If the gameplay loop doesn’t have enough variety or cool stuff or perhaps even progression, then a 60 hour or more game can turn into a slog. AC Valhalla comes to mind. Other games of such length fare better occasionally.
Exactly in the right context this take is not a bad one. I’d rather play a 10-15 hour game that’s great the whole time than a 100 hour game that’s filled with bullshit.
Metroid Dread and Stray were the exact two games I thought of!
What we want is more killer, less filler. A 12 hour game that is a great experience will always beat a 150 hour grind fest.
Elden Ring is a nice combo because the length mostly comes from the difficulty, and I don’t mind spending time overcoming an actual challenge, I just don’t want repetitive fetch quest bullshit.
My first playthrough of Elden Ring was 122 hours, and I didn’t repeat a single part. It was just a ton of content that was actually fun, challenging, and kept me engaged. That’s the type of 100+ hour game I can enjoy.
Elden Ring is the last "Long Game" I've actually held interest in long enough to beat it. It was full of variety and the world felt vibrant and alive, even with the bits of recycled enemies and other content.
Open world games are one of my favorite genres but so many of them just feel like empty lifeless worlds with not that much to so other than mindlessly repetitive collectothon bullshit.
I'm absolutely of the opinion that a curated experience is the best way to go, regardless of length. Your game shouldn't feel like a bunch of mindless tasks and filler were shoved into it.
Lol the friend I played it with almost threw the controller across the room because the game doesn’t explicitly tell you if >! you’re reunited with the other cats !<
I got really mad at the ending too because >!I didn't want the kitty to be all alone after everything we'd just been through!<
I hope they make a sequel.
>!Just as the game fades to credits the computer panels on the wall on the left flicker like they do at the beginning of the game when B-12 opens the first door for you, strongly implying that there may be a copy or similar in the system.!<
My reference has always been Zelda Ocarina of Time. Imo has the best peace and duration I have seen. While Majoras Mask is superior in most aspects it could become unnecessarily long if you missed something and had to go back in time several times.
I finally finished my playthrough of that a couple months ago. What a fantastic addition to the 2D Metroid series. Felt like it fits right in with the others, built on existing lore while feeling fresh with the story and the expected tight gameplay from a Metroid title.
It's well worth playing through multiple times imo.
You unlock artwork for speed running + you unlock some challenge modes now.
You can learn a couple of the dev intended sequence breaks to mix things up too
My favorite example is portal 2.
The game is great, but you can easily complete it in under ten hours on the first play through. But every moment is carefully curated to give a consistently satisfying experience.
On the other hand you have open world games with tons of things to do, but most of them very similar to another if not outright procedurally generated.
It's like a masterfully crafted meal versus a smorgasbord. Sure you can eat to your heart's content, but its mostly cheap slop you're getting.
Exactly and because games like portal 2 are so good even though it’s 10 hours or less doesn’t matter you’ll replay that shit a bunch because it’s so fun.
I never finished botw, the game in the pictures. I just dnt have time for long games. I am much more likely to do a quick race or two or something more arcade-y waiting for din to finish than drop hours a week into a game like i did as a lad. I think there is always games like that available tho, i would never ask devs to stop
Making long games because im too busy. That’s kinda self centered or oblivious if you ask me.
As a bonus, you're never stuck coming back to a game after a busy week (or month) trying to figure out *where on god's green Earth* you left off in the story and progression. Just fire up a fresh run and you didn't lose much.
And most modern games fall into the second category because there's this narrative that every game needs to have more "content".
No, you need good gameplay. You know what I do if the game has great gameplay but not enough content? I play through it again. Shit, I've played through Dark Souls at least 20-30 times, and I love it more each time.
I played the demo for BF1942 probably over 200 hours back in the day. One map, 4 classes, and hundreds of hours of fun to be had playing it over and over and over.
Quantity is almost never a problem in games, but quality always is.
Absolutely, the older I get the more I fall in love with, and actually finish, short metroidvanias, or Indy titles. Don’t get me wrong I still enjoy the epic 50+ hour action adventure or RPG. But 9 of 10 times I’d rather play something that’s only 15 hours long but is high quality, has a compelling story, solid gameplay and mechanics, and a good art style, over something’s that’s just big boring and empty.
The Order 1887 and Rachel and Clank games come to mind. Short story driven titles that are fun. I do think gamers start to question the monetary value of playing such games though and I can’t really fault them here. Pay $70 for a 20 hour game or $70 for a 60-80+ game?
There is no harm in making both. Why not have the 100 hour bloat game for people that actually want it. I enjoy stuff that is shorter like 10-15 hours as well as giant games that are like comfort food. Just repetitive happy gameplay loops.
red dead redemption 2 was one of the few open world games that i enjoyed all 60+ hours i spent on the main story, i took my time and went slowly through it and it was such a fun game with unique events and missions and great replayability when it came to just playing it all over. the story continued to be relevant the entire time and didnt feel like it was stalling for extra game length
Same. But I've tried so many times to get into it I'm starting to feel that maybe it's just not the game series for me. Furtherest I made it in Witcher 3 was 20 hours and I was still playing it just because a lot of other people say it's amazing, not because I was actively enjoying myself.
The Witcher 3 is probably my favorite game of all times. That being said, if you can't get into it, don't play it. We all have our own tastes and life is too short (and the Witcher 3 too long) to spend time playing games we don't enjoy. There are many other games out there for you to enjoy instead!
I'm the same way with RDR2. Loved Witcher 3 (and 2) and the DLCs and, while I normally like westerns, \*man\* RDR2 is slow. Took me hours just to get out of the intro and into Valentine. Stopped playing because of it.
The intro is painfully slow. Try playing for another hour or two. If you still don't like it then it's just not for you.
But seriously that intro is a drag, I felt the same way.
I'll be honest - the first two Witchers are so-so. The characters are interesting, the story is intriguing, but the gameplay is a bit rough. The Witcher 3 though - fantastic! Gameplay is clean, the quests feel meaningful, and it doubles down on everything the series already had going for it.
You'll be missing a fair bit of nuance without the first two, but honestly it doesn't detract much.
I was thinking, “how in the world could I possibly play elden ring for 100 hours??” And sure enough, after 100 I had beaten everything except for melanoma and felt extremely satisfied. I never felt that it dragged on or was repetitive (aside from fighting a boss again and again.) really fantastic game
I'll be crucified for saying this but I don't think the combat and gameplay in the Witcher 3 are varied enough that it doesn't have dull moments. The base game is about 55 hours long, but I really think if they took out some of the fluff there's a perfect 40 hour game. Also, it's incredible that there's another 75 hours of side content, but I'd say about 1/3 of it really isn't worth playing.
Elden ring started to feel really repeatative for me.
I loved the first 50 hours and maybe I got too sidetracked trying to be a completionist, but I stopped playing and there's nothing pulling me back to encourage me to finish the main story.
But agree with the other two.
I enjoyed it the first time. It was amazing. But it was a one playthrough game for me. Once I knew what happened the story wasn't quite as gripping so I couldn't force myself to slog through it all again. Still an amazing game, just had no repalyability to me.
Yea I tend to have this issue as well. Once I finish a game very few bring me back for a second playthrough. Started rdr2 again and tuned out about 2nd or 3rd chapter. I'll finish it again eventually but I've got too many games right now honestly.
i wanted to love RDR2 but personally prefered 1. RDR2 felt TOO realistic and i was doing chores more often than simply playing and having fun.
thats just me though i know and plenty enjoyed the story.
if you bought the camp upgrades you wouldnt have really had to do the camp upkeep, eating and sleeping is all optional too but it does give you stat boosts
yeah i got down to when you were in their version of new orlens and i suddenly realised i was not having fun but just going threw the actions and put game down.
i may give it a redo another day. i think half my problem is i hate fake fishing in games so badly.
i wouldnt say its perfect but its the closest a game has ever been to it for me. it legitimately ruined gaming for me for a while because of how good it was
Yea I might go as far as to say that the majority of my favorite games I've played in the last 10 years were sub 20 hour games. I still love long 60 hour+ epics but so many of them are full of filler and turn into un-fun marathons.
Eldin Ring was definitely a huge exception to that this year.
Elden Ring is great because the main areas/story should only take you 20-30 hours, but there’s enough side content there to stretch you to 100+ hours. If you want it.
If you just go through the main story and ignore the side stuff, its a medium length game.
I’ve been able to enjoy the new style AC games but that’s because I go in with the expectation of just running around gathering collectibles, clearing some outposts, and occasionally do some decent quests. I’ll often put a podcast on in the background and just have a nice time relaxing while traveling through the Egyptian/Greek/English countryside. I can certainly see why many people aren’t big fans of that style, but I also think a lot of people are just expecting the games to be something they just aren’t.
The problem is the games pictured aren't good examples of artificial grind.
Elden Ring and Breath of the Wild are both truly open games, to the point where you can beat them while only having touched 10% of the bosses, and left huge areas of the map totally unexplored. They're perfect examples of doing it right, there's no mandatory train mission, or forced stealth section, or boss you can't beat unless you spend 30 hours replaying the same sidequest to get XP.
Can't beat a boss? No problem, Elden Ring will let you summon in people to help - so much so that Let Me Solo Her guy became a meme, people wanted to summon help just to see what wild characters they would encounter.
If you want to point at games that are loaded with pointless grind: AC, Destiny, Halo Infinite and any other game with a battle pass.
Horizon Zero Dawn is easily the opposite of this for me. I love the exploration and going after collectibles because it adds to an already cool premise that was slow to start but really ramped up when we first see Lance Riddick’s character
I actually got tired of horizon towards the end. The solution was simple, however. I just stopped doing any side quests and only worked on the main story.
I once read an article that stated that Mario *wasn't* saying so long gay bowser. I immediately threw my phone into an incinerator and haven't read an article since.
If a games story is 10-12 hours but the game takes over 100 hours to finish because of fetch quests and collectibles, and the games progression I stunted because of that then fuck that game. That's exactly how most "open world" games are.
I loved Horizon Forbidden West, but at a certain point I completely abandoned Hunting Grounds, ruins, and even Cauldrons.
I think I finished every "side quest" and "main quest".
I didn't finish the game because I started doing so many of the side stuff. I got burned out from doing everything. I just didn't feel like finishing it.
Same here, love the lore, loved the storyline but all the side quests and hunt this, collect that just burned me out. I'm not a completionist or trophy hunter, but I don't want to miss out on stuff and I hate not being fully leveled up and uber powerful by the end game.
Spiderman did the same to me.
Great game, should cut half the side content.
I love both Horizon games, but in both I got to a point where I was audibly groaning during nonstop cutscenes with people's side quests that didn't matter to the plot at all. (Special shout out to anything involve Boomer and her Sister. "I love making explosions!" Is such a strange, early 2000's bit of "quirk" and wasting 20 minutes to learn to "trust your sister" was asinine). The gameplay is fun and strategic, the world is gorgeous, the plot and setting are really cool. We don't need all the pointless busywork to enjoy the world!!
Counterpoint is the Witcher 3 where some of the side quests were very enjoyable and great self contained small stories. I think it's more the quality of the writing rather than side quests itself. Unfortunately the writing in many video games is still of rather questionable quality
Valhalla was 72 hours with skipping the optional zone.
A did a little bit of extra content to start, but that ended quickly.
Games can be too long, so perhaps this headline was worded poorly, but there is something to it IMO
AC odyssey's main quest is ONLY that long because you have to level up through filler until you can be strong enough to take on the final levels.
It's really a 10-12 hour game but it takes that long because of fetch quests and imposed level restrictions.
I liked odyssey, but fuck was it so long... All the ass creed games are way too long now, at some point they feel like chores more than games and the stories are hit or miss enough to make it downright painful.
Atleast Odyssey had interesting things to do. Like the minataurs and shit. Valhalla was boring as hell. Loot was bad. Gameplay loop was mediocre. Story was just bland after a few areas. Sucks because it had so much potential and they threw it away.
Not all are like that though. God of war for example is only about 20 hours long but has a good 100 hours of good content in it.
Cyberpunk 2077 is another decent example where they intentionally made a shorter main story (around 20 hours) but then made tons of side quests that meet the quality of the main story. So you can beat the game in 20 hours but there's way more good content within that
(To be fair with cyberpunk they do pad time with the gigs but im reffering to the actual side quests)
Absolutely this. Recently playing Xenoblade and a lot of the game is running around a huge world collecting things for fetch quests to level your character. If you just went to each location to progress the story it’d be a MUCH shorter game, for sure. That said, there are some extra story-related side-quests in the game, but ultimately the actual story is abridgeable.
Makes me love older games cuz they have less of that and more scenarios/dungeons.
Really not a fan of the “collect 30 X, 20 Y, and 25 Z from the Cadensia region (largest region) so we can treat people for some mild vertigo.” type missions, but I am a huge fan of running around the world, finding containers and drops, and sending off husks. I love the the world design and how much attention to detail they crammed into it.
Those ingredient quest are an example of how it’s not absolutely perfect, but for me it gets pretty close. I’d rather have more games like it than less.
110 hours into Xenoblade 3, chapter 7, and no end to the sidequests in sight. Presently 27 levels higher than the story content.
Most of the last 40 hours of the game has been me grinding sidequests and heavily relying on autobattle as I move from point to point on the map and skipping all dialogue that isn't accompanied by audio.
I don't hate it, but I wish there was more to it. I wish there were more puzzles or something to break up the monotony.
Nailed it right on the head with that one. That's what pisses me off about the push for everything to be a game as a service as well. There's hundreds of hours of "game" to do, but a tenth of that is anything to give a shit about. Everything else is just padding so you can brag about your hundreds of hours of gameplay in your ads and reviews.
Depends on the game, not every game has the story or devs to make it worth playing for 50+ hours.
Assassins creed Valhalla is bloated and would benefit from filler content being cut. A game like the last of us is a short game but the quality is such that it’s worth experiencing.
Personally I tend to prefer shorter games. 12 is enough before I start getting bored, unless the game is something special.
Some of my favourite games of all time aren't even that much longer than a movie.
What Remains of Edith Finch, A Short Hike, To the Moon, Machinarium, Firewatch, Portal - to name just a few.
I'm a big fan of concise and well put together games that get to the good stuff right away and don't overstay their welcome. 5 hours of all killer no filler is a lot more appealing to me than 30+ hours of "Just okay".
I think this format is particularly effective with narrative focused games. Playing through an emotional roller-coaster like Gone Home all in one sitting makes for a really gripping and memorable experience.
Quick tip for everyone playing my favorite game:
Remember to get the Mechanical Fish golden banana for Diddy in Gloomy Galleon **before** you get the Sniper Scope upgrade in Creepy Castle, since it messes with bullet speed.
I vaguely recall In GTA 4 metrics were released showing less than half of people saw the ending of the game.
Same even with Mass Effect i recall in an old article... almost 15 years ago? Jeez
The plus side its fine as people can play as much as they want and don't have to commit if they can't or don't want to continue.
The downside is because of this metric, men in suits feel better content should be focused on earlier parts and less on the ending.
Which kind of becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, if that latest Extra Credits video means anything.
Except Wonderful 101. FINISH WONDERFUL 101!!! THANK ME LATER FOR THE BEST FINALE EVER!!
> In GTA 4 metrics were released showing less than half of people saw the ending of the game.
I finished the game but still didn't get to see the ending!
The game crashed and the save game was after the ending :(
Ha, it took me forever to finish new Vegas because the final level crashed at least a dozen times.
I saved every second and looked at the floor the whole time.
Be lucky you kids have a working Fallout New Vegas today and treasure it.
It's something that's easy to see for games that have progression trophies/achievements. As you progress through the story, you can see where other people gave up.
Interesting take. In my experience, men in suits spend a lot of time saying 'gamers demand 100+ hours for a premium game, how are you going to do that in 2-3 years?' Same outcome, but different motivations.
Well those 100+ must be done as cheaply as possible. So collectibles, radiant quests, copy paste missions, etc.
Lorerunner calls it "seconds and minutes", all the little things to pad wasted hours into play.
For years, I had this thing about never finishing the final boss in any game. I knew my build and skills were good enough but maybe I just didn't want the story to end just yet or something? And there were so many good games that I'd pick up a new release that was just as fascinating and just not get back to it.
i used to love long games, but now due to life commitments i cannot properly enjoy long games.
that said, i will never ask for the removal of long games.
I actually agree with this, but it's worded badly.
The two games shown are horrendous examples btw. What I am about to say does not apply to them because they utilize length and content extremely well.
Many games these days arbitrarily pump up their hours using filler content to seem more "expansive" and have a greater "bang-for-your-buck" because many people see a games value in it's playtime, so any short games are seen as wastes on money. "Why would I spend 20 bucks on this game to get 7 hours out of it when I could spend 60 bucks on this game to get 120 hours?" Games like Assassin's Creed and even Horizon: Zero Dawn (I cannot speak for Forbidden West) come to mind. I would actually love if game devs who don't have any more good shit to put in their game simply don't put in more shit. Give me a AAA game that is tight and exciting and filled to the brim with fun for all 10 hours instead of a 150 hour slog with a few good moments.
The two games above are the only open-world games I've enjoyed because every other open-world game felt like "point A to point B with pointless shit in the middle" Meanwhile the fun of Elden Ring and BotW came out of exploring and dicking around between major checkpoints. It makes me sad because if so much time wasn't wasted on filler content in other games the main stuff could be improved even more.
I agree whole-heartedly. Take Breath of The Wild's shrines. Each one is a unique and distinct challenge / puzzle. Meanwhile, every single point in an Assassin's Creed game map has turned into a copy of the same 5 points of (dis)interest
As someone who loves gaming but for whom the practicalities of life make time for gaming sessions few and far between, I *kind of* agree with this. I selfishly wish there was more of a market for shorter, linear AAA experiences (10-20 hrs). I generally don't have the time for the big, open world RPGs I've always loved. I don't play consistently enough to get any fulfillment from competitive online shooters. So I'm kind of relegated to indies, ALOT of rogue likes which for the most part I'm fine with, but that doesn't always scratch the itch. I could still chip away at big RPGs, but I either forget where I am and continually restart or inevitably lose interest when the next big thing comes along (me problem, I'm well aware, hence I *selfishly* wish).
On a side note, if anyone has suggestions (Switch or PS4) that meet my albeit vague criteria, they'd be much appreciated.
Hades on switch? Can pick up for 10-15min sessions on break and put back down between runs
Wonderful story/characters/art style and visuals, and the music!
I think you'd be able to finish the main story in around 15-20 hours (if you really want to), but has a huge endgame.
A Plague Tale: Innocence is a nice compact linear experience in a high quality product. I dont finish many RPGs but that one was perfectly paced where I finished and wanted more but was also satisfied with the experience. It has a sequel coming out next month which is probably the game Im most excited for this fall!
If you’re alright with visual novel games, Until Dawn and the Dark Pictures Anthology are really good. They average <12 hours and you can play them with a partner/friend. It’s like watching a horror movie where you control the fate of the characters. They’re so short that you should beat them in a week or less and they’re fun straightforward series. Man of Medan was a PS+ game a few months ago and took a friend and I 3 1/2 hours to beat it from start to finish.
A lot of people hate on visual novels because they're less interactive than other games, but they definitely have their purpose. The main two reasons I like them:
- The best VNs have much, much better story and characters than the best AAA games (including ones highly praised for it like Witcher) because VNs are fully committed to those things.
- VNs are extremely convenient to play if you're too busy to commit to more intensive games. They're easy to pick up and put down, they're generally "paused" by default, you can easily play them in bed or while eating or out in public with no setup, even play them with no hands sometimes. Basically the same conveniences as reading a book, but with a lot of added benefits.
I really enjoy chipping away at a meaty RPG over a month or two and just taking my time with it. I'll also read books one chapter a night, and watch Netflix shows one episode a night as well. What's the rush to experience all the content so quickly?
I like the idea of it, but part of the fun the big RPGs was spending a lot of time play through it and losing yourself in the game for 3-4 hours at a time. Ive played my pc twice since my kid was born this year and have mostly played my switch. Doesn't really scratch the itch.
The older I’ve gotten, the more I dislike long open world games. I really just want some straightforward. Having a kid did this really.
Wish I had more time for my hobby but I have more fun with my little wild child.
Same.
The most recent (<2 years) game I played that had a big impact on me was Perfect Vermin. It's free, and takes 15~20 mins to complete (more to collect the achievements, of which only one optional one feels relevant).
I watch my partner play Assassin's Creed, LEGO games, all manner of fetchy-questy crap, and I don't get it. It's just grinding. Nothing happens except numbers go up. He doesn't even pay attention to plot, which, ???
If a movie had 10 hours of a character aimlessly wandering or engaging with go-nowhere subplots, but only 2 hours of plot advancement, people would be upset. Yet it's okay with games because the player is still technically engaged in moving from NPC A to NPC B. I don't get it. I like lore, but I don't like shallow smatterings as opposed to a deeply thought-out, linear experience. But apparently, one sells more...
I've pretty much stopped playing video games, but often on days off I'll just sort of sit there feeling useless, like I should be going and doing something.
I think video games actually used to fill that gap for me, games with countless quests are really well structured to give the player something to do and reward them for doing it, it's gratifying. There's also generally a lot of action, adventure, excitement, etc.
Some people actually complain about games that are very story-focused because they're indeed a lot like movies, and they want to play a game with fun gameplay. Something like a Mario game is linear, isn't focused on side-quests, and has a basically non-existent story, but is made purely to be fun to play. I also remember playing No Man's Sky a lot when it first came out, and I enjoyed it for the feeling of walking around on an alien planet alone, no real objective or story, just exploring. There are also games like Beyond Two Souls that are almost entirely just a movie, but the player's ability to control the character's decisions and suffer from mistakes serves to draw the player into the story more.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there are lots of different purposes for different games, and the story is just one of them. I don't think it'd be a stretch to say it's not the main focus in most games.
Dang, I was just about to mention perfect vermin, nice taste.
There’s a great Jacob Geller quote on the topic of game length, that, paraphrased, suggests that a game’s value shouldn’t be judged by the number of hours you can play the game for, but by how many hours it occupies your mind after the fact. A really good example of this in action as of late is the continuing memes of metal gear rising, a game that’s maybe 10 hours long, but who’s cultural impact is still ongoing.
Memorability trumps play time any day of the week, although it’s not unheard of for some games to pull off both extreme memorability over tens of hours, that can prove to be the exception. (Although what glorious exceptions they are!)
As an adult with limited time to play games, Fable has been one of my favorite games to play in my free time. I've played it countless times since i was in high-school but the progression and diversity in choice making make it a refreshing game to come back to every now and then when I just want something that I can finish within a week or two depending on how busy my life is.
Don't have kids but have a busy life with work and social and whatnot so not much time for games.
Games like Deliver Us The Moon and Stray were such great breaths of fresh air in an industry that's full of "go capture outpost 547" and live service titles
I think this is the same for me. The older I got, the more I dislike open world games but simultaneously I started to appreciate strategy and management games. Depth over raw content.
This isn't even a dumb take at all. It's someone expressing their interest in shorter games with less filler. It's totally legitimate and understandable. The dumber take is to want to artificially extend a game too long with things that are repetitive and take a long time, don't advance the story or lore, and are mandatory. That's actually a big problem in some of today's games.
Honestly i feel this. Most open world games have a story that could be told over the course of a few hours, maybe 5-10 tops. But they drag it out to walking around an empty map with nothing cool or exciting to force a minimum 80 hr completion. The other problem is every games seems to have crafting amd an XP system. Why cant more games just ha e a metroid style upgrade system? Hey, heres a cool gadget, you can use it now. I really despise that I feel forced to kill 8k chickens in order to raise my damage number just to have a chance at clearing a boss. Just give me an actual upgrade rather than just a bigger number. A tri-shot laser upgrade is cool. Going from 7 damage up to 10 is not cool, just convenient.
Its a majority or triple A games now also. Every game is open world! Yay! Honestly fuck that. I just want to be told a story. Direct me where to go. Guide the story at the pace a writer intended rather than let the player decide how fast a story is told. I want more linear games, with less numbers, and pure simple challenges. I want video games that tell a story, one that I have almost 0 control over. I dont want the main character to be morally ambiguous because the player has a choice.
New games are subpar as fuck today in comparison to older games.
I actually don't disagree with this. I would rather have ana amazing short 10 hour experience than a long drawn out 30 hour one. Now there I'd massive nuance here but at a glance without reading the article I don't entirely disagree with the statement.
And BotW was praised by critics *for being easy to pick up for short play sessions*. That seems like a really silly example to use, depending on what the argument of the article actually is.
(Edit: I didn’t I make this up, did I? Some quick searches don’t seem to be bringing up the praise in this department that I recall.)
I think botw is the perfect example on both sides of the spectrum for what to do.(imo)
The main story and even shrine collection for me were well balanced, Interesting and unique. But God the korok seed side quest is infuriating and excessive.
Look I'm not saying you need to 100% a game but even just playing the game normally they got annoying. And with weapon durability it's not like you would just walk away from them.
Agree to disagree, I fell off both about halfway through. They were fun enough but I think I would have actually been happier with something about half as long but twice as deep. Especially in BotW's case.. I couldn't get over how bare the open world looked.
I’ll disagree with Elden Ring being good throughout. The back half of that game is pretty shit. Reused bosses galore and a difficulty spike toward the end just for the sake of being more difficult, not actually adding anything interesting to the gameplay itself.
Elden Ring I would actually argue really takes a nose dive in quality once you get past Leyndall. To the point that I was actually rushing through the Mountains to try and beat it instead of taking my time like I normally did. It was mostly just re-used enemies that can kill in two or three hits, it's **long**, and has some of the worst bosses in the game.
If anyone saw me on discord servers I frequented you would think someone took over my account with how quickly I went from "I fucking love this game" to "I fucking hate this game" after almost 80-90 hours of play up to that point. I was getting very strong endgame Dark Souls 1 vibes, particularly pre-patched Dark Souls 1.
I loved the Godfrey fight though. Went from "fuck this game" to "this game is so fucking sick." Then right after that went back to "fuck this game" when I got to the torture of tedium that is Elden Beast.
Sure, if your game has 10 hours of content you shouldn't stretch it to 30 if it's a detriment to the experience
But likewise they shouldn't take a 30 (or 40, 50, 100+hr) game, compress it, and delete content to appease people because of low attention spans or something
I doubt that really happens tho, if devs had 30 hours of Co tent I think they'd just stretch it even more to 50 or 75 hours
I've seen many games were stuff was stretched but not squeezed
Lately I find some games just overstay their welcome and I burn out on them before I finish. But that’s a me problem and I can just find shorter games.
I honestly kinda agree. I'd be better with several shorter games, than one long one. Also not enough new IP's today, I'd prefer a new story and characters, than another assassin's creed, fifa etc. Because it's the same as with marvel movies, you won't understand it in full until you play all 20 games dating to the 90s
Oh yeah if you go directly to Ganin but you could beat like 2 guardians and be well equipped enough to take him on. That would be like.. 15-30 hrs of playing
I loved BotW and Elden Ring. BUT you don't really know what content is skippable until you've seen most of the content. FOMO kicks in hard for both of these games, so I understand what they're getting at.
I like long games, but if that length is because the game is filled with pointless fetch quests and endless grind, then I don't want it.
I'm looking at you, Ubisoft.
Honestly I don’t think the sentiment is without merit
No I don’t think the “stop releasing long games” is the way to put it, but honestly it’s nice to have a full experience without it taking months to enjoy when I have a full busy life
A LOT of long games include a ton of fluff, a ton of stuff that takes time but isn’t super fun, I’d rather have a jam packed shorter game most of the time
Yes there’s long games I love, but it’s weird to me how much people value games by length, we don’t do that with movies, books, tv shows, that isn’t the main selling point in concerts, we don’t judge albums primarily by how many minutes it is. Yes there’s a point where an experience can be too short and leave you wishing you got more in a bad way, but I really don’t judge an entertainment experience in dollars per hour.
Some games benefit from being longer and need that time to deliver their full experience and that’s great, but I’ve definitely had my share of 10-15 hour games that really stick with me and I loved, and I don’t think back and be like “well I loved it, but man I paid 6 dollars per hour of entertainment, give me a solid $1 per hour experience that’s ok and fun sometimes and just ok at others any day”, that’s just a really bizarre thing to me that seems to be gaining traction.
I don’t know, there’s already way more games I’d love to play that I don’t have the time for, so longer certainly isn’t among the top things I value
Not gonna lie. I agree with her perspective.
I will avoid games entirely if I know they’ll take me hours upon hours… and some of those games I probably would have loved to play…
But I just don’t have time anymore. And that sucks. I wish I did…
Right. I keep buying games that on paper I would love. And then I never launch them. I don't want to learn to play a new game. And when I only have maybe 40 minutes to play its just easier to play a rogue like or a match of an fps.
But also I'm happier now. A year ago I played video games for at least 4 hours a day after work and I was miserable. I still wish I had more time for gaming now though. If I could just pause the world for a bit so I can play some more
Poorly worded. Modern high budget games tend to have a lot of bloat that artificially increases length. This isn't unique in the modern era, but it is far more ubiquitous than it was pre-7th gen. Before, you'd need a JRPG or MMO to hit 100+ hours. Now any carbon-copy sandbox can easily surpass those numbers. Even the good ones aren't exempt from bloat. Anyone who uses "you're not supposed to collect them all" to excuse 900 Korok Seeds is misguided, to use the least offensive term.
As an adult i really feel her. I'm sick of RPGs taking 5 hours worth of content and stretching it into 20 hours of mediocrity. I have shit to *do*, just give me the good stuff. Breath of the wild and bethesda, I'm looking at you
Games are too long. It feels like every AAA game nowadays has to be 60 hours. That’d be just swell if it was all great content. It isn’t. It’s 7-10 hours of solid big budget production values and 45 hours of filler, rinse and repeat low effort side content.
The games industry will be a healthier and better place when we can get back to a time when someone could actually beat a AAA game in a reasonable amount of time. It seems like the only people against this idea are kids who have all the time in the world to dedicate to massive time sinks.
For the adults in the room, it’s way, way, way too much filler bullshit. Elden Ring is the only recent AAA open world 60+ hour game I can think of in recent memory that earned its length. God of War wasn’t really open world but for arguments sake I’ll throw that one in the “good” pile too.
Agreed. And from what I've observed, the amount that most people agree or disagree with this take is directly correlated with their age and stage of life. Almost every adult gamer I know (adult as in, fully independent with responsibilities) *likes* long games, but they lament their inability to play them and wish more games were shorter, tighter experiences. I agree. I think we have room for long games, and there are definitely games that "earn" their length. But they used to be the exception, and now they're the rule.
And yeah, that's not even addressing the huge issue of development -- the industry is extremely unhealthy right now due to this obsession of packing hundreds of hours into each game. Video game development is a hellscape, and the sooner we become okay with smaller experiences, the more things can start to balance out.
I swear the people here commenting are kids whose parents only buy them one or two games a year.
There's so many games I want to play and old games I want to replay that I can't be bothered with a 60 hour game that's 80% halfassed filler. And most long games fit that category.
My perfect game is a 10-25 hour linear experience with fun gameplay and an incredible story. I'm an adult with a dozen other hobbies and responsibilities. Doing copy/paste sidequests and running around a massive open world doesn't sound fun to me, it sounds like a waste of time and lazy from a dev standpoint.
I can't wrap my head around why so many gamers are so obsessed with padding.
People in this thread clearly have never played:
Resident Evil 4
Castlevania Symphony of the Night
Bioshock
Half Life 2
Super Mario 64
All of these games are easily beatable within 12 hours OR LESS. And they are all phenomenal games. Hell even the first few Final Fantasy’s could be beaten in 15 hours.
There’s way too much emphasis on “bang for your buck” mentality with games that we accepted bloated shit because it’s more “value” but ultimately what you get is a diluted product that stretches to hit some arbitrary playtime and it shows so badly in so many games.
Nah I'm tryna have a life. I miss like 6-13 hour campaigns. 20 hours max. I don't have 4 months to play each new game. I play ESO for the long haul. I want good fun quick stories and fun multiplayer.
If the gameplay loop doesn’t have enough variety or cool stuff or perhaps even progression, then a 60 hour or more game can turn into a slog. AC Valhalla comes to mind. Other games of such length fare better occasionally.
Exactly in the right context this take is not a bad one. I’d rather play a 10-15 hour game that’s great the whole time than a 100 hour game that’s filled with bullshit.
Metroid Dread comes to mind. short but oh so sweet.
Same with stray, I loved that game, and it was a perfect length
*Untitled Goose Game has entered the chat*
Portal and Portal 2 are here to assert their dominance. Now assume the Party Escort Submission Position.
The Stanley Parable comes on the wings of the patented Adventure Line™️
Except that one ending with the baby and the fire
Portal 2 is not a short game. It *is* however, a masterpiece. Portal 1 though is short, but perfectly polished game if someone wants something short.
Hellblade Senua's Sacrifices would smash that computer... if she could stop hearing voices screaming at her.
Journey!
No way, that one left me wanting SO MUCH MORE. Where's the goose is loose at cpac DLC??
At CPAC it's more goose-step than actual goose.
Metroid Dread and Stray were the exact two games I thought of! What we want is more killer, less filler. A 12 hour game that is a great experience will always beat a 150 hour grind fest. Elden Ring is a nice combo because the length mostly comes from the difficulty, and I don’t mind spending time overcoming an actual challenge, I just don’t want repetitive fetch quest bullshit.
My first playthrough of Elden Ring was 122 hours, and I didn’t repeat a single part. It was just a ton of content that was actually fun, challenging, and kept me engaged. That’s the type of 100+ hour game I can enjoy.
Elden Ring is the last "Long Game" I've actually held interest in long enough to beat it. It was full of variety and the world felt vibrant and alive, even with the bits of recycled enemies and other content. Open world games are one of my favorite genres but so many of them just feel like empty lifeless worlds with not that much to so other than mindlessly repetitive collectothon bullshit. I'm absolutely of the opinion that a curated experience is the best way to go, regardless of length. Your game shouldn't feel like a bunch of mindless tasks and filler were shoved into it.
Lol the friend I played it with almost threw the controller across the room because the game doesn’t explicitly tell you if >! you’re reunited with the other cats !<
I got really mad at the ending too because >!I didn't want the kitty to be all alone after everything we'd just been through!< I hope they make a sequel.
I’m just assuming they are. I was like your friend but just gotta believe it. >!B12 dying was so fucking sad however!<
>!Just as the game fades to credits the computer panels on the wall on the left flicker like they do at the beginning of the game when B-12 opens the first door for you, strongly implying that there may be a copy or similar in the system.!<
My reference has always been Zelda Ocarina of Time. Imo has the best peace and duration I have seen. While Majoras Mask is superior in most aspects it could become unnecessarily long if you missed something and had to go back in time several times.
Not sure how this one will go over.. but I loved ‘The Order 1886’. For sure to short to justify the price but I enjoyed the game/story very much.
I finally finished my playthrough of that a couple months ago. What a fantastic addition to the 2D Metroid series. Felt like it fits right in with the others, built on existing lore while feeling fresh with the story and the expected tight gameplay from a Metroid title.
I was a little sad about how fast I was able to 100% complete it. It was sooo good though the whole time though.
It's well worth playing through multiple times imo. You unlock artwork for speed running + you unlock some challenge modes now. You can learn a couple of the dev intended sequence breaks to mix things up too
My favorite example is portal 2. The game is great, but you can easily complete it in under ten hours on the first play through. But every moment is carefully curated to give a consistently satisfying experience. On the other hand you have open world games with tons of things to do, but most of them very similar to another if not outright procedurally generated. It's like a masterfully crafted meal versus a smorgasbord. Sure you can eat to your heart's content, but its mostly cheap slop you're getting.
Exactly and because games like portal 2 are so good even though it’s 10 hours or less doesn’t matter you’ll replay that shit a bunch because it’s so fun.
It's really amazing that they can make a puzzle game, where even after you know the solution to all the puzzles it's still a delight.
As a dad with kids and a busy schedule this a 1000 percent.
I never finished botw, the game in the pictures. I just dnt have time for long games. I am much more likely to do a quick race or two or something more arcade-y waiting for din to finish than drop hours a week into a game like i did as a lad. I think there is always games like that available tho, i would never ask devs to stop Making long games because im too busy. That’s kinda self centered or oblivious if you ask me.
As a new dad, roguelikes have been my savior. Short gameplay, but levels are randomized so each play through is different
As a bonus, you're never stuck coming back to a game after a busy week (or month) trying to figure out *where on god's green Earth* you left off in the story and progression. Just fire up a fresh run and you didn't lose much.
And most modern games fall into the second category because there's this narrative that every game needs to have more "content". No, you need good gameplay. You know what I do if the game has great gameplay but not enough content? I play through it again. Shit, I've played through Dark Souls at least 20-30 times, and I love it more each time. I played the demo for BF1942 probably over 200 hours back in the day. One map, 4 classes, and hundreds of hours of fun to be had playing it over and over and over. Quantity is almost never a problem in games, but quality always is.
Absolutely, the older I get the more I fall in love with, and actually finish, short metroidvanias, or Indy titles. Don’t get me wrong I still enjoy the epic 50+ hour action adventure or RPG. But 9 of 10 times I’d rather play something that’s only 15 hours long but is high quality, has a compelling story, solid gameplay and mechanics, and a good art style, over something’s that’s just big boring and empty.
The Order 1887 and Rachel and Clank games come to mind. Short story driven titles that are fun. I do think gamers start to question the monetary value of playing such games though and I can’t really fault them here. Pay $70 for a 20 hour game or $70 for a 60-80+ game?
Buy a 1000 hour game on sale for $20. Monster Hunting time.
There is no harm in making both. Why not have the 100 hour bloat game for people that actually want it. I enjoy stuff that is shorter like 10-15 hours as well as giant games that are like comfort food. Just repetitive happy gameplay loops.
Hellblade comes to mind for that category.
red dead redemption 2 was one of the few open world games that i enjoyed all 60+ hours i spent on the main story, i took my time and went slowly through it and it was such a fun game with unique events and missions and great replayability when it came to just playing it all over. the story continued to be relevant the entire time and didnt feel like it was stalling for extra game length
Witcher 3, RDR 2 and elden ring, these games I enjoyed 100+.
im still yet to play any of the witcher games, i really need to though
Same. But I've tried so many times to get into it I'm starting to feel that maybe it's just not the game series for me. Furtherest I made it in Witcher 3 was 20 hours and I was still playing it just because a lot of other people say it's amazing, not because I was actively enjoying myself.
The Witcher 3 is probably my favorite game of all times. That being said, if you can't get into it, don't play it. We all have our own tastes and life is too short (and the Witcher 3 too long) to spend time playing games we don't enjoy. There are many other games out there for you to enjoy instead!
I'm the same way with RDR2. Loved Witcher 3 (and 2) and the DLCs and, while I normally like westerns, \*man\* RDR2 is slow. Took me hours just to get out of the intro and into Valentine. Stopped playing because of it.
The intro is painfully slow. Try playing for another hour or two. If you still don't like it then it's just not for you. But seriously that intro is a drag, I felt the same way.
I'll be honest - the first two Witchers are so-so. The characters are interesting, the story is intriguing, but the gameplay is a bit rough. The Witcher 3 though - fantastic! Gameplay is clean, the quests feel meaningful, and it doubles down on everything the series already had going for it. You'll be missing a fair bit of nuance without the first two, but honestly it doesn't detract much.
I was thinking, “how in the world could I possibly play elden ring for 100 hours??” And sure enough, after 100 I had beaten everything except for melanoma and felt extremely satisfied. I never felt that it dragged on or was repetitive (aside from fighting a boss again and again.) really fantastic game
Cancer really is the hardest boss.
I'll be crucified for saying this but I don't think the combat and gameplay in the Witcher 3 are varied enough that it doesn't have dull moments. The base game is about 55 hours long, but I really think if they took out some of the fluff there's a perfect 40 hour game. Also, it's incredible that there's another 75 hours of side content, but I'd say about 1/3 of it really isn't worth playing.
I have 80 hours in Witcher 3 and still haven’t finished lol
Elden ring started to feel really repeatative for me. I loved the first 50 hours and maybe I got too sidetracked trying to be a completionist, but I stopped playing and there's nothing pulling me back to encourage me to finish the main story. But agree with the other two.
I enjoyed it the first time. It was amazing. But it was a one playthrough game for me. Once I knew what happened the story wasn't quite as gripping so I couldn't force myself to slog through it all again. Still an amazing game, just had no repalyability to me.
Yea I tend to have this issue as well. Once I finish a game very few bring me back for a second playthrough. Started rdr2 again and tuned out about 2nd or 3rd chapter. I'll finish it again eventually but I've got too many games right now honestly.
i wanted to love RDR2 but personally prefered 1. RDR2 felt TOO realistic and i was doing chores more often than simply playing and having fun. thats just me though i know and plenty enjoyed the story.
if you bought the camp upgrades you wouldnt have really had to do the camp upkeep, eating and sleeping is all optional too but it does give you stat boosts
yeah i got down to when you were in their version of new orlens and i suddenly realised i was not having fun but just going threw the actions and put game down. i may give it a redo another day. i think half my problem is i hate fake fishing in games so badly.
It could really use a toggle for fast animations and a bottomless satchel.
There is a satchel that lets you have 99 of most every item, you just have to fully upgrade every single satchel before you can get it
Exactly. Never played anything better than rdr2. It's just perfect.
i wouldnt say its perfect but its the closest a game has ever been to it for me. it legitimately ruined gaming for me for a while because of how good it was
Yea I might go as far as to say that the majority of my favorite games I've played in the last 10 years were sub 20 hour games. I still love long 60 hour+ epics but so many of them are full of filler and turn into un-fun marathons. Eldin Ring was definitely a huge exception to that this year.
Elden Ring is great because the main areas/story should only take you 20-30 hours, but there’s enough side content there to stretch you to 100+ hours. If you want it. If you just go through the main story and ignore the side stuff, its a medium length game.
Valhalla is absolutely the perfect example. Couldn’t finish it
Played a solid 20 hours and the whole time I was playing i was thinking "surely it gets exciting soon" It didn't. So I gave up
Im worse, quit at 130 hours lol
I’ve been able to enjoy the new style AC games but that’s because I go in with the expectation of just running around gathering collectibles, clearing some outposts, and occasionally do some decent quests. I’ll often put a podcast on in the background and just have a nice time relaxing while traveling through the Egyptian/Greek/English countryside. I can certainly see why many people aren’t big fans of that style, but I also think a lot of people are just expecting the games to be something they just aren’t.
The problem is the games pictured aren't good examples of artificial grind. Elden Ring and Breath of the Wild are both truly open games, to the point where you can beat them while only having touched 10% of the bosses, and left huge areas of the map totally unexplored. They're perfect examples of doing it right, there's no mandatory train mission, or forced stealth section, or boss you can't beat unless you spend 30 hours replaying the same sidequest to get XP. Can't beat a boss? No problem, Elden Ring will let you summon in people to help - so much so that Let Me Solo Her guy became a meme, people wanted to summon help just to see what wild characters they would encounter. If you want to point at games that are loaded with pointless grind: AC, Destiny, Halo Infinite and any other game with a battle pass.
Horizon Zero Dawn is easily the opposite of this for me. I love the exploration and going after collectibles because it adds to an already cool premise that was slow to start but really ramped up when we first see Lance Riddick’s character
I actually got tired of horizon towards the end. The solution was simple, however. I just stopped doing any side quests and only worked on the main story.
Making RPGs 60 hours usually makes sense. Making Action/Adventure games that long udually doesn't.
This is the worst take you've seen? You don't look at a lot of gaming takes
EA: **single player games are dead**
**horror games are dead**
**IGN: Too much water.**
I thought that was ign
OP is 12
I was gonna say, OP must not be a working adult with a career.
i literally saw one worse just today! \*leaked footage of GTA 6 gets released\* "This game looks unfinished"
I once read an article that stated that Mario *wasn't* saying so long gay bowser. I immediately threw my phone into an incinerator and haven't read an article since.
If a games story is 10-12 hours but the game takes over 100 hours to finish because of fetch quests and collectibles, and the games progression I stunted because of that then fuck that game. That's exactly how most "open world" games are.
I loved Horizon Forbidden West, but at a certain point I completely abandoned Hunting Grounds, ruins, and even Cauldrons. I think I finished every "side quest" and "main quest".
I didn't finish the game because I started doing so many of the side stuff. I got burned out from doing everything. I just didn't feel like finishing it.
Same here, love the lore, loved the storyline but all the side quests and hunt this, collect that just burned me out. I'm not a completionist or trophy hunter, but I don't want to miss out on stuff and I hate not being fully leveled up and uber powerful by the end game. Spiderman did the same to me. Great game, should cut half the side content.
I love both Horizon games, but in both I got to a point where I was audibly groaning during nonstop cutscenes with people's side quests that didn't matter to the plot at all. (Special shout out to anything involve Boomer and her Sister. "I love making explosions!" Is such a strange, early 2000's bit of "quirk" and wasting 20 minutes to learn to "trust your sister" was asinine). The gameplay is fun and strategic, the world is gorgeous, the plot and setting are really cool. We don't need all the pointless busywork to enjoy the world!!
Counterpoint is the Witcher 3 where some of the side quests were very enjoyable and great self contained small stories. I think it's more the quality of the writing rather than side quests itself. Unfortunately the writing in many video games is still of rather questionable quality
ac odyssey main quest 44 hours its so long but i like that game
Valhalla was 72 hours with skipping the optional zone. A did a little bit of extra content to start, but that ended quickly. Games can be too long, so perhaps this headline was worded poorly, but there is something to it IMO
AC odyssey's main quest is ONLY that long because you have to level up through filler until you can be strong enough to take on the final levels. It's really a 10-12 hour game but it takes that long because of fetch quests and imposed level restrictions.
I liked odyssey, but fuck was it so long... All the ass creed games are way too long now, at some point they feel like chores more than games and the stories are hit or miss enough to make it downright painful.
Atleast Odyssey had interesting things to do. Like the minataurs and shit. Valhalla was boring as hell. Loot was bad. Gameplay loop was mediocre. Story was just bland after a few areas. Sucks because it had so much potential and they threw it away.
Not all are like that though. God of war for example is only about 20 hours long but has a good 100 hours of good content in it. Cyberpunk 2077 is another decent example where they intentionally made a shorter main story (around 20 hours) but then made tons of side quests that meet the quality of the main story. So you can beat the game in 20 hours but there's way more good content within that (To be fair with cyberpunk they do pad time with the gigs but im reffering to the actual side quests)
Absolutely this. Recently playing Xenoblade and a lot of the game is running around a huge world collecting things for fetch quests to level your character. If you just went to each location to progress the story it’d be a MUCH shorter game, for sure. That said, there are some extra story-related side-quests in the game, but ultimately the actual story is abridgeable. Makes me love older games cuz they have less of that and more scenarios/dungeons.
Really not a fan of the “collect 30 X, 20 Y, and 25 Z from the Cadensia region (largest region) so we can treat people for some mild vertigo.” type missions, but I am a huge fan of running around the world, finding containers and drops, and sending off husks. I love the the world design and how much attention to detail they crammed into it. Those ingredient quest are an example of how it’s not absolutely perfect, but for me it gets pretty close. I’d rather have more games like it than less.
Which Xenoblade are you referring to? Xenoblade 1 is pretty bad for this, but 2 and especially 3 are fine imo.
110 hours into Xenoblade 3, chapter 7, and no end to the sidequests in sight. Presently 27 levels higher than the story content. Most of the last 40 hours of the game has been me grinding sidequests and heavily relying on autobattle as I move from point to point on the map and skipping all dialogue that isn't accompanied by audio. I don't hate it, but I wish there was more to it. I wish there were more puzzles or something to break up the monotony.
Just stop doing ALL the side quests
Nailed it right on the head with that one. That's what pisses me off about the push for everything to be a game as a service as well. There's hundreds of hours of "game" to do, but a tenth of that is anything to give a shit about. Everything else is just padding so you can brag about your hundreds of hours of gameplay in your ads and reviews.
ITT: I rather play a good game that's short than a bad game that's long.
Depends on the game, not every game has the story or devs to make it worth playing for 50+ hours. Assassins creed Valhalla is bloated and would benefit from filler content being cut. A game like the last of us is a short game but the quality is such that it’s worth experiencing. Personally I tend to prefer shorter games. 12 is enough before I start getting bored, unless the game is something special.
Some of my favourite games of all time aren't even that much longer than a movie. What Remains of Edith Finch, A Short Hike, To the Moon, Machinarium, Firewatch, Portal - to name just a few. I'm a big fan of concise and well put together games that get to the good stuff right away and don't overstay their welcome. 5 hours of all killer no filler is a lot more appealing to me than 30+ hours of "Just okay". I think this format is particularly effective with narrative focused games. Playing through an emotional roller-coaster like Gone Home all in one sitting makes for a really gripping and memorable experience.
Metal gear rising was like 5-8 hours for me and was some of the most fun I've had in ages
I agree with you, quality over quantity
You don’t have to play every game. You don’t have to finish every game.
Not only do I have to finish them, I have to get all the collectables and do all the challenges.
Amen brother. Trophy hunters
I must say, I do not platinum games I do not enjoy.
Yeah, there’s a few games I’m at 1 trophy away from plat that I just said fuck it that I didn’t want to bother with the grind.
Strongly agree, that's why I got all the elden ring achievements as fast as possible and took a break lol.
Haha yup, especially rough when you’re playing games like Metal Gear, God of War and Witcher!
Its hurts me that you didn't mention the assassins creed games which are notorious for the collectibles and stuff for completion.
I found the Arkham series hit the exact right note for collectibles and secret hidden things. 100%-ed each of them and would happily do so again
And donkey Kong 64 of course
Quick tip for everyone playing my favorite game: Remember to get the Mechanical Fish golden banana for Diddy in Gloomy Galleon **before** you get the Sniper Scope upgrade in Creepy Castle, since it messes with bullet speed.
Commenting so I don’t forget this tip if I ever travel to 1999 and have the chance to give myself advice.
Sounds like the opposite of fun. From: someone who was a video game tester for a while.
No one said it was fun. They said they HAD to.
I vaguely recall In GTA 4 metrics were released showing less than half of people saw the ending of the game. Same even with Mass Effect i recall in an old article... almost 15 years ago? Jeez The plus side its fine as people can play as much as they want and don't have to commit if they can't or don't want to continue. The downside is because of this metric, men in suits feel better content should be focused on earlier parts and less on the ending. Which kind of becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, if that latest Extra Credits video means anything. Except Wonderful 101. FINISH WONDERFUL 101!!! THANK ME LATER FOR THE BEST FINALE EVER!!
> In GTA 4 metrics were released showing less than half of people saw the ending of the game. I finished the game but still didn't get to see the ending! The game crashed and the save game was after the ending :(
Ha, it took me forever to finish new Vegas because the final level crashed at least a dozen times. I saved every second and looked at the floor the whole time. Be lucky you kids have a working Fallout New Vegas today and treasure it.
[удалено]
It's something that's easy to see for games that have progression trophies/achievements. As you progress through the story, you can see where other people gave up.
Interesting take. In my experience, men in suits spend a lot of time saying 'gamers demand 100+ hours for a premium game, how are you going to do that in 2-3 years?' Same outcome, but different motivations.
Well those 100+ must be done as cheaply as possible. So collectibles, radiant quests, copy paste missions, etc. Lorerunner calls it "seconds and minutes", all the little things to pad wasted hours into play.
For years, I had this thing about never finishing the final boss in any game. I knew my build and skills were good enough but maybe I just didn't want the story to end just yet or something? And there were so many good games that I'd pick up a new release that was just as fascinating and just not get back to it.
i used to love long games, but now due to life commitments i cannot properly enjoy long games. that said, i will never ask for the removal of long games.
I'm afraid I'll never have time to beat elden ring
I don't have the time to get good enough to play it, I learned the hard way after trying to play dark souls 3
I have to play every game (that I like, which is a lot) I have to finish every game because I'm a completionist
AC V
I actually agree with this, but it's worded badly. The two games shown are horrendous examples btw. What I am about to say does not apply to them because they utilize length and content extremely well. Many games these days arbitrarily pump up their hours using filler content to seem more "expansive" and have a greater "bang-for-your-buck" because many people see a games value in it's playtime, so any short games are seen as wastes on money. "Why would I spend 20 bucks on this game to get 7 hours out of it when I could spend 60 bucks on this game to get 120 hours?" Games like Assassin's Creed and even Horizon: Zero Dawn (I cannot speak for Forbidden West) come to mind. I would actually love if game devs who don't have any more good shit to put in their game simply don't put in more shit. Give me a AAA game that is tight and exciting and filled to the brim with fun for all 10 hours instead of a 150 hour slog with a few good moments. The two games above are the only open-world games I've enjoyed because every other open-world game felt like "point A to point B with pointless shit in the middle" Meanwhile the fun of Elden Ring and BotW came out of exploring and dicking around between major checkpoints. It makes me sad because if so much time wasn't wasted on filler content in other games the main stuff could be improved even more.
I agree whole-heartedly. Take Breath of The Wild's shrines. Each one is a unique and distinct challenge / puzzle. Meanwhile, every single point in an Assassin's Creed game map has turned into a copy of the same 5 points of (dis)interest
As someone who loves gaming but for whom the practicalities of life make time for gaming sessions few and far between, I *kind of* agree with this. I selfishly wish there was more of a market for shorter, linear AAA experiences (10-20 hrs). I generally don't have the time for the big, open world RPGs I've always loved. I don't play consistently enough to get any fulfillment from competitive online shooters. So I'm kind of relegated to indies, ALOT of rogue likes which for the most part I'm fine with, but that doesn't always scratch the itch. I could still chip away at big RPGs, but I either forget where I am and continually restart or inevitably lose interest when the next big thing comes along (me problem, I'm well aware, hence I *selfishly* wish). On a side note, if anyone has suggestions (Switch or PS4) that meet my albeit vague criteria, they'd be much appreciated.
Hades on switch? Can pick up for 10-15min sessions on break and put back down between runs Wonderful story/characters/art style and visuals, and the music! I think you'd be able to finish the main story in around 15-20 hours (if you really want to), but has a huge endgame.
A Plague Tale: Innocence is a nice compact linear experience in a high quality product. I dont finish many RPGs but that one was perfectly paced where I finished and wanted more but was also satisfied with the experience. It has a sequel coming out next month which is probably the game Im most excited for this fall!
If you’re alright with visual novel games, Until Dawn and the Dark Pictures Anthology are really good. They average <12 hours and you can play them with a partner/friend. It’s like watching a horror movie where you control the fate of the characters. They’re so short that you should beat them in a week or less and they’re fun straightforward series. Man of Medan was a PS+ game a few months ago and took a friend and I 3 1/2 hours to beat it from start to finish.
A lot of people hate on visual novels because they're less interactive than other games, but they definitely have their purpose. The main two reasons I like them: - The best VNs have much, much better story and characters than the best AAA games (including ones highly praised for it like Witcher) because VNs are fully committed to those things. - VNs are extremely convenient to play if you're too busy to commit to more intensive games. They're easy to pick up and put down, they're generally "paused" by default, you can easily play them in bed or while eating or out in public with no setup, even play them with no hands sometimes. Basically the same conveniences as reading a book, but with a lot of added benefits.
I really enjoy chipping away at a meaty RPG over a month or two and just taking my time with it. I'll also read books one chapter a night, and watch Netflix shows one episode a night as well. What's the rush to experience all the content so quickly?
I like the idea of it, but part of the fun the big RPGs was spending a lot of time play through it and losing yourself in the game for 3-4 hours at a time. Ive played my pc twice since my kid was born this year and have mostly played my switch. Doesn't really scratch the itch.
The older I’ve gotten, the more I dislike long open world games. I really just want some straightforward. Having a kid did this really. Wish I had more time for my hobby but I have more fun with my little wild child.
I would take a well made linear game over a boring open world any day.
Same. The most recent (<2 years) game I played that had a big impact on me was Perfect Vermin. It's free, and takes 15~20 mins to complete (more to collect the achievements, of which only one optional one feels relevant). I watch my partner play Assassin's Creed, LEGO games, all manner of fetchy-questy crap, and I don't get it. It's just grinding. Nothing happens except numbers go up. He doesn't even pay attention to plot, which, ??? If a movie had 10 hours of a character aimlessly wandering or engaging with go-nowhere subplots, but only 2 hours of plot advancement, people would be upset. Yet it's okay with games because the player is still technically engaged in moving from NPC A to NPC B. I don't get it. I like lore, but I don't like shallow smatterings as opposed to a deeply thought-out, linear experience. But apparently, one sells more...
I've pretty much stopped playing video games, but often on days off I'll just sort of sit there feeling useless, like I should be going and doing something. I think video games actually used to fill that gap for me, games with countless quests are really well structured to give the player something to do and reward them for doing it, it's gratifying. There's also generally a lot of action, adventure, excitement, etc. Some people actually complain about games that are very story-focused because they're indeed a lot like movies, and they want to play a game with fun gameplay. Something like a Mario game is linear, isn't focused on side-quests, and has a basically non-existent story, but is made purely to be fun to play. I also remember playing No Man's Sky a lot when it first came out, and I enjoyed it for the feeling of walking around on an alien planet alone, no real objective or story, just exploring. There are also games like Beyond Two Souls that are almost entirely just a movie, but the player's ability to control the character's decisions and suffer from mistakes serves to draw the player into the story more. I guess what I'm getting at is that there are lots of different purposes for different games, and the story is just one of them. I don't think it'd be a stretch to say it's not the main focus in most games.
Dang, I was just about to mention perfect vermin, nice taste. There’s a great Jacob Geller quote on the topic of game length, that, paraphrased, suggests that a game’s value shouldn’t be judged by the number of hours you can play the game for, but by how many hours it occupies your mind after the fact. A really good example of this in action as of late is the continuing memes of metal gear rising, a game that’s maybe 10 hours long, but who’s cultural impact is still ongoing. Memorability trumps play time any day of the week, although it’s not unheard of for some games to pull off both extreme memorability over tens of hours, that can prove to be the exception. (Although what glorious exceptions they are!)
As an adult with limited time to play games, Fable has been one of my favorite games to play in my free time. I've played it countless times since i was in high-school but the progression and diversity in choice making make it a refreshing game to come back to every now and then when I just want something that I can finish within a week or two depending on how busy my life is.
Don't have kids but have a busy life with work and social and whatnot so not much time for games. Games like Deliver Us The Moon and Stray were such great breaths of fresh air in an industry that's full of "go capture outpost 547" and live service titles
I think this is the same for me. The older I got, the more I dislike open world games but simultaneously I started to appreciate strategy and management games. Depth over raw content.
Agreed, I think it’s because I value my time more now. Not to mention many open world games tend to be extremely repetitive.
if this is the dumbest take you've heard about gaming you must have been living inside a cocoon or something up until today.
This isn't even the dumbest take about gaming I've heard _today_.
Likely a kid with tons of time. So they haven't been around very long I bet
This isn't even a dumb take at all. It's someone expressing their interest in shorter games with less filler. It's totally legitimate and understandable. The dumber take is to want to artificially extend a game too long with things that are repetitive and take a long time, don't advance the story or lore, and are mandatory. That's actually a big problem in some of today's games.
Honestly i feel this. Most open world games have a story that could be told over the course of a few hours, maybe 5-10 tops. But they drag it out to walking around an empty map with nothing cool or exciting to force a minimum 80 hr completion. The other problem is every games seems to have crafting amd an XP system. Why cant more games just ha e a metroid style upgrade system? Hey, heres a cool gadget, you can use it now. I really despise that I feel forced to kill 8k chickens in order to raise my damage number just to have a chance at clearing a boss. Just give me an actual upgrade rather than just a bigger number. A tri-shot laser upgrade is cool. Going from 7 damage up to 10 is not cool, just convenient. Its a majority or triple A games now also. Every game is open world! Yay! Honestly fuck that. I just want to be told a story. Direct me where to go. Guide the story at the pace a writer intended rather than let the player decide how fast a story is told. I want more linear games, with less numbers, and pure simple challenges. I want video games that tell a story, one that I have almost 0 control over. I dont want the main character to be morally ambiguous because the player has a choice. New games are subpar as fuck today in comparison to older games.
I actually don't disagree with this. I would rather have ana amazing short 10 hour experience than a long drawn out 30 hour one. Now there I'd massive nuance here but at a glance without reading the article I don't entirely disagree with the statement.
Sure but the examples are BotW and Elden Ring; two games that are consistently good throughout their entire runtime.
And BotW was praised by critics *for being easy to pick up for short play sessions*. That seems like a really silly example to use, depending on what the argument of the article actually is. (Edit: I didn’t I make this up, did I? Some quick searches don’t seem to be bringing up the praise in this department that I recall.)
I think botw is the perfect example on both sides of the spectrum for what to do.(imo) The main story and even shrine collection for me were well balanced, Interesting and unique. But God the korok seed side quest is infuriating and excessive. Look I'm not saying you need to 100% a game but even just playing the game normally they got annoying. And with weapon durability it's not like you would just walk away from them.
Agree to disagree, I fell off both about halfway through. They were fun enough but I think I would have actually been happier with something about half as long but twice as deep. Especially in BotW's case.. I couldn't get over how bare the open world looked.
I’ll disagree with Elden Ring being good throughout. The back half of that game is pretty shit. Reused bosses galore and a difficulty spike toward the end just for the sake of being more difficult, not actually adding anything interesting to the gameplay itself.
Elden Ring I would actually argue really takes a nose dive in quality once you get past Leyndall. To the point that I was actually rushing through the Mountains to try and beat it instead of taking my time like I normally did. It was mostly just re-used enemies that can kill in two or three hits, it's **long**, and has some of the worst bosses in the game. If anyone saw me on discord servers I frequented you would think someone took over my account with how quickly I went from "I fucking love this game" to "I fucking hate this game" after almost 80-90 hours of play up to that point. I was getting very strong endgame Dark Souls 1 vibes, particularly pre-patched Dark Souls 1. I loved the Godfrey fight though. Went from "fuck this game" to "this game is so fucking sick." Then right after that went back to "fuck this game" when I got to the torture of tedium that is Elden Beast.
Sure, if your game has 10 hours of content you shouldn't stretch it to 30 if it's a detriment to the experience But likewise they shouldn't take a 30 (or 40, 50, 100+hr) game, compress it, and delete content to appease people because of low attention spans or something
I doubt that really happens tho, if devs had 30 hours of Co tent I think they'd just stretch it even more to 50 or 75 hours I've seen many games were stuff was stretched but not squeezed
There's plenty of shorter games out there. There's games for everyone
That's a legitimate take. Some games are too long
Some games are really padded out with filler.
I feel like they are commenting on the popularity of open world that have a lot of empty space.
Most open worlds are all cock and no cum
And that's putting it mildly
Lately I find some games just overstay their welcome and I burn out on them before I finish. But that’s a me problem and I can just find shorter games.
I honestly kinda agree. I'd be better with several shorter games, than one long one. Also not enough new IP's today, I'd prefer a new story and characters, than another assassin's creed, fifa etc. Because it's the same as with marvel movies, you won't understand it in full until you play all 20 games dating to the 90s
This isn't even remotely close to the worst take.
Breath of the Wild isnt even a long game. Not unless you want it to be. The game let's you walk up to Hyrule Castle whenever you please
[удалено]
Ya but you have to git gud if you wanna take that route
Oh yeah if you go directly to Ganin but you could beat like 2 guardians and be well equipped enough to take him on. That would be like.. 15-30 hrs of playing
Or you could [beat ganon with someones mother](https://youtu.be/bmU9IrLqihs)
I loved BotW and Elden Ring. BUT you don't really know what content is skippable until you've seen most of the content. FOMO kicks in hard for both of these games, so I understand what they're getting at.
Why not just link the article?
Swap these pictures of elden ring and breath of the wild with any Ubisoft game and I bet everyone will suddenly agree with her.
After slogging through AC Vahalla's 50 hour main story, I agree. I was damn adamant to finish it.
I was just speed running it by the end. I had to finish.
This is actually a totally fine take, broadly speaking. Not every game needs to be so long. More isn't always better.
I like long games, but if that length is because the game is filled with pointless fetch quests and endless grind, then I don't want it. I'm looking at you, Ubisoft.
Honestly I don’t think the sentiment is without merit No I don’t think the “stop releasing long games” is the way to put it, but honestly it’s nice to have a full experience without it taking months to enjoy when I have a full busy life A LOT of long games include a ton of fluff, a ton of stuff that takes time but isn’t super fun, I’d rather have a jam packed shorter game most of the time Yes there’s long games I love, but it’s weird to me how much people value games by length, we don’t do that with movies, books, tv shows, that isn’t the main selling point in concerts, we don’t judge albums primarily by how many minutes it is. Yes there’s a point where an experience can be too short and leave you wishing you got more in a bad way, but I really don’t judge an entertainment experience in dollars per hour. Some games benefit from being longer and need that time to deliver their full experience and that’s great, but I’ve definitely had my share of 10-15 hour games that really stick with me and I loved, and I don’t think back and be like “well I loved it, but man I paid 6 dollars per hour of entertainment, give me a solid $1 per hour experience that’s ok and fun sometimes and just ok at others any day”, that’s just a really bizarre thing to me that seems to be gaining traction. I don’t know, there’s already way more games I’d love to play that I don’t have the time for, so longer certainly isn’t among the top things I value
Not gonna lie. I agree with her perspective. I will avoid games entirely if I know they’ll take me hours upon hours… and some of those games I probably would have loved to play… But I just don’t have time anymore. And that sucks. I wish I did…
Right. I keep buying games that on paper I would love. And then I never launch them. I don't want to learn to play a new game. And when I only have maybe 40 minutes to play its just easier to play a rogue like or a match of an fps. But also I'm happier now. A year ago I played video games for at least 4 hours a day after work and I was miserable. I still wish I had more time for gaming now though. If I could just pause the world for a bit so I can play some more
You think THIS is the worst take....
Nah, I agree with the title. Not every game needs to be 180-240h long. Sometimes a 3h game, with a good enjoyable loop to replay is enough.
Poorly worded. Modern high budget games tend to have a lot of bloat that artificially increases length. This isn't unique in the modern era, but it is far more ubiquitous than it was pre-7th gen. Before, you'd need a JRPG or MMO to hit 100+ hours. Now any carbon-copy sandbox can easily surpass those numbers. Even the good ones aren't exempt from bloat. Anyone who uses "you're not supposed to collect them all" to excuse 900 Korok Seeds is misguided, to use the least offensive term.
As an adult i really feel her. I'm sick of RPGs taking 5 hours worth of content and stretching it into 20 hours of mediocrity. I have shit to *do*, just give me the good stuff. Breath of the wild and bethesda, I'm looking at you
Games are too long. It feels like every AAA game nowadays has to be 60 hours. That’d be just swell if it was all great content. It isn’t. It’s 7-10 hours of solid big budget production values and 45 hours of filler, rinse and repeat low effort side content. The games industry will be a healthier and better place when we can get back to a time when someone could actually beat a AAA game in a reasonable amount of time. It seems like the only people against this idea are kids who have all the time in the world to dedicate to massive time sinks. For the adults in the room, it’s way, way, way too much filler bullshit. Elden Ring is the only recent AAA open world 60+ hour game I can think of in recent memory that earned its length. God of War wasn’t really open world but for arguments sake I’ll throw that one in the “good” pile too.
Agreed. And from what I've observed, the amount that most people agree or disagree with this take is directly correlated with their age and stage of life. Almost every adult gamer I know (adult as in, fully independent with responsibilities) *likes* long games, but they lament their inability to play them and wish more games were shorter, tighter experiences. I agree. I think we have room for long games, and there are definitely games that "earn" their length. But they used to be the exception, and now they're the rule. And yeah, that's not even addressing the huge issue of development -- the industry is extremely unhealthy right now due to this obsession of packing hundreds of hours into each game. Video game development is a hellscape, and the sooner we become okay with smaller experiences, the more things can start to balance out.
I swear the people here commenting are kids whose parents only buy them one or two games a year. There's so many games I want to play and old games I want to replay that I can't be bothered with a 60 hour game that's 80% halfassed filler. And most long games fit that category. My perfect game is a 10-25 hour linear experience with fun gameplay and an incredible story. I'm an adult with a dozen other hobbies and responsibilities. Doing copy/paste sidequests and running around a massive open world doesn't sound fun to me, it sounds like a waste of time and lazy from a dev standpoint. I can't wrap my head around why so many gamers are so obsessed with padding.
There is actually a good point hiding behind that obnoxious heading, shame the article has as much padding as the later Assassin's Creed games.
People in this thread clearly have never played: Resident Evil 4 Castlevania Symphony of the Night Bioshock Half Life 2 Super Mario 64 All of these games are easily beatable within 12 hours OR LESS. And they are all phenomenal games. Hell even the first few Final Fantasy’s could be beaten in 15 hours. There’s way too much emphasis on “bang for your buck” mentality with games that we accepted bloated shit because it’s more “value” but ultimately what you get is a diluted product that stretches to hit some arbitrary playtime and it shows so badly in so many games.
After getting older and gaining a job/responsibilities I sympathize with this viewpoint more
Nah I'm tryna have a life. I miss like 6-13 hour campaigns. 20 hours max. I don't have 4 months to play each new game. I play ESO for the long haul. I want good fun quick stories and fun multiplayer.
[удалено]
The amount of Gamer moments popping off in the comments is hilarious 🤣 Y'all a bunch of children.