next »

[Nillo]

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

This is what I'm thinking. Actually I think it's a combination of 3 factors:

1. We are getting older. I have less time to play, and a lot more money. So I enjoy games which pack a lot of entertainment in a short timespan, like Transistor and The New Order. Games I can finish, put back on the shelf and move on.
2. It's getting easier to buy and collect games. Digital distribution (and a rapidly expanding gamedev industry) means you can easily get a collection of 500+ titles just by watching out for bundles and daily deals. And with a huge backlog like that, the idea of playing only 1 game for a long time becomes less appealing.
3. Games are actually getting longer, because devs have gotten better at making games and have more resources at their disposal than they used to have. This doesn't necessarily mean that any content in the game is worse than the old school content, just that there is more of it. But considering points 1 and 2 above, and the fact that finishing a game has an intrinsic value to some gamers vs. "playing until you grow tired of it", this can become a problem when you want to finish a title but you also want to play something else.

[readyplaygames]

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

This is what I'm thinking. Actually I think it's a combination of 3 factors:

1. We are getting older. I have less time to play, and a lot more money. So I enjoy games which pack a lot of entertainment in a short timespan, like Transistor and The New Order. Games I can finish, put back on the shelf and move on.

I didn't want to bring up the getting older part, but yeah, that's what I was hinting at.

[s0]

I mostly play games in short bursts and don't care about length because finishing them is not that important to me. i also don't play competitive games anymore (too time consuming to get good at them).

[Schoq]

I've quit countless rpgs right before the final dungeon because they typically stop being interesting at that point and ending fmvs aren't that amazing

[rj]

games need to be exactly as long as my dick and no more

[DireLogomachist]

games need to be exactly as long as my dick and no more

With disappointingly short playtimes almost always ending in failure?

A fan of roguelikes, I see.

[Slowminder]

games need to be exactly as long as my dick and no more

With disappointingly short playtimes almost always ending in failure?

A fan of roguelikes, I see.

I've cried.
=========
BTW, I've completed Alien: Isolation, and it was standing on that border, where it was about to get boring and repetitive. But it was still fun and scary sometimes. Devs could easily cut 30% of the game, though(that's what EA doing with their franchises).

[Bricabrac]

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

This is what I'm thinking. Actually I think it's a combination of 3 factors:

1. We are getting older. I have less time to play, and a lot more money. So I enjoy games which pack a lot of entertainment in a short timespan, like Transistor and The New Order. Games I can finish, put back on the shelf and move on.
2. It's getting easier to buy and collect games. Digital distribution (and a rapidly expanding gamedev industry) means you can easily get a collection of 500+ titles just by watching out for bundles and daily deals. And with a huge backlog like that, the idea of playing only 1 game for a long time becomes less appealing.
3. Games are actually getting longer, because devs have gotten better at making games and have more resources at their disposal than they used to have. This doesn't necessarily mean that any content in the game is worse than the old school content, just that there is more of it. But considering points 1 and 2 above, and the fact that finishing a game has an intrinsic value to some gamers vs. "playing until you grow tired of it", this can become a problem when you want to finish a title but you also want to play something else.

You, sir, have nice opinions. I like you.

[Superb Joe]

the only "short burst" game ive played in te last 5 years is streets of rage 2; and on occasion most rare when i actually have time to emgage gayly in frivolity i only play the first level

[Slowminder]

I've been always wondering how people can spend 300-500 hours in Skyrim. There isn't just enough content for that. 

[MisterDeluxia]

one thing is if you have a good story line with good characters that you will be attached too, a long game can be good in my opinion, if you look at Undertale. a other thing is if its captivating, like skyrim.

long story short yes and no... for me at least!

(without talking about preference)

[rj]

is........................is undertale considered long

[Alevice]

if you do all possible runs, maybe

[MisterDeluxia]

My bad on that one I meant that you get attached to the characters not that its a long game.

Bad mistake by me sarry!

[Slowminder]

Completed "Story" mode in Saints Row: Gat out of hell. Well, this was fast. Even for a standalone DLC. 3 hours. The game was fun, but still - 3 hours? Quite the opposite to initial topic.

[eliasfrost]

I mostly play games in short bursts and don't care about length because finishing them is not that important to me. i also don't play competitive games anymore (too time consuming to get good at them).

I do this as well. I have a couple of hundred titles on Steam but I've only finished like two dozens of them. Once I "get" the game I'm usually satisfied. I'm trying really hard to remember who said it but he used the term "peak experience" to refer to when you reach the point in the game where you've played as much as you think you'll get out of it (for better or worse). I usually reach the peak a couple of hours in, sometimes less. The most recent really long game that kept me completely engrossed was Pillars of Eternity.

[NowSayPillow]

is........................is undertale considered long

Yes. I'm obviously not the right audience for that game, I found it exhausting.

[Shine Klevit]

I harp on this a lot, but I have a huge gripe with the whole "bigger is better" philosophy of modern games. The problem isn't length but length for the sake of length.

It's a combination of 2 things:

1. Big games are easier to make. With games gradually taken more seriously there's bigger teams, bigger budgets, and bigger hardware. It's much easier to simply cram every single half baked feature into a game and inflate it to 50 hours than ever before.

2. Lack of legitimate critical reflection on the problem. Whenever a big 50+ hour massively open world game comes out people tend to bury the flaws under the sheer awe in it's technical feat. Impressed by the massive amount of things you can do but with absolutely no reflection on how much of these things are actually interesting, well designed, or - most importantly - conceptually coherent.

There's way too much lenience for massively bloated games padded down with needless sidequests and irrelevant features.

[Chaotrope]

I feel like a lot of games are only super long if the player is okay with it and actively try to extend the gameplay, whether it be with DLC or sidequests.