Games are way too long

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Jon]When I was younger and 3d was in its infancy, I dreamed about playing open world games like they have now, Assassin's Creed type games. Then I realized that it just wasn't worth it. When you get to my age, you only have time to play video games sometimes. And when I do, I'd just assume play some crazy 2d shooting game that takes a half hour to complete. Heck, a lot of those games have more replay value than today's games. To me, a game like Twisted Metal 2 or Goldeneye is the limit to how big I want a 3d world to be.[/QUOTE]

I think we're all generally in agreement that less is more.

I do, however, maintain that once in a while a game comes along that wraps you up for many, many hours because it's just that good.

A 60 hour game doesn't necessarily mean more game time spent on games per diem. If there's enough fun to be had there, you might just play the same game for a while during your daily game session--whether it be 30 minutes or two hours--rather than playing a different game every day. I can personally attest that some games have kept me interested like this for weeks on end where I didn't care to play anything else. Some big games are easy to get into! Not every open-world title has a steep barrier to entry. Skyrim, Fallout, Minecraft, and such titles are great examples--their widespread appeal to people of all different ages and lifestyles attests to it.

[Vexer1]

Post deleted

Reason - This is a duplicate post.

[Ozzybear1]

For me, it depends on the type of game.
A game like Skyrim, yes I want to last
and be able to put lots of time into.
or a game like Uncharted that isnt
quite so long, but good for what the
game is, I enjoy that.
Some games I hate seeing come to
and end and wish there was more,
but in the end that to me just means
it was a great game !

Ozzy

[Gentlegamer1]

When game content is most commonly described in a "running time" (20 hours of content), you can tell the priority of the game developer is askew, and that the game will likely be full of what would otherwise be called "busy work," which no one in other contexts likes. Compound this with "narrative," which means the predetermined plot of the developer rather than the in game actions of the player, you end up with games that are just too long.

While the Elder Scrolls games are huge open world affairs, they are also not too long. A player can easily "critical path" the Main Quest and complete it in a reasonable time for an RPG, probably 6-8 hours actually. Outside of that, there are many side quests and quest lines (guilds, factions, etc.) for the player to participate in as well as unscripted exploration and interaction of game systems that simulate the fantasy milieu. The player has wide agency in deciding his level of interest and involvement in these "side" activities.

Like authoring a poem, an Elder Scrolls game is never finished by a player, it's only abandoned.

[Vexer1]

Gentlegamer- I don't think having a game's content described in hours automatically means the developers priorities are "askew" in the least, as long as the game itself is compelling and entertaining, I think there's nothing wrong with that length in the least.  If a narrative is compelling, then I really don't care if my actions affect it or not, as long as it's well done i'm perfectly fine with that.  

What do you mean by "busy work"? Are you talking about things like level-grinding in RPGs?  Cause that I can agree with, I find it very tedious for the most part and that's one of the main reasons I don't play a lot of RPGs.  Though I think you're jumping the gun by saying "no one else likes it", some people can spend hours level-grinding without getting bored.

Elder Scrolls is one series I find pretty boring to be honest, I just couldn't be bothered to even finish the main story in any of the games that I played.