Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I merely chose 2 numbers (8hrs vs 40hrs) because typing all the numbers would take too much time. I didn't think that needed to be said lol
-
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.
The "They should just make shorter games" talking point needs to die.
- Thread starter Men_in_Boxes
- Start date
I merely chose 2 numbers (8hrs vs 40hrs) because typing all the numbers would take too much time. I didn't think that needed to be said lol
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Publishers can't afford to cater to your personal tastes guys. They have to read the market and adjust sail accordingly.
Ï have some indie games that took me 100+ hours to beat. Game length isn't at fault. Spiraling budgets is. Chasing top of the line graphics for every game is. Having less incompetent developers, so you need to hire more of them is. Bad leadership and management is.
Last edited:
justiceiro
Marlboro: Other M
It's a over simplification used by people too lazy to come up with easy to understand arguments regarding bloat in games.
Games are not too long. The real problem is that long games are not inventive enough.
Games are not too long. The real problem is that long games are not inventive enough.
Eiknarf
Banned
And if they’re good, you play em again
And with 20 hour games like The Last of Us Part I, when you play it again you can approach environments differently: Sometimes run and gun. Guns blazing. Sometimes stealth. Other times snipe. Use the shotgun. Or use the bow and arrow etc
The same “short” game played a second time is no longer the same game
Audiophile
Gold Member
There's a holy grail in longer games and it is "organicness" (I think that's a word...I've just had my first few beers in 3mths and I can't focus on that word, so I hope it's spelt right).
Longer games are fine if you can make the tasks feel organic and varied. But, this requires a baseline of bespoke experiences with additional possibilities built from a vast number of variables and well-layered systems.
On top of this the most important thing is fundamentally enjoyable/satisfying game mechanics that you're happy to repeat because of their intrinsic joy. I personally found this with the first Spider-Man on PS4 [Pro]. When I was nearing the end and my character was pretty much maxed out, I was happy to just traverse the environment and take care of all the more menial tasks as well as the random occurrences. It was all cookie-cutter, same-old same-old and very gamey, but it was so inherently enjoyable that I didn't really care.
If devs can take these intrinsically enjoyable gameplay elements and layer more systems and variables on top of a slightly greater number of bespoke experiences, then we'll be on our way..
Longer games are fine if you can make the tasks feel organic and varied. But, this requires a baseline of bespoke experiences with additional possibilities built from a vast number of variables and well-layered systems.
On top of this the most important thing is fundamentally enjoyable/satisfying game mechanics that you're happy to repeat because of their intrinsic joy. I personally found this with the first Spider-Man on PS4 [Pro]. When I was nearing the end and my character was pretty much maxed out, I was happy to just traverse the environment and take care of all the more menial tasks as well as the random occurrences. It was all cookie-cutter, same-old same-old and very gamey, but it was so inherently enjoyable that I didn't really care.
If devs can take these intrinsically enjoyable gameplay elements and layer more systems and variables on top of a slightly greater number of bespoke experiences, then we'll be on our way..
Last edited:
Meicyn
Gold Member
The Incredibles is one of the greatest animated films of all time, running at just shy of 2 hours. Breaking Bad is spread across five seasons, coming to a total of almost 62 hours of mindblowing TV. The Simpsons runtime to date will soon reach 300 hours if you were to watch every episode consecutively, but your enjoyment will be very… mixed.
We’re in classic quality versus quantity territory here. Quantity on its own isn’t a useful metric. If you have the budget to build a good 6 hour game, then make a good 6 hour game. If you dilute the quality to pad it out into a 40 hour game, you have done your customers a disservice.
When you’re flooding your game length with tons of interesting stuff to do like in Red Dead Redemption 2? Hell yeah, the value from that game was insane at $60, even moreso at current discount prices. Dragon Age Inquisition on the other hand? Game was padded full of pointless collectathon quests that were unsatisfying. Bioware was amazing at making tightly controlled narrative experiences, and EA forcing them into open world game design turned one of the greatest RPG studios in the industry into whatever the fuck they are today.
We’re in classic quality versus quantity territory here. Quantity on its own isn’t a useful metric. If you have the budget to build a good 6 hour game, then make a good 6 hour game. If you dilute the quality to pad it out into a 40 hour game, you have done your customers a disservice.
When you’re flooding your game length with tons of interesting stuff to do like in Red Dead Redemption 2? Hell yeah, the value from that game was insane at $60, even moreso at current discount prices. Dragon Age Inquisition on the other hand? Game was padded full of pointless collectathon quests that were unsatisfying. Bioware was amazing at making tightly controlled narrative experiences, and EA forcing them into open world game design turned one of the greatest RPG studios in the industry into whatever the fuck they are today.
Audiophile
Gold Member
Great point. I think it's case of knowing what's within your means, setting a goal and then achieving it.
Just from a visual point I personally like my big, epic titles. But then I look at something like Valheim; and it's clear they decided on a very distinct lo-fi style and absolutely nailed it.
For the gamer, the devs achieving the intentions is more important than where the intentions lie. And for the devs, it's about knowing where the intentions can realistically lie.
Ultimately there's room for all kinds of experiences and it's just a matter of execution.
gamerEMdoc
Member
The issue isn't the length of the game for me, I want a long experience, but I want content that actually supports that long experience. TLOU2 seemed like a long game to me, even though it was shorter than say Horizon Forbidden West. The difference was, TLOU2 was packed with story and atmosphere from beginning to end. HFW was just a thousand questionmarks on a map in a Ubisoft format to artificially extend game length. I guess my point is, I don't mind playing shorter or longer games, as long as the game is worth it and isn't just endless fodder to try to extend the game length as much as possible.
WitchHunter
Banned
If you had an awesome 8 hours, no one would complain. you have to pay 12 bucks for a fucking movie, that is 2 hours long. make the calculations.
they can't even make good movies for 12 bucks anymore. you have to take dumbening and drooling pills to enjoy most of them.
Eiknarf
Banned
Open world games like HFW don't (and can't, logistically) have the same sense of urgency that a linear game like TLOU has.
"OMG! An antagonist took my partner North! I have to save him NOW... ...but I'll do a few side missions first to spec-up. They're on the way up the map anyway."
That's some urgency
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
It's really hard to make an "awesome" 8 hour game.
Look at the completion rates for these short games. They're abysmal. Then you have to consider, what percentage of the 35% of gamers who DID complete the game, did so due to sunk cost fallacy?
"I'm not really enjoying this game anymore but I paid $70 dollars so I better force myself to finish it."
Most gamers buy these games due to hype, play a short amount of time, and then get distracted by the next shiny object because they're bored of the crap they've been playing.
When a person goes through the aforementioned formula enough times, they start to, consciously or not, gravitate towards the longer epics.
salva
Member
I'm not voting as the options suck.
Even if a game was 1hr long and full priced, $70 for an hour of entertainment is nothing. You could piss that on the wall with a single dram of good whisky if you wanted too.
Even a short 5hr game you're looking at $14/hr of entertainment. Depending where you are, could be cheaper than a pint per hour.
It's so much easier nowadays to check if you would like a game before committing too. Read reviews, watch gameplay, trial it, and lastly - refund it.
Even if a game was 1hr long and full priced, $70 for an hour of entertainment is nothing. You could piss that on the wall with a single dram of good whisky if you wanted too.
Even a short 5hr game you're looking at $14/hr of entertainment. Depending where you are, could be cheaper than a pint per hour.
It's so much easier nowadays to check if you would like a game before committing too. Read reviews, watch gameplay, trial it, and lastly - refund it.
Wildebeest
Member
Modernising isn't about game length. If someone wants to play a game in half hour sessions then a game that is "only" 8 hours long as one movie type experience is still way too long. But also it is way too short in that someone might want to play a game that has 15-minute sessions that they can play for a year or so.
Meicyn
Gold Member
Short-attention-span gamers who have a hard time completing 8 hour games gravitate towards 40 hour, 50 hour, 100+ hour titles? How does that work?
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Because we spend money based on perceived value, not actual value.
Be that as it may, I'd say Nintendo is doing a lot better financially by releasing shorter cheaper, but amazing games like Donkey Kong Country Returns, Kirby and the Forgotten Land, and dozens others, then Ubisoft is doing by releasing huge monstrosities with checklists. The average Assassins Creed might sells more than the average Kirby game, but it sure as hell doesn't make more profit.
I think you need to go back to school to learn economics 101 tbh. You've been wrong a lot before on this forum with your hot takes, but this one is really out there.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
I just looked at a list of best selling Nintendo Switch games. Of the top 20, the only games I would consider "short, one and done" style games are...
#9 New SMBros Wii U Delux
#13 - Luigis Mansion 3
#17 - Super MB 3D World
#20 - Super Mario Wonder
All the other games are games people can see themselves playing for an extended period of time. Also...notice there wasn't one new IP on that list?
If you don't have access to a big IP, your killing yourself by making a short one and done game. It's just non competitive design.
OmegaSupreme
advanced basic bitch
Good lord. What's wrong with you?
Obviously, it depends on your definition of short, but I'd count Super Mario Odeysey (16 hours), Pokémon Sword & Shield (18 hours), Pokémon BD/SP (19 hours) as short games as well. Hell, you could finish Animal Crossing in less than 20 hours if you wanted. And that's not to mention you can finish the single player modes in games like Smash, Mario Kart, Mario Party and Splatoon in a few hours as well. Obviously, you can continue playing after that if you so choose, but that's the entire point.
There's room for all kinds of games. Games that take 100+ hours to beat, games that take 50 hours to beat, and games you can finish in a single sitting. And after you finish, you can continue playing if you want.
And since you were so kind to name the Switch. There's only 2 games in the entire top 20 that REQUIRE 30+ hours to finish the story so your entire point goes out the window. Every game on there, except for BotW and TotK can easily be finished in less than 30 hours in your first playthrough.
Last edited:
Fbh
Member
How is that a bad thing though?
If a studio is only able to make 15 hours of worthwhile content with the time/budget/skill they have I'd rather get a nicely paced 15 hours game instead of having them stretch it out to 30 hours.
It's the Square Enix problem. Since moving on to HD games they seem unable to make more than 20-25 hours of good AAA content, so in the end many of their games are a bunch of awesome highlight moments intertwined with boring filler and terrible side content.
lughnasadh123
Member
It's weird to be speaking in absolutes about a topic where every answer is a "yeah, but...". There's so many variables in all of it that it has to be an individual decision on what's best for the devs. That's completely ignoring what people are proposing solely based on their own personal interests.
kiphalfton
Member
OP, you don't need to project bro.
It's okay if you like padded out, repetitive games.
It's okay if you like padded out, repetitive games.
Mythoclast
Member
IDC about industry profits but making long, padded games just for the sake of making longer games is BS. LENGTH is not the same as value or fun.
gtabro
Member
Preach! I loved the first Marvel's Spider-Man, but now with the second 8 hours in and I'm bored to tears, the plot is soooo sloooow, but a bigger offender is the seemingly cranked up number of mob fights, Insomniac seem to have started feeding you bread crumbs between each needlessly long fight with 6-20 NPCs in a room (before you do it 2 more times back-to-bck in a few cases, talk about padding). I don't know if that's just the beginning, but Spidey 1 was so much better paced IMO and it didn't suffer from having an open world, whereas here Insomniac wants to really make a point that they put 1782 new moves (of which I never use even half) for both spideys and you'll have way too much trash fights just so you can remember to try all of those. Slightly off-topic but the cherry on top for me is the appearing out of thin air iron spider-legs on Peter's back, it's literally shown how they just pop into existence in one cutscene, really don't know what happened to that studio with this game, so yeah, more focused tighter games as a main focus should come back.
TheInfamousKira
Reseterror Resettler
The Average NeoGAF User Experience
1. Log in
2. Check bans
3. Chucklefuck to the bank
4. Check Gaming
5. See poll
6. Poll is titled "Should horror games be in first person, yes or no?"
7. Read thread
8. Actual poll is like "should first person games be horror, no or yes?"
9. DOES NOT COMPUTE
10. Self contained manic episode
11. Goes to Create Thread
12. Schizpost about cunts and green rats
13. Gold
14. Banned
1. Log in
2. Check bans
3. Chucklefuck to the bank
4. Check Gaming
5. See poll
6. Poll is titled "Should horror games be in first person, yes or no?"
7. Read thread
8. Actual poll is like "should first person games be horror, no or yes?"
9. DOES NOT COMPUTE
10. Self contained manic episode
11. Goes to Create Thread
12. Schizpost about cunts and green rats
13. Gold
14. Banned
Guilty_AI
Member
As mentioned, the issue many people have are games that feel padded out to last longer than what their game is really worth. There are many games where open world segments feel unnecessary, that have tons of side-quests or side-content that just aren't fun or good, narratives that drag longer than they should, pointless grind, etc. Its a problem mainly amongst AAA games where the gameplay mechanics or writing often isn't that good to begin with, so any extra elements just feel painful to go through.
I think many people rationalize their growing disinterest for a certain game and start believing its a problem with lenght, when in fact its an issue with quality and organicness. A solid set of mechanics can make a game fun for hundreds of hours, and in the same way an interesting narrative can keep you engaged for a long time. Similarly, longer games do not necessarily translate to higher budgets. We have one-man projects that people play for hundreds upon hundreds of hours, simply because they have solid foundations and mechanics, or visual novels with insane lenght that people love.
Of course, there are also a segment of people who just treat games as things to check off on a list, they want to 'beat' the game without having to spend too much time and quickly go to the next. There's also the people with ADHD who cannot fathom the idea of spending multiple months to beat one single game. I won't judge these people's preferences but these are not legitimate reasons to demand shorter games.
I think many people rationalize their growing disinterest for a certain game and start believing its a problem with lenght, when in fact its an issue with quality and organicness. A solid set of mechanics can make a game fun for hundreds of hours, and in the same way an interesting narrative can keep you engaged for a long time. Similarly, longer games do not necessarily translate to higher budgets. We have one-man projects that people play for hundreds upon hundreds of hours, simply because they have solid foundations and mechanics, or visual novels with insane lenght that people love.
Of course, there are also a segment of people who just treat games as things to check off on a list, they want to 'beat' the game without having to spend too much time and quickly go to the next. There's also the people with ADHD who cannot fathom the idea of spending multiple months to beat one single game. I won't judge these people's preferences but these are not legitimate reasons to demand shorter games.
Last edited:
NeonDelta
Member
The point is shorter games at lower prices
Is much rather a developer gave me 3 £30 AAA games that take 10 to 15 hours to finish over a 6 year period than 1 £70 game that takes 100 hours to finish
Hohenheim
Member
Well, they often do though! Lots of quality games with all kinds of length and scope. I never have problems finding something to fit my gaming-mood, that's for sure!
NightmareFarm
Member
I support this notion if we're talking about JRPGs. JRPGs nowadays are ridiculously long(60+ hours) with even more ridiculously long development times. I miss when you had a Final Fantasy or Tales game every few years whereas now it's once a generation. And it's not exactly like they are getting any better as a result of the longer development times either...
Last edited:
Killer8
Member
The fact of the matter is that game development has become very expensive and time consuming. We're waiting 5+ years for the next game from many developers and, to add insult to injury, the amount of sales needed to recoup those costs is insane.
Publishers are concerned about costs and have indeed "read the market", believing the answer is to raise prices - which many gamers object to. Yet, as the thread indicates, some gamers also object to them taking any measures to keep the lid on costs. Some also object to tactics like season passes, micro transactions, loot crates etc etc. We are going to have to pick our poison at some point.
"Make shorter games" is itself a shorthand statement of wanting a more austere development process. When you look at the visuals on display nowadays, it is astounding, but people (both gamers and I guess developer's themselves) want the pond to grow larger as well as deeper. It's not like we're still playing games the size of GTA III except massively more detailed - now the expectation is to also have a whole state to explore, and I bet soon a small country. Obviously this is a simplification, and the case can be made for a few games to go wild with scale and ambition. But for a lot of other games going bigger simply feels like a waste of effort.
Huge budgets and development times also blur the margins between success and failure, which naturally creates a development environment where less risks are taken. I'd never expect a $200-300 million dollar game to take huge risks, that isn't what i'm asking for, but right now it feels like we are at the opposite end of the spectrum where the big AAA releases are playing it too safe.
This also ties into the issue that most people simply do not finish games. You could say that development costs for most of the content is therefore being devoted to a minority of people, which is a waste in my eyes. I suspect the phenomena of not finishing games is, aside from the obscene time investment, also because many of these games just become far too boring to hold people's attention for 50+ hours.
It's easy to say "length isn't the problem, developers gotta make better games to keep your attention", which on face value sounds like it makes sense - but that risk averse nature of huge projects means this is less and less likely to actually happen.
As a thought experiment, if you were to give me the choice between:
a) a 50+ hour, huge open world game, which plays it safe because it really cannot fail and takes 5-6 years to make, for $70 (*soon probably $80)
b) a 25 hour, smaller scale game (can still even be open world!), which maybe takes more risks and around 3-4 years to make, for $60
I'd choose the latter every day of the week simply because it would be more interesting and you'd get a higher number of ideas put into motion.
Publishers are concerned about costs and have indeed "read the market", believing the answer is to raise prices - which many gamers object to. Yet, as the thread indicates, some gamers also object to them taking any measures to keep the lid on costs. Some also object to tactics like season passes, micro transactions, loot crates etc etc. We are going to have to pick our poison at some point.
"Make shorter games" is itself a shorthand statement of wanting a more austere development process. When you look at the visuals on display nowadays, it is astounding, but people (both gamers and I guess developer's themselves) want the pond to grow larger as well as deeper. It's not like we're still playing games the size of GTA III except massively more detailed - now the expectation is to also have a whole state to explore, and I bet soon a small country. Obviously this is a simplification, and the case can be made for a few games to go wild with scale and ambition. But for a lot of other games going bigger simply feels like a waste of effort.
Huge budgets and development times also blur the margins between success and failure, which naturally creates a development environment where less risks are taken. I'd never expect a $200-300 million dollar game to take huge risks, that isn't what i'm asking for, but right now it feels like we are at the opposite end of the spectrum where the big AAA releases are playing it too safe.
This also ties into the issue that most people simply do not finish games. You could say that development costs for most of the content is therefore being devoted to a minority of people, which is a waste in my eyes. I suspect the phenomena of not finishing games is, aside from the obscene time investment, also because many of these games just become far too boring to hold people's attention for 50+ hours.
It's easy to say "length isn't the problem, developers gotta make better games to keep your attention", which on face value sounds like it makes sense - but that risk averse nature of huge projects means this is less and less likely to actually happen.
As a thought experiment, if you were to give me the choice between:
a) a 50+ hour, huge open world game, which plays it safe because it really cannot fail and takes 5-6 years to make, for $70 (*soon probably $80)
b) a 25 hour, smaller scale game (can still even be open world!), which maybe takes more risks and around 3-4 years to make, for $60
I'd choose the latter every day of the week simply because it would be more interesting and you'd get a higher number of ideas put into motion.
sachos
Member
I voted yes. What i would like to see is more focused, centered around gameplay, games. In my mind RE4 represents the "perfect" game in this style, they perfected this loop and you could say the Souls games did too.
Make an interesting enough NG+ mechanic that keeps you playing just for the fun of it and unlocking secrets/extra weapons/challenge modes/costumes/etc.
Make an interesting enough NG+ mechanic that keeps you playing just for the fun of it and unlocking secrets/extra weapons/challenge modes/costumes/etc.
Eiknarf
Banned
What's "2"
"Check bans" ?
Kokoloko85
Member
I like long games.
TLOU2 was great because it didnt finish in under 10 hours.
Same as God of War
Id hate for games like Sekiro, MGS5, Death Stranding, Baldurs Gate, Bloodborje to be shorter
TLOU2 was great because it didnt finish in under 10 hours.
Same as God of War
Id hate for games like Sekiro, MGS5, Death Stranding, Baldurs Gate, Bloodborje to be shorter
Last edited:
TheInfamousKira
Reseterror Resettler
I always check the bans at the bottom of the page to see if any comrades or particularly annoying posters have been hammered. It's some kind of reptile brain need to assert dominance over the perceived masses (of banned people)
Also, sometimes it tells a little story. You'll see like
ToddsRUs89 - get over the console Warring. Upgraded to perm because you're a sopping cunt.
ToddsRThem89 - Alt
SddotRsu98 - Alt
ModsRCucks69 - Alt
FuckEviloreNDGAF - Alt
...
And you can practically cut the seethe and cope with a knife so thick and heavy it is. A descent into madness featuring some 14 year old in Brazil who literally sits there all day making GAF accounts or whatever. It's fucking lifeblood for me.
Topher
Gold Member
This is my new GAF bucket list
Mortisfacio
Member
For me it depends on the way it's laid out. CyberPunk, RDR2 and Witcher 3 I've played multiple times. The gameplay loop is great, the side quests are great and everything about the games interest me.
Then there's games like Assassin's Creed: Valhalla or Odyssey. These side quests are not interesting. I want to enjoy them, but the games largely feel like filler content.
Then there's games like Horizon and Dragon Age: Inquisition. These games feel like single player MMOs and I don't think they should exist. They're awful. The only reason these boring open landscapes work in an MMO is because of the social aspect. They're awful as a single player experience. Stop making these.
Then there's games like Assassin's Creed: Valhalla or Odyssey. These side quests are not interesting. I want to enjoy them, but the games largely feel like filler content.
Then there's games like Horizon and Dragon Age: Inquisition. These games feel like single player MMOs and I don't think they should exist. They're awful. The only reason these boring open landscapes work in an MMO is because of the social aspect. They're awful as a single player experience. Stop making these.
Belthazar
Member
It always was a very stupid talking point and generally just people being unable to express what they really mean. Most people just don't want to feel like the game is wasting their time, as most of the people that seemingly claim for more 10 hour games would love if those same games could engage them throughout 100 hours.
The problem is bloat in the form of uninteresting filler content, not the actual length of the games.
The problem is bloat in the form of uninteresting filler content, not the actual length of the games.
I wish all games were in the 10 hour range. I cannot count the games I have NOT bought because of the time investment required for them. As a working class professional (lawyer) I just cannot imagine the kind of adult that has the necessary time to devote to such an endeavor when factoring in family, kids, job, etc. I mean, are those people just living off welfare sitting around all day doing nothing?
sigmaZ
Member
More than raw length it's more about they do with it and how much filler there is. I can only take so much.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
10 to 20 hours is the ideal length, IMO. RPG's between 20~40 hours are fine, since that's their nature. A rare game that's 100 hour or so is fine but when every game start putting in busy work to try and reach an arbitrary hour (remember Dying Light devs saying you need 500 hours to do everything in the game), it starts being grating.
Similar threads
- Poll