The writer talks about why he wishes that AAA developers sometimes made shorter games at lower prices.
just because you haven't got the time to play as much as you used too does not mean games need to be shorter. are you telling my skyrim would have been what it is if it took four hours to complete come on now. also dream on about shorter games being cheaper not when a single player only game is costing $60 or digital games costing same or even more that their hard copies
Agree, I have 400+ hours into Skyrim and I still haven't gotten all the Achievements, best $$ I've ever spent on a game IMO.
@Excalibur I've got more than 600 hours in on Skyrim and I also don't have all of the trophies. Shorter games? No thanks, make them long, and long live them, haha. :)
I don't mind the occasional longer game, but I don't want all games to be long. Each game is unique and I want to be able to experience more of those unique games, not spend more time with fewer padded out games. Personally, I would prefer more games to be shorter and denser with meaningful content.
Wow, there are far to many SHORT games to begin with. I am sick of short games, I feel like I am being ripped off when I can finish a game in under a day. This kind of thinking is just stupid.
@Jack. I doubt he is talking about 6-hour games, but more along 12. While there are a few really good 6-hour games, most are (as everyone knows) cash-in crap or just a bad game in general.
I don't have much time to play video games as much as I used to. But that doesn't mean I think games are better of shorter. Some games are better of shorter (if they have just padded out the story to make the game longer) but some really do suit longer types of games. It may take me a week or so to complete but that doesn't dampen my enjoyment.
Shorter can sometimes be better if a game is dragging on. However nobody wants to pay $60 for a single player experience that only lasts 3-4 hours (Ghosts and BF4 I am looking at you). At least they have robust Multiplayer game modes to help balance it out a bit. But I enjoy playing the campaigns of games. Shadow Fall took easily double the time it took to do BF4.
Some games are better shorter some longer, depends IMO. Sometime the game is great but the experiences drags on, other times games end to abruptly to flesh out the story properly.
Only short game i enjoyed was Vanquist, now thats an action game
What about Max Payne 3? That game can be beaten in a day and it was fairly good. Same with Asura's Wrath, but that one's more for people who liked DBZ and animes similar to that.
12-16 hours long is the ideal length of a game for me.
I'd say a game should be long enough to cover the whole story, but not too long that the story goes at snails pace.
If they're shorter then the price should reflect that.
What if the quality winds up being leagues above or akin to their 25-60 hour counterparts? I say the judge should be more quality rather than quantity. There are a lot of long games that aren't even worth $20, with some very short games having a quality deserving the $60 tag (though relatively rare).
The reason for buying IS for quality to begin with... it's the main reason... but If it's short then I usually wait for a price drop personally... I have the patience of a monk.
For certain genres like action games, indeed! I like getting a lot done in less time. And with the advent of chapter select and character progression, if I like the game enough I can replay it to either max-out my character while unlocking other Achievements/Trophies along the way.
I think 10-15 hrs is the sweet spot. Games like Witcher 2, FF 13 where I'm putting in over 20 hrs I get bored and stop playing after awhile.
Well I've played through the Witcher 2 twice and it is one of my favorite games of all time, but I still agree with the rest of your comment. I think most long games, and even The Witcher 2, get padded out a little (or a lot) with content that isn't really necessary or of the same quality as the rest of the game. I prefer most games to be in the 7 to 15 hour-long range, depending on the game...with a few exceptional games deserving to go well over that. The Witcher 3 is going to be a very long game and I will almost certainly enjoy almost every minute of it.
I only ever played one game that suffered under the length of its playtime, and that was RDR. But we can't be parading exceptions like that when stuff like TFU2 is floating around.
If you "dont have time" then perhaps you shouldn't be gaming at all? Shorter means people are quick to flip the game. They take the game home, beat it in one sitting, then take it to GameStop the next day. That or they just rent it, beat it, return it. It means lower sales and more second hand sales. Meanwhile if a game takes a while to beat and someone sits on it, then the Gamestop 35 minimum will expire and they are less likely to trade it in. It also means they cant just rent it for a night to beat it, meaning they are more likely to purchase it. And no matter what there is a sense of "pride" in a developer where they feel their game is worth full price no matter what, so them dropping prices is also unlikely.
games are better off shorter if you have the attention span of a child and don't buy games unless they have some multiplayer shoehorned into it. No, I like my games long, and I like them single player. Multiplayer games is a whole other issue. I want at least 100 hours out of a multiplayer game
Wrong, the longer the better!
Saying "you don't have the time to play games, so it's good that they're shorter" comes form the same mentality as, "I don't have time to learn the mechanics of how this game plays and adapt to them, so it's good that they're easier to pick up and play." No one should be paying $60 for games they were anticipating only to be disappointed because the game was beaten the day or the day after it was purchased, add in the fact that it had a lacking singleplayer with no replayability like no extra weapons, gear, abilities, etc. or new game plus, and a multiplayer that has no depth to the gameplay, plays similarly to other games within its genre, and is only interesting for 1-2 weeks after you bought the game.
If I'm enjoying a game, I want it to last as long as possible.
If I play an RPG, I expect a longer game. If I play an FPS I don't mind a shorter game. Either way, if the game makes me feel I got my money's worth, and I am happy then the length doesn't matter hugely.
Really wish I hadn't wasted my time reading that article..
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.