Support NeoGAF

[Elektro Demon]

So I finished RE3 remake yesterday. It took me 5 hours to do so. Now I payed 20 bucks for the game but I kinda feel for the people who bought this at launch. 5 hours for a single player game that costs 60 bucks is just way too much. If your game is extremely polished and good to play then I think 8 hours should be the minimum. Anything less then that is just bullshit. Well not bullshit but it shouldn't cost 60 bucks.
What do you think?

 

[dezzy8]

I agree. I felt that way with Heavenly Sword.

 

[cormack12]

Did you bomb through it? It's difficult as some games are meant to be replayable. Personally I'm ok and know when it hits my price point. Games like Ethan Carter and Edith Finch for example

 

[Optimistic Gamer]

Wouldn't buy an 8h game for 60 bucks if I wasn't ok with paying 60 bucks for an 8h game, tbh.

Also if you play through a RE only once, you completely missed what these games are about. They are made for replayability.

 

[Kuranghi]

I put 30 hours in in total, did the campaign about 10x probably, I really enjoyed unlocking the shop items and then blowing the shit out of everything on the harder difficulties that I wouldn't have done normally, or at least I would've done it once and then stopped. I think my best time was 1:08 but that was with infinite... everything lol. Legit best time with no shop items was 1:35 on hardcore.

It was super fun to run through it many times for me because it was like a rollercoaster ride, looked amazing in 4K60 as well, I also did my final run at 6K30 (downsampled to 4K) which looked amazeballs, certain scenes were like concept art.

I paid £32/$42 for it a week or so after release but would've been fine with £45/$60 given the value I got out of it.

If you want to try out the shop weapons without having to run through the campaign a billion times then just load a save (Or you can get back to that part in about 45 mins anyway) at the hospital hold out scene. When you get to the bit where the cutscene of all the zombies coming through the door then just kill the 10 or so in front of you (With a grenade or the assault rifle) then immediately reload the checkpoint (or you can kill another 20 or so that come through the door but reloading after killing the "group" is the fastest) and do it again, until you have killed 2000 zombies lol.

I thought it would be awful but it was pretty fun blasting them in all the different ways you can and it took 45 mins max to get 2000 kills. With that "money" you can buy all the infinite ammo guns and have fun blasting everything.

edit - oh yeah and my first playthrough was 10 hours, but I'm a slowpoke.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

***** 8 hours gameplay.

If you just say any 8 hours, you're giving The Order 1886 a gimme.

 

[GHG]

Sorry can't subscribe to this idea.

I'd rather pay full price for an amazing 5 hour experience than pay the same amount for 10+ hours of monotonous Ubi crap.

It's not about the length of the game that people should be concerned about, it's the quality of the experience and the consistency of said quality for however long it takes to complete the game.

If people don't want to pay full price for shorter experiences then they can always wait for a sale.

 

[Trogdor1123]

It should be exactly how long it takes to get their story across. No longer and no shorter.

 

[Sophist]

I would rather play two good 4 hours games than a single one 8 hours game.

 

[Saruhashi]

Could go either way.
60 bucks for 5 hours seems like a lot.

Seems like a new movie on DVD goes for around 20 bucks so maybe.

I don't know how much money goes into making these games so it's kind of difficult to make a good judgement.

What I would say though is that a lot of games are needlessly long and loaded with filler to the point where a 50 hour game at 60 bucks isn't good value if 45 hours of that is just garbage.

If a 5 hour game is good enough then I could see myself playing through multiple times.

It does seem like a bit of a piss take from publishers to some extent though.
So you've got this "games are 60 bucks" flat rate which either means that short games are a rip-off or long games are a really great deal.
However if those long games are made with a sort of "copy and paste" process and the short games are carefully crafted then I dunno.

I dunno like if you go to a steak place and you get a nice steak with a small bit of salad for X dollars.
Then you go to another steak place and it's the same steak but they give you like 2 buckets of salad also for X dollars then it's not much of a difference.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'd rather designers make 8 hour single player games designed to be replayed.

 

[Strider Highwind]

I prefer long games...I guess thats why I play so many RPGs

Its disappointing to pay a full $60 for a game, start it Friday morning and be done with it right after lunch time(What happened to me with RE 3 Remake)...I love buying games and supporting developers but damn...gimme some content man lol

 

[Danjin44]

8 hours or 100 hour or even more, the actual length of the game doesn't matter as long as the overall experience is satisfying.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Yeah I sort of agree there should be a definite length for a $60 game. Think about it like a movie in theaters would you spend the full $10 to see a 40 or 60 minute movie?

 

[Strider Highwind]

Could go either way.
60 bucks for 5 hours seems like a lot.

Seems like a new movie on DVD goes for around 20 bucks so maybe.

I don't know how much money goes into making these games so it's kind of difficult to make a good judgement.

What I would say though is that a lot of games are needlessly long and loaded with filler to the point where a 50 hour game at 60 bucks isn't good value if 45 hours of that is just garbage.

If a 5 hour game is good enough then I could see myself playing through multiple times.

It does seem like a bit of a piss take from publishers to some extent though.
So you've got this "games are 60 bucks" flat rate which either means that short games are a rip-off or long games are a really great deal.
However if those long games are made with a sort of "copy and paste" process and the short games are carefully crafted then I dunno.

I dunno like if you go to a steak place and you get a nice steak with a small bit of salad for X dollars.
Then you go to another steak place and it's the same steak but they give you like 2 buckets of salad also for X dollars then it's not much of a difference.

You make a good point...soon as I read your post I instantly thought about Ubi open world games lol...Like I loved Oddysey and Origins..but about 60% of the way through I was like cmon bro we ain't need about half the map.

I guess finding a good balance in the amount of content, and the length of time it takes the game is part of the art of making good games.

 

[teezzy]

My favorite games are long af. I am super into the open world sandbox vibes, especially if there's a plot I can decide whether or not to follow. I haven't tired of it yet tbh.

 

[Stilton Disco]

Bought RE3 at launch, played through it 3 times so far.

I'm far more annoyed by the lack of branching story paths, missing key locations and enemies, and the lack of Mercenaries than I am by length.

Too mamy modern games have less than 5 hours worth of good plot and gameplay, and just stretch that out to 80 or more hours with copy paste grinding and busy work.

I'll take a great, well paced 5 hours over a far longer amount of boredom and repetition any day.

 

[CatLady]

I voted other, I think it ought to be more than 8 hours if it's a $60 game, especially if it has little or no replayability. If it's a $10 or $20 indie I don't mind if its shorter. When I first got my PS4 I immediately bought the Nathan Drake Collection and assumed I'd have weeks of gaming.

Not even, they were all really short. Considering I only paid $20 for all three games I felt that was still a great bargain, but I would have been really pissed if I'd paid $60 for each game, especially since for me they were 1 and done games, I had NO desire to ever replay them and I have no interest in multiplayer.

 

[Freeman]

No. If you can make a 30min game that is worth $60, please do it.

Playing a bad game for a long time doesn't make it good.

It's extremely easy to find out how long a game is before you buy it if you care so much.

Most of the time when I look at HowLongToBeat is see if the game length matches the interest I have in it. Dragon Quest XI for example I'd give it a try if it was 25h but I'm not willing to commit to 60h+ for any JRPG not named Persona right now.

 

[01011001]

absolutely no.

I got more playtime out of MGS Twin Snakes than I got out of many recently released single player games with 20+h campaigns.

MGS games are highly replayable, and there are many other games with super high replay values.

you can't judge a game based on a one time playthrough timer.
how replayable is the game? was every bit of it actually entertaining or full of filler material? how much was the asking price? does it have other stuff besides the main story campaign (bringing up MGS again, MGS2 substance had tons of VR Missions to do, which are hella fun IMO. and there was the Special Missions disc of MGS1)

so having a blanket statement like 8h minimum for a single player game is not fair IMO due to the inherently diverse nature of how games are made and structured.

you can finish MGS2 in less than 2h if you're really fast, but the additional difficulty modes are handcrafted to give you replay value through new enemy placments, new game rules and mixed up mission objectives.
the Substance version gives you like a hundred or so additional mini missions to complete, and the very arcady gameplay lends itself to he replayed over and over.

 

[hemo memo]

Depends on the price. After Order1886 I would say yes. Single player full priced games should be the minimum or don’t ask for a full price.

 

[deriks]

It's stupid to put a rule or something on the minimum time. The director chooses if needs more hours because the game asks for this, not because people said. That's not how art works.

I have more fun with Metal Gear Rising than MGS V, and guess what game I finished with something like five hours? Also, guess what game I played more after finishing? I could even compare Last of Us 1 to 2, which I took 10 hours with the first game and 20 with the second. I replayed the first one a couple times, but Part 2 I finished once and I can't think replaying.

 

[Arachnid]

Even that is pushing it. It should be 10+ hours if I'm paying 60 dollars. I mean specifically with AAA titles. This doesn't apply to 30 dollar indies.

RE3 was a huge recent offender. I beat it on hardcore in 4 and a half hours, while clearing every room of items. It had no business being full price. It wasn't even good quality wise when compared with RE2.

 

[Kadayi]

If I think a games going to be short I tend to wait for a sale. Ultimately though I want a quality experience and I'd rather a shorter high quality experience versus a long drawn out one with a few decent high-points, but a lot of otherwise low quality busywork.

 

[gypsygib]

Depends on the price of the game.

I'm more concerned with SP games that are too long due to filler. I much rather a 12-20hr tight experience that rarely gets dulls to 80hrs of "gameplay" with 65hrs of filler - and at least 20hrs of that filler is required to level up...ahem *cough cough* Assassins Creed (and most open world games).

I'll play an under 25hr game over again 2-3 times if it's good. The only long game I've played over multiple times is the Witcher 2 and 3.

Ultimately, if the story and gameplay are really good, I'll get more enjoyment out of a shorter game than a longer one generally. Exceptions being masterpieces like Witcher 3, DQ11, GTA5, etc.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Did you bomb through it? It's difficult as some games are meant to be replayable. Personally I'm ok and know when it hits my price point. Games like Ethan Carter and Edith Finch for example

No I played it slowly. I ended at 5 hours 30 minutes on the standard difficuilty. RE2 remake was awesome in terms of content and length but this is like twice shorter. I don't really mind that much because I didn't buy it at launch but if I did, I'd be pissed.

 

[M1chl]

Yeah it's short, but dat Jill. Also congrats on your thread creating capabilities.

 

[JonnyMP3]

Journey took me about 4 hours. I have nothing bad to say about Journey. Take from that what you will.

 

[jshackles]

I've played some awesome games that were well under 8 hours in length.

I've played some really shitty games that were well over 8 hours in length.

For what it's worth, HowLongToBeat is a pretty decent resource you can research before buying a game, and check to see if it's length is worthy of your purchase if that's something that bothers you OP.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Yeah it's short, but dat Jill. Also congrats on your thread creating capabilities.

Hold up there.

You're telling me you prefer the new tough rugged jeans wearing tomboy Jill over the classic feminine skirt wearing Jill?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Sometimes I wish games were a bit shorter (5-6 hours) but more compact and replayable. Also depends on the game, since a run through a typical arcade game is only 30m to 1 hour and those are still entertaining.

I understand the sentiment of not wanting to be "ripped off", but a minimum would simply encourage bloat.

 

[johntown]

Possibly for a shooter but RPG's and adventure games should be longer IMO.......especially RPG's.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Is this the glitched speed run time or the time to get the platinum trophy?

 

[bronk]

I love short linear games. Also Elektro you got your thread making privileges back? That's great.

 

[Vawn]

A game should be just as long as it needs to be to fulfill the designer's vision. Needless padding isn't adding value, its just watering down the product.

 

[Ceadeus]

Sorry can't subscribe to this idea.

I'd rather pay full price for an amazing 5 hour experience than pay the same amount for 10+ hours of monotonous Ubi crap.

It's not about the length of the game that people should be concerned about, it's the quality of the experience and the consistency of said quality for however long it takes to complete the game.

If people don't want to pay full price for shorter experiences then they can always wait for a sale.

I would rather play two good 4 hours games than a single one 8 hours game.

No. If you can make a 30min game that is worth $60, please do it.

Playing a bad game for a long time doesn't make it good.

It's extremely easy to find out how long a game is before you buy it if you care so much.

Most of the time when I look at HowLongToBeat is see if the game length matches the interest I have in it. Dragon Quest XI for example I'd give it a try if it was 25h but I'm not willing to commit to 60h+ for any JRPG not named Persona right now.

A 15 minutes demo full priced is fine by me. Yeah just a very good 15 minutes demo.

 

[Vawn]

Yeah I sort of agree there should be a definite length for a $60 game. Think about it like a movie in theaters would you spend the full $10 to see a 40 or 60 minute movie?

Would it be better if they didn't remove all the scenes they cut completely and make the movie 5 hours long? Bigger for the sake of bigger just makes things a slog.

 

[M1chl]

Hold up there.

You're telling me you prefer the new "tough rugged jeans wearing tomboy" Jill over the classic feminine skirt wearing Jill?

Yes

 

[Elektro Demon]

Yes

You're dead to me.

Spoiler

you're dead to me

Spoiler

jk

 

[Rikoi]

I agree because yes.
I don't agree because they should be at least 15.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Would it be better if they didn't remove all the scenes they cut completely and make the movie 5 hours long? Bigger for the sake of bigger just makes things a slog.

It's standard for movies in theaters to be between 90 minutes and 3 hours anything shorter and you'd probably watch it on YouTube or as part of a short film Marathon of some sort and anything longer you'd watch on a streaming service I'm some sort it become like a miniseries or something. I mean if length is never a factor then you could charge $10 for someone to go to the theaters to see an episode of two and a half men or $60 for gone home.

 

[Elektro Demon]

I love short linear games. Also Elektro you got your thread making privileges back? That's great.

I love em too but 5 hours is just way too little content for 60 bucks, imo.

 

[Lionel Richie]

Nope, people should be smarter with their money and not buy a full priced game that is crazy short. 20 bucks for 5 hours of entertainment is not bad value. It isn't great, but it isn't outrageous. As always, the ANTICONSUMER TheQuartering neckbeard bullshit can be easily fixed by the consumer policing himself.

 

[Keihart]

It's not about the size people, but how it's used.
I thought this was common knowledge already.

 

[HeadsUp7Up]

I’m a fan of short games. Let me blow through the story in 5 or six sessions of 1-2 hour gaming time and I’m good to go. Bonus points if the game was good enough to make me want to play through it again.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

More seriously, TLoU 2 is wayy too long, they could completely remove the Abby section and the story would hold itself together better than it does now.

 

[DeadOblivion78]

Let the developer set their own time frame. They would know better than the average consumer.

 

[Elektro Demon]

It's not about the size people, but how it's used.
I thought this was common knowledge already.

They all say that but in reality they want a big one.

 

[Hostile_18]

Told you I wasn't joking!

It's all about asking price and expectation. Id never buy a title less than 8 hours at $60/70. I've never played a game which is so good compared to the competition its worth that.

But $10 for a 2 hour game? Abslutely.

Not every game needs to be a 100 hour behemoth full of bloat but the price should reflect the length of the content up to a certain point. Id say 12 hours is my minimum for a triple AAA asking price.

Im a massive resi fan but im waiting for Resi 3 to go on sale at quite a discount. Im going to be looking at the value proposition even more next gen when prices go up

 

[Keihart]

They all say that but in reality they want a big one.

You got it wrong tho, you have to under promise and over deliver.