Poll: Are games getting too long?

[Ironbat92]

So, I recently finished playing Xenoblade Chronicles,a game that lasted more than 70 hours and was glad when it was finished. Mostly because it felt padded out and I felt like it should of ended hours ago. I didn't hate the game, I thought it was good, but I don't think i'll be coming back to it for a good while. This got me thinking of a lot of games this year. The Witcher 3, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, they're all really long games, taking any where from 20 to 40 hours. Is it just me, or are games starting to get too long? Hell, I've yet to finish Just Cause 3 and Fallout 4 and just started The Witcher 3. Maybe it's just me feeling burned out by open world games, but I'm starting to miss those shorter, better paced games everyone was complaining about last gen. The Gears of Wars, Call of Duty's, and more that where only about 6-8 hours long, but where far better paced. So, am I alone on this?

 

[MysticSlayer]

No, they aren't getting longer. At most, they're just getting more attention than they did last generation, and even then I have hard time saying that's true considering how popular Assassin's Creed was last generation along with popular games like Grand Theft Auto IV and V, Fallout 3, Skyrim, Saints Row,The Witcher, etc. And even before that, there were plenty of games that could easily pass the 20 hour mark, especially in the RPG genre.

And as for my own opinion: I tend to enjoy longer games. Even if I don't beat them, I can at least get plenty out of them if they are enjoyable. Sure I've beaten plenty of longer games, but I've also gotten so absorbed in the adventures they allow me to have that I forget about the main story and never "beat" them in the traditional sense.

It's more about what I can get out of them than whether or not I can add a game to my "Completed" list, and good, longer games do a great job of helping me get everything I want out of the game.

Edit: That isn't to say I don't like short, 5-10 hour games, but I like them for different reasons.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

I'd say there are a lot more open world games these days which tend to be longer. So there is probably a higher quantity of longer games. But are games getting "too long"? Well that really varies from person to person. For me a game is only too long if I'm thinking "Is this still going? I want it to end." And I haven't had too many of those recently.

 

[Fox12]

When I was younger, I wouldn't buy a game unless it had at least 20 hours to it. My income was extremely limited when I was around fourteen, but I had plenty of free time on my hand, as long as I did well in school. I needed to buy a game that was going to last. Now I have work, and college, and other things. I have some money, but I don't really have a lot of free time. Games like Fallout 4 just feel too long now. There's too much to do, and I don't really have patience for a game that drags on for 200 hours. I'd much rather play The Last of Us, or Undertale, which can be completed in a timely fashion.

For me, it's not that games are suddenly too long, it's that I'm at a point in my life where time is more valuable then money.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Since when was 20 hours a "really long game?" That's about my bare minimum for a good mid length game.

10 - 12 hours is fucking short.

Don't forget that it was only a few years ago when multiplayer-focused shooters reigned, that single player was almost expected to be around 5-6 hours at most.

Eh, I dunno. I guess it's better to be too long than too short (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID LOL!). I don't think it's necessarily the games' length in general, but the popularity of genres where we expect more playtime (RPGs and open world games as opposed to shooters) seems to be on the rise with games like Fallout 4, Bloodborne and Witcher 3.

 

[maninahat]

Yes, in a sense. Linear games have gotten drastically shorter, with most FPSs being 6 - 12 hour experiences. Compared to the original half life or Deus Ex, these are really short. But there is also a greater emphasis on open world games now, to the point that they are becoming the dominant AAA format (although one could argue the RPG has always somewhat served in that role) - and these take ages to finish.

The key word here is "Too", as in, games shouldn't be as long as they are. Many open world games probably would be better off as not open world games, or at least, narrowed significantly in focus and distractions. Assassin's Creed is the classic case of bloated, icon clearing, repetitive, lazily designed feature creep, but most open world games do it now. As gaming audiences become older, and are finding themselves with less and less free time, there is a growing demand for quicker, more concentrated games. I could do with a lot more of those.

 

[Squilookle]

I'm a bit more concerned with how they're taking up more and more hard drive space lately, but I do see your point. It might offer another reason why people are drawn to Let's Plays instead of playing it themselves.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

If anything, I'd say games are too short nowadays. I was quite disappointed with how quickly I got through Fallout 4's campaign, I blinked and missed the Halo 5 campaign even playing on "Legendary" (pfft) ... if I'm forking over ~?50 for a game then I want something that'll last me more than a weekend.

 

[Joccaren]

My friends and I have a guideline: $1 per hour of entertainment from a videogame.
I'm paying $100 for a new AAA release. It had BETTER damn well be more than 6-8 hours. At that cost, its more expensive than a movie, and I'm expected to make my own fun whilst doing it.

Padding can be an issue though. Games that aren't padded, and are deserving of their play time, like TW3, though, are good. I'd rather spend a month playing a game with 100 hours of gameplay, than an afternoon playing one with 6-8 hours and then needing to spend another $100. I couldn't keep up this hobby if I did.

 

[Zhukov]

I would say yes.

As others have said, it's mostly because open world AAA games are becoming so common. (Ungh.)

These tend to be rather long and are always stuffed with useless filler content.

 

[Odbarc]

A couple of years ago, the complaint was that games were too short.

The real problem maybe that the game is too padded with grinding and other not-fun qualities like back tracking and long hikes that add minutes to hours into a game that aren't immersive or enjoyable.

Myself, I prefer games that are replayable. New characters or builds are generally a plus. Diablo 3 has one story but 6 characters to run through the game. 10 hours can become 60. It's also a problem for me to start new games. I've got like 200+ hours into Fallout 4 now and I've got 10 characters and beaten it not once yet.
Same with Skyrim.

 

[necromanzer52]

In general, I think that games should be as long or as short as they need to be. I care more about the quality of those hours than the quantity. That said, I am getting a bit worn out with how long some games are. More often than not I spend the last quarter or so of a game wishing it could be over now so I can move on to something else. Even if I'm really enjoying it.

I recently played a game called Another World specifically because it was only 2 hours long, and it was so refreshing to have a game that did everything it needed to and didn't out-stay its welcome. Sure there were some bullshit puzzles, but overall, I had a blast.

 

[Silverbeard]

So, I recently finished playing Xenoblade Chronicles, game that lasted more than 70 hours and was glad when it was finished. Mostly because it felt padded out and felt like it should of ended hours ago. I didn't hate the game, I thought it was good, but I don't think i'll be coming back to it for a good while. This god me thinking of a lot of games this year. The Witcher 3, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, they're all really long games, taking any where from 20 to 40 hours. Is it just me, or are games starting to get too long? Hell, I've yet to finish Just Cause 3 and Fallout 4 and just started The Witcher 3. Maybe it's just me feeling burned out by open world games, but I'm starting to miss those shorter, better paced games everyone was complaining about last gen. The Gears of Wars, Call of Duty's, and more that where only about 6-8 hours long, but where far better pace. So, am I alone on this?

You kiddin' me bro?
If anything, games are too short these days. I yearn for the days of massively long titles that could last a gamer months. Of course padded games aren't necessarily that much fun to play but this is where open world titles like TW3 have the edge: players can ignore most of the padding (i.e, open world activities) and just plough through the central plot.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

They're certainly longer. I don't know if too long. Partly goes with the territory - all your examples are from the sandbox/RPG genre, where the whole point is "look at all the stuff you can do before even continuing the story".

It's all really about how you pace & structure your story. The Order 1886 is like 5 hours long, Journey is 2-3 hours. But nobody complained about Journey's length, whereas The Order's was its primary flaw. Kind of like movies - a critic can complain that at 120 minutes a movie is too long, even if there are plenty of other 120 minutes movies where length isn't an issue.

As for wanting to get your money's worth, you also have to factor in replayability. I've clocked in about 70 hours into RE6, a game I loathe, 35 of which are probably due to Mercenaries matches.

 

[Saltyk]

Too many games exist nowadays that you can beat in a few hours. Plenty treat their single player as a minor aspect of the game or don't have it at all. So, no, I'm gonna say that games aren't getting longer. You should savor those games that last 50+ hours. They are all too rare and certainly worth your money.

 

[stroopwafel]

Well many open-world games have too much filler content to drawn out the experience that's for sure. I kind of understand the temptation game-designers must have to fill these huge maps they created with meaningless stuff to do even if in the end it drags the entire game down. Espescially the Ubisoft school of game-design is guilty of this. However open-world games like GTA5 and Witcher 3 elegantly side-step this either by having little to no filler or the sheer quality of the side-quests themselves.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I think we just have more games. For every Xenoblade Chronicles and Witcher, we have another Unfinished Swan, Grow Home, or Rock Boshers DX (check that out, it's cheap and good). The older I get, the more I prefer short limited games. I am looking into diving into the ocean that is Fallout 4, but there's something extra satisfying about starting and finishing an entire game in a long afternoon and experiencing pretty much all of the gameplay ideas that the developers had in mind.

 

[Something Amyss]

Assassin's Creed Syndicate, they're all really long games

What?

How did Syndicate make that list? Syndicate is noted for being shot even by AC standards, and I can't imagine it taking anywhere near 20 hours unless you go through it really slow or are aiming for an in-game 100% (which is longer than platinum).

Games like Fallout should be expected. Seriously, have you not played a Fallout game before? FO4 looks to take about as long as any of the other modern FO games.

 

[sumanoskae]

No. In fact, 40-70 hours has long been industry standard for epic RPG's. It's just that since Skyrim (I would estimate), the main stream has been paying more attention to that genre.

I've never had a problem with long games. In fact, what I find funny is that how long it takes me to finish a game has nothing to do with it's length and everything to do with it's quality. I blazed through most of Mass Effect 3 in a matter of days, because playing it was basically all I did with my free time.

Conversely, it took me MONTHS to bring myself to finish Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. In the interest of full disclosure, I don't dislike Brotherhood, Assassin's Creed has just never commanded my full attention.

I admit that things would become problematic if more games approached that level of quality, but that would be a price I'd be willing to pay if it meant I was able to lose myself in a game like that more than once or twice every few years.