Do Gamers Actually Want Longer Games or Just Better Ones?

Are developers padding games? Join me as I explore the question: Do gamers truly want longer games or just better ones?

[jambola]

both

[Abriael]

Stupid question. The two things are not in conflict. Metaphor Re:Fantazio is long and fantastic.

[thorstein]

Exactly this. Ghost of Tsushima had tons of content beyond the main story and I loved every minute.

Astrobot is superb but it's not going to take me a month to complete.

We can have both but I don't like padding, though I like things that make a world feel like it's living.

[OtterX]

"Long, fantasic & left me satisfied." - There's a box quote. ;P

[Wretchedstain]

Thats what she said...

[isarai]

Do as much good as you can, if that's 6 amazing hours, awesome, if that is 100+ hrs also amazing. But no one wants 100+hrs of mostly filler and lazy fetch quests

[anast]

I agree.

[Zenzuu]

As long as I'm invested and enjoying the game, it really doesn't matter how long it is.

[lucasnooker]

I’m good with 8 hour experiences like the PS3 days as long as they are high quality. The quality is what is lacking. We are being overloaded with boring open worlds and pointless side quests.

[anast]

We have a candidate for the dumbest question of the year.

[LoveSpuds]

I appreciate both, the most important factor is whether it is fun and that includes in respect of what some may consider to be 'padding'. I love open world games and find it very therapeutic to clear items off a map (within reason) provided whatever the action is thats required is fun or interesting.

The biggest issue I have is that my backlog is crazy and I am always excited to try a new game which can lead to me sometimes wishing the game I am currently playing would come to an end, sometimes unfairly. Prime example of this was that I recently bought my long desired physical copy of Alan Wake 2, really enjoying it but I am now at the 14 hour mark and, despite enjoying it, I am finding it a bit 'samey' and just want it to end so I can move on.

[8bitAssassin]

Both, and stop forcing us to play online.

[Redemption-64]

I personally think most just love to complain. I have seen people complaining about want just good games, long or short, then say they are not spending $70 on a good high quality AAA game because it is just 8-12 hours long

[Killer2020UK]

I find myself with less time than ever and with more games available than ever, I actually see value in a tight, high quality experience over a flabby open world. It kind of makes me sad I probably won't ever play games like Balders Gate 3 just because I know the time required is so high.

[jznrpg]

I put over 100 hours into Wukong and Metaphor Refantazio recently. If games that are long are very good I’ll gladly buy them

[chicken_in_the_corn]

Better. A game being too long can hurt it, for example: The Last of US Part 2, AC Valhalla, GTA IV.

[CrimsonWing69]

Why do we have to choose between the two? So, either you get a better game or you can have a sh*t game that’s long? Last I checked Witcher 3 and Baldur’s Gate 3 gave me both…

[Miacosa]

The only people that we ever hear say that games are too long are from people who typically cover them for a job, not the ordinary person.

[Miacosa]

The only people that we ever hear saying that games are too long are from people who typically cover them for a job, not the ordinary person.

[Npugz7]

Ya both

[gigoran8]

yeah, you forgot the third option of BOTH. and I choose both