Long or Short Games?

Recommended Videos

King Crab

New member
Jul 20, 2009
105
0
0
I agree - short games with more focus are more fun. games should not be trying to pad out the hours with boring missions or grinding, it should be quality over quantity all the way.

I mean, I play monster hunter, pokemon, fallout and the like for hundreds of hours, because I have the time and I enjoy it -- it's fun to play an rpg or sandbox game whilest listening to music or watching tv or doing something else. but for games that require grinding or needless filler parts just get boring real quick.

games which tell a story should rely on the maxim less is more - a focused, well told story is much better then a long grind for padded game hours.
 

PekoponTAS

New member
Mar 7, 2009
161
0
0
I prefer shorter games. I've been saying for years that they need to make some 10 hour JRPGs.
 

Vouk

New member
Feb 4, 2011
26
0
0
Long games, definitely!

Short games are alright if it's casual or indie stuff. Something for a good time when you got nothing better to do or for a short break.

But I like games in which I can get a feeling for the whole story, athmosphere and gameplay. I don't want it to be over after 4 hours.
Hell, I'm playing Ultima Online for about 10 years now and it's still fun for me. Well... maybe I'm not really the prime example of the average gamer.

If your attention span in games is rather short, then you should avoid RPGs and a lot of Action-Adventures. FPS would be good since most FPS nowerdays feature only a 6-10 hour singleplayer campaign. (If it's worth playing whatsoever)
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
Longer the better definetly

I want to get what I payed for

other than online-focused FPS Ive never heard of a game being 4 hours long...thats just criminal
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
SturmDolch said:
I know some people love this. They'll spend 50 or more hours on a single game and love every minute of it, being immersed the whole time. I know I used to. It happened with Ocarina of Time, Oblivion, and Fallout 3. But I was younger and had much more time back then.
I'm still one of these people.

Well, really, it's more because games of that length still can immerse me, rather than me preferring them that length. I find shorter games are usually the ones I can immediately play more than once (rather than wait a few months and play again). I've only ever had my enjoyment damaged by one game because I found it to be too short...and it's <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.237875-Neutral-Drow-reviews-Crescendo>probably not the type you were talking about.
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
SturmDolch said:
I constantly hear that games are getting shorter. This isn't about that. I'm wondering which one you prefer.

I prefer shorter games. Here's why:

Focus

A huge thing that bothers me with long games is that they tend to lose focus at some point in the course of the game. They usually contain a lot of filler material. And at some point in the game, I get pulled out of the immersion. The game stops becoming an experience and becomes just what it's name implies: a game.

This happened in Bioshock. Although I loved Rapture, some parts just seemed exactly the same as others I had just played through. After fighting the first big daddy, its menace was gone and they went from being a hidden evil to being inconvenient obstacles.

Same goes for Assassin's Creed 2. As much as I thought this was one of the best games I've played, I can't seem to beat it. That's because it takes so long. It keeps introducing new characters, too. It can get hard to keep track of who is who, and what is happening to whom. Some characters are introduced, then never heard of again. I'm not sure when I'll start the game back up again to get past one of the biggest filler points I've ever seen in a game: go to every town you've been to and do the same redundant task 16 times. Yes, I'm talking about the Codex pages.

This problem also exists when there are a billion side quests, usually amounting to nothing more than "go to point A to kill/deliver B." Fallout: New Vegas is an example of a game like this. After five quests of talking to a guy to convince a guy that another guy is a guy, I'm sick of it.

Yes, I was immersed for the first 15 hours. But after 20, the game becomes a game. I'm no longer playing to experience the Wasteland. I'm playing to complete the game. I still care about the story, but I'm no longer one with my character.

I know some people love this. They'll spend 50 or more hours on a single game and love every minute of it, being immersed the whole time. I know I used to. It happened with Ocarina of Time, Oblivion, and Fallout 3. But I was younger and had much more time back then.

What I would prefer is shorter, but also cheaper games. Instead of releasing a new game in the series once every 5 years, release an episode every 6 months. Then you can add features, update bugs, and check out community input while you're building it.

Also, I loved Portal's length. I know Portal is overused as an example of a "perfect game", but its length fits into this discussion. It took just long enough to tell its story. It told it completely without adding anything unnecessary. And the gameplay changed enough during the game to keep it interesting. In other words, I'm terrified of Portal 2 being, as Valve has said, "longer".

Quick Edit: Oh yeah, and before you all flip out and nerd rage about how awesome these games are, I loved them all, too.
hey if they are going to treat portal as a stand alone game (and charage acordingly) then I sure as hell want to get value for my money and theres no reason It cant be good and be longer thats what a good story is for..keeps you interested/motivated (Im not sure how much they will focus on co-op though)

If I play a game and it feels short then I feel very cheated, I mean mabye with this whole episode thing that could work (not so well for Half life though) but with the current model (which I prefer) no one wants to pay full price for a 6 hour game (if you take online out of the equasion)

anyway some games are more time sinks than others (fallout NV some rpgs) take them out of the equation Id say a good lenght for a game is 20 hours, that dosnt seem so unreasonable
 

badgersprite

[--SYSTEM ERROR--]
Sep 22, 2009
3,820
0
0
I'm pro-long games, in the sense that, most of the time, they're really only as long as you make them. I mean, sure, if you want to finish absolutely everything in your standard RPG it could take you forever, but if you're only focusing on the main story, then it can actually rush by really fast.

For example, I'm replaying FFIX in my spare time right now, and it's a hell of a lot shorter than I remember it being. I guess it's because I'm skipping out on level grinding, or just...generally better at playing than I was as a kid, but I've been doing all the Chocobo Hot & Cold stuff, Mognet, and plenty of other arbitrary stuff, but it's still going by really quickly. I actually already plan on doing a second playthrough once I finish the game because it's like it's all gone by so fast...
 

brumley53

New member
Oct 19, 2009
253
0
0
I dont really care how long a game is as long as it doesn't feel like it's dragging on, I played persona 3 for 105 hours and it never really felt like I had been playing for ages. Alternatively I played MW2 for about 5 hours and it felt like I'd just been sitting there for a week playing the game.
 
Aug 25, 2009
4,611
0
0
Different strokes and all. Most of the time I want a game that is as long as its story. Fallout, Mass Effect are largely about exploration and gathering up teammates from around the galaxy respectively, so they feel like they should be big epic games with opportunities to find things in unexpected places.

Dragon Age feels like it should have been shorter to me. I've tried to play through it about five times now and I always get bored about four or five hours in. They set up this incredibly tense situtation that feels like it needs resolving immediately, then go into standard BioWare farting about mode. Basically it feels like they set up the beginning of Return of the King, but instead of lettig you go charging off to Mordor they plonk you back at the start of Fellowship of the Ring. If they had set it up as Fellowahip of the Ring I would have been much more inclined to play it.

I hope that last explanation made sense.

I can't really think of any games I thought should have been longer. Possibly Left 4 Dead, but then the formet for those is a little different to your average game, so I'm not really sure.

Is it just me or is reCaptcha starting to use symbols? That's just unfair.