next »

[Slowminder]

I've recently finished Final Fantasy Type-0 HD, which took me about 25 hours, which is not much for RPG, but it has managed to get boring. But nevertheless I've tried to estimate how much time I've spent per a game this/last year.
Divinity: Original Sin - 120 hours
Witcher 3 (though I've started playing it last year) - 250+ hours with DLCs
Metal Gear Solid V - 70 hours
Batman: arkham knight - 50 hours
Fallout 4 - 80 hours.

Right now I'm playing Alien: Isolation. I've spent 10+ hours in it, and judging by achievements, I'm about  half-way through, which is OK.

My question is: should games really be that long? Yes, I know that I'm paying 60$ per game, and I want to get plenty of content, but... How do developers achieve those high numbers of playtime hours? Mainly thanks to MMO-like grinding activities. I love Witcher 3 REALLY MUCH, but 50% of its content is some ENVIRONMENTALLY TOLD STORY with some piece of paper with quest description on it.
Divinity has tons of backtracking and pixel hunting.
MGS V is a pure MMO in single player body.
Developers are bragging about their massive open worlds and hundreds of playing hours, but what's the point of that? Why not make a small game that won't let you get bored? One of relatively long games that I've played last year and I can't complain about its length is Bloodborne. It has a pretty small world. I've spent 60 hours in it and it was mostly all about new interesting content.

All written above is my opinion only.

[readyplaygames]

Are games becoming too long? Or are we getting too busy to play them?

[FrankieSmileShow]

I think devs should be careful about going too far with collection side-quests and other more passive secondary play types within otherwise more engaging games. They are good for making players pay attention to the environment, provide a good start to making people interested in exploring, but there is this completionist urge many players have that mean they might make the game worse for themselves if the game exploits that urge too much, or even merely offers the option to them.

Game developers need to realize when their design might push players to worsen their own game experience, we need to be more confident about the way we mean our games to be played, and to not overly water down that experience with side stuff meant to give "options" for different players. Options are good, but not when they push players away from the experience you intended for them.

Its kind of like when RPGs lets a player grind for an hour killing rabbits until they are strong enough that they can beat the level boss without needing to figure out the proper strategy for the fight. Why were/are games designed with this option available? Why give players the option to make an engaging game into a boring one, why is that option being there considered a good thing? Never trust your players will know what makes a game fun, they don't know. They will often just ruin the game for themselves. You know what makes a game fun, knowing that is your job! Make that decision for them, TEACH em what makes a game fun.

[ProgramGamer]

Basically make sure that your game doesn't have incentives that push players to do stuff that is not enjoyable or devalues some aspects of your design.

[Superb Joe]

theres no excuse for a game to be longer than 8 hours, unless that excuse is "it's not for normal functioning human beings"

[ProgramGamer]

Uh-huh.

[s0]

Its kind of like when RPGs lets a player grind for an hour killing rabbits until they are strong enough that they can beat the level boss without needing to figure out the proper strategy for the fight. Why were/are games designed with this option available? Why give players the option to make an engaging game into a boring one, why is that option being there considered a good thing? Never trust your players will know what makes a game fun, they don't know. They will often just ruin the game for themselves.

i used to think like this, but i came to a realization: not everyone plays games to be 100% engaged all the time (including me if i'm honest). lots of people legitimately enjoy grinding as a relaxing activity. also not everyone is skilled enough or wants to put in the time/effort to master games. grinding makes you feel powerful and badass without necessarily having to master the game system. it's also a more "organic" way to handle adaptive difficulty that is less demeaning to players than difficulty modes. of course grinding shouldn't waste excessive amounts of time and forced grinding is a big no-no, but it's a valid approach to design.

[Superb Joe]

Uh-huh.

see, this guy gets it

[NowSayPillow]

I think the reason for game lengths getting kind of out of whack is the same reason movies are getting longer and longer. (Why is 2.5-3 hours normal now?) It's because people want "value" for their money. If they're dropping X dollars on a game they expect a certain amount of game time out of it. Problem is, most games aren't conducive to this; most games can be done doing what they're doing in just a couple hours but to give the illusion of value they pad the game out to brutal lengths. I think most games would benefit from being 5-8 hours long, generally once I've played that long I think "OK, you can be done now."

[s0]

Uh-huh.

see, this guy gets it

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=7722

[Superb Joe]

Uh-huh.

see, this guy gets it

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=7722

i was younger then, and frankly if there's one thing that the youth of today need to learn for the present, tumultuous, competitive job market, it's how to murder thousands of unarmed black people with small arms fire at the behest of government agencies. many games are socially and professionally worthless. resident evil 5 gets a waiver for teaching such valuable skills

[Alevice]

i dont think many long movies are worth the drag. transformaers age of exttinction is a good example of horrible pacing

[Superb Joe]

i dont think many long movies are worth the drag. transformaers age of exttinction is a good example of horrible pacing

every movie is 2 and a half hours long and you get a drink big enough to fit a diving board to just so that you thankfully dont have to listen to all of the terrible dialogue in whatever bat man movie that unfuckable dullards with shit for brains will have an epiphany about because it struck a chord so deep within them and quote constantly on line for decades to come. i dont know where i was going but anyway fuck these endlessly long comic book movies and the people who theyre made to sell toys to

[Slowminder]

Resident Evil 4 was truly fun for its length, but still, it could be shorter a bit (weird part with military island seems to be a little unnecessary).
My friend is a huge fan of Dragon Age: Origins. And he's a completionist. That's why Dragon Age: inquisition was such a pain in the arse for him. He hated it, but he has finished it with all boring side-quests.
My perfect game length - 25-30 hours max. Maybe 50 if it's an RPG (but please, cut of all that grinding BS)
Worst example of such unnecessary long games - Ubisoft titles. Sometimes I think that they've fired all of their game designers in 2007. Right after first Assassins creed release. If people buy it - why should I change it? Excellent example - The Division. Millions of copies sold. 96% of playerbase left the game 4 months later.  No need to maintain servers any more. PROFIT!

[s0]

Uh-huh.

see, this guy gets it

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=7722

that said, i definitely understand and appreciate you shifting your priorities to posting on the tigs source. you're doing valuable work here.

[battlerager]

Basically make sure that your game doesn't have incentives that push players to do stuff that is not enjoyable or devalues some aspects of your design.

I knew what this was before I clicked it lol.

On the topic: I personally just have less time.
Games are all stuffed with achievements, sidequests and collectables now, sure. This was always a thing though.
Just think of the bullshit in Donkey Kong 64 or other collectathons.

[FrankieSmileShow]

i used to think like this, but i came to a realization: not everyone plays games to be 100% engaged all the time (including me if i'm honest). lots of people legitimately enjoy grinding as a relaxing activity. also not everyone is skilled enough or wants to put in the time/effort to master games. grinding makes you feel powerful and badass without necessarily having to master the game system. it's also a more "organic" way to handle adaptive difficulty that is less demeaning to players than difficulty modes. of course grinding shouldn't waste excessive amounts of time and forced grinding is a big no-no, but it's a valid approach to design.

I agree, not everyone has the same likes when it comes to how to play games, but this is why there's a lot of different games with different designs and different takes. This is the problem: what you describe here presumes players know exactly how they should play a game for their own sake. I believe that as a game designer, it's my job to show the players how they should be playing my game.
If I am designing a game to be played in several possible ways, then its my job to make sure the players choose a way they will enjoy the most, and I think that arguably, players are usually not equipped to make this decision. The more options you offer them, the more likely players are to pick the wrong one for themselves and get a subpar experience.

It's like the difficulty level problem. If you give players the choice of 3 difficulty levels or more, how can you be sure players will actually make the right choice for themselves? The choice that will ultimately give them the best experience? Do the players even know what will give them the most fun? What if there was no difficulty option at all, and you just forced them to play a certain way, that some players might have otherwise never tried, and thus made them realize something new about ways games can be fun?
Its the same for having "main content" and side content, sidequests etc. The problem is people assuming that more is always better. More options, more kinds of content, more ways to interact with the game. More is NOT always better. Sometimes, more just results in something bland, boring and overlong.

People make bad decisions about how to play games that ruin their own enjoyment of them all the time. Why increase the chances of this happening if you can prevent it?
A great example of this is Xenoblade Chronicles, the original. This happened to me and many others: people play that game and get quickly burnt out by its torrent of bland sidequests, and give up on it a quarter of the way through, missing out on a lot of what comes later. This game was definitely designed with the idea that more is always better, and was made much worse for it.

[s0]

well first of all, i do think that a designer has a "right" to limit their own game in any way they see fit. so we're on the same page there.

BUT:

This is the problem: what you describe here presumes players know exactly how they should play a game for their own sake. I believe that as a game designer, it's my job to show the players how they should be playing my game.

i think you're underestimating players tho. most people do know what they find entertaining/interesting and will usually stop doing a thing if they don't. there's a grey area there with compulsive personalities, but by and large players can make ok decisions as long as the system is transparent enough.

What if there was no difficulty option at all, and you just forced them to play a certain way, that some players might have otherwise never tried, and thus made them realize something new about ways games can be fun?

ya, this is something that games can and should do, but not every game needs to do it. for sandbox-type games having options and the ability to try different things is the whole appeal, for example. i enjoy crusader kings 2 because i can experiment with different historical and political situations and experience lots of different stories. i enjoy hearts of iron 4 less because it puts too many restrictions on experimentation and enforces a general narrative.

A great example of this is Xenoblade Chronicles, the original. This happened to me and many others: people play that game and get quickly burnt out by its torrent of bland sidequests, and give up on it a quarter of the way through, missing out on a lot of what comes later. This game was definitely designed with the idea that more is always better, and was made much worse for it.

well i dunno, i always treated the sidequests in xenoblade as a side activity (well duh, lol) that i just kinda did as i went along, something that encourages you to explore. they were totally optional and easy to ignore and i rarely went out of my way to do them. xenoblade x is a lot worse structured because it forces you to do a lot of annoying busywork to just to unlock story quests.

[FrankieSmileShow]

Well its not just about compulsive personalities, games can and often are made to reward compulsive behavior too. Games are definitely not clear of responsibility on how players choose to spend their time in them. A big part of game design is all about influencing players' decisions, obviously. Not in some immoral abusive sense (though that definitely happens, that part is just a bit off-topic here) but in a simple game design, make-players-experience-what-you-want sense.

I'm sure a lot of people played Xenoblade Chronicles ignoring the sidequests, but I know for a fact many, many people have made the self-admitted mistake of doing way too many of them and gave up on the game because of it. This is really the crux of my argument here, that it was arguably an actual Mistake to include that many of them (Mistake with an uppercase M and everything). It assumed people would know whether or not playing a game a certain way would be right for them, and many people actually, completely, self-admittedly ruined the game for themselves that way. It increased their play time a lot, and they felt that the game actually wasted their time afterwards.

The game needed a trim, they should have cut like half of the side quests and only kept the best, most engaging or different ones, or maybe should have found a better way to engage the players with them at least, for instance making them less about going back and forth between a city and the wilderness, and perhaps making them things you stumble upon while adventuring outside, etc. The formula around them lacked imagination, and given how fresh and imaginative much of the rest of the game was, they clearly could have done better.

[Slowminder]

And just when I thought "No more long RPGs - I'm full"... Friend convinced me to buy Pillars of eternity. -_-