Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411273 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 12:33:14 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGamesDo you prefer short or long games?
Poll
Question: What's your preferred time range of game playtime?
very short 1-2 hours - 13 (14.1%)
short 2-4hours - 17 (18.5%)
mid 4-7 - 18 (19.6%)
long 8-15 - 17 (18.5%)
super long 15+ - 14 (15.2%)
proc-gen games (e.g. Binding of Isaac style) - 13 (14.1%)
Total Voters: 48

Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
Author Topic: Do you prefer short or long games?  (Read 2685 times)
Miziziziz
Level 2
**



View Profile WWW
« on: March 25, 2016, 07:44:38 PM »

Just something I'm curious about.
Personally I find games that advertised as having extremely long play times (16+ hours) as a huge turn off and almost guarantees I'll never play it. I just don't have the time to commit to that. When I was a teenager those kinds of games were awesome; I knew I had something to do for the next week or so. But now, I prefer games in the range of two hours because I know I'll actually be able to finish it.
However, I do like proc-gen games like Nuclear Throne, since it's easy to jump in a play for an hour or so.
Thoughts?
Logged

gregkleintv
Level 0
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2016, 12:05:57 AM »

When I was a kid and had way too much free time and not many friends, sure, I loved games that had hundreds of hours of replayability. Now, I still have way too much free time but I know I should spend the majority of that on things that will have a meaningful impact on my own betterment as well as others.

Guess what I'm trying to say is that if I only had one game to take to a desert island, I'd take a game like The Stanley Parable with me over something like Grand Theft Auto V any day.

A lot of people just don't have time for 60+ hour games. I know I might sound snobby or something, but I think even the people playing those time sinks know it. Their relationships suffer. They lose a job because they overslept. They are so immersed in it that they don't realize they used to be a completely different person.
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2016, 01:04:34 AM »

Games that can be played in short bursts but have lots of replay value are my favorite these days. I don't play many singleplayer games with long campaigns or any multiplayer games that require significant time investment these days.

Quote
I know I might sound snobby or something

You do

Logged
jamesprimate
Level 10
*****


wave emoji


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2016, 07:42:30 AM »

I'll be the counter opinion: I looooove deep, super long games that I can get lost in. I think a good deal of my enjoyment comes from the initial overwhelming complexity that you encounter when first beginning, and then over time deciphering the various mechanics, figuring the world out, mastering this or that skill... It's a mood that can only really be matched by a lengthy novel or series (both of which I like, so no surprise here.) The scope is what makes it necessary for that complexity to exist, and the complexity justifies the scpoe, so can't really separate the two.

That said, it has to be good of course, and I think I have particular tastes in this regard. I've put down quite a few lengthy titles that were super hyped / award winning because they were just too boring I couldn't justify the time. and even ones that I did complete I'm often disappointed toward the end. A lot of games are good at establishing a world, but terrible at sticking the landing of a narrative or concluding in any reasonably satisfying way, so it's kind of a large risk to take. Even if I do personally enjoy super long games, I wouldn't push them on anyone else!
Logged

ThemsAllTook
Administrator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2016, 09:00:50 AM »

I like it when a game doesn't overstay its welcome...but some games are welcome to stay for many years. Raw length doesn't matter as much as depth and variety of mechanics, and how thoroughly they can be explored before becoming stale. One of the things I love most about the DROD series is just how meaty it is... I've been playing it for several years straight without it getting old in the slightest, and I'm still entirely in the official content (done the main holds, but Smitemaster's Selections still to go) without even really touching the vast quantity of user-made levels. I don't have an exact hour count, but I'd estimate that I'm somewhere around 400 in it right now.

Procedural content is pretty cool while you're learning the systems of the game, and allows enjoyable low-investment play sessions that are pretty short if you're just looking for something to do for half an hour, but I feel like it ultimately leads to dissatisfaction. When the game can keep generating new stuff forever (and generally expects you to play through many times), no clear end point exists, so you can never really get any sense of closure. Pretty much every procedurally generated game I've played at length has fallen into this trap. An authored game with a clean ending leaves me with a sense of satisfaction, but a procedural game that never ends is destined to be put aside after it becomes uninteresting, so I'll carry with me somewhat more negative feelings toward it.

Anyway, I've enjoyed experiences ranging from the extremely short to the extremely long. This was a long-winded way to say "it depends on the game", but it really does.
Logged

s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2016, 11:22:21 AM »

Quote
I'll be the counter opinion: I looooove deep, super long games that I can get lost in. I think a good deal of my enjoyment comes from the initial overwhelming complexity that you encounter when first beginning, and then over time deciphering the various mechanics, figuring the world out, mastering this or that skill... It's a mood that can only really be matched by a lengthy novel or series (both of which I like, so no surprise here.) The scope is what makes it necessary for that complexity to exist, and the complexity justifies the scpoe, so can't really separate the two.

i guess i'm actually the same. i love complexity, except for me the games have to be "playable in short bursts", i.e. i can jump in and out of them pretty much whenever i want. the souls series are really the only games i still play that aren't like this.
Logged
Lares Yamoir
Level 0
***


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2016, 11:40:52 AM »

I currently have a lot of games in my back log and a lot of them are RPGs with 15+ hours. It's really frustrating to feel "left behind", just because you have to spend way to much time to finish a single game. Especially considering that I'll probably only ever have time to play through each of those games once in my lifetime, so I want to make this one playthrough count by doing as much as possible in the game.

So as you can see I used to like RPGs, which tend to be long games, but at this point games can't be short enough for me, which is kinda sad. 
Logged

b∀ kkusa
Global Moderator
Level 10
******



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2016, 01:13:59 PM »

noticed that my favorite games on steam had an average gameplay time of 9 to 13 hours.
Getting too old to focus on games that need +20 hours to finish.
Logged
Superb Joe
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2016, 01:42:48 PM »

a linear game has no reason to ever be longer than 5 hours, imo
Logged
Manuel Magalhães
Forum Dungeon Master
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2016, 02:57:07 PM »

I like playing both as long they are good, but my preference depends on the occasion. I like playing long games (I consider any game longer than 20h as long, I think the longest single-player campaign I've played was Paper Mario: TTYD, which was a bit less than 50h, although I've played more hours in some multiplayer games) after finishing a short game and when I get a bit more time, but I also like small games after playing a long game and when my free time is scarce.

That said, the long games that are "playable in short bursts" which Silbereisen mentioned are an exception, since I like to play them regardless of my free time and the duration of the last game I played. For instance, I like coming back to MGS V to complete missions, which take less than a hour to complete even without rushing, so I could play a mission or two per session.
Logged

Dragonmaw
Guest
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2016, 06:52:50 PM »

i think it depends on the game. i like that baldur's gate 2 is 100+ hours long, but if firewatch was that long, i'd never play it.
Logged
Tumetsu
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2016, 08:42:42 AM »

Depends on game I think. Long games are ok as long as they aren't artificially stretched. Short games are cool though especially if they are good from start to finish. Probably has something to do with games not overstaying their welcome as mentioned.

I don't play much nowadays but I don't like much short burst games such as mobile games. If I play the game for 5min I can very well do something else.  So while I rarely play it is usually hour or two at once. Most of the games I finish currently seem to be all around from 2-15 hours I guess with outliers such as Souls games.
Logged

Photon
Level 4
****


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2016, 09:21:50 AM »

For me, its more about justifying the length than it is about the length itself. I value being able to play something in short bursts (roughly 30-60 minutes) but that still allows me to grow and master a "skill." So in that sense, I value the fluidity and flow of a game and a solid sense of progression, whether it be optimizing some kind of RPG build over time or mastering a well-unified system behind a multiplayer battler. Contrariwise, I'm far less amused nowadays by games that go "complete this in 4 seconds; OK, now do it in 2 seconds," unless there is some extension of the player's ability beyond simply "just do it better."

So to get more specific to the question, I can definitely enjoy both, though a "long game" may sometimes be that way simply because I take my time. I'll also add that shorter length doesn't necessarily make the above easier; it may just mean boredom sets in quicker.
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2016, 01:28:59 PM »

but if firewatch was that long, i'd never play it.

desert bus the best game
Logged
Miziziziz
Level 2
**



View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2016, 11:37:48 AM »

I'll be the counter opinion: I looooove deep, super long games that I can get lost in. I think a good deal of my enjoyment comes from the initial overwhelming complexity that you encounter when first beginning, and then over time deciphering the various mechanics, figuring the world out, mastering this or that skill... It's a mood that can only really be matched by a lengthy novel or series (both of which I like, so no surprise here.)
I do as well, but my fear with these is that I know I'll get carried away and lose a bunch of time. This is why I haven't started reading any new books; I used to read 800+ page fantasy novels all the time, but now if I start one I know I'm gonna fall way behind on everything I need to do. And probably lose a lot of sleep.
Logged

Michael Klier
Level 1
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2016, 11:26:31 PM »

I prefer games I can finish in one to two sessions over the span of a weekend or two, because that's the only time I really get to play these days. I rarely play during the week, and if so, only small scale games I can hop in and actually get somewhere/sth. done in 30min or less. I sometimes base my purchase decisions based on reported average game length to beat a game. If it's over >12h chances are I'll pass and pick it up when it goes on sale.
Logged

Sound Design, Audio Implementation, Music
Reel Twitter
Working on

Shine Klevit
Level 1
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 05, 2016, 04:54:22 PM »

I don't know because I've played games that are all across the board. However, the difference between "good" length and "bad" length must be stated as much as possible. The main thing is not how long a game is, but how long it can keep you interested. This is kind of lost with the manic obsession with catering to completionism that games have been pushing lately. I think the whole post-GTA III industry obsession with trying to make the biggest quest/mission based open world game imaginable, with every single damn game, is a huge burn out, personally. I don't mind it for more obscure RPGs that have time to experiment with narrative without fear of alienating a wider audience with depth, but when it's standard, it totally loses effect.

Take Skyrim for example. I actually like Skyrim, believe it or not, but I can't understand why somebody would ever want to spend the time playing through the whole thing to 100%. 90% of the quests are nothing more than somebody random in a town telling you to a seemingly random dungeon, and clear it out, to garner some obscure item that has no other value than to be collected. It's abundantly obvious that they were more focused on creating a quantity of content rather than a quality. I swear, if they put a 1/5th of the number of missions in that game, and focused entirely on the more advanced distinct type of missions that have player choices, and unique rewards, the game would have been significantly better (I'm sure that there are better newer examples of this, but I've completely lost interest with playing games advertised as 100+ hours for this very reason. Open world is an excellent idea, but they really need to find a fresh way to approach it).
Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 05, 2016, 05:18:25 PM »

the design goal in elder scrolls games is to give you a bunch of content to explore at your leisure. the games are not really about choices and consequences or stuff like that. the quests just serve as a guided tour through the content for people who need goals and stories. you can explore more or less all the dungeons, encounter all npcs, get all the items etc without doing a single quest (some exceptions ofc, probably moreso in skyrim). it's perfectly ok to not finish the main story in TES and it's a "valid" way to play. i played morrowind for hours on end but never got very far in the story quests. i don't even know what the story is about tbh, despite it being one of my most cherished and influential games.

TES is pretty much the only mainstream game franchise that approaches open worlds in this way, other than i guess minecraft. it also has 0 to do with GTA 3. TES is an older franchise than GTA and daggerfall already had everything you see in the later games.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2016, 05:25:49 PM by Silbereisen » Logged
Shine Klevit
Level 1
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2016, 06:14:54 PM »

the design goal in elder scrolls games is to give you a bunch of content to explore at your leisure. the games are not really about choices and consequences or stuff like that. the quests just serve as a guided tour through the content for people who need goals and stories. you can explore more or less all the dungeons, encounter all npcs, get all the items etc without doing a single quest (some exceptions ofc, probably moreso in skyrim). it's perfectly ok to not finish the main story in TES and it's a "valid" way to play. i played morrowind for hours on end but never got very far in the story quests. i don't even know what the story is about tbh, despite it being one of my most cherished and influential games.

TES is pretty much the only mainstream game franchise that approaches open worlds in this way, other than i guess minecraft. it also has 0 to do with GTA 3. TES is an older franchise than GTA and daggerfall already had everything you see in the later games.

I think GTA 3 has a lot to do with opening up the popularity of open world games, not necessarily originating them. It's the first massively popular game of that variety that I can think of. Maybe I'm wrong about that, and it's more to do with the concept that it's more technically feasible to make them with competitive production values. I know for a fact they've been around for a long time especially in RPG form. I still think that the Elder Scrolls games(and the recent fallout games which is virtually the same series at this point) could do with some tinkering with the formula.

I also just used Skyrim as just a general example of the broader idea of quest/mission based open world games. I feel it's obsession with going to towns to get an excuse to go to unrelated dungeons epitomized the problem. I don't even hate the formula so much, just feel kind of burnt out by it. I do kind of understand the appeal of the type of game when it's done right, more or less. I mean, the way you describe Morrowind is almost entirely the same experience I've gotten playing games like Arcanum.

I still think the obsessive catering to completionism is a very widespread thing. With the huge influx of popular open world games, the prevalence of a design strategy of building as big of a world as possible, then filling it with meaningless tasks, seems ever-present. This only bothers me because it seems like wasted potential. Because, the very idea of free exploration is a wonderful one. I just think there needs to be some mixing up of the formulas of how an open world can be interacted with. Not an easy task seeing as it takes a lot of skill to come up effective working formulas, but should be more emphasized.

I also am pretty sure that TES is not the only major series that does what I'm talking about. I mean, it's also employed largely in Dragon Age games, GTA more or less, and even Assassin's Creed to an extent. Creating big mission/quest based free exploration games has been en vogue for awhile. Bethesda games are actually not the worst offenders because their games are full of interesting ideas, I just feel the best of them are underdeveloped in lieu of attempting to build worlds more and more massive. It's been on my mind for quite some time, lately, and I'm feeling that the broader gaming community has been disappointingly uncritical of this.

That's why I think the issue of length is only important in the context of how proportional quantity is to quality.
Logged
Eageron
Level 0
**


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2016, 03:22:57 AM »

I guess it really depends on the platform I'm playing on! On the PC I prefer long games, on mobile I'm no the biggest RPG fan. On Mobile I prefer short one tapper for example.
Logged

Eageron® is an independent developer- and publisher of mobile games and applications.
Pages: [1] 2 3
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic