After a random Jason Schreier tweet, maybe it's worth looking at how and why games are ending up as long (or feeling as long) as they are.
It's like EA paid someone to convince us that Single player games are too long so they can give us EVEN less for our money. Really who wrote this article? Talk about the Devils advocate. Even though you play to get to the end of a game: Who on earth plays a game they love and want it to hurry up and END please end this game. This game needs to DIE!
The real truth is that games are adopting the free to play business model, requiring you to grind out boring repetitive stuff or giving you the option to pay to win with microtransactions, where you literally just paid to play the game less, taking on the form of imagined progression. Thus, games are feeling longer from the boring grind.
Gaming101 Yes I agree with that! That is how Micro transacrions have always worked. That is a issue of micro transactions and how they are evil. I'm talking about a GOOD game that is not a Micro transaction game. I dont want those to end.
No, there is no hurry to finish a game, and if you're hurrying to finish any game, then that's not how it was intended to be played in the first place. Take your time on it. It's not the Devs fault when some gamers don't finish games. It's on the gamer. Some gamers only finish 2 games in a whole year. Others finish 60 hour games in a few days. The only way I would be fine with shorter games is if they cost less to buy.
I think it's on the devs when they add filler just to extend the length of a game. I don't mind a longer game as long as I don't feel there was unnecessary filler being added just to say it's a long game.
absolutely. this is come up before. there are too many games that just add so much padding and filler, either it's ridiculous collectathons, repetitive fetch quests that seem to go on endlessly, or god-awful amounts of unnecessary/rote/ character management. for me the simple answer is: only the crappy ones. no one thinks The Witcher/ Kotor /Mass effect games/ are too long, because they're well done. I just finished recently playing, and these probably aren't the best examples, because they were in the backlog forever and I picked them up super cheap, both of them, but they're good examples: homefront the revolution, and saints row 4. and I felt both of those games could have had at least 1/3 of the content removed because they were so repetitive. literally the same activities and lead in to those activities again and again. neither one of them were as bad at the back end as they were made out to be. saints row 4, I was particularly disappointed with because the third was so good, and it just wasn't that strong of an entry to be padded out the way that it was. homefront the revolution had a disastrous development cycle and was handed to another studio, but they put it all together, fixing it as best they could and releasing it. there were a lot of game ideas obviously that got left on the development room floor, and to make up for it they just did a rinse and repeat of levels/sections of the city were you literally did the same thing again and again and again, and they could have left at least two or three sections of the entire map out and the game would have been better off for it... it's funny how many games I can say those exact same things about
I think it heavily depends on genre. Though while ps3 era all sp action/adventure games, people had the problem of yhry being too short. I am content with the games now, god of war, last of us2, spiderman, etc all good times.
" It's not the Devs fault when some gamers don't finish games" Actually, Yes it's mostly the devs fault when gamer don't finish their game. Like only 39% of the ppl who played Uncharted 4 actually completed the story meaning that 60% of the viewing audience left the theater before the end of the show. Wonder who would we blame if 60% or the ppl watching the Avengers movie would have left before the end of it?
Most games are as long as they need to be to tell the story they want. Are there games that are too long and feel they drag on? Yes. Alien Isolation comes to mind. As good as that game was. It didn't need to run as long as it did. Are there game you wish kept going? Yes. Many in fact. There is no standard time limit to games. Some games are long, some games are short. Journey is one of the best games I've ever played, and it is only a few hours long. The Mass Effect Trilogy all together can be close to 150 hours and it is one of the greatest gaming experiences of my life and I cherish it greatly.
"Most games are as long as they need to be to tell the story they want" For games that need less than 8 or so hours to tell their story, they will pad the game, so they will have at least those 8-10 hours. Most people don't want to pay full price for short games, so you get padding. Affects longer games less, but still does to an extent. The reason we have so many useless collectibles and repetitive tasks.
Damn, never thought I'd see the day a long lasting game would be seen as a negative, or even questioned lol, did the multiverse do another cross over I missed? Somethings gone terribly wrong in this timeline.
I know in recent years the trending thing has been people who have less time to play games complaining that it takes them longer to beat games, and therefore, that games should be shorter so they can have the accomplishment of beating them more often. I get that life gets in the way for many people, myself included, but that's hardly a game's fault. I'm glad this article is coming at it from a different angle. What is a valid complaint is when games tend to feel more and more repetitive by the time they're over.
Yeah I'm with you there bud, even when I do get to sit down with my console the kids are at me to play psvr lol, I've not anywhere near as much time to game but i would never wish shorter games on anyone, unless designed that way lol, I also agree that a long repetitive game is no good, boredom is the number one killer of games lol
Everything is negative these days... long.. negative, shorter... still negative.. different .. negative.. the same .. also negative.. and so on. I say, ignore others opinions as they are nothing more than a chitchat fillers.
Very well put👌
A lot of games are overlong these days and you can see why from the comments.. People have this perception that a longer game has more value, but I don't really remember the last time I played an epic single player story that justified its length. You could cut several hours from Red Dead 2 or The Last of Us 2 and have a tighter story overall. Then you have something like MGSV which took around 5 hours worth of unique content and copy-pasted it across 50 hours. I played Red Dead 2 once, played MGSV once. I don't hate those games, but the mere thought of loading them up for a second playthrough makes me grimace and go play Resident Evil 4 for the hundredth time instead. Is that what games are now? Just one-and-done experiences? Or maybe I'm wrong and everybody jumped right back into new game plus after beating The Last of Us 2. Doubt it somehow.
MGSV for sure, I've been playing through it again recently for the first time since launch. The first 15-20 hours are magic, but after that things really slow down as development gets slower, the costs get higher, there's no interesting plot to keep you going, and you see the same environment over and over.
No I agree with you. I haven’t had the push to do the new game + mode for TLOU2 despite loving it. I also thought some parts (Abby section) could have benefitted from better pacing as well. What I have been doing instead is the encounters which are quick and fun broken up sections of the game to do cause I love the gameplay so much except they won’t give you all the weapons which is a reason to go back and do new game +.
But you get the sub-machinegun from the start of Seattle!
LOL. MGSV was a good game, but man did it go on forever.
The legend of heroes trails of cold steel! That game was about as many words as the whole bible. And I HATED when it ended. ....Then the second game came longer and better....then the third....and I have pre paid for the fourth... I'd be sick if that game turned out to take me less than 200 hours while doing everything.
To be Honest I love long games only if it is a story based game. If I go deep in the story then I don't the game to complete soon. I feel so lonely after beating it.
I've weighed in on this topic before, so I'll give the short version. No, but they can be too padded.
A lot are
Some games genuinely can be. I know there have been a handful which I've just wanted to finish after a while. But I like feeling I've got my money's worth and usually time spent helps me feel that.
Not that long. But their subtitles are too small damn it!!!.
Try liberating yourself. Play a game for as long as you're comfortable doing so. If you don't like it, move on. If you're rushing a game to move onto the next then your just doing it wrong. Pace yourself. Enjoy it. The next game will be waiting for you
gtfo with this nonsense. The only people who get annoyed by long games are "journalists" who get them free and cant be arsed to review them properly. I want value for money and games that last more than 2 days. Especially with all this talk of hiking the prices , you damn right i want long games
I believe that paying £50 for a game and having it only be around 4 to 8 hours is a bit of a kick in the teeth. When I pay that much I want a game that is at least 15 to 30 hours ideally. I think if you have a short game you should charge less. I do think TLOU2 dragged a bit in some parts.
It depends I guess. A game definitely gets too long if there are no fresh mechanics keeping me interested after a certain amount of hours. I kind of got burned out by Witcher 3 and had to stop playing for months before I went back and finished it.
i do think that may only the younger players dont have time for long games but older gamers, more so those with little time like the longer game because we can make that game last ages, im still playing games I got a year ago becuase I only get a few hours a week to play them at the moment.
They are too short, usually want more money when bigger and bigger.
"Assassin's Creed" Odessy is probably the one game that I would consider too long considering that i haven't finished it yet. However, there are not many games that I've finished this gen due to the repetitive nature of them in general. I'd say it depends on the content of said game but my short answer is no, since you pretty much know what you're buying/getting into these days.
It depends some open world games are too repetitive or add boring missions to pad out a game and those are too long but then you got some games where even though they are long you just want more.
I think it's about the quality of the content within the length of the game. The goal shouldn't be a long game and then pad it out with rubbish just to create that length, in that sense a game could be too long.
If I am paying 60 bucks for a game, it better be long. I am not paying 60$ for a 5-10 hour game length.
I thought people always wanted long games? I mean aren't everyone always complaining if a game is too short for the price?
They might be for morons that are trying to finish them in a day but these games should be savoured, played for a few hrs a day like a TV series, gives you something to look forward to.
Certain games are becoming bloated travel simulators that don't respect your time.
Yes. For RPGs, there is a point where the fetch quests get boring, sometimes there is too much back and forth in older map areas, and the grinding to level up becomes too much.
No. Play a shorter game, if you don't like long games. There's space for both, Scry is full of himself and his world.
No . Sounds like the industry wants to raise the price and reduce the game size. No No No.
Just when the game is not good
Are games too long? Are games too short? Does games have too much story? Are games good without story? We are never going to be satisfied. We are always going to find something to complain about.
I don't care if a game is long, but I hate filler. The game has to earn its length.
I am quickly losing interest in next gen. I can already see how "the industry" is trying to convince people to accept shorter yet also more expensive games. Industry: Hey dumb consumer pay more for less! Dumb consumer: "Please, sell me less game for more money and don't skimp on the MTX!"
Some can feel like they are over staying their welcome. Others feel to short. It's down to the games themselves.
Some games yes, also some of us dont get countless hours to play unfortunately. It's called having a life as well.
NO NO NO ! Games are NOT to long !!! I expect a good 25 hours of game play for my $60.00. and Now their all this talk of raising the price to $70.00 HA I'm damn surre going to have to feel like I'm getting my monies worth at that price. So I'm going to be VERY selective in what games I buy and part of that is making sure there is a good amount of game play. Thats my two cents thank you I yeld the floor.
I guess it really depends on the quality of your time in the game. Devs need to respect the player's time, and avoid filler content that feels empty, repetitive, and bloated. If the vision and scope of the game is large, then I think a long playtime with quality content is warranted.
They can be if an awful section of a game is dragging too long and it does it repeatedly. But overall, I'll just quote a Mitch Hedberg joke about distance: " Hey, man, every place is in "walking distance"... if you got the time!"
My best friend LOVES Metal Gear Rising Reveneance. The game has a plot about 6 hours long. Its a very short game. My friend has played it for 47.7 hours on steam. I don't even know, I played it through once and was like... .that was good. He made a 6 hour game last almost 50. Are games to long? No way! Do we need to reign in open world games in size and scale and amount of repeat trash quests that pad the crap out of a would be empty world. Yes, I don't mind the side quests that pop up in the areas where the main story sends me. I do them as I go but it is getting out of hand. So much content that adds nothing to the game. Devs can make a large or small a game as they want but in the end the player decides the play time. The Kingdoms of Amalur remake is going to be the same scale as the original which is massive. The plot however is so C grade I found myself enjoying the grind quests more due to the great combat system rather than sub par story. I've restarted the game 3 times, each one vowing to finish it. Not once did I come close. In the end a dev can make as short or long a game as they want as long as the whole game feels like its been played when the credits roll awesome! Concrete Genie... so goood....
Totally agree with the author on this one because my Tlou2 experience is starting to shape exactly like his. I really believe that a lot of AAA single game are way to long in trying to prove that they have content, that more often then not it feel like I'm drinking orange juice with a lot of water. I'm sorry but I don't need to repeat 3 times in a row the same encounters with a group of Scars, Infected, grubs, genome soldiers, etc that will take 30 min+ when only 1 wave would been ok to advance the story. I don't find pleasure into always needing to find 3 pieces in the stage to open doors, box, doomsday device etc.
Some games are, some games aren't. All that matter is if you are engaged in the game for it's duration.
Some Open world games definitely are, Games like Assassin Creed, Horizon and others where you have to find x, collect y mindlessly over and over again would benefit from being filled with less filler.
I agree although Horizon wasn't too bad even w/ the DLC. Titles like AC, Witcher 3, and Days Gone seem to go on forever.
Yes, THEY ARE. Gamers are conditioned to say NO, but statistics show the vast majority of gamers never see the end credits of any particular title. That indicates that people are losing interest before the end of the game. You can't even realistically be excited for this season's next big game, because you are still playing last season's big game.
Depends on the game and the content. The Last of Us II is definitely too long and poorly paced.
are you stupic or retarded?
Depends on the game.
I imagine reviewers and game journalists HATE long games. They have to play through them, because it is their job. The shorter they are the easier their job becomes. Simple as that. As a hobbyist, I find games fun and relaxing. I only play them to enjoy them. Arbitrarily cutting game length to save money may be cheered by some, but not by me. Padding, however, is unnecessary, and some AAA games could get rid of it.
It's the filler and grinding that's the problem not length.
I feel like dragon age inquisition would have been a fun game if it wasn’t for all the filler. 15 hours in I realized all i was doing was side crap that I could care less about and quite playing the game. The Witcher 3 did it perfect where the side quest where sometimes better then the main quest
Considering games are getting more expensive the longer play times help to justify price sometimes. Not many people these days are going to spend $60 or $70 (PS5/XSX) for a 5-10 hour game unless there’s MP/Co Op included. Knowing that game prices are rising is making me more picky when choosing day 1 games versus waiting for discounts/deals. This whole generation I’ve only spend full price on 10 games and the rest I waited for discounts.
Tlou2 is about 5hrs too long.