Posted by Pezen (1565 posts) -

There is this discussion regarding the value of games over how many hours you can play it. The verdict says that the longer the game is, assuming it is a game of quality, the more value it has. On some level I can empathize with such a notion. Because the money you invest in a piece of entertainment, be it interactive or not, should feel well spent when the end comes. So for some, getting as certain amount of time with the game is a value add, likewise the ability for the game to be replay friendly.

But I have to ask, should such a philosophy be applied across the board? And following that, at what point does the time become artificially long?

Oh those were the days..

When I was a younger man with less money and more time I used to love JRPGs. The sweeping dramas of revolution, saving the lands and protecting your friends along the way was gripping and awe inspiring. I can still recall late summer evening sitting way too close to my tv being horrified at the death of Odessa in Suikoden just a short time after you had spent an evening on top of Mt. Tigerwolf talking about the innocence that was your character and the future of the Liberation Army. But Suikoden also took me around 30 hours to finish. It was time well spent, as it's one of the most memorable games of my life. But having tried to play through other JRPGs in recent years, even Suikoden V and Persona 4, I just can't bring myself to slave through the mechanics and time investment for the story. And that's unfortunate.

The trend that games have to be artificially longer, be it by "kill everything until you can progress" mechanics or hollow storylines for the sake of length, is making it difficult to find the time (and the motivation) to actually finish a lot of modern games. I suppose at some point, it's not necessarily an argument over length as the argument of quality over time. The longer the game is, the better the quality of what keeps you in the world need to be. And most games simply don't cut it.

Almost there, just a little bit..

I love the Assassin's Creed franchise. Yet the same pattern happens in every one of those games. The game starts and I am totally psyched to play it. For the first few hours, I am completely in love with it. At some point though, the overabundance of unnecessary side objectives and travel distance just get to me. And I put the game down. Not knowing I am about 2 hours from the end. But I feel open world games tend to suffer from being a bit too long and, while I realize it's completely optional, disrupts the overall narrative with side missions, collectibles and such. It was something I really appreciated about Mafia 2. It all felt very focused on it's own story, and even though there was a big city you could explore, you never really felt a reason to because there was really no incentive to deviate from the path. But that also made the city feel more useful as a part of the story because you had not already seen all of it. Granted, there are also games like LA Noire where the city felt completely arbitrary to me eventually because the interesting parts of that game had nothing to do with driving. But I digress.

Good Luck, Sam.

Sitting down this weekend to play through Gone Home was revelatory. Like Dear Esther, it was a short and compact story completely focused on it's goal. It didn't spread itself too thin, it didn't feel artificially long. It was an experience that clocked in at just the right amount of time for it's narrative. And it got me thinking; why do we need to have games be 6, 8, 15 or 30 hours to feel good about them? Isn't the overall experience worth more than how many hours you can waste on it? I think it's refreshing to see developers actually embracing the idea that it's ok to make games that don't take weeks to finish.

Envision a world where every movie you saw had to be seen as a mini tv-show because it's too long to watch in one sitting. That would completely suck, right?

I would be completely ok with a world where more games were about half as expensive and half as long. Not only would I probably buy more games, I would probably finish most of them as well (assuming they were of quality, obviously). I am not saying the longer games don't have their place and can't be good. I mean, I've played through the Mass Effect triology about three times. Because I feel it holds up (and because I had a save issue [or specifically an Xbox 360 HDD crash] that made me have to redo it all) for that amount of time. I just think there's also a place for shorter and more focused games. And I am happy to see more of them spring to life. And I would have to guess that if games were smaller in scope, they would probably be slightly less expensive to produce. Which is something that would benefit a lot of people.

At the end of the day, I just enjoy finishing a game feeling good about it. And not sitting there by the credits going "Finally!" Which happenes more than it should.

Online
#1 Posted by ch3burashka (5017 posts) -

A-fucking-men. Maybe there's something wrong with me, but I derive much more enjoyment from shorter, concise narrative-based games. Hotline Miami almost felt too long, and I'm playing the Walking Dead right now - the episodes feel like 5-10 minutes too long as well. I appreciate JRPGs and WRPGs (I put 150 hours into P3:FES), but that's usually reserved for grinding times when I'm not paying attention to plot. It's my podcast time, basically.

The Gone Home discussion has been interesting - yes, technically 20 bucks is a lot of money for 2 hours, but games deserve to be evaluated as 'art', not as 'entertainment quantities'. Journey was 15 bucks for 2-3 hours, as well, I believe, and that panned out well enough.

I guess the compromise would be to charge less to soothe the vocal audience, but I think I recall the Bombcast being positive on Gone Home's price tag, that it's well priced at 20 bucks. That seems right by me. And, if that fails, wait until Steam Sales. That's been my strategy, usually.

On an unrelated note, support Matt Gilgenbach of Retro/Grade fame - the dude's hurting. That Polygon article was heartbreaking.

#2 Posted by BeachThunder (11716 posts) -

Pleas Give Me Shorter Or More Focused Blogs

But seriously, often I feel the same way; one recent example was the latest Mario and Luigi game, that had a lot of padding - Do this, but before you do, you must travel all around the continent and collect all of these, but then you need to find this character who will then lead you to this this other character, etc...

Anyway, if you liked Dear Esther and Gone Home, I think you should consider checking out Proteus.

#4 Edited by wemibelec90 (1563 posts) -

I'm quickly getting to this point with most games. The ones that don't have me doing this are the ones I REALLY enjoy and would actually like more of (not all that common). For the most part, I always feel like a game is just a bit too long.

Also on this note, why are there so many people nowadays that call an 8-10 hour game short? This is actually average (or below average, depending on the genre) for most games and is already plenty long. May not be relevant to this conversation, but it's been bugging me a lot lately.

#6 Posted by Humanity (8861 posts) -

I can echo this sentiment while playing Saints Row 4. I know, I know, it's an open world sandbox game, but the side activities are really starting to get long in the tooth and the semi-completionist in me refuses to let any of them slip by in fear of missing some funny dialog.

#7 Posted by Icemael (6312 posts) -

Play arcade games.

#8 Posted by Abendlaender (2768 posts) -

Forward this to Ubisoft, they kinda tend to stuff a lot of unnecessary elements in their games. Like, did anybody really care about crafting tables, setting trade routes and selling them in AC3? Nobody cares. Cause the only thing you can possibly get out of this is money and I don't think I ever bought something in AC3 cause I needed it.

Online
#9 Posted by Mic_D (6 posts) -

I can sympathize with the OP. I've often felt that way recently, particularly with the Assassin's Creed franchise so I've adjusted both my expectations and the way that I play most games. No longer am I prepared to wander around an environment, just to collect all the shiny things and see the sights. I'll find a few, and if it interests me I'll push on but otherwise I just continue with the main story. Likewise with side missions. If they seem not to be progressing the story then I just tend to leave them alone after a while.

One example of where I thought the balance was just right was Sleeping Dogs. For its genre, and the story it was telling, there was just enough in the side quests to keep me interested. Sure, they weren't all narrative based quests but they were fun in other ways. And that's what I think maybe is missing from some of the examples given. If the game can mix it up enough to keep me interested then it can be as long as it pleases, but when I feel like I'm grinding just for the sake of it I lose interest.

In regards to the shorter games like Gone Home I definitely felt I got my money's worth. I pay a lot more for dumb shit I don't get anywhere near the enjoyment from so to devote a rainy Saturday to that story was my money well spent.

#10 Posted by believer258 (11679 posts) -

I think you can have both. Sleeping Dogs and Skyrim are both complete-able in ten hours or less, but you can also spend 40 or maybe more enjoying everything the game has to offer.

I don't think it should ever take more than 30 hours to rush through a game's storyline, but I like it when I'm given a lot of good side objectives and missions that I'm not forced to do.

#11 Edited by Quarters (1633 posts) -

Yeah, I'm way into more story-driven, shorter games now. That's part of the reason why I tend to enjoy CoD campaigns so much. Their compact, varied, and last just as long as they need to. I hate when games have excessive filler. That's still the reason why I think RE4 is incredibly flawed, and nowhere near as enjoyable as RE5. But yeah, I just don't enjoy crazy long games anymore. It's why I can't get into the Assassin Creed games anymore, and several others. It's why I don't enjoy stuff like Skyrim. Every once in a while there's one I can handle, like Saints Row IV or Western RPGs, but generally I just don't like long games much anymore.

#12 Posted by believer258 (11679 posts) -

@humanity said:

I can echo this sentiment while playing Saints Row 4. I know, I know, it's an open world sandbox game, but the side activities are really starting to get long in the tooth and the semi-completionist in me refuses to let any of them slip by in fear of missing some funny dialog.

Now that's just your own fault. I've heard that SR4 takes even less time to beat than SR3, and SR3 didn't take long if you just did the story missions. I did almost everything in SR3 in 15 hours.

#13 Posted by alwaysbebombing (1539 posts) -

I agree, that is why I didn't enjoy Wind Waker. When I had to run around and collect all the tri force pieces and maps I was so done with the game.

#14 Posted by mikey87144 (1668 posts) -

Isn't the answer it depends? I do agree some games need to cut the fat but others, say an Elder Scrolls game, are fine by me. I also wonder why people seem to want to cut campaigns down in single-player yet spend hundreds of hours in multiplayer.

#15 Edited by Humanity (8861 posts) -

@humanity said:

I can echo this sentiment while playing Saints Row 4. I know, I know, it's an open world sandbox game, but the side activities are really starting to get long in the tooth and the semi-completionist in me refuses to let any of them slip by in fear of missing some funny dialog.

Now that's just your own fault. I've heard that SR4 takes even less time to beat than SR3, and SR3 didn't take long if you just did the story missions. I did almost everything in SR3 in 15 hours.

Well it's not my fault there is dialog and story building behind race and hacking side missions. Also I'm sure this is an argument to which some people simply can't relate until they experience it for themselves but I'm one of those people with a full time job where by the time I've gotten home, finished eating etc it's roughly 8pm so I don't have that much free time to dedicate to gaming each night and would rather it be meaningful than spent on mopping up side activities.

If we want to get right down to it then it's my fault for choosing video games as a hobby.

#16 Posted by Ekami (252 posts) -

oh look everyone is aging

Online
#17 Posted by BeachThunder (11716 posts) -

@ekami said:

oh look everyone is aging

#18 Edited by Pezen (1565 posts) -

First off, thank you all for reading!

@ch3burashka: Yeah the whole uproar regarding Gone Home's pricing is beyond me. Maybe I value certain things higher than some people. Or maybe how I spend money otherwise in life makes the asking price for Gone Home seem like a rather small investment for something unique. I mean, I've had dinners at restaurants that were more expensive than Gone Home and I didn't even leave those feeling full or satisfied beyond taste.

By the way, thank's for the tip on that article. I think I might need to start visiting Polygon more. They seem to run pretty interesting articles once in a while.

@beachthunder: I've totally played Proteus. It was a delightful experience that, though lack of an expressed story, felt like it had an environmentally driven narrative much like Journey. Interestingly enough, I plaid Proteus just after the passing of my grandmother and it gave me a weird sense of closure regarding her death.

@wemibelec90: On one hand, if every game is longer than 8 hours and a new game is that, it'll be seen in context as a short game. Even though it by far isn't even close to being short. I totally agree that it's becoming absurd though.

@humanity: I tend to do that to myself with Assassin's Creed. When the game opens up I am at times to into the whole thing that I feel like I should consume everything, against my better judgement, and end up burning myself out on the game completely. Which is usually why when I get back into the game after a break, I mainline the story and completely ignore the half-finished side objectives.

@icemael: Do you mean arcade games as in smaller downloadable titles, or the style like Geometry Wars or actual arcade cabinets?

@abendlaender: The economy and trade stuff in ACIII was so goddamn convoluted that it felt like a chore dealing with it. So I simply avoided it all together.

@mic_d: Sleeping Dogs had a really nice arc that I enjoyed. Well, I think the whole atmosphere of that game is just right smack in my tastebuds. As someone who's a fan of the movies they're referencing all over the place, it was a pure joy. However, they could completely skip having the races. I never touched those. The fight club ones though were fun. And the occasional stranger mission was fun if only because having you run through rooftops and otherwise inaccessible areas made the city feel bigger and more dynamic.

@believer258: @mikey87144: I completely agree that there are games that can have the longer narrative arc and still be satisfying. I am not here to advocate there can't be longer games. But I'm saying I think they don't necessarily have to be long or even arbitrarily lengthened with hollow side content. As for shorter single player and spending an extraordinary amount of time in multiplayer, that's not that hard to explain, personally.

When I play a story, I want the narrative to keep me entertained and invested for the duration of the game. And I've played a lot of shorter games recently that can be finished in one, two or at most three sittings and be extremely satisfying. However, as someone who has logged probably several hundred hours in CoD multiplayer over the years, that's easy. For one, it's reptilian entertainment. Twitch gameplay with constant reward loop. Secondly, every round is a time investment of at most 10 minutes. So you don't feel like you're going to waste hours on it. But you do, because "just one more" syndrome kicks in due to the reward loops. Assuming it's going decently and you're having a good time. That being said, I have probably never sat down and played CoD multiplayer for several hours straight the way I have with story driven games.

Online
#19 Edited by HandsomeMuffin (109 posts) -

I find this to be true as well. I skipped almost all the side content in Saints Row 4. I'm looking for shorter experiences lately or I suppose more direct ones. I recently played through GTA4 and just ignored the side activities and the "run around and shoot people for no reason" open world side of the game as that kind of game play doesn't interest me of late. It's all filler and no substance with time I could spend playing and experiencing other games instead.

#20 Posted by James_ex_machina (905 posts) -

Although I enjoy Assassin's Creed, around the 15 hour mark is start getting bored of the repetition. I'm 26 hours in SRTT and at times I start to feel like I'm grinding but it's still fun. Then there are games like Borderlands where I played for 90+ hours and loved every minute. I was aware I was doing the same thing over and over, but I didn't want to stop. It wasn't until the 2nd DLC that I walked away from it. Then there are games like Limbo or the Walking Dead where I feel they are just right, but I still want more. Some games I wish were shorter and some I'm fine with the length.

#21 Posted by MonetaryDread (1993 posts) -

For this to become a reality, games have to ditch the $60+ price tag. I will never buy a two or three hour game for sixty dollars when I can buy a game that offers thirty hours for the same price. Then again, I never go to games for narrative, I only play games for a fun experience.

#22 Posted by MonetaryDread (1993 posts) -

For this to become a reality, games have to ditch the $60+ price tag. I will never buy a two or three hour game for sixty dollars when I can buy a game that offers thirty hours for the same price. Then again, I never go to games for narrative, I only play games for a fun experience.

#23 Posted by ninnanuam (266 posts) -

@pezen: ii feel like we might be coming at games for totally different ends. I find myself, as I get older, enjoying longer open world single player experiences almost exclusivley. I generally won't pick up a tight narrative driven single player game unless it is exceptional either in story or gameplay.

i find what I really enjoy are environments that are fleshed out to the point that the worlds seem as if they could exist without the players involvement. Fallout NV and GTA 4 I feel are really good examples. I like exploring and finding new places and hopefully interesting Npcs just doing there own thing then being able to interact with them, more interesting than being spoon fed a narrative. I'm hoping as games improve there will be less and less moments of "thank god you arrived now can you do this for me" and npcs get more agency in open world games. Like a better version of skyrims radient ai.

I actually find focused games detract from my engagement with the world being conveyed, the fact that the environment has been set up exclusively for the player and the gameplay style takes me out of any kind of suspension of disbelief. Invisible walls and hallways with doors I can't enter, things I'm looking for conveniently in the next room perfectly positioned rubble and explosive barrels set peice after set piece, monster closets etc etc.

I think a lot of this has to do with the increase in fidelity, as graphics/voice/ motion capture get better the things you can't do in games and the limitations on developers becomes more pronounced,

and on a fundamental level An art asset reused 50 times in a massive open world, some of which i never saw over 40 hours of game time does not take me out of a game while an art asset reused 5 times in a period of 4 hours does, especially if its put on the critical path.

#24 Posted by Lydian_Sel (2480 posts) -

I've definitely felt this kind of sting in a lot of games lately but I think it may just be more of a quality or design issue. In Skyrim most of the ancillary quests added to the game are actually really fun to engage in, whereas something like AC3 just oozed of padding like they just made up loads of activities and things to do that weren't really fun or entertaining, they were kinda just there.

As I get older I certainly appreciate a more focused experience, not just because my time is more valuable but because in narrowing their focus I think it really helps to accentuate the tone and aim of the game and I often come away feeling like I had a deeper connection to my time playing.

#25 Edited by Clonedzero (4091 posts) -

People complaining about open world games being too "lengthy" and "full of side stuff" are insane. Thats the whole point of an open world game, to goof off, do side stuff and explore.

Games should not be "shorter". They should be their intended length. If you have a problem with a games length, play something else.

If i pay 60 bucks for a game that i beat in 5 hours, i feel ripped off. Don't give me that "judge games as art, not as entertainment". Well isn't it both? Just like Tv shows and Films? Just because something is art, doesn't take away its inherent value as entertainment, which is video games primary reason for existing.

Maybe its because I generally only buy 1 game a month (sometiems 1 every other month) and replay the games i own alot that i don't have this problem. In fact it seems CRAZY to me.

Just like the whole trend of "having a backlog" is crazy. Why would you buy more games if you have some you haven't played yet? It's pointless. The whole steam sale excuse doesn't even work either, because its the same games on sale over and over every year. "Omg! Witcher 2 on sale for 5 bucks!" but its been on sale for 5 bucks like 20 times....

#26 Edited by ninnanuam (266 posts) -

@clonedzero: it's not just your circumstances, I buy a fair amount of games (2 to three a month depending on releases) and I still much prefer open world games. I find the games I don't finish tend to be level based.

#27 Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1 (1803 posts) -

@pezen: I agree wholeheartedly, but at the same time I really enjoy spending an insane amount of time with some games. I played the first Borderlands to completion something like 10 times. I S-ranked Batman Arkham Asylum twice. I finished all of the challenges in Bastion. I spent 30 hours playing XCOM and I still want to play more. However, I just feel I have too much in my backlog already to continue buying games at the pace I'm going at. At some point I'm just going to play like 5 games a year and they're all going to be pulled from the same pool of my favorites.

Entertainment overwhelming.

#28 Posted by Icemael (6312 posts) -

@pezen: I mean games made for arcade cabinets, and console designed in that style (rare on modern consoles, but very common on older ones). In the arcade world, a game that lasts more than an hour is considered very long. The nature of the arcade environment and business model has led to very short games that try to pack as much interesting, exciting, challenging stuff as possible into a small time frame, which is why if you look at a couple of minutes of this or this you won't see any filler or bloat -- just one intense action scenario after another.

#29 Posted by ProfessorEss (7281 posts) -

I can appreciate both sides but I'm the complete opposite. I'm at a point right now where I have almost no patience for focused, narrative-driven games. Skip the cutscenes and forget the dialogue, gimme a world, an avatar, and a set of ticking numbers and I'll take it from there.

I get limited satisfaction from beating games or being told an interesting story, most of my satisfaction comes from exploring and expertly executing a game's mechanics.

#30 Posted by CrunchyPickles (62 posts) -

I'm all for an increase in shorter, more focused games as long as it doesn't come at the expense of the longer, more expansive games that I greatly prefer. I don't have a whole lot of free time for gaming either but that doesn't mean I have to be able to finish a game in 1-2 sittings. I'm fine with playing a game over the course of a month or two.

Also keep in mind that unfortunately, shorter games don't often come with a smaller price. SRIV (and even SR3 before it) has -maybe- half the content that SR2 had, but it's still a full-priced game.

#31 Posted by Demoskinos (14583 posts) -

Well, you know if everyone would drop watching awful shows like Breaking Bad and other nonsense they would have more time for gaming. Thats what I don't understand I see all these old men (and I'm nearly 30 myself mind you) complaining about not enough time for vidya games these days but then I also see them keeping up with 5 different TV shows weekly and shit. If you want to play more games adjust where you spend your free time.

#32 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -

You should start playing dota2, that's focused like no other thing. Or League, either works really.

#33 Edited by oraknabo (1453 posts) -

Brothers

#34 Posted by oraknabo (1453 posts) -

Brothers

#35 Posted by Pezen (1565 posts) -

@oraknabo: So Brothers is actually as good as reputation says? I tried the trial version and didn't get much out of it other than it being a bitch when your brain refuses to connect which analog stick controls which character.

@demoskinos: I see about one show at a time at most. I don't even have my tv connected to anything other than an apple tv, because regular ass tv is bullshit. But I have more hobbies and interest aside from games that are time consuming as well. Maybe for some, video games is the only real hobby they have, and perhaps they're single or at least living alone so it's all bachelor lifestyle. I can see that working for some. But personally, I have a lot of other shit going on that just eats away at my time.

@azteck: I totally play Dota 2. Which is also a good and bad thing. It's narratively irrelevant, but mechanically it's a lot of fun and a complete black hole for time. Which is counter-productive as well. But it's a lot of fun.

@clonedzero: I suppose that's a subjective definition that differ from person to person. For me, an open world game doesn't have to imply "goofing off", it should just mean there's a vast open area to be in. I think Skyrim and Red Dead Redemption are good examples of open world games done right regarding optional side content. I think Mafia 2 is a good example of an open world game that's narratively focused. And as mentioned, Assassin's Creed (though I love the franchise) is a franchise that fills itself with activities that aren't really that useful and serves to distract more than enhance, in my opinion. But I suppose as someone that tire quickly, too much side stuff is meaningless fluff to me at some point. While to others I am sure they are value adds.

I agree games should be their intended length, when I said I wanted shorter games I didn't mean to imply to make a 10 hour game 2 hours. Just design it as a 2 hour experience from the get go. And I think we need more varied pricing in games in general, the whole 60 dollar across the board trend isn't feasible.

Some of us suffer from "new is shiny" and can't stand looking at the same thing over and over again. I need variety.

Online
#36 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5268 posts) -

What we value really just comes down to where we're at with our lives.

#37 Edited by Marokai (2818 posts) -

I agree with @clonedzero. If you want shorter games, there are shorter games for you. If you don't want to spend 60 hours in Skyrim, critical path the main story and move on. If even 12-hour long games are too long for you I think you should re-evaluate your hobby, to be honest.

I get it, we all get older, and eventually I'll get to the point where I can't enjoy as many sprawling epics myself, but so be it. Leave the genre you can no longer enjoy behind to the next generation that can enjoy them. There is no one way that video games should be made, and I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea of giving companies more reason to skimp on content. Padding is bad, but that's not an issue of length, just an issue of bad game design.

The Gone Homes of the world will continue to exist, as will the short campaigns of first person shooters, the 15-dollar-downloadable, and the arcadey games of the world. Steam is a goldmine, at this point, for short, creative experiences at a low cost.

I like games that have a lot of content and take a long time to finish, even when I don't necessarily have a long time to play them as life marches on. I don't really see why making games shorter and more dense is inherently desirable.

Edit: I do concede, however, that this is just my personal taste, now that I think about it. My favorite books tend to be lengthy, or part of long series. My most enjoyable movie experiences tend to be the ones that are well over two hours long. I'm of the opinion that TV > movies in terms of delivering a narrative experience. I like as much content as possible in whatever I enjoy, and tend to avoid short experiences as unsatisfying. That is, however, my personal taste, and not one I would force on others.

#39 Edited by Anwar (853 posts) -

I don't feel the same way as you do, but I think that's totally fine that some games are longer than others. You should check out some shorter games which can be longer if you want them to be. For example Vanquish, that shit is a lot of fun on normal, but if you want to beat your own times on those levels on hard and tougher, you can have a great, challenging and long game. It all depends. I never felt that GTA games and AC games overstayed their welcome, I like the worlds which those devs created and I had a lot of fun doing the sidemissions(more in GTA than AC).

Ultimately I think that longer games shouldn't be shorter and shorter games shouldn't be longer as long as both games feel satisfactory and complete when you play through them.

edit: doublepost bug

#40 Edited by Slag (4068 posts) -

I somewhat feel the same way OP, but I think most the feeling you desecrate are not entirely the game designer's fault.

First off some things have changed in this world since Suikoden 1. Most notably it is incredibly easier and cheaper (if for no other reason than inflation, today's 60 bucks was not 1998's 60 bucks) to acquire games than ever, which as a result has lead to people building massive backlogs and/or getting their gaming fix on a phone etc. All of which makes one's patience for a JRPG grindfest lower than it was at the time. After all in the 90's who knows how long it might before you got another game, with no temptation lieing around it's a lot easier to grind out dull parts of a 80-120 hour game. E.g. This year I'v acquired Roughly 100 games for the amount of money it wuld have taken me to get 3-4 titles back in the Suikoden PS1 era.

Two if you are like me the more games you've played, the less tolerance you have for grinding. After hundreds of games, those sensations lack the newness they once did. Couple natural diminishing of attention span as your age increases and you have a recipe for lower tolerance of grindfests.

And Three you're absolutely right AAA Single Player games are content stuffing these with filler crap fetchquest sidequests. Or even worse charging for those as DLC. That's a deliberate attempt to add "value" to the play experience as cheaply as possible. Personally I think it's a mistake and outmoded thinking, but I understand why they do it and why it's generally effective. But designers of single player focused games feel they have to, to slowdown used game sales. The longer they keep a title in somebody's hands, the less supply is out there to purchase on the used market.

Well, you know if everyone would drop watching awful shows like Breaking Bad and other nonsense they would have more time for gaming. Thats what I don't understand I see all these old men (and I'm nearly 30 myself mind you) complaining about not enough time for vidya games these days but then I also see them keeping up with 5 different TV shows weekly and shit. If you want to play more games adjust where you spend your free time.

If those old men are married where and how they can spend their free time tends to be heavily affected by what their wife enjoys as well. If they have children, they tend to lose control of the gaming system too. What you say sounds good in theory, but it doesn't tend to be workable in practice.

#42 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (1474 posts) -

@marokai said:

I agree with @clonedzero. If you want shorter games, there are shorter games for you. If you don't want to spend 60 hours in Skyrim, critical path the main story and move on. If even 12-hour long games are too long for you I think you should re-evaluate your hobby, to be honest.

I get it, we all get older, and eventually I'll get to the point where I can't enjoy as many sprawling epics myself, but so be it. Leave the genre you can no longer enjoy behind to the next generation that can enjoy them. There is no one way that video games should be made, and I'm not exactly comfortable with the idea of giving companies more reason to skimp on content. Padding is bad, but that's not an issue of length, just an issue of bad game design.

The Gone Homes of the world will continue to exist, as will the short campaigns of first person shooters, the 15-dollar-downloadable, and the arcadey games of the world. Steam is a goldmine, at this point, for short, creative experiences at a low cost.

I like games that have a lot of content and take a long time to finish, even when I don't necessarily have a long time to play them as life marches on. I don't really see why making games shorter and more dense is inherently desirable.

Edit: I do concede, however, that this is just my personal taste, now that I think about it. My favorite books tend to be lengthy, or part of long series. My most enjoyable movie experiences tend to be the ones that are well over two hours long. I'm of the opinion that TV > movies in terms of delivering a narrative experience. I like as much content as possible in whatever I enjoy, and tend to avoid short experiences as unsatisfying. That is, however, my personal taste, and not one I would force on others.

Wow, reading this post it was like I wrote it, especially this part:

"My favorite books tend to be lengthy, or part of long series. My most enjoyable movie experiences tend to be the ones that are well over two hours long. I'm of the opinion that TV > movies in terms of delivering a narrative experience. I like as much content as possible in whatever I enjoy, and tend to avoid short experiences as unsatisfying."

Needless to say I agree with everything you just said.

#43 Edited by GERALTITUDE (2969 posts) -

Ehhhhhhhhhh

I think you're missing the point OP, and so is pretty much everyone who agrees with you lol.

Why don't you just give yourself some shorter or more focused games, and not play the other ones?

To quote Lu Kang for the second time today: "every man is responsible for his own destiny".

#44 Posted by McShank (1629 posts) -

I love me some short games. Journey was my favorite 20-30min game that I own and have played and I have played it dozens of times just to enjoy the music and the art of the levels. I also love the cheap price tag of the short games as I do feel, no matter how good a game is, If the want 50-60$ from me, give me something that can give me alot of entertainment for hours ontop of hours if I so wished. Sleeping dogs for instance can be beat in 15-20 hours if even that but yet I am still 3/4th the way through and have almost 50 hours in it as I love to explore and find everything or just go rampaging around in their rendition of the Batmobile shooting everything that moves (And those that dont move). Skyrim needs to be short for the campaign as its only a fraction of what the game was about. most of it was exploring, finding new items, Finding books/npc's that expanded on the lore and to just feel more like a game where you had more freedom. Some games are to long and I do feel that there needs to be a change in how companies make some of their products. Assassins Creed games do feel like they drag on and it is part of the reason i still have Revelations in its Shrink wrap for my ps3 and have not grabbed AC3 yet and yet I still pump hours into games such as Persona 1,2,3 fes and 4 and feel that it doesn't drag on in the least as grinding is part of the game and if you dont like to grind, dont buy them. Similar to Disgaea games, tis all about the grind to further the story and enjoy smashing faces when the time comes to continue the plot. All in all, If they give me a short game *1-10 hours*, make it cheap, otherwise I will buy used or wait till it goes on a sale for 50%+ off. If it has content, whether it is plot, free roam *elder scrolls, fallout, rps, etc* then 50-60$ is nothing to me as I can feel I spent good money as long as I feel entertained for a long period of time even if I dont beat it. I love to finish games but I would rather enjoy them first before I get to the end.

#45 Posted by McShank (1629 posts) -

I love me some short games. Journey was my favorite 20-30min game that I own and have played and I have played it dozens of times just to enjoy the music and the art of the levels. I also love the cheap price tag of the short games as I do feel, no matter how good a game is, If the want 50-60$ from me, give me something that can give me alot of entertainment for hours ontop of hours if I so wished. Sleeping dogs for instance can be beat in 15-20 hours if even that but yet I am still 3/4th the way through and have almost 50 hours in it as I love to explore and find everything or just go rampaging around in their rendition of the Batmobile shooting everything that moves (And those that dont move). Skyrim needs to be short for the campaign as its only a fraction of what the game was about. most of it was exploring, finding new items, Finding books/npc's that expanded on the lore and to just feel more like a game where you had more freedom. Some games are to long and I do feel that there needs to be a change in how companies make some of their products. Assassins Creed games do feel like they drag on and it is part of the reason i still have Revelations in its Shrink wrap for my ps3 and have not grabbed AC3 yet and yet I still pump hours into games such as Persona 1,2,3 fes and 4 and feel that it doesn't drag on in the least as grinding is part of the game and if you dont like to grind, dont buy them. Similar to Disgaea games, tis all about the grind to further the story and enjoy smashing faces when the time comes to continue the plot. All in all, If they give me a short game *1-10 hours*, make it cheap, otherwise I will buy used or wait till it goes on a sale for 50%+ off. If it has content, whether it is plot, free roam *elder scrolls, fallout, rps, etc* then 50-60$ is nothing to me as I can feel I spent good money as long as I feel entertained for a long period of time even if I dont beat it. I love to finish games but I would rather enjoy them first before I get to the end.