Support NeoGAF

[TrueLegend]

Let's start with a common ground approach. The New Assassin's Creed Games. They are long and tedious for someone like me but they are making a lot of money, which means people are interested in them. In fact, some people are vocal about how they want their games to be like 50 hours long for it to be price-worthy. But it is games like RE2 Remake, New Ratchet and Clank, Demon Souls that speak quality to me. I don't like redundancy. I think it's one of the reasons many people do not finish most of the games they buy nowadays. What do you feel about a game's length? When does quantity start to matter in your experience. If R&C and Demons Souls were 50$ would you buy it on day one? Whats pulls you towards a grind? Gear, Loot, or general numbness that you get when you come to home after work. Do you end up spending your money on a more content-filled game even if you don't like that content that much just because it feels price sensible than the ones you do wanna play but the quantity offered is not worth the price? I want to understand others point of view on this.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Short games does not mean theyre quality and long games does not equate to bad quality. I don't know the quality of a game unless I play it. I take both aspects into consideration as well as price before buying. I cannot afford to buy a 70euro game that is 8h long even if it's amazing. I prefer most of my games to be at least 20h if I'm going to buy at such ridiculous prices. At least on PC I can get better prices for games from grey markets but on PS? Nah, that shit will have to wait until a sale especially now with the scummy price increase and garbage payed upgrades. I only bought one game on PS5 and that is Demons Souls. I have like 5-6 on my wishlist that are going to have to wait. The only exception I will make is for sequels to games I really truly loved. For example I will most likely save up and buy at full price Lost Judgment, because it will be more or less the same game and it will be at least 20h.

 

[Shai-Tan]

super long games are for people who only have one hobby. the only super long games I will actually finish are unusually good and even then it takes me like 5 years to finish them. i have a low tolerance now for filler content (like mindless collecting) unless the core gameplay stands out so much it's worth repeating (and even then I will probably get bored 50% of the way through the game)

that said, finishing games is overrated.

 

[Gaelyon]

I'm playing FFXIV. This game has literally hundreds of hours of unique story quests, dozens of unique dungeons and tons of features and side activities. You can play it every days for months and still have some new things to do.

Yet all of this doesn't' matter if you're not entertained right ? Of course it's "easier" to make short games than long ones with the same intensity but there's also a sense of scale, exploration and discovering that can be exhilarating like an amazing journey on longer games... when it's well done and for people who have both time and taste for this.

In the end i don't think it's simply a choice between just quantity over quality. Of course quantity can mean repetitive, uninspired content and short games can be tight and better paced, but also sometimes hollow or dry. Some story/ambiant need time to set up properly or to give a real sense of journey.

I loved 12 hours A Plague Tale Innocence and i loved 40+ hours Dark Souls and i loved 100 hours Yakusa Like a Dragon. Which one is better ? I don't know.

 

[Nico_D]

I play a lot of both. Usually a few longer (50-60 hrs rpgs) followed by one or two 5-20 hr games to cleanse the palate. And repeat.

I don't particularly choose my games based on length, I choose the genre and in jrpgs the ideal/typical length is usually around 50 hrs. Much longer than that and I start to lose my interest, like with P5 which couldn't hold me after 60-70 hr mark. But then, Xenoblade 2 did it effortlessly. Story is probably the key. I usually follow the critical path not doing much side quests or looting or whatever the usual Ubisoft shit is.

I won't pay 60 € for a 10 hr game though unless it is something I really, really want to play right now or I know are quality games from previous experiences. I have become a bit cheap lately anyway, I wait for sales a lot and play indies meanwhile as in my experience game prices are starting to get out of hand. Which is why something like Cris Tales (coming out in three days, btw) is a really nice surprise: a promising jrpg and only 40 €.

Oh, and I finish 95% of my games.

 

[Moonjt9]

I never equate length with quality. Persona 5 took me 75 hours just to finish the story and that was incredibly good quality. I finished resident evil 8 in 8 hours and that too was great quality. I finished an indie game called Minit in like an hour and that was great quality. A good game is a good game.
Dollars per hour mean nothing to me. In fact some games are too long just for the sake of “value”.

 

[jufonuk]

Depends on the game. For me it’s more about progress. If I can go play the game for a set period of time and actually have made progress in the game then that works for me. I don’t like a game where I spend a long travelling around a map to complete something only to have not furthered my play through.

the best example of always progressing was either Kid Icarus uprising or Link Between worlds you could play it progress come back play more progress more.
so length of the game is irrelevant to me in that sense.

I’ve had games where I felt all I did was just nothing in game. So I gave up. Didn’t matter if it was a “short” game or a really long game.

 

[april6e]

I've noticed this become a big point of contention among gamers. They feel games are too long and bloated these days. I would completely disagree.

The vast majority of games are under 12 hours long. It has always been this way. People could simply choose to play the large number of games that fit this mold instead of demanding that every game cater to the modern gamer who needs every game to be a hyper condensed experience.

Another part of the argument is a rejection of the open world game trend. That it is played out and all open world games are shallow, empty and bloated. Again, I completely disagree with the majority on this. The open world "trend" (similar to the Battle Royale genre) is actually quite new. Developers haven't even scratched the surface of what they could do with open world games compared to how insanely long the "chest high wall shooter/fps shooter" craze lasted.

It has long been a dream of mine that games would become so complex and open that it would be like actually exploring an actual continent or world at scale. That games would generate their own content and this be near infinitely replayable. We finally have reached the point where a few wealthy companies (like Ubisoft, etc.) can do these insanely large worlds with near a hundred hours of story content and people want it to completely go away and go back to 7 hour campaigns and more online co-op shooters? I really don't get it.

Was Assassin's Creed Valhalla too bloated? Sure. But's its not this worrying trend like everything claims it is. Games like these are actually quite rare. Your typical company cannot afford to spend 5-8 years churning out a game like Skyrim or Cyberpunk. Go play shorter games if open world games bother you.

 

[Yoboman]

I find I even drop a lot of games I'm really enjoying if they are too long so I definitely prefer a shorter experience.

 

[Griffon]

I will always chose quality over any quantity.

As a matter of fact, my favorites snes JRPGs are hardly more than 20h long (Chrono Trigger and Seiken 3).

 

[Danjin44]

For me games length is irrelevant, all I’m looking for is satisfaction.

I don’t care how long or or short the game is, as long as gives it me satisfying experience then I’m happy.

 

[AncientOrigin]

Who says a long game can’t be quality that is nonsense.Dragons Dogma is pure Quality a very long game same for lots of other long games.If you mean for example graphics or animations yes a long games most of the time don’t have the quality that uncharted has dead space has resident evil has that’s treu.I choose what I like what I would like to play.I don’t go after length.

 

[Ellery]

I hate to say it, but it is usual people with too much time or extremely shitty taste.

Microwave food is popular as well and the XXL package microwave food is being bought a lot as well. A lot more than a good quality steak.

Also younger people that have no proper taste or judgement for quality fall for those traps. Same would've happened to me if I was 15 and played those gigantic open world games. You are still young and think that games are magical.

When you get older you realize the generic formula of (most) open world games with bland characters and empty wide worlds of random placement events/enemies/quests that have no sense for coherence. And you also have experience in the working world and you see through the bullshit of trying to occupy gamers with quests as boring as completing a checklist as work.

This goes beyond gaming as well. My words may sound a little bit too harsh, but I also enjoyed plenty of open word games and some of them are quite good for immersion and having you explore that world or include fun sandbox element to play around with.

Edit: I think, at least for me personally, another big problem was adapting MMO style quests, UI and logs. Older open world games (or bigger games) had things to do as well, but it felt more natural because the progress and search for it was more organic instead of "collet 8 boar skins and bring them to Gundulf Boarhide" while constantly monitoring the questlog on the UI and the big fat arrow that highlights where you have to go.

 

[Soodanim]

Long games need sufficient quality to keep you there. A solid core gameplay loop that you don’t get bored of, plus a world that remains interesting. Collect 100 of XYZ isn’t quality, it’s hollow quantity.

A shorter game can probably get away with a bit more if it’s not trying to keep you there for 50 hours. No one ever says they wish games without the above were longer.

 

[Kumomeme]

depend type of game. for openworld especially rpg with tons of side quest, some player prefer to roam around in the game for hours. so longer game suit this kind of genre

something between longer and shorter would be great though.

also shorter with replayability would be great.

 

[user1337]

I'm playing FFXIV. This game has literally hundreds of hours of unique story quests, dozens of unique dungeons and tons of features and side activities. You can play it every days for months and still have some new things to do.

Yet all of this doesn't' matter if you're not entertained right ? Of course it's "easier" to make short games than long ones with the same intensity but there's also a sense of scale, exploration and discovering that can be exhilarating like an amazing journey on longer games... when it's well done and for people who have both time and taste for this.

In the end i don't think it's simply a choice between just quantity over quality. Of course quantity can mean repetitive, uninspired content and short games can be tight and better paced, but also sometimes hollow or dry. Some story/ambiant need time to set up properly or to give a real sense of journey.

I loved 12 hours A Plague Tale Innocence and i loved 40+ hours Dark Souls and i loved 100 hours Yakusa Like a Dragon. Which one is better ? I don't know.

Started playing FF14 about 2 weeks ago and it felt like this....and its bloody amazing. Still only in ARR, still have all the side stuff to do and then the 3 big DLCs. Woooo, fun times!

Game length to me is not relevant, as much as getting hooked on the game. If a game doesnt hook me within a couple of hours of playing, I tend to move on.

 

[rofif]

I prefer shorter experiences but games like souls (20-30 hours) are great exceptions

 

[Ballthyrm]

Depends on the quality of each hour.
Being an adult I'm very fond of games that don't waste my time.

The game being long or short changes nothing really. The only thing that matters is if I'm having fun or I'm engaged.

Who looks on how long it takes to finish a game ?
Unless you are broke, you shouldn't give a shit.

 

[Negotiator101]

super long games are for people who only have one hobby. the only super long games I will actually finish are unusually good and even then it takes me like 5 years to finish them. i have a low tolerance now for filler content (like mindless collecting) unless the core gameplay stands out so much it's worth repeating (and even then I will probably get bored 50% of the way through the game)

that said, finishing games is overrated.

5 years? Really?

 

[vishnu_raj_c]

I think the length doesn't matter as long as the game is thrilling and engaging .

 

[Kenpachii]

Black desert online 5 euro's.

Tree of savior 20 euro's.

25 euro's for they are billions.

16 euro's for valheim

Free for smite

Free for path of exile

30 euro's for elder scroll online

Free for age of empires online

40 euro's for divinity

5000+ hoiurs in world of warcraft ( spend probably more then 5-10 grand on it )

1000+ hours in guild wars 2 ( i thnk i twas like 60 euro's )

1000+ hours in final fantasy 14 ( probably spend about 60 euro's on it )

Now here u got some games i consider to have no content and regret buying because its shit.

40 for wolcen, no content

30 for canon, no content

90 for this pile of shit. no content.

80 euro's for this, way to low on content won't buy again unless its 20 euro's

Games i find interesting and will buy again

20 euro's for ac origin, absolutely loved it, small game only downside, but priced towards it.

45 euro's for ac odyssey, fun game to play, bit bloated and not much quality content in the base game, dlcs made up for it and builds, 250 decent time for some what smaller game.

AC valhalla, paid 80 euro's because i liked the other two so much for day one, absolutely lovely game but to short, DLC's will hopefully fix it and make it atleast a 200+ hour game if not close to 300 hours. I expect a lot of paris. if they dissapoint will not buy AC games on day one anymore unless discounted.

30 euro's, small game but absolutely fantastic to play, always support them just not at full price. wish they fleshed it out more for more content.

Great game loved it, bought at 40 bucks totally worth it, nice filler game in between.

paid 40 for it, felt like a dlc to bf3, didn't enjoy it as much felt more of the same, bought it late because they upped the price also. pushed me kinda away from BF. I would consider it a failure.

10 bucks for bf1, i like the sandmap and nothing else, great filler game.

Feel scammed even when i paid 5 bucks for it, absolute garbage.

paid 30 euro's totally worth it, dlc was great, low content in it tho. Had less time then so i would call it a success.

Lot's more games which i can't link as they are not through steam or other clients they have there own clients such as ff14/gw2/wow/rts/shooters/ragnarok etc.


My standards are simple.

1-10 hours = failure, your game has no content even if i got it for free.
10-50 hours = demo, wouldn't spend a cent on it.
100+ hours = cracker of a game, but could be interesting if priced right and the content of the game is amazing ( like walking throgh ac origin was incredible to look at the architecture in that time period really well done ), its acceptable then.
500+ hours = successful game but light on content ( mostly builders / bf games / rts )
1000+ hours = your game ia a success in my book, still not sure if i will buy your next product. ( eso/ff14 )
2000+ hours incredible game will buy absolutely again the next one
3000+ hours totally worth it no matter the price ( wow, probably spend 5-10 grand on it )

About the prices above:

Now the prices aren't exactly realistic, i put above but that's the price u could play all those hours for and introduces you into those games. For example in elder scroll online i probably dumped in 300 euro's in total, guild wars 2 probably 500. I spend a fuck ton in those games same for black desert online probably 500 euro's. however there is absolute no need for that and its just me wanting to support the devs.

For example in path of exile i have no issue's dumping 600 euro's for the biggest pack they offer in a season. why? enjoy it and play it for 1000's of hours. i don't see a issue with it, probably spend a good 3 grand on it.

In short games need hours for me to care about.

Anybody that says AC games are bloated and super long that never end, honestly they are not the market for such games. AC is all about content in a single player game which no other game really gives and even then i would rather see them support vallhalla / origin / odyssey with huge content upgrades as big as the entire game for all i care.

 

[Raonak]

Pretty much every long game would be better if it were shorter imo.

Persona, Yakuza, MGS5, Days Gone, etc.

I'd rather games focus more on optional content and new game+ rather than needlessly padding out the game length at the cost of pacing.

If a game isn't introducing new gameplay elements/scenarios then it has no reason to overstay it's welcome.

 

[ZywyPL]

It seems more like a price vs content discussion if you ask me. And long story short, 70€ is a scam, I fail to understand why the price went all the way up from 50$ we had in PS360 times when there's less content in modern games ever since - no additional MP/co-op modes in SP-oriented titles, while the MP-focused games come with only a handful of maps and just 2-3 game modes, what I'm suppose to pay so much for? We're basically getting half-products for double the price, and the best part is many people are willing to defend it.

But if we're talking about the SP length, for me personally the longer the games are the more boring they are, unless there's a story that's really engaging and interesting, doesn't drag on and is well written/told, and at the same time gameplay isn't dull/exhausting, but needless to say those games are rare to be find. Because realistically, you can play the exact same thing only for so long, after just a couple of hours you reach a point where the game already showed you 90-95% of what it has to offer and you just want to move on and try something else already, and yet there's still 20-60 more hours to go, why? What's the point? There won't be any new weapons/skills/gear, no new enemies, no new quests, everything is just a re-skinned/re-colored copy-paste filler content and you're just chasing the main villain for way more than you actually should. Not to mention stories in all those open-world games are still linear in their design, the only thing that has changed from PS360 titles is that now going from A to B takes 20-30x more time, but that's not something I see justifying the price bump, quite the opposite, I see it as nothing but wasting my time, which actually lowers the value.

So all that said, 6-12h is the sweet-spot for me, this is where I end the game with a real satisfaction and a smile on my face, still hyped, hence very probably I'll replay the game again, rather than being exhausted and thanking god it's finally over, or even not finishing the game at all. That's why I think so many people remember so many titles from PS360 gen and previous, and in a positive way, whereas PS4/XB1 games that are mostly open-world are forgotten so fast, because barely anyone gets to finish them, because they eventually get boring and people abandon them with a bad taste. And that's why I'm so much into AA/indie games nowadays, they provide me a complete experience that's not forcefully prolonged, and for appropriate price, everything is perfectly balanced.

 

[Bankai]

Kenpachii 1-10 hours = failure, your game has no content even if i got it for free."

What the hell.. you must be trolling right..?

This is just baffling. What about arcade games which are all about gameplay and can (in theory) be "finished" in less than 1 hour? Simply a failure because of the length? What about replay-value?

Also, what about shorter games like Gone Home, which just want to tell a story. Or shorter indie-games? The Stanley Parable is about 45 minutes long, on 1 average play-through. Also, it's one of the greatest games ever made.

I LOATH long-ass, thin-spread games. Those are the true blemishes of modern-day gaming and don't respect my time at all.

edit: sorry wrong user added

 

[TrueLegend]

TrueLegend

 

[TrueLegend]

TrueLegend "1-10 hours = failure, your game has no content even if i got it for free."

What the hell.. you must be trolling right..?

This is just baffling. What about arcade games which are all about gameplay and can (in theory) be "finished" in less than 1 hour? Simply a failure because of the length? What about replay-value?

Also, what about shorter games like Gone Home, which just want to tell a story. Or shorter indie-games? The Stanley Parable is about 45 minutes long, on 1 average play-through. Also, it's one of the greatest games ever made.

I LOATH long-ass, thin-spread games. Those are the true blemishes of modern-day gaming and don't respect my time at all.

i didnt say that. I am OP. Thats different user

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

You can have both. I was extremely dubious about being able to enjoy Breath of the Wild, as I generally steer clear of open worlds and I’ve come to really hate bloat ever since the PS2 era and its never-ending JRPGs. Yet BOTW somehow brought me on the verge of addiction.
On the other hand, even the 20/30ish hours I’ve spent on games like Yakuza 6 or Kingdom Hearts 3 feel way too much.

Quantity for the sake of quantity is a no-no for me. You just know Ubi’s open-world games these days start with the idea of putting in everything you can and then make up a story to somewhat justify the setting. Bloat first, gameplay second. Screw that. I’d gladly go back to text over VA, even.

A game doesn’t even need to be top quality, but please, no bloat. No content for the sake of content, stop putting more stuff in games just to make it look like the AAA price tag is legitimate.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Tell me about it, I yearn for the days of single player games that took between 10 to 20 hours at most.

(…)
5000+ hoiurs in world of warcraft ( spend probably more then 5-10 grand on it )

(…)

In short games need hours for me to care about.

One of the most insane posts I have ever read in my life. When having both time and money goes wrong.

Your standards imply you need videogames to act as substitutes for your life.

 

[Finsksvenskan]

For me the length of a game doesn’t matter, as long as it’s good, rewarding and most importantly fun to play! Of course I often want games I love to never end. Even short games take a long time for me to finish because I like to do everything there is to do in the game. So for me a game is good if i find myself wanting to complete it, doing all the side quests and not wanting it to end. It’s the small things that makes a game good. So for me it’s worth the price if I don’t even reflect on the length because I’m swept away by story, gameplay and side quests!

 

[fart town usa]

I generally prefer a shorter streamlined experience. I think the best recent example is RE: Village.

I don't have the patience or time for massive open world games, I've never really been a fan of them.

That being said, I still play DQ games and those can be quite long. At the same time though, they're generally pretty easy and don't require a ton of grinding or massive exploration/looting. I feel like I'm always moving forward and enjoying the journey.

 

[IKSTUGA]

Doesn't really matter as long as I'm hooked.

 

[Captain Toad]

If you look at the completion rate for most AAA games, it makes no sense why developers are doubling down on bloating their games with boring crap just to pad out that playtime.

Give me shorter, higher quality games.

 

[mxbison]

I'd never choose quantity over quality.

$70 for an amazing 10 hour experience is fine.

 

[cireza]

Let's start with a common ground approach. The New Assassin's Creed Games. They are long and tedious for someone like me but they are making a lot of money, which means people are interested in them

Pretty sure most people don't even play these games that much. They simply like to roam around, do some stuff, and that's it.

 

[DJTHEGREY]

Depends on the game of course. An RPG? Generally needs to be long, not including side quests, especially if it's turn based. A 5 hour Final Fantasy or Elders Scrolls would be a rip off.

An action game or fighting game should be short when it comes to it's story or main campaign. It's replayability or longevity should come from its side quests and/or multiplayer. A 70 hour street fighter, call of duty or crash bandicoot campaign would be way to much.

 

[22:22:22]

My primary focus is, ofcourse, quality.

For me it's pretty simple I guess; depending on how good (ie quality) the game is, what I want from it regarding it's quantity scales with it.

I think

It really depends on numerous factors if the quality/quantity ratio is done well..

I think?

 

[K' Dash]

I don't play long games anymore, if a game is 30+ hours I usually avoid it.

 

[TrueLegend]

Depends on the game of course. An RPG? Generally needs to be long, not including side quests, especially if it's turn based. A 5 hour Final Fantasy or Elders Scrolls would be a rip off.

An action game or fighting game should be short when it comes to it's story or main campaign. It's replayability or longevity should come from its side quests and/or multiplayer. A 70 hour street fighter, call of duty or crash bandicoot campaign would be way to much.

Honestly i have serious doubts on the definition of modern RPG. It is slapped on anygame these days.

 

[DJTHEGREY]

Honestly i have serious doubts on the definition of modern RPG. It is slapped on anygame these days.

I agree, RPG has kinda lost its meaning a long time ago.

 

[junguler]

i like 100h+ games because i have a very specific taste and when i find a game i really like i want to keep playing it and do everything that there is to do because i never know the next time a game i like is going to come out.
it's exactly why i watch more tv shows than movies, when you find a good tv show it's going to entertain you for a lot longer than a good movie does.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

“Length doesn’t matter, it’s about satisfaction.”

“Quality over quantity.”

Ah, double entendres.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Let’s be honest you can spread a 50+ hour game out and there’s a lot of confusion of completing side quests, challenges etc.

 

[K.N.W.]

I don't play a lot of long games anymore, I got burned out ten years ago by playing too many RPGs, but if something interests me I don't mind the lenght too much, I just want the controls to be responsive enough, framerate to be locked, and gameplay elements/environment to be engaging at least a little bit, but what really completes the deal for me is pacing: doing long and random things like travelling around the world for hours to find six watermelons, so that you can get you robot to fly and move on (XCX), or way too long optional exploration segments in a game that doesn't feature many of them (ME:Andromeda), are not interesting segments, they just act as an unnecessary pauses/fillers which most of the times are badly executed. The opposite can be said for games that never change rhythm: pauses/variations are essential to narration/storytelling in general, but they aren't meant to boring!
So for me games like Half Life 1/2, The Last of Us/Part 2, Uncharted 1/3/4, Halo: Combat Evolved, Crash Bandicoot 3 are pure gold (yes, I prefer shorter games). Longer games that keep a good rhythm like Mass Effect 2, Infamous 2, Final Fantasy 9 are gold too. Developers should not just make their games have variations, they better make sure they are good!
I'm ok with Solid Snake descending a communication tower with a rope for two minutes in MGS 1, or even peculiar boss fights (A shutout with a gunman? A fight with a tank? A barefisted fight with a Cyborg Ninja? Count me in!), but those are short and intriguing sections, that spice up the recipee, way better than the latter section where you are supposed to roast and freeze the keycard, since: you walk a lot, there are two long elevators rides you can't skip, you aren't doing anything interesting, you have to figure out what to do on your own, and you can even fail last minute (the card can cool down/heat up again if you aren't fast enough) forcing you to do it back from the start. That's a section everyone remembers. For the wrong reasons.

 

[Fbh]

The older I get the less interest I have in super long games. Over the years hearing some game is 80+ hours long has quickly turned from an appealing concept to a dealbreaker. Like I'm not the biggest Assassins Creed fan but I think Valhalla looks fun enough that I'd have given it a chance (on sale) if it was in the 20-30 hours range like AC2. But hearing it's closer to 80+ and feels slow and bloated means I'm never going to play it.

Of course, there's no universal rule that applies to every game, but generally speaking I like single player action/adventure games to stay under 20 hours and RPG to stay under 40 (at least for the main story). Games that are longer than that usually only get there through bloat, filler, repetition and tedium.

26 years years later and Chrono Trigger is still the peak of fun, well paced, non bloated RPG's

 

[RoadHazard]

Quality has nothing to do with game length. And playing a lot of shorter games means you are also prioritizing quantity, just in the number of games you play instead of the length of each game. Check mate.

 

[hemo memo]

No matter how the quality is, I wouldn’t pay $30 for a 15 minutes experience for example.

That’s why The Order is still the worst $60 I have ever spent and I am not talking only video game or even entertainment.

 

[Kuranghi]

Most of the games I put hundreds and hundreds of hours into are all from before 2016, after that its just Hitman '16 & '18 and Breath of the Wild.

My problem with newer AC games (and other open world games, but they are the main focus of my comment here) is that it used to be fun just to explore the world to find all the collectibles and I was invested in doing everything because of that, exploring the world in a treasure hunt kind of way, but around 2015 they started to stop spending the development time on making bespoke little locations to discover and making the puzzles fun to solve, they started heavily copy pasting the exploration/collectible element of it and making the puzzles just sort of "going through the motions" level of challenge, which I assume they mistake for "You see the solution quite quickly and the fun/involved part is implementing it", except they made the implementing the solution part too boring/rote.

The new combat isn't for me compared to the (massively flawed but still really fun at least) old games and now that the animation in general* is really glitchy and the faces are so rubbish looking since they abandoned face capture I have no desire to play it them, there is nothing to attract me to it. I loved climbing on buildings and finding the correct path up them and thats replaced by a much simpler system now as well.

So the collectible hunting doesn't reward me with interesting locations, the animations and faces are rubbish so now I don't enjoy traversing the world and the terrible writing comes to the forefront even more because I've nothing to distract me from it. You can watch a badly written/directed film but if it has really great character actors who still bring quality on their own, you can enjoy it on that level, I liken what I wrote above to that.

The puzzles are boring/rote and the loot system is a chore compared to just finding mega weapons after collectible/side quest lines, who gives a fuck if they might be a bit OP, I just spent hours searching for it and I want to have fun. Although i've heard Valhalla remedied that slightly its still surrounded by combat I don't like, and all I said above, so that one element isn't enough to hook me in and forget the problems, like I can do with some other games.

So I'm more than willing to put hundreds of hours into games still but they just aren't grabbing me like they used to, they've gone down a different path than I'm interested in and I just see "AC: Infinity" making that problem worse. They seem like they are spending more time on the forest than the trees, maybe its due to having so many separate studios working on them now that there is a disconnect, but I haven't checked how many worked on Unity for example, so its probably always been like that.

Maybe management has changed for the worse? I dunno, all I know is I used to enjoy AC games for what they were, not masterpieces and with loads of problems, but now I can't even do that.

* Seriously, watch a video of AC:Valhalla, you can't even pass like 15-20 seconds without some glitchy IK-related animation pop. That really takes me out of it when they are striving for such a high fidelity nowadays. I can really "see the game code" with the newer titles like never before, its hard to explain.

 

[GymWolf]

Since long games can have quality and short games can be total shit, your question doesn't have much sense.

 

[Bartski]

Obviously quality over quantity, but then if it's something I love and I'm hooked I never feel a game overstays its welcome no matter how long it is. I played RDR2 campaign for almost 300 hours and never thought I want it to end.
That's also a scenario when I become a total OCD wall kissing completionist, play it slow taking it all in, reading all the in-game books etc, so if a game campaign lasts 100hrs on average that translates to 150hrs for me.

The weird thing is those mid-tier games I immediately check out from if I know they're just too long. I could never play something live AC Odyssey or Valhaala, or Watch Dogs. I guess they're OK but I just don't like Ubisoft open-world formula enough to get involved, and taking a bite casually for a couple of hours is just kind of missing the point. I'd gladly give them a shot if they had 10-20hrs long campaigns that wouldn't require such a commitment.
Maybe I'll finally try one of them when it lands on gamepass but I'm not in a hurry.

 

[Paltheos]

Your premise is flawed. Longer games can also be great. I'm actually playing a game that fits the point to a T right now: Trails to Azure, a game that requires tens of hours of setup before dividends are paid, but that's just it: The experience it yields is unlike something I'd find in a shorter, more compact experience. So much time of people and plot points simmering in the background only coming to the foreground now, at a proper climax produces a richer experience than something like, say, Chrono Trigger, which consistently moves a brisk pace. Is richer better? Maybe, maybe not. But it's definitely great.

I said 'simmering' before but the word is actually a good fit. It's like knocking the act of cooking more involved meals because they include some pre-steps like prepping some ingredients separately before combining them into a whole.