TonyK
Member
Problem is they couldn't produce 90 hours of content with the quality and density of those 30, so you would have ended with those 30 hours padded until make them fill 90. For sure, game would have been worse being so long.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
10-15 years ago, games were considerably shorter, why have game length ballooned like this?
- Thread starter Bragr
- Start date
cartman414
Member
Back when games came on expensive carts.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
A lot of developers still make exactly that. Just not the ones making $70 AAA games.
Efren is G.O.A.T.
Member
I really like longer games because I grew up playing RPGs mostly so in my mind it's the opposite really. An 8-hour single player campaign without any replayability feels like a rip off of my monetary investment.
I'm alone in my boat but I want my rpgs to be 60 hours and the rest 30 hours.
I'm alone in my boat but I want my rpgs to be 60 hours and the rest 30 hours.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Agreed.
I'd far prefer to see the evolution of something like Titanfall > Titanfall 2 > Apex Legends & Fallen Order. The games are kept short and tight, they're extremely focused on what they do and the gameplay delivered in 10-15 hours with replayability extending that by magnitudes more. In terms of dev finances vs resources balance vs what the game delivers Respawn have really shown a brilliant path for success in terms of quality games, outright sales, 1P games, multiplayer games and content sustain. I'll happily explore a universe with a multiplayer title like Titanfall first then progress to later releases supporting both 1P and multiplayer with Titanfall 2 to then push whatever games post that e.g. Apex or Fallen Order. It works in terms of revenue in the door, development focus/pipelines, universe building and gamers enjoying new titles. When I look at the performance of say Respawn vs 343 with Infinite and time to deliver + post 1 year support vs say Fallen Order and Apex Legends over the same 6-year overall period I see the brilliance of a well-managed studio and game franchise vision. At the end of the day, I'd rather play quality than quantity. Given GaaS and MTX/DLC these days there's plenty to expand on and sell more of when games are great.
Last edited:
Trazyn the Infinite
Member
Some of us have kids, bills, loans, mortgages - fuck off with the "lol just get better job" crap.
YeulEmeralda
Member
Someone didn't play Baldur's Gate or Morrowind lol.
Go_Ly_Dow
Member
I get the point you're trying to make, but its a flawed point imo and unfair to class all of FF7R as "padding".
If Square re-created FF7 with the visual fidelity expected and that we got with a 1:1 town the size of this with about 10 static npc's and buildings (as one example), they'd have been assasinated for it, by fans reviewers and the industry. The vast majority of fans alwayed wanted a remake with the graphics and presentation akin to what was delivered, which can be backed up by the general praise and buzz for part 2 or Rebirth.
Yes there was padding in the Remake, but not 30-35 hours of it. I'd say about 5 hours could have been cut or consolidated to make the game a much more tigher and direct experience.
Last edited:
Laptop1991
Member
Because Bethesda SP games from Oblivion to Skyrim over 10 years ago became very popular and rightly so, and The Witcher 3's success caused Ubisoft to change the Assassin's Creed formula aswell as the stealth series wasn't selling like they use to. and they sold more AC games again, if they are done well they are the best games imo, you can play them for years, which is why there is no TES 6 yet.
{insert code here}
Member
It shouldn't be about the amount of content but rather the quality of the content. I'll take an amazing 5hr experience over a 20hr slogfest every day of the week.
Tldr: Girth >>> length or so I've heard.
Tldr: Girth >>> length or so I've heard.
AeonGaidenRaiden
Member
I don't agree. We had even back then 6hr COD games and others and we had RPGs that would suck up 30-40 hours easy. I don't think anything changed except the fact that every game is trying to be open world nowadays so just artificial extension to do redundant stuff. But that is up to you and your OCD if you want to clear map, lets be honest, the introduction of trophies all the way on xbox360 made all of us OCD lol.
Last edited:
Iced Arcade
Member
why in the attention span limbo do you want to spend $70 on a game you beat in 2 sittings
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
maybe, just maybe, games shouldn't be 70$.
this whole length situation is all because games cost more than they should be and therefore developers balloon the dev time and add a bunch of unnecessary crap into the game to make you feel justified for spending 70 fucking dollars on one video game. a couple days ago i bought 4 for that price. 4!!!
Last edited:
64bitmodels
Reverse groomer.
also other hobbies- not everyone dedicates all of their money to JUST video games.
A music album costs $10 dollars.
A blu ray disc with a movie or season of a TV show costs $20-40.
A video game costs $70.
"nah bro, they're not more expensive than other hobbies they're the cheapest!!!!"
bring back arcades, i'd rather pay 25 cents for one go at a game than 70 dollars for a game i'll beat once and have a 1/100 chance of replaying
Last edited:
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
As long as the game is good, the longer the better, they just have to have good pacing
I'm also cool with shorter experiences
I'm also cool with shorter experiences
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
I love a good 20 - 30 hour game
Ol'Scratch
Member
I remember back on the old board that a game being under 20 hours was always held against games and anything 15 hours or so was a travesty. Now everything is called bloated and too long. I myself like a game with a reasonable length straight main path through but lots of side things that I can do if I choose.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I wish there was a game mode that would cut out all the padding.
Start in short game mode and your weapons and character just auto-upgrade as you progress rather than having to grind, and at any point you can auto-teleport to the next main story section.
Start in short game mode and your weapons and character just auto-upgrade as you progress rather than having to grind, and at any point you can auto-teleport to the next main story section.
Majima Everywhere System
Member
I would go back to shorter with a tacked on but creative multiplayer.
I actually believe RE2 was designed to solve this problem ages ago. A complete experience, followed by an extra experience you could get back to if it stuck with you. I think most games would be better if they were half as long with a compelling reason to revist them after you spent time away.
I actually believe RE2 was designed to solve this problem ages ago. A complete experience, followed by an extra experience you could get back to if it stuck with you. I think most games would be better if they were half as long with a compelling reason to revist them after you spent time away.
Last edited:
remember_spinal
Banned
]its called doing the mainline quest
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Insanity.
tmlDan
Member
Games that are 10-12H and $60 got so much hate they had to make games huge for people to think it brings them value.
I'm not complaining cause I love these longer games with fleshed out stories, but we have considerably less shorter games that are not indie - which sucks.
I'm not complaining cause I love these longer games with fleshed out stories, but we have considerably less shorter games that are not indie - which sucks.
Last edited:
It's all in the wrist
Member
Buy the game and then sell it on eBay. Life hack.
SlimeGooGoo
Party Gooper
First of all, only normies seeking validation asked for a remake.
Second, this excuse of a 1:1 scale for the towns is bullshit propagated by Square-Enix marketing, so they can justify padding the crap out of the first part of the game.
There was no point in making areas bigger than they should. Look at the games below.
They all feature a portion of the town/city the player is at. There is no point in allowing the player to explore the entirety of it because a) it makes no sense and b) it would take forever.
All those areas are as big as they need to be, and they can add as much detail as they want.
Here's the thing: Square-Enix is only concerned in following trends.
Trends allows them to be lazy, at the same time that it allows them to spew bullshit excuses to investors to pretend they're "catching up with the times" in "modernizing" their games.
All this "subvert expectations" crap of the term "remake" is an excuse for them to be lazy with this project.
Oh, but we're not really making a remake, it's a "remake"! So if you have an issue with this, go play the original, haha!
Which we all know was used to buy them time, because the planning for this project was a mess. Also, to sell each part at full price
Final Fantasy 7 Remake Moves To In-House Development at Square Enix
"From here on out, with production and quality in mind, we're shifting to our in-house organization."
It's not a coincidence that FF7R follows a similar formula to other Playstation "blockbuster" games (behind-the-back camera, cutscenes, cinematic experience, a lot of walking, more emphasis on graphics than anything else, etc). It was a Playstation temporary exclusive, and it had to appeal to their trends and audience.
Again, everybody that knew how to make a great Final Fantasy has left the company.
Those that remained are either hacks or don't have enough power to make things happen.
Even Yuji Horii is being cornered by Square-Enix to make Dragon Quest 12 "for adults".
You know, because it's another trend. Same thing with FF16.
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
This is why. People care more about quantity than quality. disgusting.
asdasdasdbb
Member
No. The fanbois have been asking for one forever. Literally 15+ years. FF7R probably only happened because Sony wanted to try to revive Playstation in Japan and sell a bunch of PS4s there... and threw a bucket of $$$ in Square's face.
And then Square decided to milk FF7 with multiple full priced titles. From a narrative standpoint, ending at Midgar made sense because it avoids the question of what to do about the overworld. I do think ~30 hours was a design goal so yeah padding was inevitable.
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
If the game is great then theres nothing wrong with 100 bucks for 7 hours of entertainment. In fact, thats quite a damn good bargain.
If some performer came to your house and entertained you FOR 7 HOURS, you wouldnt give them 100 bucks?
Last edited:
Syphon Filter
Member
Just play it for a certain amount of time then, common sense.
Pimpbaa
Member
It’d be the worst deal in gaming, And unless that performer was performing something on me, I’d tell them to get the fuck outta my house.
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
But nowadays in these rpg light games if you just do the mainline quest you won't have enough ammo or upgraded weapons or character traits to progress eventually, plus you will have still spent several hours running from point A to point B.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
I get tired of all the walking and talking with the NPC. Some nights my game time is listening to someone talk about some boring lore. Even if I enjoy the game, that stuff bores me. I liked BioShock and Dead Space where you can listen to the audio log while going at your own pace. I want to be able to skip stuff. I’ve finished a lot of games by skipping stuff that I don’t need to see for the Xth amount of time. I really enjoy the main story, so I don’t need to gather everything.
I can’t even think back to a JRPG where stopping along the way was just padding. It typically flowed together quite well. A stopping or talking point meant something was actually going to happen.
I can’t even think back to a JRPG where stopping along the way was just padding. It typically flowed together quite well. A stopping or talking point meant something was actually going to happen.
Last edited:
Represent.
Represent(ative) of bad opinions
not everything has to be a "deal", shit aint black friday everyday. gamers just want free/cheap shit. gamepass mentality will kill AAA quality games.
Last edited:
Pimpbaa
Member
I’m all for paying for AAA games, just as long as they are 15 hours or more.
DeleteriousObnoxious
Member
You can still get these experiences just not from the industry publishers. Look toward fan created content of well established games, doom, tomb raider, super Mario All have excellent content that are short and sweet.
gaming_again
Member
Because people are obsessed with ‘content’ (most annoying word ever) and have created a weird relationship between money and games.
Brb gonna spend £120 on a meal out with a friend/the wife that’ll last two hours.
Brb gonna spend £100 taking the family out to watch some shite at the cinema they lasts 90 minutes.
Brb gonna spend £80 a month on coffee that you immediately lose down the toilet.
Brb gonna bitch and moan and whine endlessly about spending £50 on a game that kept you entertained for 15 hours.
Brb gonna spend £120 on a meal out with a friend/the wife that’ll last two hours.
Brb gonna spend £100 taking the family out to watch some shite at the cinema they lasts 90 minutes.
Brb gonna spend £80 a month on coffee that you immediately lose down the toilet.
Brb gonna bitch and moan and whine endlessly about spending £50 on a game that kept you entertained for 15 hours.
Last edited:
gaming_again
Member
You’d think with the average age of gamers being ancient would dictate more thinking about this from developers.
systemr123
Member
I remember playing TMNT: Turtles in Time on the SNES, with inflation it must cost around 300 dollars if you’d buy the game now and it took around 20 minutes to finish it. But omg was it worth the money
. Also, they had the skill to make you want to replay those games often with high scores etc.Also, awesome coop multiplayer offline on the sofa. Nothing can beat that still. I feel sorry for the kids growing up now only being able to play coop online. It took all the fun out for me, it’s just not the same at all.
Also, telling the parents for weeks that I didn’t finish TMNT because they paid so much money for it and I was ashamed I finished it so quickly
Last edited:
Cyberpunkd
Gold Member
That’s another valid point. Kids from 1990s grew up, they have jobs, families and disposable income. Yet the industry still ponders to the unemployed teenagers and students who can play all day long. Yes, these are the groups that need that “value for money” to spend $70 on a 70-hours game. The rest of the world got shit to do.
Lucifers Beard
Member
This is the weirdest take. Playing video games is great use of time if you enjoy it and it helps you unwind which is great for your mental health, in moderation of course.
Of all the places to read shit like this, Gaf lol.
Similar threads
- Locked