybe you're right, I did only pay 40 dollars for CK2...

#5 Posted by Tim_the_Corsair (3065 posts) -

Length (ha) is a factor, but one that gets given too much consideration when considered alongside qualitative aspects.

I mean, FTL is a fantastic game with essentially limitless replayability due to being randomised, whereas Dishonoured, say, is going to give you a limited length campaign, and then the upcoming BLOPS2 will probably give you 5 hours of single player and then the multiplayer (which can be considered limitless as well, but in a completely different way).

So which of these is the winner in terms of length (heh)? Of these three games, if length is a determining factor (teehee!), should BLOPS2 not be the winner considering it has a campaign plus multi modes?

Of course not, because game length (giggle) is not really comparable across genres, and has nothing to do with the quality of the experience, but more about the dollar value to hours played factor, which is a completely separate thing.

I don't think the people judging the Oscars sit down and say to themselves "well I think movie X was the best made movie I've seen in a decade, but Michael Bay's latest is 3.5 hours long (lol) so..."

Length (smirk) is a bullet point in the pro or con list, but I don't think you can turn around and say that Crusader Kings is automatically better because you played it more compared to a campaign third person shooter.

If Binary Domain is the one that stands out, then you've made your decision and length (bbbbbbboooooioioioing) obviously wasn't important enough to be a deciding factor

#6 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

People need to stop trying to equate the length of the game compared to the amount they paid for it (I notice a lot of people are quick to say "Four hours for a 60 dollar game?! What a rip off", but not a lot of people going "This game was one hundred hours. I should be paying double for this game"). What people should be asking is "was the time I spent with the game fun, and am I satisfied now that I have completed it". Fixating on an arbitrary length is kind of silly, and it only going to led to games getting padded to meet an unnecessary target.

#7 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11423 posts) -

Length does matter, but it shouldn't become an issue if it's paced effectively. Take The Witcher, for example. I think that game is great. But it also meanders like crazy and the story doesn't get genuinely interesting until halfway or so through Act 2. Meanwhile, Conker's Bad Fur Day is actually pretty short, especially compared to the other Rare 3D platformers that were on the N64. But it's also paced as to the point where you are rarely not doing anything interesting or meaningful and I think making it much longer wouldn't have made it any better. Of course, I rarely buy games at full price, and if I were to have paid $60 for a 10 hour action game I don't think I would be so willing to forgive.

#8 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5183 posts) -

Uncharted 2 is the only exception to the rule in terms of length not really mattering that much (though it's still pretty long for a shooter); every other 5-10 hour game kind of feels like a let down compared to tossing down the same amount of money for 40-60 hours (or 200+ hours, though in those cases that's probably just user obsession with the game).

#9 Posted by Milkman (16485 posts) -

It's not about how long it is, it's how you use it. 
 
Yes, this is applicable to video games as well. 

#10 Posted by Hizang (8534 posts) -

"Insert witty dick joke here"

#11 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5183 posts) -

@Animasta: How awesome is Alexius Comnenus in CK2? He was the go to guy for ridiculously high stats heirs in the original Crusader Kings. Deus Vult!

#12 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

yeah kind of. i enjoy a game that is like 15 hours plus than say a 8 hour game. one thing i don't like in some games is sometimes games are just too long, boring to be good. too long can get boring.

#13 Edited by egg (1450 posts) -

Funny you mention this because just the other day I had another one of my trademark astounding revelations

anyway, my newfound hypothesis is that the goodness/greatness of a game is dependent on two factors. That's right, only two.

lastability

and wide appeal

Now one might read this and think "well what about fun factor?" well that goes under lastability. If a game isn't fun to begin with then obviously you wouldn't play it for very long.

#14 Posted by Branthog (7340 posts) -

@MAGZine said:

Length is important, but you're not impressing anyone without girth.

Yes I'm talking about videogames.

I prefer mine to have both length and girth, but short and thin is okay, if you know how to use what you have.

Yes, I'm also talking about video games.

#15 Edited by huntad (1930 posts) -

No. If a game is enjoyable enough, I'll remember it for what it was. I played Mark of the Ninja and beat it relatively quickly, however, it is definitely going to be on my GotY list. It's no Borderlands 2, XCOM, Mass Effect 3, or The Witcher 2 (360) (in terms of hours spent playing), but I loved every second I played of it and want to replay through it.

#16 Posted by Castiel (2520 posts) -

They say it doesn't, but that's not really true.

Yes, I'm actually also talking about vidja games.

#17 Posted by CornBREDX (4757 posts) -

Length is meaningless to me if it's due to filler. 
For me it's about the journey, although I do agree for 60$ I want it to be worth it.  
 
I feel it's a slippery slope on both sides. Either you're too short, and don't justify the purchase, or you're too long and full of filler so it may as well be shorter then it is because you get bored with what they are asking you to do. 
Quite often the experience these days is dulled by the focus on making games longer- it's been bothering me recently although currently not a problem but seems to be a bigger problem this generation of games then any other I can think of.

#18 Posted by Evilsbane (4519 posts) -

@MAGZine said:

Length is important, but you're not impressing anyone without girth.

Yes I'm talking about videogames.

I find a mix of length and girth is Essential, . . . in video games of course!

#19 Posted by Fleppie (200 posts) -

@MAGZine said:

Length is important, but you're not impressing anyone without girth.

Yes I'm talking about videogames.

Hahahha, that is the best metaphore ever! :)

#20 Posted by Ben_H (3296 posts) -

Then we get to the crazy question when it comes to this. What about roguelikes? Technically you can beat FTL in a bit over an hour if you make it to the end. Sure there are unlocks but technically the game is actually super short. I've played 29 hours of it in the last week hahaha

#21 Posted by TyCobb (1944 posts) -

@FlarePhoenix said:

People need to stop trying to equate the length of the game compared to the amount they paid for it (I notice a lot of people are quick to say "Four hours for a 60 dollar game?! What a rip off", but not a lot of people going "This game was one hundred hours. I should be paying double for this game"). What people should be asking is "was the time I spent with the game fun, and am I satisfied now that I have completed it". Fixating on an arbitrary length is kind of silly, and it only going to led to games getting padded to meet an unnecessary target.

How can paying $50 for a 6 hour campaign be satisfying? I can't imagine anyone would be satisfied after that. I bought Fable 1 for $30 when it finally dropped in price years ago. I was extremely pissed when 6 hours later the game ended and I sat through 30 minutes of credits at the end. The game was fun, but I still felt cheated. It killed all the enjoyment I had when I realized the last boss fight was actually the last boss fight (easiest boss ever). That $30 could have paid for other entertainment that could have lasted longer. People have a right to bitch about the length of games in correlation to the amount they paid. It's asinine to spend $60 for a game to only have 5-10 hours of game play. There is absolutely no reason to charge that much when obviously the value isn't there. Granted a game's value is in the eye of the beholder, but if they just paid $60 for 10 hours of game play and followed your question of "was the time I spent with the game fun, and am I satisfied now that I have completed it" -- I can see 99% of the people saying, "no, I am not satisfied".

#22 Edited by Animasta (14638 posts) -

@Fredchuckdave said:

@Animasta: How awesome is Alexius Comnenus in CK2? He was the go to guy for ridiculously high stats heirs in the original Crusader Kings. Deus Vult!

Ihave no idea since I usually play Navarra since they're the only ones that can institute equal opportunity succession laws for some reason?

my current ruuler and her heir are both dope as fuck though

both awesome geniuses and shit, hell yeah

Berengaria's hubby is a genius too

#23 Edited by EthanielRain (757 posts) -

I don't remember how much The Legend of Zelda cost when I was a kid and in a few years I won't remember the money I spent on great games of this generation...I'll only remember the games & the experiences that came along with them.

I'd rather have a few amazing hours with a game than many mediocre ones. And more to your OP, if I enjoyed two games equally as much but one was longer? Meh, length doesn't really factor into it at all for me. Which is better, a 16 oz steak or a piece of candy? They're both awesome in their own way :D

#24 Posted by Vinny_Says (5681 posts) -

As long as you enjoy every bit of it the length doesn't matter.

Yes I'm talking about penises videogames.

#25 Posted by Tebbit (4447 posts) -

@Hizang said:

"Insert witty dick joke here"

Insert witty insertion joke here.

#26 Edited by frankfartmouth (1016 posts) -

Length matters in some games and in some situations, mainly just getting your money's worth out of a $60 purchase, but it means nothing at all to me insofar as whether a game is good or not. In fact, I find that I usually like playing shorter, tighter, more linear games the most where the experience comes together well. But if I'm dropping a full $60 on a new game, I will factor it in to my decision. It doesn't have to be Skyrim long for me to get it, but I wouldn't pay $60 for Journey, as good as it is

#27 Posted by Mcfart (1538 posts) -

Length is importent.

In videogames

And real life...

#28 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -

@FlarePhoenix said:

People need to stop trying to equate the length of the game compared to the amount they paid for it (I notice a lot of people are quick to say "Four hours for a 60 dollar game?! What a rip off", but not a lot of people going "This game was one hundred hours. I should be paying double for this game"). What people should be asking is "was the time I spent with the game fun, and am I satisfied now that I have completed it". Fixating on an arbitrary length is kind of silly, and it only going to led to games getting padded to meet an unnecessary target.

I think that's true, to an extent. Having games padded out for the sake of being "over 50 hours!" would be stupid and in certain cases, you don't want games to be that long anyway. Shooting dudes isn't going to carry a 50 hour campaign, but I don't see why you should write off the whole "time vs price" as a pointless argument, especially when we're already seeing every big budget game pad itself out with pointless multiplayer modes.

Dear Esther was an amazing 1 hour experience, but it also only cost me £5. If it were £40, I probably wouldn't have been as happy at the end.

#29 Edited by Fredchuckdave (5183 posts) -

@Animasta: I'm reasonably sure any government can use Semisalic Consanguinity (i.e. merit based succesion), unless you mean both male and female heirs?

#30 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@TyCobb said:

@FlarePhoenix said:

People need to stop trying to equate the length of the game compared to the amount they paid for it (I notice a lot of people are quick to say "Four hours for a 60 dollar game?! What a rip off", but not a lot of people going "This game was one hundred hours. I should be paying double for this game"). What people should be asking is "was the time I spent with the game fun, and am I satisfied now that I have completed it". Fixating on an arbitrary length is kind of silly, and it only going to led to games getting padded to meet an unnecessary target.

How can paying $50 for a 6 hour campaign be satisfying? I can't imagine anyone would be satisfied after that. I bought Fable 1 for $30 when it finally dropped in price years ago. I was extremely pissed when 6 hours later the game ended and I sat through 30 minutes of credits at the end. The game was fun, but I still felt cheated. It killed all the enjoyment I had when I realized the last boss fight was actually the last boss fight (easiest boss ever). That $30 could have paid for other entertainment that could have lasted longer. People have a right to bitch about the length of games in correlation to the amount they paid. It's asinine to spend $60 for a game to only have 5-10 hours of game play. There is absolutely no reason to charge that much when obviously the value isn't there. Granted a game's value is in the eye of the beholder, but if they just paid $60 for 10 hours of game play and followed your question of "was the time I spent with the game fun, and am I satisfied now that I have completed it" -- I can see 99% of the people saying, "no, I am not satisfied".

It's not the length; it's how you use it. It's all just a sense of entitlement why we keep getting people going on about how the arbitrary price didn't match up to the arbitrary length of the game. I'm sorry, but it has to work both ways: if we keep going on about how games are too short for the 60 dollars, we need to also be saying some games are too long to only be paying 60. Otherwise we're just being hypocritical. Also, if you're complaining about 60 dollars for 10 hours of gameplay, I'm sorry but you're overreacting.

@WinterSnowblind said:

@FlarePhoenix said:

People need to stop trying to equate the length of the game compared to the amount they paid for it (I notice a lot of people are quick to say "Four hours for a 60 dollar game?! What a rip off", but not a lot of people going "This game was one hundred hours. I should be paying double for this game"). What people should be asking is "was the time I spent with the game fun, and am I satisfied now that I have completed it". Fixating on an arbitrary length is kind of silly, and it only going to led to games getting padded to meet an unnecessary target.

I think that's true, to an extent. Having games padded out for the sake of being "over 50 hours!" would be stupid and in certain cases, you don't want games to be that long anyway. Shooting dudes isn't going to carry a 50 hour campaign, but I don't see why you should write off the whole "time vs price" as a pointless argument, especially when we're already seeing every big budget game pad itself out with pointless multiplayer modes.

Dear Esther was an amazing 1 hour experience, but it also only cost me £5. If it were £40, I probably wouldn't have been as happy at the end.

It just annoys me when people go on about time vs price as if there is some length a game should be required to meet to be considered worth the money. If the choice was "A hundred hour game, but 99 hours of that was pointless side quests and mini-games" and "A four hour game consisting of nothing but a compelling story, interesting character and a deep rich narrative" I'm going to take the second each and every time.

I'm just getting a little tired of seeing so much childish entitlement in the game industry.

#31 Edited by TruthTellah (8421 posts) -

@FlarePhoenix said:

It just annoys me when people go on about time vs price as if there is some length a game should be required to meet to be considered worth the money. If the choice was "A hundred hour game, but 99 hours of that was pointless side quests and mini-games" and "A four hour game consisting of nothing but a compelling story, interesting character and a deep rich narrative" I'm going to take the second each and every time.

I'm just getting a little tired of seeing so much childish entitlement in the game industry.

I think it's a bit silly to characterize it as "entitlement" when it appears to simply be a difference in preference. Some people apply value to experiences in a different way, and people often come to games looking for different things. Certain parts of a game or the types of experiences in a game matter more to other people than they matter to you, and vice versa. That isn't necessarily entitlement; that's people having personal standards of their own that you may or may not disagree with.

#32 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@TruthTellah said:

@FlarePhoenix said:

It just annoys me when people go on about time vs price as if there is some length a game should be required to meet to be considered worth the money. If the choice was "A hundred hour game, but 99 hours of that was pointless side quests and mini-games" and "A four hour game consisting of nothing but a compelling story, interesting character and a deep rich narrative" I'm going to take the second each and every time.

I'm just getting a little tired of seeing so much childish entitlement in the game industry.

I think it's a bit silly to characterize it as "entitlement" when it appears to simply be a difference in preference. Some people apply value to experiences in a different way, and people often come to games looking for different things. That isn't necessarily entitlement; that's people having personal standards of their own that you may or may not disagree with.

I'm sorry but complaining about a game being too short for the price you're paying, while having no problem paying that price for an incredibly long game, is being entitled. If you want to complain about games being too short for the price (again, I'd argue attaching an arbitrary number to this all is quite silly) that's fine, but if you're not also complaining about paying too little for games that are really long, I'm going to call you out on it.

#33 Posted by Ghostiet (5209 posts) -

It's not about length, it's about the pacing. If a game is 40 hours long and it's filled with natter and filler, it's not good. This is the primary problem with Darksiders 2 - up until I landed in World 2, it was my game of the year, but then, it began to drag as hell. On the other hand, if a game is 8 hours long, but is paced well, like Uncharted 2, it's fine.

#34 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7613 posts) -

@FlarePhoenix: A game like Skyrim feels like good value because of its size and length. If it cost $140 for that instead of the normal retail price, then you're straight back to the same situation as feeling like a 5 hour game not being worth $60.

#35 Posted by TruthTellah (8421 posts) -

@FlarePhoenix said:

@TruthTellah said:

@FlarePhoenix said:

It just annoys me when people go on about time vs price as if there is some length a game should be required to meet to be considered worth the money. If the choice was "A hundred hour game, but 99 hours of that was pointless side quests and mini-games" and "A four hour game consisting of nothing but a compelling story, interesting character and a deep rich narrative" I'm going to take the second each and every time.

I'm just getting a little tired of seeing so much childish entitlement in the game industry.

I think it's a bit silly to characterize it as "entitlement" when it appears to simply be a difference in preference. Some people apply value to experiences in a different way, and people often come to games looking for different things. That isn't necessarily entitlement; that's people having personal standards of their own that you may or may not disagree with.

I'm sorry but complaining about a game being too short for the price you're paying, while having no problem paying that price for an incredibly long game, is being entitled. If you want to complain about games being too short for the price (again, I'd argue attaching an arbitrary number to this all is quite silly) that's fine, but if you're not also complaining about paying too little for games that are really long, I'm going to call you out on it.

Well, then that hypothetical person you're talking about is misguided, but we're talking about real people. And real people genuinely value different things in an experience. Maybe time really is a factor for them. For you, it's perhaps quality over quantity, but as the world around you clearly shows, plenty of people prefer quantity over quality. That's just the reality of how people are. Preferably, we'd just have quality and quantity, but often, it's fine to have them in varying degrees. A MMORPG may not have the inherent quality of a super strong indie game with only a few hours of gameplay, but it has quality in the longterm. That's quantity enriching the overall perceived quality of an experience. Maybe MMOs aren't for everyone, as they don't see the value, but that's their personal preference.

I don't think anyone would say a 60 dollar game has to absolutely be a certain length. And few would say a 15 dollar game has to somehow be gimped in length to match. It's a matter of the overall perceived value determined by your own preferences in an experience. A 60 dollar game could be rather short if the gameplay is there, and a 15 dollar game might be rather long to make up for lacking gameplay. You can't really put a set number of hours on any experience like that. A game of Tetris might take me a few minutes, but that doesn't mean I'd consider that a poor experience for the price, as it has enduring gameplay value. And something unique like FEZ, I don't mind that it was a decent price for a semi-short experience, as the gameplay was so interesting. But people are different from me. They can have their own levels of value to an experience and what they prioritize. That doesn't mean they necessarily need to be derided for that difference.

#36 Posted by FlarePhoenix (420 posts) -

@TruthTellah said:

@FlarePhoenix said:

@TruthTellah said:

@FlarePhoenix said:

It just annoys me when people go on about time vs price as if there is some length a game should be required to meet to be considered worth the money. If the choice was "A hundred hour game, but 99 hours of that was pointless side quests and mini-games" and "A four hour game consisting of nothing but a compelling story, interesting character and a deep rich narrative" I'm going to take the second each and every time.

I'm just getting a little tired of seeing so much childish entitlement in the game industry.

I think it's a bit silly to characterize it as "entitlement" when it appears to simply be a difference in preference. Some people apply value to experiences in a different way, and people often come to games looking for different things. That isn't necessarily entitlement; that's people having personal standards of their own that you may or may not disagree with.

I'm sorry but complaining about a game being too short for the price you're paying, while having no problem paying that price for an incredibly long game, is being entitled. If you want to complain about games being too short for the price (again, I'd argue attaching an arbitrary number to this all is quite silly) that's fine, but if you're not also complaining about paying too little for games that are really long, I'm going to call you out on it.

Well, then that hypothetical person you're talking about is misguided, but we're talking about real people. And real people genuinely value different things in an experience. Maybe time really is a factor for them. For you, it's perhaps quality over quantity, but as the world around you clearly shows, plenty of people prefer quantity over quality. That's just the reality of how people are. Preferably, we'd just have quality and quantity, but often, it's fine to have them in varying degrees. A MMORPG may not have the inherent quality of a super strong indie game with only a few hours of gameplay, but it has quality in the longterm. That's quantity enriching the overall perceived quality of an experience. Maybe MMOs aren't for everyone, as they don't see the value, but that's their personal preference.

I don't think anyone would say a 60 dollar game has to absolutely be a certain length. And few would say a 15 dollar game has to somehow be gimped in length to match. It's a matter of the overall perceived value determined by your own preferences in an experience. A 60 dollar game could be rather short if the gameplay is there, and a 15 dollar game might be rather long to make up for lacking gameplay. You can't really put a set number of hours on any experience like that. A game of Tetris might take me a few minutes, but that doesn't mean I'd consider that a poor experience for the price, as it has enduring gameplay value. And something unique like FEZ, I don't mind that it was a decent price for a semi-short experience, as the gameplay was so interesting. But people are different from me. They can have their own levels of value to an experience and what they prioritize. That doesn't mean they necessarily need to be derided for that difference.

Yeah, you're right. People do have different preferences in how they enjoy their games, and I shouldn't be deriding them for that.

#37 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8698 posts) -

Some games leave an impression on us, other are just interesting/fun to play.
 
A lot of my favorite games (Zelda, Mass Effect, The Witcher) don't even come close (counting multiple playthroughs) to the hours I've put into Mount and Blade: Warband, PSO1/2 or World of Warcraft/Lord of the Rings Online.
 
Its like you have blockbuster flicks and cult ones. Both are fun to watch but not every one of them leaves an impression.

#38 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

@Evilsbane said:

@MAGZine said:

Length is important, but you're not impressing anyone without girth.

Yes I'm talking about videogames.

I find a mix of length and girth is Essential, . . . in video games of course!

I just want things to get slippery. Especially balls.

#39 Posted by believer258 (11565 posts) -

"Length" fits into that odd category of "graphics" where "good" is nice to have but isn't necessary for a great game. Case in point: Portal. Two hours. One of the best games of this generation.

I'm not saying that paying $60 for a 5 hour shooter isn't disappointing, but frankly you most often know what you're getting into when you buy such a shooter, and these days there are plenty of other options for longer games. Research your purchases, people... or wait until Steam sells them for the cost of a cheeseburger.

#40 Posted by Phatmac (5720 posts) -

Fuck video games. Let us just talk about dicks.

#41 Posted by Clonedzero (4051 posts) -

length is usually a great thing. the longer the better........in most cases ive sank a disgusting amount of hours into skyrim for example. i love being able to sink my teeth into a big long meaty game.

but there are times when, well games just sorta drag on and on. as much as i absolutely LOVED red dead redemption, the whole mexico part sorta dragged on and felt pretty unnecessary. almost everyone ive talked to felt the same. it felt like filler to make the game longer.

length is good, but if you have a really long game, you gotta have good pacing as well.

DICK JOKE!

Online
#42 Posted by McLargepants (356 posts) -

Length is definitely a consideration, but I don't agree with, "I payed 60 dollars, so this game has to last X hours." That doesn't make any sense for me. Spec Ops is a decent example, it wasn't worth the $60 price tag because the gameplay was extremely bland, but the narrative was great, and it didn't over stay it's welcome. If a game has a story (which isn't necessary) I want the single player to last as long as the narrative needs to be, I don't want it to be longer just to increase the "value", because what that ends up doing is actually take away from the value. Skyward Sword was a great game, but it lasted forever because it padded out it's story. That's not value, because at some point it just isn't fun anymore, and I definitely won't pick it up again.

#43 Posted by Animasta (14638 posts) -

@Fredchuckdave said:

@Animasta: I'm reasonably sure any government can use Semisalic Consanguinity (i.e. merit based succesion), unless you mean both male and female heirs?

semisalic consanguinity isn't in CK2; there's only seniority, primogeniture, and gavelkind, and aside from that there is agnatic, agnatic-cognatic, and absolute cognatic (which requires the basque culture)

#44 Posted by ShaggE (6297 posts) -

It can be, but an amazing six hour game is just as much worth my money as a good 20 hour game. Not being the richest man ever, I do take length into consideration, but I'm not going to go from "excited" to "disinterested" in a game because it's short.

#45 Edited by commonoutlier (136 posts) -

I believe the lengths of video games are important, but not in the sense that longer is better. Sometimes an experience or message takes 2 hours to express, sometimes 40 or more hours. A game should last as long as it needs to convey the experience or narrative it set out to convey, or the amount of time it takes to see the various aspects of its complex system. Sometimes a game overstays its welcome or drags on, sometimes it leaves before everything is “said,” leaving the player feeling as if he or she was missing something. Portal is a rather short game, and is still among my favorites because it was “just right” as far as length, as Goldilocks would say (in my opinion anyway).

Though, the issue might be a bit more complex in the medium of video games since even if it is a completely 100% linear experience, the length or amount of time still can vary per player (e.g., perhaps one takes more time to “smell the roses” and enjoy the graphics, or another gamer might find the gameplay extremely challenging). I’d think it could vary enough to affect that experience or the appreciation of the game’s message. But in nonlinear experiences, or in games that give the player optional objectives, the length would vary even more, and defining whether or not a game is an appropriate length becomes more ambiguous (not to mention whether or not the length is “just right” probably becomes more debatable as well). There are even games I’d say have an almost indefinable length due to random generation of some sorts (perhaps combined with multiplayer and modding)—sometimes that makes them better games, sometimes it doesn’t. Depends on the game.

Hopefully that little ramble makes sense...that’s my two cents anyway. I consider myself a proponent of quality over quantity, and the length can sometimes play into the quality of the game, even though it is generally a quantitative factor. Pacing is important, I suppose is another way of putting it.

#46 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4328 posts) -

but I was told that girth was the thing that really matters.

#47 Posted by RAMBO604 (137 posts) -

It does, even too much of a good thing is bad. And too much of anything less than stellar just exponentially makes it worse.

On the good side Borderlands is fantastic, its just too much content. Game has been out for three years and still never beat it because its so bogged down in frivolous side quests.

Resident Evil 6 while I enjoyed more than most had the game been half the length it would likely have fared better. Thirty hours may as well been a hundred hours for most people who didn't like it. Besides its longer than any two previous RE games combined. Unnecessary.

#48 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4674 posts) -

Length can be a detractor and is hardly indicative of quality. The 6-8 hours of Vanquish had more impact on me than the several dozen put in Kingdoms of Amalur reckoning. On your list i say don't of things like length and go with you gut and what you truly like the most.

#49 Posted by Encephalon (1238 posts) -

Though not the deciding factor, a game's length is definitely something that comes into the equation when I ask myself if it's a game worth owning.

#50 Edited by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

@Ben_H said:

Then we get to the crazy question when it comes to this. What about roguelikes? Technically you can beat FTL in a bit over an hour if you make it to the end. Sure there are unlocks but technically the game is actually super short. I've played 29 hours of it in the last week hahaha

Yes, but just because you can beat the game quickly, doesn't mean it's a short game. I can probably beat Super Mario Bros. for the NES in 15-20 minutes, but that game isn't necessarily short, and I've probably played that game for hundreds of hours in my life. When a game is based off of replaying it in order to get better, then you have to consider how long it takes you to actually get good enough to beat the game as quickly as possible, not just how quickly you can beat it once you're really good at it.