Games are way too long

[Edward1]

This is an unpopular opinion I hold. I thought about posting in the "unpopular opinions" section, but I figured it will be controversial and needs it own topic.


I think games are way too long today.  I much preferred when games were about 2 hours long in the SNES - NES - Genesis eras. They didn't wear out their welcome. Streets of Rage 2 would be a much worse game if it was 12 hours long and filled with copy and paste level design and backtracking for example.   There are some exceptions to this rule, like games that are so fantastic you never want to quit playing (Mario Galaxy for example).  However, I think most games would be better if they had some trimming. First person shooter for example tend to have shown all their "tricks" within the first couple of hours, but then keep going on and on for another 10 hours. Some games even force you to search for collectables or do side missions before unlocking further levels (Spider Man 2 for example).  Why?  It makes the game longer, but makes it less fun. Id rather have a shorter more exciting game.  Also, the time I spend playing "filler" sections in games could be spent playing other games, so I can get more experiences with less time.

Maybe this is because I work and go to school and my free time is limited. People claim longer games are more "valuable", but I disagree. I see value in exciting experiences, not length.  Need For Speed the Run is one of the best racing games I've ever played, but it got slammed by critics for being "only" 4 hours long. However, that was some of the most exciting 4 hours of gaming I've ever had, so that's not a negative. I'd rather play that over dozens of hours of "qualifying" for races in the racing simulators.

Also games are really cheap now. Don't pay 60 bucks for them at launch.  Wait a year or so and they may be about 10 bucks.  Would you feel ripped off paying 10 bucks for a game that's three hours long, if it was a awesome 3 hours?  I wouldn't.  I'd much rather have that over a 20 hour boring game filled with forced padding. 

This seems to be a gaming thing only. I've never seen anyone give 12 Angry Men a bad review because its "too short."  I never seen anyone claim Michael Jackson's HIStory is a better album than Thriller because its twice as long. So why are gamers so obsessed with length?  Shouldn't we be obsessed with high quality instead?  When we demand developers make games that are longer, we actually make the games worse with extra padding. Life is too short to be spent playing "filler" because it supposedly "adds value."

[VideoGameCritic]

Good topic.  I think the complaint that games are too short dates back to the old days when gamers were mainly kids and couldn't afford more than one game per month (if that).  They wanted to make sure they got their money's worth.

Today games are so ubiquitous and cheap that's not really a factor.  I like games where you can plow through the main mode in a few hours, but there are extra modes that add additional play value for those who have more time on their hands.  For example, Ryse has a separate Gladiator mode that I wouldn't bother with but my friend enjoys.

This thread also reminds me of the Blu Ray movies being sold with director's cut versions. Usually these are just the original film with a bunch of deleted scenes put back in.  Those scenes were cut for a reason, and they usually bog the film down.  I like it when they give you the option to watch either cut.

[ActRaiser1]

I don't know that I'd call that an unpopular opinion.  It's one that I can agree with.

When I was a kid, a game's length made a difference.  When you only get a few games a year, it better be a darn good game that provides a good deal of value.

Today, with sales everywhere I've got more games than time to play.  So, now, I really appreciate shorter, more action packed experiences.

Uncharted 2 and Tomb Raider (2013) were both highly polished games with lots of action and in some cases on rails excitement.  Those were awesome games!  And I was able to complete both.  You're right, a tighter, more thrilling, and new experience makes for a great game.

Did you ever try the Kinect Adventures game?  The water rapid levels were awesome and thrilling.  I'd have liked to have seen more on-rail like experiences like that for the Kinect as they were just plain fun.  Add in a score component so that if you wanted to try to 'get better' you could.  But just a game with 8-10 thrilling levels with unique locations, environments, and enemies would be good enough for me.

[Rev1]

Honestly, I'm not a fan of long games. The only genre that I enjoy it would be Tactical RPG's/Traditional RPG's. I tend to have a really short attention span and if a game drags on for 20+ hours I'm likely never to finish it. I much prefer pick up and play games, where you can dump a ton of hours into it, but the real game only takes a few hours or less to beat.

[ptdebate1]

Great topic.

The perceived necessity for your standard action/adventure campaign to be 12+ hours has had a disastrous effect on the overall entertainment value of certain types of games. Tomb Raider 2013 had a powerful sense of forward momentum and lots of varied play mechanics, nevertheless I still felt that the story dragged on a little longer than it should have.

Some games, however, don't work as well in a shorter time frame--Civilization for example. If you try to trim down the game speed too much when you're setting up a campaign, the game ends up being really imbalanced, with too much technology being discovered too quickly and far outstripping the actual level of production taking advantage of all that science. The best Civ campaigns take no less than 20 hours to complete.

JRPGs also tend to extend over longer periods of time because their systems simply take that long to fully develop. Even JRPGs that deliberately eschew "grinding" gradually become more complex, building on prior knowledge and adding new concepts as the player advances the story. If all the game's mechanics were simply dropped in the player's lap right at the beginning, he or she would 1) be very confused and 2) would miss out on that sense of progression that gradually reveals something greater and more powerful over time, running parallel to the fictional cast's own discoveries. The best JRPGs generally fall between the 25 and 60 hour mark.

I personally enjoy long games, but with a caveat. I have to really fall in love with a game to have the motivation to spend that much time with it. Thankfully, I'm not a video game critic so I have no obligation to divide my already limited gaming time between many different titles .

These are two of the longest campaigns I've ever played. This was simply how long it took me to get from start to ending credits (in the case of Xenogears, I was actually in a bit of a hurry):

Xenogears: ~80 hours

Final Fantasy XIII: 54 hours

[Vexer1]

I never pay full price for a launch title because I always have older games to trade in towards it for store credit at Gamestop, so I usually only end up paying 30-40 dollars for a game total, I can't remember the last time I paid full price for a game.  I can't recall ever being disappointed at picking up a game on the release date.

For the most part I don't think games are too long today, I do see longer games as more valuable generally, though i'm OK with shorter games as well as long as they're good.  

I don't think extra padding makes games worse, I think rushing games out the door does, there are some games which suffered badly because they were missing content that should've been there to begin with and wasn't because they had to make a deadline.  

Take Knight of the Old Republic 2 for example, many were disappointed by the length and there was tons of content cut due to LucasArts wanting the game to come out in time for the holidays, many agreed that the game was superior once a mod for restoring the cut content came out.  There was also Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly, it was supposed to have more then one overworld and dozens more levels but got compacted as a result of being rushed, it was still a good game but it definitely felt like it wasn't living up to it's full potential.  Deus Ex: Human Revolution had two entire hubs dummied out(Montreal and Upper Hengsha), they were in the final game but massively reduced in scope, which was kind of disappointing(the game being rushed also forced the devs to release Missing Link as DLC)

I too go to school but I don't mind lengthy games at all, though I will admit that sometimes game reviewers do tend to obsess too much over the issue. For example a lot of journalists ripped on Medal of Honor: Warfighter for being too short, though I personally thought the length of the game was just fine.

[Vexer1]

I thought Tomb Raider was just the right length, it didn't feel too long or too short, I personally don't think it's had a bad effect on entertainment overall.  I don't play that many RPGs though because they do require a bit more of a commitment then most games and I would not to spend an entire month playing one game, it's rare that there's an RPG that i'm actually willing to put a lot of time into, Fallout 3 and New Vegas being some exceptions.

[Leo1]

A two hour NES game wasn't a two hour experience though. That's something folks almost universally forget when this subject comes up at classic gaming forums.

I'm not sure much has changed in regard to how much time one has to invest in order to finish a game. Games tended to be much shorter years ago, but they also were much more difficult and required a significant investment in time before being able to actually successfully run through it in two hours. 

Few people then or now would appreciate purchasing an expensive game that amounted to a two hour experience. 

[PSX1]

Great topic.  Here's two point I'd like to throw in:

1.  I think the perception that a game needs to be 15-20 hours long is an incorrect one, and mostly generated by the mainstream gaming magazines and websites.  A game with an 8-10 hour campaign is often docked points when it is reviewed, because the campaign is deemed "too short".  This forces game developers to make longer campaigns whether they like it or not (or, alternatively, throw in a ton of extra bonus modes and multiplayer options).  After all, often nothing is more important to the success of a new game than its review scores, particularly when it's a new franchise without an established fanbase.  Simply put, a new game that has average scores in the 6 or 7 range is going to get lost in the shuffle -- gamers just have too many "better" options -- so this pressures developers to please the gaming media/reviewers rather than pleasing gamers.

2.  I think you're opinion is actually a popular one among most older gamers.  As a teenager, you have the time for 20, 30, 40, or 100 hour games.  As an adult, especially ones with busy jobs and families, there just isn't enough time.  For that reason, I agree with your opinion, and prefer games in the 7-12 hour range.  So I think the "popularity" of your opinion would depend on the age of the gamers polled.  Secondly, I think it also has a lot to do with the timing of when people buy the game.  Naturally, we prefer a longer experience for a brand new game that we just spent $60 on, whereas I'd love a 4 hour campaign if I picked up the same game 3 years later for $5 in a GameStop bargain bin.

[Segatarious1]

[QUOTE=Leo]A two hour NES game wasn't a two hour experience though. That's something folks almost universally forget when this subject comes up at classic gaming forums.

I'm not sure much has changed in regard to how much time one has to invest in order to finish a game. Games tended to be much shorter years ago, but they also were much more difficult and required a significant investment in time before being able to actually successfully run through it in two hours. 

Few people then or now would appreciate purchasing an expensive game that amounted to a two hour experience. [/QUOTE]

I agree with Leo - and if you think a game is too long, I bet, more than likely, it is just not that fun.