Long or Short Games?

[SturmDolch]

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.

 

[The Sandvich]

I don't have a problem with short games. If a game is good enough, I'm probably gonna play the game over again anyway. Not to mention that games nowadays have so much in them, that the campaign shouldn't even be the only thing counted in terms of length anymore. I really don't think simply the fact that the game is short is a legitimate criticism. It's like they say: It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean

However, it is nice to have a longer game. Sometimes I am very disappointed when I reach the end of the game quicker than I expected, and while you could argue that the game designers intended for me to be let down so I'll be hungry for a the next game, that doesn't change the fact that I'm still frustrated. I really don't like it when things like games leave you on a cliffhanger, because you know it's gonna take at least a year before you'll get anything new thrown your way. It's not like a TV show, where the cliffhanger sensation only lasts for a week or so. By the time the next game comes out, I hardly ever even care at that point, because I've moved onto something else

 

[Eumersian]

It depends. I expect different things from different genres. Halo, for example, wasn't as much about the campaign as the multiplayer. This is why a shorter story mode is acceptable. But I expect mainstream adventure games to take me much longer, since they are about the whole adventure and lengthy plot developments. This is what bothered me about Metroid Prime 3 Corruption.

You see, I love the Metroid Prime Series. I think they should make another one to be played on Wii, since I thought it played really well (once you tweaked the controls a bit, that is) and was a great deal of fun while I was playing it. Trouble is, I think they made it too easy.

I never beat Metroid Primes 1 & 2. But I've seen the save files for each. Prime 1 has a total gameplay hours of around 25. Prime 2 has over 35 if I remember correctly. Now I actually managed to beat Prime 3, with a total of 19 and-a-half hours. Bullshit.

I expect my adventure games to last me at least 20 hours. Even though it was close, 20 is a bare minimum, and I got almost 100% completion too. Oh shit, went a bit off topic.

But yes, it depends on what you're playing. Certain games like even AssCreed2 would simply feel small because of the way they play, if it were made shorter. The way a game like that plays, I feel like it's the kind of mechanic that could only work in a large environment, taking a long time.

 

[Smooth Operator]

A game should always be as long as it was planed, there is a trend now rising trying to extend games so they get a higher review rating, completely ignoring that are killing the game by stretching it out.
Alan Wake is the prime example, they had an awesome 6 hour game then they swarm you with enemies to extend it into a painful 15+ hour experience.

And it should never be cut short, I understand everyone wants to rush it out the door to make the big bucks, but an unfinished game wont bring them.
Mafia 2 the main suspect here, what they had was so good but where is the rest of the game, with a release like that all the hard work just went down the drain.

I have a preference to longer games(when they are good), obviously I want the joy to last longer, even after a good 100+ hour RPG game I will be craving for more.

 

[Marmal4de]

Depends on the genre really. While certain genres like FPS and platformer are best kept short because they tend to lose their novelty after a while, there are some great RPGs out there that manage to stay gripping and interesting for well over 30 hours. I tend to prefer shorter games in general, just because I often lose intrest and never finish the longer ones.

 

[Whitenail]

If it's short but I'm constantly entertained during that time then it's fine with me, if it's long but feels incredibly padded then it's not fine with me.

Shorter games tend to be more varied and focused, not to mention most of the fairly short ones get by on uniqueness.

 

[drbarno]

I prefer games to be longer, but not longer as in, I have to bracktrack what I've done over the past 5 hours or I've just been beaten by a boss, *checks online*, oh I had to grind for 5 hours to even stand a chance, my bad.

 

[Radeonx]

I prefer longer games, because I am poor and want to get the biggest bang for my buck.

 

[cantthinkofausername]

I prefer long games as long as they have a consistent cinematic feel to them and has frequent story developments. Short games are fine too though, as long as, if they're a series, they get released quick enough.

*Cough* Half Life 2: Episode 3 *Cough*

 

[BreakfastMan]

I like both. It just really depends on the genre. I expect RPGs and the like to be longer, action games and the like to be shorter. Length does not really bother me, as long as it is consistent with the genre. I do not expect my FPSs to be 40+ epics, and I do not expect my RPGs to be short, 8 hour adventures. Just so long as the length makes sense for the game, I am fine with it.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

A game should be as long as it needs to be. CoD shouldn't be any longer, because then the pacing would be fucked even more. Constant adrenaline can be maintained for only so long.

Fallout should be long though. Sidequests are optional, so there should be a bunch of them. Nothing gives you an emptier feeling than an open world game with nothing to do.

 

[radioactive lemur]

A short game can be worth the money ONLY if it has decent multiplayer like in COD Black Ops. Games like Vanquish which are only 3-5 hours with no online mode are completely unacceptable, even if they are crazy fun for the time you play them. Ideally though, the best games in my book are games like AC:B, MGS4 and Uncharted 2. Games with both excellent campaigns and awesome online modes. In these cases, I'll gladly pay $60 and feel it will have been worth every penny. In some cases, standalone single player games can also be worth the money but they are invariably at VERY least 20 hours, they are rarely shooters and almost always part of a series. Examples off the top of my head are Mario, Zelda, Ratchet and Clank (a little on the short side for my taste but I'll let it slide as there is decent replay value in most of them), and AC2.

 

[Hector Haddow]

games today in erms of lenght and quality are genaraly inferior to ther '90s (and some early '00) counterparts can you rely think of a game that matched (excluing on graphics and physics) the qualiy of C&C Tiberian Sun, Deus Ex, Homeworld or System Shock 2 (to name a few) it wiould be ok if you pay for the lenght of sp content for example a game the qualit of ss2 i happly pay £60+ but a game as long as hl2 ep2 it pay closer to £15 due to one takeing more than 12h first play through the other laee than 6h

 

[darth.pixie]

Depends on the type of game, I guess.

Games with sidequests and such should be long but a FPS or just about anything that goes in a straight line can get annoying. I liked Portal's shortness because it simply fit the game.

I like long games because I usually finish them rather fast. I finished Baldur's Gate in about 2 days of play and Baldur's Gate 2 in one go (a day and a half I think) with all the quests. It would take me longer now with college and work but I still prefer playing it for a longer time.

 

[Bullfrog1983]

I think the most deciding factor in whether I like a game is if it is good or not. I prefer long games because they tend to be the most fun. I always feel genuinely ripped off when I buy games for $60 and finish them within a few days of starting them. One recent game was Mafia 2, it was okay but I have to say it was one of the shortest and badly ended games I've ever played. Right before I finished it I thought to myself, "It seems like they're wrapping this up, but this has to be the beginning of another chapter right?" After playing a few of the GTA games I thought that it would have about equal missions, but there were only like 16 in total. I assume it ended so quickly because they wanted to get another $20 off me by introducing DLC that should have been included in the game before it was "over." By the end of the game my character didn't even make out with some broad or dame - he just went around ruthlessly killing people for what amounted to basically nothing at the end of the game, an entirely unfulfilling and disappointing ending to what could have been a great game.

 

[fates_puppet13]

for me it depends
i like short game with post credits sandboxing
but i also like long rpgs which really allow you to get in the mindset of your character

 

[odeed]

It depends, I generally prefer shorter games, as they tend to be more concise, focused, and varied. Mirror's Edge is probably the best example, it was pretty short, which a lot of critics didn't like, but I think any longer and it would have outstayed its welcome. Same goes for Portal, it is easily playable, and just feels satisfying to finish.
Longer games can be very good, though, especially if they're well-paced, Half Life 2, for example, never dragged, or felt contrived, and that is about 20 hours first time through.
Also, if games have plenty of content to pad the length, it can work well, i.e. RPGs like Fallout 3.
The worst kind of length is unnecessary, extended padding, Dead Space is the worst offender I've recently played... the developers managed to stretch a decent 5 hour game into a mind-numbingly boring and frustrating 16 hour game.

 

[xdom125x]

If a game has a long story, it should make sure it isn't full of filler or repetitous activities. If it is a short story mode, there should be sidequests and stuff. I like short games, especially if they are free-roaming.