No. Of course not.
Game "value" is just a concept that sounds good as a bullet point for advertising or a back of the box feature. That's why Dying Light 2, a game that is apparently a reasonable 20 hours in length, was advertised as 500 hours. Executives think that gamers get excited about a game that they can play seemingly forever, and some part of the population might, but many people are turned off by excessive length.
Value isn't defined by "how long it takes to beat a game the first time." If a game encourages replay either through things like alternate endings or playstyles or just being really really fun to play that adds value. There is also value in the intensity of enjoyment a game has. If you have a ton of fun for 10 hours that's better than having a moderate amount of fun for 12, and both are better than being bored and annoyed for 20.
A lot of people are irritated by the excessive length of many modern games. It may be good for people with more time than money, but since games can be gotten very cheaply these days through a variety of means (I am not talking about piracy but rather things like Humble Bundles and Game Pass) there are few gamers that have those issues. Meanwhile many of the 'play forever' games are just variable reward treadmills designed to extract money through microtransactions and aren't actually that fun or interesting.
I also get worried when I hear that a game is super long. I've enjoyed some long games, of course, and there are other games I've gotten hundreds of hours of play from that were mostly enjoyable (including some roguelikes and puzzle games or whatever) but most games don't earn their length.
Open world bloat is real and it's mostly terrible game design. There are some obsessives who enjoy doing the same thing 100 times in 100 slightly different places but based on achievements and trophies they are in the vast minority. I think a disproportional number go into game design though, and that's part of the problem.
I think a lot of the people who made Assassin's Creed Valhalla really thought it would be fun to just do the same things over and over and over until most players gave up out of sheer boredom, but most players did not.
16.27% of players got to the end of the main story in Watch Dogs: Legion on Xbox. That means that the vast majority of players did not want that much content. I bought the gold edition with the DLC and I am in that 16.27% but I haven't gone back to play the DLC missions because I was pretty sick of the game by the time I got to the end of it, and that's without doing a lot of the open world bloat that it offered.
Most games are too long for most players and either companies have metrics showing that the marketing advantage of claiming a game is very long is good business or they just think it is for whatever reason. I think a lot of gamers do have eyes bigger than their stomachs and are excited by the idea of putting 100 hours into a game, even if they only end up putting in 15 and enjoying 10 of those.
Log in to comment