Support NeoGAF

[Rikoi]

I am one of those people that check the game length before buying a game.
If I have to spend 60$ I want something that will entertain me for a while, and not something that will end the same day I bought it making me feel like I flushed the money down the toilet.
I won't spend more than 20$ for a 5 hours game, and even then I think I'm making them a favour.

 

[Rattlehead121]

Fuck NO. Let the devs tell the fucking story that they want to tell. We have way too much bloat as is.

 

[Abear21]

I see more complaints about games being too long than too short. Some of the biggest games the last couple years, Death Stranding, RDR2, and TLOU2, all had people saying the game is too long.

For me it’s about replayability and content in the game. Is the content filler or fun?

 

[chaseroni]

Portal and INSIDE imo, benefit from the shorter length.
They feel very complete and bloat-less.

 

[Freeman]

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

I'm interested in a 15min game for $60, I have nothing against is, you just need to convince me it's worth my $60.

Never in my life I heard of length being used as a measure of value for a movie, series, book or anything like that. Typical juvenile game related nonsense that caters to people that are more concerned about wasting their own time than anything else.

 

[Bog]

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?

Let me guess. You’re 20.

 

[turtlepowa]

No, sometimes i'm absolutely fine with 3-4 hours.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

Even 8 hours feels short. Give me at least 15 and we're good.

 

[Rikoi]

I see more complaints about games being too long than too short. Some of the biggest games the last couple years, Death Stranding, RDR2, and TLOU2, all had people saying the game is too long.

For me it’s about replayability and content in the game. Is the content filler or fun?

This is a good argument and I think it depends on the kind of content.
Personally I always found open world checkboxes fairly boring. i.e. repeat this same activity countless times because we need to burn game time.
For example of the last games I played I didn't like the fox hunting in ghost of tsushima, you basically have to find and follow this animal without much effort just to burn game time. At least you find the majority of them on the road while doing other stuff, so it's not a big deal.
Or the fetch quests in RPGs that exists solely for the purpose to add gametime but add nothing to the game experience or storyline.
The game should be long enough to be engaging without all the filler boring bits.
100 hours is too long too.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

There's a franchise called Way of the Samurai where each playthrough is only 4-8 hours long. There are a ton of branching paths and different choices so you go in with the expectation that you'll "beat" it rather quickly but will replay it two or three more times to get a fuller taste of the experience. The franchise isn't super popular but I always loved the concept.

 

[Elektro Demon]

Let me guess. You’re 20.

No I'm 28.

 

[namekuseijin]

an easy casual modern game in 8 hours is less than a hard classic game around 2 hours in length but that took you weeks to beat

the day games took infinite lives for granted and checkpoints everywhere is the day this idiotic content and hours length quest began and it doesn't do any good having length and no actual challenge because gamers just label it boring and repetitive

 

[Keihart]

in all honesty...who the fuck is thinking that they have too much time and too little games? Personally it seems like i'll never play everything i want to, most games are so fucking long.
Not long ago i played the messenger, what a great fucking time and that game it's pretty short unless you die a lot, i could use more of that quality over quantity tbh although some games really use that length as part of the experience, like Death Stranding for example.

I'd say, do the game as long as you want to devs, but you better convince me that it's worth it (long or short)

 

[ZywyPL]

Disagree - there's a huge difference in 8h game with 3h of cut-scenes and a 6h game with nothing but pure gameplay. It's all abut the right balance, always has been, some games feel too short, like the devs lacked the idea for the last part of the game, sometimes a game feels painfully dragged, like it should've ended 2-3h ago, and sometimes it's just about right, the cut-scenes are in the right places/at the right time, aren't prolonged, and you're getting that smooth experience.

 

[PresetError]

Depends of the price. I'd buy a 4-5 hours single player game if its well done and costs 15-20€. I've spent more on a pizza and it lasts 30 minutes,

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The problem with short SP games is in the past maybe 20 years games as a whole are still around $60, but now you got tons more choice in games and there's so many more games that have replay value.

Decades ago most action and arcade games could be beat in an evening, online wasn't a really a thing on consoles, and it was hitting it's stride on PC as gamers were pumped to play Unreal over a loud modem. You still had sports, shooters and puzzle games just like now.

But most modern games have more services jammed into them, full online content, games have all kinds of DLC. Or it's a Diablo kind of game where the point is playing more for random loot. And depending on the game it could be free downloads. Or even a F2P game. So you get more bang for your buck in most genres..... except those SP narratives. You might get a DLC pack. You might get a New Game+ mode, but chances are the DLC you have to pay money. And the New Game+ is the same game but a harder difficulty. Same core game.

So if you don't want to bother with the DLC, there's really nothing left to do but sell the game or delete it off your HDD.

 

[bronk]

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

I feel you there. I always wait for sales.

 

[Abear21]

The problem with short SP games is in the past maybe 20 years games as a whole are still around $60, but now you got tons more choice in games and there's so many more games that have replay value.

Decades ago most action and arcade games could be beat in an evening, online wasn't a really a thing on consoles, and it was hitting it's stride on PC as gamers were pumped to play Unreal over a loud modem. You still had sports, shooters and puzzle games just like now.

But most modern games have more services jammed into them, full online content, games have all kinds of DLC. Or it's a Diablo kind of game where the point is playing more for random loot. And depending on the game it could be free downloads. Or even a F2P game. So you get more bang for your buck in most genres..... except those SP narratives. You might get a DLC pack. You might get a New Game+ mode, but chances are the DLC you have to pay money. And the New Game+ is the same game but a harder difficulty. Same core game.

So if you don't want to bother with the DLC, there's really nothing left to do but sell the game or delete it off your HDD.

Yeah I agree, DLC bloat is a thing too and it angers me—not that they sell DLC, but that I get the feeling with most games some of the best content is the DLC. It’s like they made the game to include this great area or quest line just to chop it off the “full game” and make it DLC.

Horizon is guilty of this as is AC Origins. Both had DLC areas and quests that were hands down better than anything in the original release. Add in the fact that these games are already huge and it seems editing down and including the good stuff in the game would have made for much better experiences.

 

[Beer Baelly]

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?

I bought it for 60 and enjoyed it.

 

[Games of Today]

I disagree. Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, Medal of Honor 2010 and The Order 1886 are some of the best single player games I've ever played and all three are around 6 hours.

 

[Thaedolus]

Super Metroid is the greatest game ever made and I can beat it in under and hour. So 60 minutes is the appropriate benchmark

 

[NahaNago]

The game should be as long as it needs to be rather than something that has a bunch of filler content to make the game last a certain number of hours.

 

[Fbh]

I think it's more about the quality than the quantity.

With that said, for $60 if a game is less than 10 hours I expect some really good replay value. Like Bayonetta 2 was around 10 hours but between the well balanced higher difficulty modes, the fact there's still plenty of cool stuff to unlock after finishing the game once as well as an optional boss to beat, I ended up spending 25+ hours on it before moving to something else.

On the other hand a Game like the Order 1886 was 8 hours with nothing in terms of replay value other than a very basic higher difficulty setting.

 

[Ballthyrm]

If it's good it doesn't matter.
Everybody has different taste and that's fine.

Some people prefer quantity over quality and it's called Ubisoft business model.


We don't judge music or movies by their length, we shouldn't do that either with videogames IMHO.

 

[Fractured_Veil]

8 hours seems a bit short for a game to me, but I guess it depends on whether or not all 8 hours are fantastic.

 

[Dabaus]

Is this another game pass thread?

 

[Fuz]

No.
Plenty of amazing games under 8 hours. More than that, they would have overstayed their welcome.

Personally, I'm also getting more and more annoyed at games that are long for the sake of being long, and don't tolerate padding anymore.

 

[Fuz]

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.

Precisely.

I was also thinking about Ubi. AC feathers and towers, especially.

 

[kingpotato]

OP never saw a movie in the theater, rode a roller coaster or bought a music album.

 

[PianistaMacabro]

Sorry man, doesn't make much sense

 

[Elektro Demon]

Sorry man, doesn't make much sense

What exactly?

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

I think length is very overrated. I’ll take a memorable, captivating 5 to 8 hour experience over a repetitive 80 hour game that just copy and pastes it’s content over and over again to artificially pad out its length. Especially if the shorter game has some replay value. Fetch quests and side missions imo usually don’t really contribute much to a longer game.

For example, to me MGS4 felt more impactful, fulfilling, memorable, structured and direct than MGS5 which I felt went on way too long for the amount of content it had. They essentially got 10 hours worth of content and stretched it out to 50. If you want your game to be 100 hours long, having interesting missions, varied and deep gameplay can definitely help, but most games fail to achieve that.

 

[Elektro Demon]

I think length is very overrated. I’ll take a memorable, captivating 5 to 8 hour experience over a repetitive 80 hour game that just copy and pastes it’s content over and over again to artificially pad out its length. Especially if the shorter game has some replay value. Fetch quests and side missions imo usually don’t really contribute much to a longer game.

For example, to me MGS4 felt more impactful, fulfilling, memorable, structured and direct than MGS5 which I felt went on way too long for the amount of content it had. They essentially got 10 hours worth of content and stretched it out to 50. If you want your game to be 100 hours long, having interesting missions, varied and deep gameplay can definitely help, but most games fail to achieve that.

We're not talking about a big open world rpg. We're talking about linear games. Specifically RE3 remake. It's a 5 hour game which is bullshit. Why? 60 bucks is way too much for that and RE3 remake reuses a shit ton of RE2 remake assets, which makes the game feel lazy. So for a single player game, 8 hours should be the minumum, imo. I'm fine with 5 hour games but just not at full price.

 

[Kimahri]

I'd rather have fun for 5 hours and finish the game, that stop playing the game before the end because the game is too long and I lose interest.

 

[magaman]

Six words: For sale: baby shoes, never worn

vs.

1,000 page epic novel.

Which one is more impactful? Brevity is an art form, and sometimes a great story only takes 10 minutes to tell. Not everyone needs a digital babysitter for 100+ hours. Sometimes it's better to sit down, enjoy a rich experience, and digest everything in a single sitting. To suggest games "should be" anything is a dangerous path.

 

[Kenpachii]

1 buck a hour.

Bought tomb raider remake and rise of the tomb raider, beated them all under 10 hours with all dlc.

Felt scammed.

 

[Deleted member 740922]

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 Japanese

Sorry

 

[Blond]

Depends on how you look at it. I enjoyed those 5 hours and enjoyed my subsequent speed runs because the single player was highly re-playable, then again, I also can see being so miffed about the length that you just don't want to go back.

I also speed run Jet Set Radio Future in 3 hours so maybe I'm not someone to talk too about this subject.

 

[Danjin44]

Sorry

Sure there a LOT more Japanese games I enjoy but there also some western games I enjoyed this gen like God of War, Ghost of Tsushima, Mario + Rabbits and Luigi's Mansion 3.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

We're not talking about a big open world rpg. We're talking about linear games. Specifically RE3 remake. It's a 5 hour game which is bullshit. Why? 60 bucks is way too much for that and RE3 remake reuses a shit ton of RE2 remake assets, which makes the game feel lazy. So for a single player game, 8 hours should be the minumum, imo. I'm fine with 5 hour games but just not at full price.

I see. I can definitely understand what you are saying especially at $60 which is a lot. I’m on my 4th playthrough on RE3, but yes it was surprisingly short and I’m sure everyone’s experience or expectations are different. They probably threw in that RE3 resistance mode to try to balance it out because even they knew it was too short.

One reason I don’t mind shorter games I suppose is because there are so many games available or coming out that I want to play and I’ll jump from game to game often, but I can imagine paying $60 and beating a game in a few hours would be disappointing for most people though.

 

[GametimeUK]

If by minimum you mean maximum then yeah

 

[Arachnid]

Let me guess. You’re 20.

Because he'd prefer 8 hours to 5? That three hours enough for to (wrongly) deduce his age?

 

[Rikoi]

Because he'd prefer 8 hours to 5? That three hours enough for to (wrongly) deduce his age?

It was a stealth insult, implying he's a poor man without a job that worries about his money.
Because everyone should like spending 60$ dollars on a 5 hours game.

 

[DelireMan7]

No !

No minimum time should be require for a game. Dev are free to create the story/ world they want.
And a game shouldn't be priced according to its length.

Also you took out the replayability from the picture. You can replay any game for pleasure (not necessarily immediately but few month later). But I know nowadays the trend is to finish a game and move to the next.

Also in our digital era you can easily check the playtime before buying if it's a concern for you (Howlongtobeat or any reviews)

 

[Kamina]

There will be those people who say its not about the length/duration, but about the quality, and while i slightly agree, it still gives a sour taste to pay full price for a 5 hour experience when you could have payed the same price for a 30+ hour experience.

Having a minimum limit would only serve the purpose that a game gets stretched needlessly.
So it is best to avoid too short games instead, if you feel that the value doesnt fit the length.

 

[KURDISTAN YPG]

no way.

but it all depends on how the game is written, yes some single players drag story telling with minor missions in between, but i feel like a great game with good written that last me 3 or 4 months to expierence is worth more then the 65 dollars i pay for it.

8 hour game are fine for double A games. but triple AAA titles need well written atleast 30 hour of pure missions to get players into it and actually care about it.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

20 hours. No padding.

 

[Xesty]

The length fully depends on the type/style of the game IMO.

You can have a masterpiece that lasts less than 8 hours and is relatively expensive.

You can also have a terrible game that offers a playtime of more than 50 hours and is relatively cheap.

 

[Danjin44]

20 hours. No padding.

We both know that SMTV is NOT going to be 20 hour long.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

We both know that SMTV is NOT going to be 20 hour long.

I'll most likely beat it in 10 hours tops unless it has a crappy map like 4 did. But then I'll replay/max out my demons after I beat all the routes. SMT is all about replayability anyway. (Hopefully it will have a NG+) I'm guessing it will be a 16 hour long game for most people.