What, over already?

[pkmin3033]

Video game length has been a point of contention for some time now. With big-budget AAA titles like The Order: 1886 having a story campaign of under 10 hours, yet still costing full retail price - which itself is a point of contention - the outcry over shorter games has only become louder with the current generation. RPGs are promising experiences that are 60 hours or more, yet in reality can be completed within a third of that time or less. Games are getting shorter, and shorter is bad.

...but then there are those on the other side of the fence, saying that unnecessary gameplay padding detracts from the quality of a game, drawing it out for the sake of drawing it out. That the experience is what matters, not the length of time it takes. Games like Journey, which are extremely short, have garnered critical acclaim for their presentation and pacing, despite their brevity, and length has even been used as a negative point for some video games, which seem to drag on and on.

Of course, there are also other factors to consider - replay value, multiplayer functionality, and post-game content. Despite having extremely short campaigns, a lot of modern FPS pour all their attention into building a thriving multiplayer community, and receive extravagant praise for it. Lots of games, especially platformers, are designed to be played more than once, and even games that have traditionally been extremely long such as RPGs are packing in multiple endings so that people will play them again. In light of these extras, does it matter if it takes 10 hours or less to complete the main part of the game? Is it even relevant anymore, or just a formality?

So, what say you in regards to video game length? When compared to previous generations, are modern video games too long, or not long enough? Is the length of a game an important factor in determining whether you buy it - indeed, an important factor in determining the quality of the game itself - or is it completely unimportant? More bang for your buck, or does shorter mean sweeter? What do you look for, and what will you not tolerate?

 

[Satoshi Ookami]

Since I don't play AAA titles, I don't have problems with length of games.
If the game takes me a week to complete, I'm satisfied.
If it takes more, then it means it's pretty long =D

To explain it in hours, >50 is very good.

As for shorter games, I like those that can be completed in one day =D

 

[El Héroe Oscuro]

"$1, one hour."

That's the mantra that I wish video games and its' publishers obliged by. If I'm going to dish out $60 for your game then I expect sixty hours of gameplay and/or replay value. Of course that's never going to happen, but a man can dream.

Metal Gear Solid; Ground Zeroes is a game that completely contradicts this motto. Disregarding side quests, the main story can be beat in under two hours. Thankfully the price of the game has dropping significantly - you can get it at around $10 now I believe - but I feel sorry for anyone who bought the game at it's release. That's just deceiving.

 

[Kameken]

I think people care way too much about game length over quality.

I've played games that were no more than two hours long for a single play through, and been much more satisfied with them than games that lasted a minimum of ten.

Anyone here played Alien: Isolation? Great game, but also a perfect example of a game that would've been better if it didn't last as long.

 

[Bay]

This is something I've been thinking a lot. Oddly enough, PBS Idea Channel posted a question on twitter last night whether you dread a 1,000 page book or a 25 hour video game. Some of the responses are pretty interesting. Ideal Channel's spinoff PBS Game/Show also did a similar video on this topic.

One of the arguments I keep hearing whenever this question comes up is real life often will get in the way so you'll have less time to sink many hours into a game. Of course you can take your time on a longer game and it doesn't need to be completed in a day, but these days games keep being released fairly quickly and we're like, "urgh backlog D:", so it's understandable sometimes we'll feel like if I don't finish a game within x timeframe I don't think I'll finish it.

To answer the topic at hand, I'm more in the camp I'm fine either way as long the execution is good. For instance, I recently finished To The Moon a few days ago and I thought it told its story well in under five hours. As for a game I like that has a much longer length, the Ace Attorney series are ones I thought benefited more from being longer due to its story-heavy cases and visual novel nature.

 

[Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer]

I expect at least 50 hours of decent gameplay [FONT=&quot]or 100 hours if its a game with a lot of grinding. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Side quests are fun as long as they are a whole new level in themselves not a collect all the things sort of quest (The Batman Arkham series is far to guilt of this with all the Riddler data files or whatever they are you need to collect).[/FONT]

 

[Hi!]

One thing that I don't really understand is like "OH DUDE THIS GAME HAS LIKE 200 HOURS OF CONTENT IT MUST BE AWESOME!!"

Having a lot of content is always a good thing but it doesn't automatically mean the game is better if the content is shitty. I'm gonna use the game Kingdoms of Amalur as an example. There are a FUCK ton of quests in that game, you could literally be playing it for like 300 hours doing them all, but damn they're so repetitive and boring. It's content, yeah, but it's not very good, and I wouldn't say the game is better for it.

On the other hand, look at games like Devil May Cry or Bayonetta. Playing through the story once will get you I'd say a good 15 hours or thereabouts, but those games are designed to be played and replayed on harder difficulties. The game isn't going through the story once, the game is mastering the combat mechanics and getting better and better until you can smash the game on the hardest difficulties. And with the amazing combat systems that those games have, it's a joy to play. I netted 50+ hours on both Bayonetta and DMC4, even though a playthrough takes 10-15.

I think a game doesn't need vast amounts of content for the sake of it. If the effort is put into making plenty of meaningful, fun content then that's great, but it's just as good if the effort goes into making the pure gameplay so fun that repeat playthroughs are guaranteed. Replay value is very important.

 

[Sonata]

Most modern games are too short, often being too multiplayer centered. Here's lookin at you COD. Which is why I tend to more stick to RPGs. Most RPGs have enough gameplay to make it worth dishing out 50 or 60 dollars on it. I mean, even Final Fantasy 13 with it's 100+ hours of bullshit was still worth 50 dollars when it first came out. 50 cents an hour at the very least. I mean come on. Is that too much to ask for? I think a lot of companies have started to forget what really makes a video game fun. Yes shooting random people over and over and over while they scream at you for being a faggot or gay etc etc can be fun, to an extent. But you don't need to release the same game every 6 or 7 months. Put a little effort into it for once and give us a story that's not complete crap.

 

[Yukari]

Frankly short games aren't bad, but I really don't think a lot of games are long enough. And most games nowadays simply don't have enough content. If a game focuses on replay value then I'm cool with it, but I want a good amount of content with games, particularly if I'm shelling out a lot of money. (Though, I almost never buy games that cost $40<) And I don't think replay value justifies a short game either.

 

[Raine]

Game length rarely, if ever, has an effect on my decision of whether to purchase the game or not.

Personally, if developers are able to impact gamers in a relatively shorter amount of time, that's actually a great feat. For instance, The Last of Us, a game that has become an instant classic amongst the gaming population and with only ~10 hours of gameplay, it has had such a revolutionary result. I mean, yes, it's a shooter and those aren't known for their campaign, but TLOU was not looking to become the next CoD or Halo series, which I'm glad Naughty Dog stayed away from.

Another game I rather enjoyed was Child of Light, which took about the same amount of time to complete and was a beautifully put together piece by Ubisoft. That was probably the only game where I wished the length was longer because I enjoyed the turn-based battle system along with the skill progression.

 

[Foxrally]

The disappointingly shortest game I have ever played was Cartoon Network Punch Time Explosion. It was a crappy cashgrab of a title to begin with (just like so many other Cartoon network games) but at least it had my favorite characters. However the campaign story was so short, we finished it in almost an hour on normal mode.

We were speeding through the first few levels since we had accidentally erased our save file, and we were shocked at how close to the ending we were when we got back. Seriously, the boss fight was ridiculously short.

 

[Dragon]

Hm, I only think games are too easy nowadays, than long. But yeah, I agree with the dollar per hour statement though; 60 dollars for a game, I do indeed expect at least 60 hours worth of gameplay, haha. Especially if I'm playing like, a Tales games? But eh, even then.. quality of time is better than the quantity of it? It might be well worth the price in that regard too~

 

[Sylphiel]

In general, I do feel that games tend to be shorter nowadays. Although for the most part, I don't find that to be too much of a detraction, especially if the game is good otherwise. If it's a good game, then I'll easily forgive the length of time needed to complete it (depending on how much I paid for it).

...Except possibly when it comes to rpgs. I like long rpgs. You give me some game that I can beat in no time there, that I barely have time to properly enjoy a story, then I'm probably going to be a little annoyed unless there's something else going for that game.

 

[Raine]

Hm, I only think games are too easy nowadays, than long. But yeah, I agree with the dollar per hour statement though; 60 dollars for a game, I do indeed expect at least 60 hours worth of gameplay, haha. Especially if I'm playing like, a Tales games? But eh, even then.. quality of time is better than the quantity of it? It might be well worth the price in that regard too~

You can always count on Tales games being mighty long and taking up a good chunk of your time, haha. Sometimes it's so daunting that I have to force myself at times to play through them. Still haven't even finished my first Tales game...which is sad considering I played Xillia, almost finished before I deleted the game save, and Xillia 2, which is currently on hold.

 

[Dragon]

You can always count on Tales games being mighty long and taking up a good chunk of your time, haha. Sometimes it's so daunting that I have to force myself at times to play through them. Still haven't even finished my first Tales game...which is sad considering I played Xillia, almost finished before I deleted the game save, and Xillia 2, which is currently on hold.

Sometimes they're too long, ahaha. Like you have to go to this dungeon, beat a boss, go back to this town, go to another dungeon, o back to the same dungeon as you did before - aaaaaugh. ;__;

I hope Tales of Xilla 2 has been good to you; I'd say it's well worth it. <33

 

[Raine]

Sometimes they're too long, ahaha. Like you have to go to this dungeon, beat a boss, go back to this town, go to another dungeon, o back to the same dungeon as you did before - aaaaaugh. ;__;

I hope Tales of Xilla 2 has been good to you; I'd say it's well worth it. <33

That time spent traveling back and forth, and loading screens ;-; Necessary evil, I guess. But those would be RPGs for you!

Tales of Xillia 2 has been good! Given that I enjoy the silent protagonist more, though the constant nagging for repaying debt was painfully annoying...Think I'm about 50 hours in and still not close to finishing, mainly because I grind my characters to the ground before moving on, haha.

 

[Morkula]

Quality over quantity. I'd much rather play a game that's 10-15 tightly-paced hours and holds my attention than a 50 hour game mercilessly padded with filler. JRPGs used to be my favorite genre, but I've found that since I've gotten older I don't really have the time or patience to commit to them, especially since they're the genre that's most guilty of gratuitous filler. Plus I have way too many games in my backlog to want to dump 50+ hours on one single game fml.

Expecting an hour for every dollar you spend is unreasonable though. A movie ticket costs you what, $10? And that's probably on the low end...for two hours of entertainment. So $60 for a 10-12 hour game isn't unreasonable, as long as it's an entertaining 10-12 hours. I usually wait for games to go on sale and don't buy them for full-price, but games like Sunset Overdrive, Middle-Earth, or Bioshock Infinite are games that come to mind that I felt like I got enough entertainment out of that I would have justified buying them full price (if I had done so).

I do think that publishers are guilty of under-delivering on content and still charging $60 though. The Order: 1886 and Titanfall are two recent examples that come to mind. I'm glad Nintendo is releasing smaller titles like Captain Toad, Kirby, and Tropical Freeze at a reduced price point (even though TF is phenomenal and would be worth $60, seriously), since it allows for the development of such games that probably wouldn't get much attention and would have been a hard sell at full price.

 

[Dragon]

That time spent traveling back and forth, and loading screens ;-; Necessary evil, I guess. But those would be RPGs for you!

Tales of Xillia 2 has been good! Given that I enjoy the silent protagonist more, though the constant nagging for repaying debt was painfully annoying...Think I'm about 50 hours in and still not close to finishing, mainly because I grind my characters to the ground before moving on, haha.

Yea, haha. But, I wouldn't change that if it's done well, honestly! Cause I understand why the need to backtrack works well with the current story. :3

Augh, yes, while the debt collector is cheerful and bubbly but come onnnnnn. She's still a debt collector, haha. I think you're still in for a lot more hours on it too. o:

 

[Raine]

Yea, haha. But, I wouldn't change that if it's done well, honestly! Cause I understand why the need to backtrack works well with the current story. :3

Augh, yes, while the debt collector is cheerful and bubbly but come onnnnnn. She's still a debt collector, haha. I think you're still in for a lot more hours on it too. o:

I've been following a walkthrough the entire time I've been playing, even then, I have taken my sweet time going through dungeons, especially when I know a boss is coming up. That's my cue to grind my characters as high as I can! Until I'm bored, haha.

I believe I've gotten to the point where the debt collector has resigned, so she's stopped nagging me, thankfully. The first couple hours of playing the game, I wanted to throw the controller against the wall...

 

[Austin]

As long as I feel that I got my money's worth from the game, the length doesn't really bother me. Quanity =/= Quality.

RPGs are usually very long, and I enjoy most of them, but if the developers are adding uninteresting content just for the sake of increasing the length of the game, there's going to be a problem. Overall I really don't care too much about the length of the game, as long as it's enjoyable.