380°

3 Hour Games are the Future

Stray. Bright Memory Infinite. Two recent titles that are both fantastic experiences, and both can be completed as 3 hour games.

CS7670d ago

I’m goin to queue in here to show support for 3 hour games.

It’s an unpopular opinion for sure but why are three hour games a bad idea?

As someone who has much less time to play games as I get older I love having a few 3-10 hour games that I can get in and out of quickly.

For some gamers we don’t have the luxury of playing 50-100 hour RPGs without a life commitment coming up and derailing our momentum on the game.

During Horizon Forbidden West I got called out for 12 hour shifts for six weeks. By time I got back the entire experience afterwards never felt the same as the first half of the game.

Between juggling a job, family life, friendships & relationships, and a side business some of my favourite games of the last few years were on the shorter side and I’m hoping that developers actually release more short games.

And short games doesn’t hinder the massive AAA 40 hour games either. They’ll still be there for the gamers who do have more time.

Shadowolf670d ago

@CS7

I 100% agree with your assessment! I too find myself with less time to prioritize all of the lengthy games in my queue. Of course, and as you mentioned, this certainly shouldn't hinder the priority of AAA games in all their fullness. I certainly need my 40-100 hour game experiences, absolutely! Yet, after recently completing games such as STRAY, Bright Memory: Infinite, as well as The Ascent, which were all loads of fun, the satisfaction was wonderful. I truly hope games like these continue to be developed with much conviction.

rlow1670d ago

I agree with your sentiments. I’m lucky to have the time to play a long game twice a year, tops. Nice tight experiences fit very well into my lifestyle. Especially, now that most triple A games take so long to make.

VenomUK670d ago

Overall, I enjoyed my time playing Stray. I'd probably give it a strong 6/10. It took me more than three hours, nearer to six. I have access to all these big games and they can be daunting; sometimes I turn a console on and just can't be bothered to learn the controls, or remember where I was the last time I played. Part of why I played Stray, besides enjoying making the cat go meow, was that it was so accessible, it has a very basic menu, and knowing that it was short. The ending was satisfying. Providing they are off a HIGH QUALITY and not regarded as throwaway timekillers by the publishers, I would be happy to play more shorter games.

dumahim670d ago

Nothing wrong with wanting/getting 3-10 hour games, but they are not the future.

anast670d ago

The more time thing is stupid. 100 hour games are not only for people that "do not have a life". I spend months on a game slowly chipping away at and I am happy. I don't get this strange obsession to beat a game within 3-6 hours. You don't like long games I get it, but just because you don't like them doesn't mean that long games are only for people who have more time.

jznrpg670d ago (Edited 670d ago )

Busy as well but when my kids are asleep and wife is reading a book I play for a couple hours a night at least . I squeeze in some time here and there as well. I would hate the idea of most games being over the first or second time I sit down with it .
If you play 1-2 hours 10 times you would play almost 3-7 games . How can you tell a good story in 3 hours unless it is all cinematic and talking straight through ? I’d watch a movie instead though movies mostly suck these days so I rarely watch anything beyond a kids movie.
I understand everyone’s life is different but I can’t see the majority of games being that short being a good thing for gaming industry . May as well just play mobile games then .

Terry_B670d ago

My reaction was simply about the headline "3 Hour Games are the Future"

because.. that's just ..lol no (t) going to happen.

shinoff2183670d ago

The argument of for some gamers we dont have the luxury of playing a 50 to 100 hour game is crazy.

I finished dq11 in the winter maybe around feb or so. Anyway i clocked in like 250. I have a full time job and 4 kids at home. It took me sometime but i did it and enjoyed every minute of it. Great game.

As far as horizion not feeling the same idk what to say. Maybe it isnt for you. A 3 hour game though just doesnt seem worth it unless its on the super cheap 5 to maybe maybe 10 dollar range.

I jist wish these articles would stop before some devs read these things and think this is what people want cause the majority certainly dont.

Shane Kim670d ago

CS7

You think these companies want to cater to all of us? If they can get away with 3 hour games then they will simply start making 3 hour games and not deal with the hassle of a 30 hour game.

ravinash670d ago (Edited 670d ago )

On TV we have mini series, full programs with multiple seasons and movies.
You wouldn't hear someone who watches a 7 series program complaining about the fact that movies exist.
Its mearly a different expereance.
Sometimes a story is better presented as a 3 hour expereance rather than dragging it out for hours.

VenomUK669d ago

@ravinash Your movies / TV series analogy is spot on.👊🏼 I suggest everyone goes and read it.

Why are some people arguing with others just because they have a different desires for playing games from YOU? It's like saying because your favourite genre is arcade-adventures you're going to argue and disagree with people who prefer RPGs - everyone can have their own preferences! Triple-A isn't going away but having options of different game experiences is a good thing.

Smellsforfree669d ago

I'm with this guy. Anymore when I hear someone say "It was really great, but short." my ears perk up and I'm interested. What is that you say? A game I might actually be able to complete? How exciting.

MajorLazer669d ago

They should cost 30/40 max.

xander31669d ago (Edited 669d ago )

there is nothing wrong with 3 hour games, however why does it have to be the future. why does it have to be one way or another when there is clearly room for both. I hate articles like this, reminds me of Google Stadia trying to sell you the future of gaming... wonder how thats going for them.

CobraKai669d ago

Same here. Plus MGS on PS1 was about 4 hours, and it was totally worth it. I'm playing Bright Memory Infinite right now. The selling point? It's only 2 hours. Love it!!

Crows90669d ago (Edited 669d ago )

One thing is to appreciate short games. Another is to claim they're the future.

Different strokes for different folks. Some prefer long games, some MMOs, some singleplayer, etc.

You can't claim something this dumb and get away with it.

Less time doesn't mean you can't enjoy longer games. If a game is good it shouldn't matter how long it takes you. That's like making an argument stating 100page books are the future. Long stories are perfectly fine in bite sizes.

Tapani669d ago (Edited 669d ago )

Disagree (but still upvoting due to a well explained comment). I'm in my forties and have chosen a lifestyle that is relatively speaking lucrative, but while working reasonable hours when it's quiet on the biz front, and also spending time with my family playing games. It is a matter of lifestyle, not a matter of how long the game is. Also, the quality of the 50 hours is important.

For me, Elden Ring's 250hrs were all top notch, and I was working on some of the toughest and busiest projects I ever had doing 12-14 hours a day average when it was released. Still, I found the time, because my family wanted to watch me play it, that's how we relaxed. With other friends and family, we were able to speak about the game (=spending time with friends).

The same level of quality at 25hrs with Disco Elysium. And Stray for 3 hours. It is just about the choices you make in life, and how you want to live it, and finally about the quality of the games.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 669d ago
INMATEofARKHAM670d ago

If the game is good and resonates with the player it will be successful rather its 3 hours or a 100 hours long.

ravinash670d ago

Exactly.
A 3 hour experience that resonates with you will stay with you a lot longer than the endless cycle of COD games which half the time you couldn't remember 99% of what happened to you during your whole gaming experience.

CS7670d ago

@anast

I actually really enjoy a nice long game and I do play a meaty RPG when I’m on vacation.

I also “chip away” at long games but many times I need to pause for weeks on end which makes it harder to get back into the game.

But it just feels like high quality 3-10 hours games are realllllllly rare and I would like to see more of them.

Crows90669d ago

20 -30 hours are my sweet spot personally.

Yang_kai669d ago

3 hours game is the future of service games
There I fixed your tittle

I would not pay full price for a 3 hours game, when that happens to become the standards is the day I quit playing video games

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 669d ago
darthv72670d ago

And yet in another piece about scorn, it gets mocked for being only 6-8 hours long.

Personally, i like shorter games. It's probably because Im nearly 50 and my time isnt as abundant as it once was. I cant get involved with hundred hour games. I already manage to stretch what would be a dozen (at most) hour game into something that takes me weeks or months (even years) to finish.

...but that's just me.

Silly Mammo670d ago

I finished Stray in just under 6 hours. I enjoyed it a lot, but I feel it would have just drawn the game out if they had made it longer without any new mechanics added.

EvertonFC670d ago (Edited 670d ago )

Maybe spend less time on here all day lol
?

darthv72670d ago

...maybe, but then what would I do at work?

Although, i have thought of bringing my portable series s with me to play during lunch.

RedDevils670d ago

Like socialize with your co-worker or makes friends.

XbladeTeddy670d ago (Edited 670d ago )

"maybe, but then what would I do at work?"

Well...work?

VenomCarnage89669d ago

The people commenting "just... work while you work" ....... Just smh, can't even comprehend a joke 🤦‍♂️
I'm at work right now and I only use this site at work, and guess what, all my work gets done in the first half of my shift. Ffs, I guess the guy is supposed to go do other peoples jobs after he's caught up with his own because he's not allowed to chill

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 669d ago
AndrewM670d ago

Maybe work while your at work?

Shane Kim670d ago

He is 50. You don't work in your 50's.

Lightning77670d ago (Edited 670d ago )

The gaming industry is large enough with various platforms and services that 3 to 10 hour games can thrive. Gamepass and PS premium can introduce these sorta experiences.

I wouldn't have a big problem with it if we're getting those 40 hour plus PS5 Series X AAA experiences. Something we've barely seen since this gen has started. This 4 hour experiences can only tie me over for so long until I want something deeper and worth while. Not talkin live service games either. They have their place and Even I had fun with those titles, but I really want those big games. Seems like we're just waiting around forever.

Tacoboto669d ago

Scorn getting mocked for being 6-8 hours has nothing to do with it actually being 6-8 hours, or even anything to do with the game itself; we both know why.

Regardless, I do agree - shorter games like... Call of the Sea, Stray, The Medium, Titanfall 2, Untitled Goose Game, My Friend Pedro, so on and so forth... these were all enjoyable to me because they're able to feel so focused on the core experience they want to provide. I'm excited to try out As Dusk Falls and What Remains of Edith Finch over the next week or two, and neither will take more than a few hours or a weekend to play.

My favorite games though, they're all the big blockbusters, anywhere from 20-120 hours, but they top my list for the same reasons I like these shorter ones - really nailing that core experience they strive for.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 669d ago
FreeckyCake670d ago (Edited 670d ago )

JRPGs: Hold my grinding time

Godmars290670d ago

Three hour games were the past. Shorter.

Mind you, it was twenty-five cents at that thing called an arcade...

darthv72670d ago

ahh yes... i grew up on the arcade lifestyle. A quarter could get you all the way to the end or only a few minutes of play, depending on the game (and your skill level). The best part was just moving on to another game when you felt the need (or frustration set in).

Petebloodyonion670d ago

Nope, they were the majority of the NES library and most of them used to cost around 50$
Arcade games could be beaten often in less than an hour.

Unknown_Gamer5794670d ago (Edited 670d ago )

You must have been insanely good at arcade games, because I don't think I ever beat a single one back in the day, and there was actually incentive for arcade games to be at least somewhat challenging, just as there was for console games.

In the case of console games such as those on the NES, rentals were affecting sales, so making them more difficult meant they were far less likely to be beaten in a day or two, or even a week, thus increasing the odds that someone would end up buying the game. As for arcades, well, the idea was for people to insert as many quarters as possible, thus generating more revenue. If a game could be beaten with just a few quarters, it likely wouldn't be much of a moneymaker.

Based on your comment, I'm assuming your experience with retro arcade titles is from collections and other emulated ports. Even if you don't use features such as save states or rewinds, if you're playing a game where "credits" can be added indefinitely, that would be equivalent to someone having an endless bucket of quarters at an actual arcade, who also didn't have to share the machine.

If you can try as many times as you want (and are playing a game where you're not sent back to a far-back checkpoint when you die), then of course the game can be beaten in less than an hour, but that isn't a scenario that would have been likely in an arcade in the 80s or 90s. I'm sure it happened with some particularly well-off kids who hogged a machine until they were done, but probably not as often as you seem to think.

Petebloodyonion669d ago

@Unkwown_gamer5794

I never mentioned that arcade games could be beaten with 1 quarter but just that finishing a game at the Arcade usually takes less than 1 hour. An example of games that ppl would complete are the Beat-em-up games like TMNT, Final Fight, etc.

As for NES games goes I don't really understand your point about difficulty regarding a play session.
Sure some games were challenging (for example Contra without the Konami code or Mike Tyson Punch out) but the thrill of the game was coming back to try to beat it and you could try a complete run in 1 attempt something that is impossible when booting up Uncharted 4.

Just remember that the majority of games back then had no saves or password feature.

Lightning77670d ago

Yeah in the 80's. Then In the 90's they realized they can make a crap ton of money from it so devs made arcade games hard as hell makin you spend more money.

Nacho_Z670d ago

Part of not all of it. If anything 300 hour games are the future.

There's nothing wrong with playing a long game in short bursts.

CS7670d ago

The momentum is wildly different.

And sometimes life gets in the way for weeks and months on end.

Coming back to a heavy RPG/Open World game after not playing for two months really down grades the experience IMO.

Nacho_Z670d ago

So would coming back to a 3 hour long game after a 2 month gap. Literally any game in existence would suffer from a break of that length.

I can only play for an hour or so at a time and not every day and I play a variety of games ranging from Elden Ring to Stardew Valley. It's entirely possible.

KillBill670d ago

Depends on the type of game. Many games you can come back to and simply play from where you left off with little loss of "momentum". Others maybe not so much. For sure most multiplayer games are an easy return and play... where at best you need a couple refresher games in to get your skills back. Story driven games you can still play in short increments but would likely need to revisit it after a few days to keep your story fresh in your head. (little different than watching a TV series each week)

AspiringProGenji669d ago

Who really takes that long to beat a game, let alone not play it for two months?

Show all comments (114)
90°

15 Great Games Where Every Minute of the Experience Feels Earned

GB: "We take a look at 15 amazing games that had the perfect length."

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
9d ago
coolbeans8d ago

Pretty good list. Botany Manor would be the newest addition that encapsulates that title.

400°

Anyone else not blown away with graphics these days? Me neither

Talal writes: "I'm talking about having that rush of excitement - that feeling you get when you know you've just made a memory for a lifetime."

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
OptimusDK11d ago

There are different games. Some have gamplay at it highest priority, some have the story, some have the replay value and choices... There are a lot of different game experiences.

It is laughable that just now graphics does not have anything to do with that experiene. We have had many games of that type over time. This is just the one that have come closest to feel like playing an actual movie. Just look the the Digital foundry walkthrough it is a masterpiece in that perspective and hence wrth trying. But yes do not do it for the gameplay - but that was never the goal of this experience.

GamerRN11d ago

It's because it's on Xbox. When Xbox has amazing graphics, they don't matter. When PlayStation does, it's a game changer!

Lightning7711d ago

Pretty much my thoughts. They were technical marvel's on PS and still are. The moment Xbox puts out a graphically intense game is doesn't matter suddenly.

4 years ago this month would the UE5 tech demo debut with the girl flying (tech demo said it was only possible on PS5 because of the SSD. Glad to finally see it in its glory.

fr0sty11d ago

FFS, gaming journalism has really gone downhill. At least hire people with a basic grasp of grammar... "Me neither" means the exact opposite of what the "author" is trying to say. That's like saying "I could care less"... lol.

S2Killinit11d ago

Maybe because the gameplay being dull allowed it to have the amazing graphics and people are not as impressed by graphics alone anymore? I mean there is a lot of sites saying the story and the gameplay are lackluster. So what are we supposed to enjoy then? Cgi graphics are beautiful but since they arent interactive, they dont impress me as much as they used to. Thats an extreme example, but you get my drift.

Terry_B11d ago

When Playstation (Sony) does it..its usually a great game and not a cinematic experience..or at least something new at the time..like Until Dawn back in 2015.

1Victor10d ago

@gamer:” It's because it's on Xbox. When Xbox has amazing graphics, they don't matter. When PlayStation does, it's a game changer!”

The game looks as good as any other PlayStation game in my eyes why can’t you and the other hardcore Xbox be happy about it and drag PlayStation into every conversation and force PlayStation hardcore to look into the game and find flaw that most games have in one way or another.
@light: “ 4 years ago this month would the UE5 tech demo debut with the girl flying (tech demo said it was only possible on PS5 because of the SSD. ”
Yes at that time it was only possible on PlayStation SSD how ignorant of you to think that after 4 years the technology wouldn’t evolved and move to a industry standard 🤦🏿I wish your mentality wasn’t so naive and narrow to post stuff like that 😩 in a year or 2 a new game will come out that might look better, it’s the nature of the industry.

Now that the distraction is gone I feel that is a good thing that the graphics in games are starting to hit the rooftop and hopefully the developers will put more thoughts into story and gameplay mechanics than just the next shiny oily skin of old.

Reaper22_10d ago

So true. Not surprised by all the negativity. It's a really good game and looks better than any game I've ever seen. GOTY nominee for sure. Like I said before, sony screwed up big time by not purchasing Ninja Theory.

Asplundh10d ago

Pretty much. It's like how the Switch and Steam controller using haptic feedback in their controllers wasn't a big deal but then Sony did it and it was then a "game changer".

fr0sty10d ago

The game runs at as low as 21fps... That isn't much to brag about no matter how good it looks.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 10d ago
MajorLazer10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

We've had graphical gamechangers before, such as Crysis but those games still had gameplay to compliment it. Hellblade pretty much has none, and only achieved such graphics through being incredibly linear and having very small, closed off environments where very little is happening.

Vx_10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

GFX does not mean anything if the game is boring. It is simple like that and these major companies need to understand this simple concept.

Games are like your lady, she may be beautiful to look at for a while but then it gets boring if her character isn't interesting and fun to be with.

11d ago Replies(7)
Kneetos11d ago

Mario kart 8 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Sonic188111d ago

Horizon forbidden West has great graphics and great gameplay

GamerRN11d ago

Yeah but graphics don't matter, remember?

anast10d ago

@RN

I've been pretty consistent in saying that we need both.

GamerRN9d ago

So until dawn, too human, or whatever those series of games were... Graphic masterpieces it garbage with no gameplay?

VincentVanBro11d ago

I agree and I actually think Forbidden West looks better than Hellblade 2. I easily prefer looking at it at least.

Sonic188110d ago

It does look better in my opinion as well. I don't know why it looks better but there's something about the Decima engine or that guerrilla games is using tricks that we don't know of

Abear2110d ago

Can you fly a mount under water in Hellblade 2? I think not! One of the best moments this Gen

Show all comments (111)
90°

Two Decades Later, the Original Splinter Cell is Still a Masterpiece

They don't make games like this anymore.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
vgvill20d ago

Too dated in my book. The AI is way too unpredictable to be acceptable today. It's definitely a game of its time.

Jingsing19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

Agreed with those sentiments. The quality of the CPU controlled characters make or break a stealth game and they are pretty poor in all the Splinter Cell games by today's standard. This is what led me to playing Spies vs Mercs all the time in later games just to get a better stealth experience from a real person. Arguably Sony are making better stealth games albeit not Tom Clancy stuff.

TheProfessional19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

You should stick with fortnite or one of the countless bloodborne style games then. What a joke.

rlow119d ago

I had a good time with the game. It is a product of its time. But when it came out it was a must have game for a lot of people. I wish Ubisoft would make another game in the series or at least a reboot.

vgvill19d ago

They are making a remake, I think. I loved the original game when it was released, but I tried to play it again in recent years and just couldn't get on with it. The same with the older Hitman games.

PrecursorOrb19d ago

Yeah chaos theory still holds up though I gotta say. If you’re a fan of the series I highly suggest you go back to that one. Ubi has said they are remaking sc for “modern audiences”. I don’t have a lot of faith for the future of that company

Chocoburger19d ago (Edited 19d ago )

Due to the lack of modern stealth games, and me constantly playing the MGS series, I've been looking for alternative stealth games to play, and went back and re-played the SC series recently. I wouldn't call SC1 or SC:PT masterpieces, there are AI issues, they're very much trial-and-error games, and that can lead to a lot of frustration. I also found the stories in this series to be boring, uninteresting, and just sloppily told. Cinematics are also of poor quality for both in-game scenes and CG cut-scenes, the soundtrack didn't leave any impression on me either.

Chaos Theory is better, but there was still a lot of room for improvement, and Double Agent (old gen ver.) was a sloppy mess that ended up a regression from CT. But still, at least they tried back then, these days Ubi-junk doesn't even try to make good games!

HvNzSoul11d ago

Everyone needs to quit with all of the unnessacery Ubi-hate. SC Conviction and Blacklist are both still good games.

HvNzSoul11d ago

Everyone needs to quit with all of the unnecessary Ubi-hate. SC Conviction and Blacklist are both still good games, they just weren't 100% focused on stealth with Conviction and they remedied that in Blacklist. The only thing they have released recently that I was disappointed with was Watch Dogs Legion, and Skull & Bones. Everyone seems to be salty about the misleading trailer for the original Watch Dogs and The Division. Which are also, both good games, and actually Watch Dogs seems like it was ahead of its time even with all the trailer drama (having gone back and played recently, can say the game didnt deserve all the flak). Yeah the misleading E3 trailer that had better graphics than release is understandable to a very small degree, when most Teaser Trailers, or Game Demo's only have that portion of the game developed so they use the highest quality assets of w/e they have being showed, or what they are showing was made purely for the showing, allowing for extra polish . As to the gripes about minor game design changes, or cut features upon a games release just goes to show how unknowledgeable most gamers are in terms of how game development works or to even understand what what the hell a WIP, let alone titles still in early development.

Good games from Ubi since 2014 (Year that SC Blacklist Released) include:

Watch Dogs 1 & 2
The Division 1 & 2 (Although I had a hard time getting into The Division 2 at first)
R6 Siege
Ghost Recon Wildlands & Breakpoint
Immortals Fenyx Rising
AC Origins, Odyssey, MIrage (Haven't finished Valhalla games too damn long)
Far Cry Primal, and 5 (6 also has a length issue)
Avatar Frontiers of Pandora
Prince Of Persia The Lost Crown

Haven't played a couple of titles those being For Honor (played at launch but didn't honestly give it an actual go), The Crew, R6 Extraction and at the time of writing this xDefiant.

Even if you absolutely hated any of the above titles, they aren't inherently bad games, they're just good, but not always top quality either.

I say give Ubi credit where credit is due, they at least fix games post launch if they start out rough, Breakpoint is an excellent example this and is such an enjoyable experience now compared to it's launch.