Games With Short Playtimes

Avatar image for lund218
lund218

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By lund218

I am sure this has come up several times in the past, but does anyone have a hard time justifying buying games with relatively short play times? I am currently on a pretty limited budget when it comes to entertainment, and it can be difficult to pull the trigger on a game when I know that the experience will only last for a few hours.

For example, Untitled Goose Game just came out, and I really would love to play it. Even though it is currently on sale, it can sometimes be hard for me to justify spending $20 CDN on something that I’ll likely be done with in an afternoon. I’m not in the mindset that short games are worse by any means. I actually prefer them and find them to be more satisfying experiences. That said, buying smaller games like this can add up quickly if you are burning through them.

Avatar image for sahalarious
Sahalarious

819

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

It's definitely a hard pill to swallow, and I'm not equating the value of art with the time spent enjoying it necessarily, but the value of my time and money is something I cant be careless with. I tend to wait for sales for most games, and games like UGG are likely to be cheap down the line. Modern Warfare will get my 60 dollars, but it will be my primary multiplayer game for the year, easy hundred plus hours. I've been prioritizing duration for the most part, having no regrets buying Fire Emblem, though games like AC: Odyssey are so bloated that now i've spent a full 60 dollars to torture myself with a laundry list of near-identical tasks in a beautiful but borderline non-interactive world. There is a sweet spot, lord knows how to quantify it though.

Avatar image for pooch516
Pooch516

36

Forum Posts

2240

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think I'm kind of the opposite. I think I play less games than I used to a few years ago just because of work/life/other stuff, and to be honest, I actually pass on a lot of longer games because I feel like I'll lose interest in something that's too long and padded out. Unless it's a game I'm super excited about (like a new Zelda game, let's say) I'd rather wait for a bigger game to go on sale so I can get it for cheap and not feel as bad if I don't finish it.

The whole dollars-per-hour argument started breaking down for me when I realized that I was just getting bored with most longer games- I would finish a game and then kind of feel like I WASTED $60 since the last half of a game had felt like such a slog and left a bad taste.

Avatar image for silversaint
SilverSaint

106

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I think it really depends on the person and their income. If you have a lot of disposable income you may consider a shorter experience with a constant amount of quality well worth it over say a much longer experience that has higher highs and lower lows. On the otherhand if you are poor replay and game length are incredibly relevant as you don't have money to waste. The type of game also matters, as some people heavily enjoy specific styles of games such that even a lower value cost is irrelevant as their enjoyment will be so high.

Game length is pretty relevant to me, but I will also spend money on DLC (which has a horrible value proposition). Thanks to the advent of Twitch I watch most shorter story based games, its simply not worth my time to spend say $45 on Plague Tale, when I can watch the game and get say 75% + of the enjoyment at no cost.

Avatar image for alias
Alias

60

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5  Edited By Alias

I really like having short games to play alongside a longer game. I'll chip away at the longer game over a few weeks but when I feel like something different I can start and finish a short game in a few days then go back to the longer game.

Avatar image for mrgreenman
MrGreenMan

271

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By MrGreenMan

Personally I prefer games that are shorter. Anything over 20-30 hours I will likely just avoid as I just don't have the time to invest. I also prefer a solid game that doesn't overstay it welcome and doesn't try to add filler and bloat to a game because there is this perceived value that games need to be longer. I enjoy a game far more that respects my time and knows that I have a life outside of video games.

A good example is the new Links Awakening remake. I love the hell out of that game and while I spent maybe what 15 hours with it it's easily one of my favorite Zelda games. Breath on the Wild on the other hand Is one of the least fun games I played, especially as a Zelda game. That game just does not respect your time at all and I just find frustrating to play at times as well and just overall just get bored with the game after 20-30 hours into the game.

Avatar image for tophar01
Tophar01

270

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yea I see what you're saying. If you spent X amount of hours a week playing games its much more cost efficient to buy long $60 games, than short $15 ones, even though short games tend to be far less bloated and much tighter experiences.

I think it really is just a product of how much free time you have vs how much disposable income you have.