What would you rather have? A long game with no replay value or a short game with lots of replay value?

So, I finally got to playing Quantum Break, and I feel it's going to be over rather quickly. I'm actually fine with that, because of its branching story paths, it gives me incentive to play again. I like that. I don't know how many long games I've played that were awesome, but gave me no reason to revisit, since I saw everything the game had to offer during the first go.

What are your preferences?

Depends on the game, if I enjoyed the gameplay, and most importantly. . The developers vision of the project.

I make it no secret that I love replay value over length, long games, and chunky add-ons can be good. . . If it's done in a way that compliments the game.

Not all games are made for extra content/ larger experiences in mind though. And can actually suffer because of it.

Tearaway: Unfolded is a great example. A brilliant re-imagine and the storymode was brilliant. Then you get the extra quests and it turns a creative 3D Platformer, into a dreadful chore. I'm just glad Misplaced Gophers are 100% optional.

Resident Evil 6 is another example (more well known) that tried too much and had tremendous flaws. I still enjoyed 'some' of Resi6 but it could have been handled better if the fat was sliced off_

Generally I'd take replay value over length.

Definitely replay value over length.

I think most games these days are longer than they should be and developers just add a lot of boring filler to increase the length. I'd much rather a shorter game that is fun all the way through without filler. Plus, I just don't have the time to play many long games.

A lot of my favorite single player games of all time are retro games that can be beaten in under 5 hours, but are highly replayable.

I much rather replay value over campaign length.

Pikmin 3 is a really good example. The main story mode is just 5 to 8 hours long, but I've spent over 100 fantastic hours in that game due to the encouragement to speed run the main quest and earn platinum medals in the challenge mode maps.

Pushing to master the game's mechanics shows just how brilliant Pikmin 3 truly is.

Most of my favorite games I can beat within two hours or less, so I definitely prefer short length with replay value.

So would I lol

I guess I'll be the odd one here. I'm not big on replay value, would rather have a moderately long(but not too long) story that is engaging with a satisfying ending. I think the only game that I actually enjoyed for it's replay value was Quantum Break and that is mostly because it actually changed the second time around.

Length

I almost never replay a game once im done.

So i def. value game length and quality over replay value.

there's plenty of games out there that combine both. i definitely wouldn't buy a game if the campaign was <5 hours long. i'd be reluctant to buy anything than wasn't at least 10 hours+

Isn't a short game with replay value...

...a long game?

With that said, I recently got into Dishonored before the sequel came out. It's not a short game, but it's not exactly really long either. But man, you can replay that game like five times. Easy! And I did. So much fun!

Not really.

But you know that, so nice try of a joke.

I'm more concerned about the experience of the game then it's length so either/or is good for me. I wouldn't play a game just because it's long if I'm not exactly interested in the experience of it. I also don't exactly mind playing a short game even if I never replay it if I have an amazing time with it. Also I consider the multiplayer aspects of a game to so if the campaign is short but I spend a lot of time in mp then that's part of the overall package as well.

I was actually only half-joking. And I don't know that, which was why I was half-serious in asking. It's at least a question worth entertaining, is it not? Gaming shouldn't be taken seriously, but it's fun to pretend to take seriously, after all, hence the questions :)

Back to serious: isn't a game with heavy replay value a game with long duration? I mean if you can play through the campaign in five hours (short), but if you can play through it a second time and 80% of the content is fresh (fresh meaning that you have not experienced it before, it is new or altered somehow or unique from your previous experience), isn't that somehow added value?

Again using Dishonored as an example, I felt that spending 10 hours on the first play-through was ample, but then when I went through the second time I could go a bit faster, try it a completely new way (non-lethal, new powers, different weapons, etc). Suddenly I am at 18 hours of unique experience.

In other words, it is unique enough to be considered a continued experience, not a repeated experience.

I think it's a fair point. When you add up all the times i played through RE2 to unlock everything and to just plain enjoy it, it totals quite a bit more time than I usually get out of a $50/$60 game.

But it really depends. There are some movies I can just watch over and over again, but there are others I've watched once and really enjoyed but have no desire to watch again. I wouldn't say one was better than the other or even preferable. It's nice to have both as they tend to be good for different reasons, scratching their own particular itch.

When a game doesn't have replay value, isn't the reason generally that it's not a fun game to play? Being very long would actually work further against it.

You're question is vague but the situation you describe is very specific. A game like Quantum Break (I haven't played it) obviously has branching story points so you can play through it and get a different overall story/conclusion. I think Heavy Rain did this to perfection last gen. Lots of different story elements, some of which you could play through the game 2 or 3 times and still never see. Plus it let you pick various chapters so you could make specific decisions and change them.

However, a game can be both long in length AND give you enough reply value. Fallout 3 (and it's DLC) along with Mass Effect 2 last gen were great at that. I think a lot of RPGs, especially modern western RPGs are of that nature.

I can't actually think of too many genuinely short games that had replay value. The COD campaigns normally last about 4-5 hours and if I ever replayed them, I would get the same experience but only with more difficulty. That's not all that appealing to me tbh.

Replay-ability is subjective.

Maybe I'm the weird one, I love both. I replay the long ones like persona 4 and even some of the paper mario games. I do love the short ones too though like beating the resident evil games in under 3-4 hours.

I'll be a weirdo and say I like replaying shorter games even though I already know exactly what's going to happen. For me it's like watching my favorite movie over again. I always find something new, and the experience is still enjoyable. Longer games do have some replay value, but only because I like trying out different ways of playing. I rarely change my choices if it's a choice based game.

Depends on the person.

One man´s trash may be another ones gold.

Length doesn't matter if it's fun. And if it's fun it has replay value.... That doesn't mean I wouldn't like a fun game to be longer and have more content.

Oh, what i meant was.

Of course you can say that a short game with tons of replayability is a "long game" but that is not what TS meant :)

A example.

I spent probably around 500 hours in Fallout 3 without starting a new character or restarting and without repeating missions or go to the end of the main story. Same with a game like GTA , where you can easily hit 100 hours before you get to the end.

On the other side

Short games which lasts you 5-10 hours and you are done.

But i get what you are saying and i do not see that , Dishonored is maybe 6 hours if you really stretch it and even tho you can replay and try different methods of doing each chapter, it does not add to the game's length. It´s still the same length it just have a high replayability.