A lengthy discussion about game length

[JoxerGX]

This is why many people returned to Retro games because it's not about having a big, open, vast and empty world

Games are supposed to be fun and experimental, and not about grinding and completing side missions just to progress

Indie developers for example, most of the games aren't too big, they still experiment things, they are actually doing something fun AND it's cheap…not $60+

gonna disagree with this, games should be mostly fun and while experimental is nice its not needed, i dont see what indies are doing as experimenting they are just doing what has been proven to work in the past and give it a new coat of paint and doing it cheaper.

not sure how hard it would be for game companies to make say ps2/360 games again with todays tech, its why i like falcom games their games feel like a gen or two behind, then again all games before daybreak used the game engine they started with on the PS3. wonder how much that keeps cost down?

 

[tr0jance]

If a game is 70 USD then the main story should last a minimum of 24 hours, not including side content. That's my opinion and I wont change it.

 

[DunkeyKong]

gonna disagree with this, games should be mostly fun and while experimental is nice its not needed, i dont see what indies are doing as experimenting they are just doing what has been proven to work in the past and give it a new coat of paint and doing it cheaper.

not sure how hard it would be for game companies to make say ps2/360 games again with todays tech, its why i like falcom games their games feel like a gen or two behind, then again all games before daybreak used the game engine they started with on the PS3. wonder how much that keeps cost down?

That's right and I agree

However about the experimental part, it's true that it's not always needed, just saying that we are lacking a bit of that sometimes

Also some of Falcom games looks sick, might check it out

 

[Yotubebo]

Im someone who likes to play something different from time to time, so having to play big games with bloated content is just frustating for me. Of course, if I pay 50 bucks for a game (wich is even more expensive where I live) I also want it to last long, but if all the content is just filler without any good thing to offer, I will drop the game in just some hours or after finishing it.

Also, what happened to replayability value? i have some older games that still I play to this day because I like to replay them because any reason, unlockables, secret endings, alternative paths or just because I like that game so much, I haven't do that with any modern game that isn't Spider-Man 2, and just because the web swing and physics in that game is really fun

 

[AnonymousCookieMonster]

I'd rather pay $70 for a good 7 hour campaign than the 80h open world bullshit padded monstrosities we get these days.

More depends on how it's padded. Morrowind had tons of padding, side quests and places to explore, but it wasn't a 'get all 100 tokens hidden in the city' BS. Or Saints Row 4 where all the 'side missions' you ended up having to complete anyways.

A lot of older games are actually very very short. But the difficulty curve was high so it took many hours to get good. Megaman X for example i can beat in 2 hours, but when you are new to gaming in general that takes more like 30 hours.

I think i like my games to being on par with Disgaea. You can beat the main game and have all the fun and get the ending in like 6 hours. Or you can keep going... and there's tons of things to keep doing if you want to.

Also replaying games (from scratch, NG+, or with mods, or going for specific challenges/rules) can be fun too.

 

[Yousef]

Padding in and of itself isn’t inherently an issue and it’s not always clear what should be and shouldn’t be considered padding. Some people do enjoy monotony in games. I know I do.

Disgaea and Morrowind are pretty good.

 

[RageBurner]

I guess it needs to be the right kind of monotony, something that vibes with you. Monster Hunter detractors call it repetitive, but I love the loop.

 

[Yousef]

Agreed. I’m a big sucker to a good feedback loop.

 

[Hikari.EXE]

To enter the disscussion a little bit late, for me the lenght of a game is a little fickle. I have experienced games where it goes for too long and ends too early, a game that should have ended earlier was Elden Ring (I know, modern game), it should have ended around the ice mountain area. And a game that ended too early was Ratchet and Clank: Into the Nexus, I literally finished the game in one sitting, and I'm not some God gamer.

 

[Dyne]

I honestly think length isnt that important.
Pacing is the most important thing.

A game can be long but if it has great pacing it wont feel too long. You just enjoy the ride. If a game is short, it can feel satisfying with the right pacing (and for short games, replayability helps too).
Pacing is a difficult thing to really quantify and describe though, so I feel like it gets talked about less often.

 

[RageBurner]

I honestly think length isnt that important.
Pacing is the most important thing.

A game can be long but if it has great pacing it wont feel too long. You just enjoy the ride. If a game is short, it can feel satisfying with the right pacing (and for short games, replayability helps too).
Pacing is a difficult thing to really quantify and describe though, so I feel like it gets talked about less often.

That's an excellent point.