Why games need to be shorter

Digitally Downloaded writes: "I've recently finished the main plot of Attack of the Friday Monsters on the Nintendo 3DS. That wasn't much of a feat actually, the game only took two hours and thirty minutes. And yet after finishing it I couldn't help but think that I would love for more games to be just like it."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
cl19831687d ago

If games are 10.00 or less sure, but if they're charging more then no way.

zeal0us1687d ago (Edited 1687d ago )

Yeah I'm not about to spend $40-$60 for a 10hr game.

Either needs to be long or have a replay-ability factor in it if I'm going to buy it.

MattS1687d ago

Would you pay $40-$60 for a good quality game?

Too few people seem to realise that length can hurt a game. If Studio Ghibli can tell an incredible story in two hours, it boggles the mind that people think that a Studio Ghibli game needs to be 50 hours in length to be any good.

Pozzle1687d ago (Edited 1687d ago )

"If Studio Ghibli can tell an incredible story in two hours, it boggles the mind that people think that a Studio Ghibli game needs to be 50 hours in length to be any good. "

Yeah, but it doesn't cost over $50 to see a Studio Ghibli movie.

MattS1687d ago

@Pozzle - in the article I did actually argue that game prices should come down.

Gamers should still focus more on quality than quantity. Especially when the latter comes at the expense of the former.

_QQ_1687d ago

@pozzle these are games not stories. and movies don't cost 60$

levian1687d ago

If I wanted a story told in two hours, I'd watch a movie.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1687d ago
1687d ago
levian1687d ago

Seriously, games need to be shorter? 80% of games that come out now are way shorter than games used to be, on average between 10-20 hours.

I'm not paying $60 for a game I can beat in 15 hours, that's one day of some hardcore playing, or two-three days of light playing. Not worth it.

What we need - what is happening - is for games to be made more open world, where most of the content is optional for people who have time. Games like this usually have a TON of replayability, and are worth every penny of $60. Skyrim/Oblivion, Demon's/Dark Souls, Dragon's Dogma, Fallout 3/NV, these are the kind of games we need.

If people want games shorter than a Call of Duty campaign that's fine, go ahead and buy them. Don't drag the rest of our games down with you though.

3-4-51686d ago

We need 10-15 hours games.

But we need them to NOT cost $60.

If I can beat your game in 10 hours, you shouldn't be charging more than $25

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1686d ago
Sketchy_Galore1687d ago

I do enjoy a good cheap Indie game that can be enjoyed in one sitting like a movie, I thought Journey was a perfect example of that, it made for one amazing night but coming back to it for weeks before finishing it would have felt weird and not good.

I also enjoy a good ridiculously long RPG such as any classic Final fantasy or Bethesda's many games that allow hundreds of hours of exploration and discovery.

As for a story driven, linear (or sandbox with a linear campaign) game I would say about 15 hours is best. That always seems to be the time it asked me to complete those games that leave me the most satisfied. I thought GTA4 could have been much improved by halving the playtime of the campaign and nothing more. Obviously more gameplay sounds good on paper but for some games, GTA4 Being one for me, it just leads to fighting through the seas of obvious padding and repetition to get to the next interesting part.

Why my comment needs to be shorter - because I should have just said, it's not that games need to be shorter, they just need to be better edited.

1687d ago
byeGollum1687d ago (Edited 1687d ago )

WelI, I agree with the artcle. Plenty of games contain fillers just to extend the play time, and it's so obvious. There are so many games to play. One has to decide which you wanna devote your time to, considering the length of most games nowadays.

levian1687d ago

While I agree that too many games contain filler, (Assassin's Creed feather collecting?) I don't think games need to be made shorter because of it. They just need to focus on content. Nobody is pleased with a 10 hour game. In games like that, they go "That was fun!", forget about it, then move on to the expected multiplayer.

Devs have the budget to make huge games. They need to realize they don't need the best graphics to sell a game, they really need to focus that money on CONTENT. Look at games like Fallout. Not the best graphics, but certainly good enough. If they can settle for graphics like that, or slightly better, then focus on content it will single-handedly fix the gaming industry. Well, probably not, but it would be a great start.

skydragoonity1687d ago (Edited 1687d ago )

No. I think games need to be longer. If you've played zelda ocarina of time you'l know what I mean. But then again the author has some valid points

Show all comments (31)
The story is too old to be commented.