Are games too long these days?

That sounds weird, I know, but hear me out before tearing me to shreds.

First of all, let me rephrase that: do you think that the story mode in games are too long these days?

I'll give you an example of what I mean. A few days ago, I was thinking about one of my all-time favorite games: Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door.

I really wanted to go back and play it again, but I just can't bring myself to start a game without finishing it, and I don't really want to go through the whole story again. It had a great storyline, but to play another run-through would be tedious and not as rewarding, and I simply don't have the time, what with term papers to write and such.

I know that some of the younger gamers here won't really understand what I'm talking about, but for people around my age (22) or older, I'm sure that some of you catch my drift.

Twilight Princess is another example of story modes that are incredibly long. One of my main problems with this game is that there is little in the way of replayablility, such as side quests and the like. Actually, one of my favorite things to do in that game is to go to the old fishing hole, and wait for a bite. Sometimes I just want to jump into one of my favorite worlds and screw around, without worrying about futhering the story.

GTA is a good example of how replayability should be done. I know that not every game can have the sandbox style format, and for some games it just wouldn't work. But one thing is for sure: I don't need to go through the story of any GTA game in order to have a good time. I can just turn it on and away I go, rocketpacking my way through the enormous city of San Andreas.

I think that games with a long storyline should at least implement some more random things to do in the world (again, not all games, but some would really benefit from that). At least that way we can take our time as we play through the story again, without having to feel like it's all the same, long, 30 plus hours, game again.

Alright, I'm done. If you still disagree, feel free to sick your rabid dogs on me.

I'm in my 85th hour of MLB Power Pros, I'm almost done with the first season.

I didn't try to make it this long, I'm just doing all the actions, with the 85 hours I'm just counting gameplay, not practice or fixing stats and such.

Yes, sometimes I don't want the better part of a year involved in a game, I have other stuff to play.

Well it all depends on how much effort a gamer is willing to put into.

I think most of them aren't too long, though there may be a few...

It isn't that games are too long, I wish they would be longer. It is that games are easier. Consider the early mario games. If you died enough you had to start all over. For some people it would take a long long time to beat it. Many wouldn't I am saying games aren't hard enough. But guess thats where Easy, Medium, and Hard kick in these days.WolfWatch

I think that yes, the difficulty level (or lack thereof) is a factor, but don't you think that if games were 40 hours of gameplay long and really hard, nobody would ever play them all the way through? Think about it: if a game was hard, and you had to spend a lot of hours to complete the story, it would make a 30 hour game into a 70 hour game or more, just because you keep dying and have to do it again.

What I'm saying is that games can still be as easy as they are right now, but if they put a little more extra content into it, it will give you something to do if you get sick of the same story again.

Some people just don';t have the time to keep track of the convoluted stories either

How many times have you been partially through a game and have to stop playing for whatever reason then go to grab it again but you're completely lost because you were on the 26th hour of an epic 39 hour crusade?

There is no starting point in these games besides the title screen.

I think it depends on how good the story is. Video games that have story lines like Mario:TTYD or Kingdom Hearts are like books. One would reread them if they're good enough. I play Kingdom Hearts all the time and I never get bored of the story. I also tried to play Zelda:TP a second time but it was too tedious and boring; I didn't really "get a kick out of it." So it depends on the games and the gamer.The_Real_Riku

yes. if the story is good I want to finish. if the game motivates me. if i do boss after boss and cant beat it that can be frustrating. sometimes, like SMG, you cant just run around and get out of trouble so easy. that kind of game, that harder difficulty, I like. MGS:Twin Snakes on hard mode was pretty ideal for me.

It isn't that games are too long, I wish they would be longer.WolfWatch

What?

I've got games to play, I want new games and I can't have all the old ones piling up not finished (more)

I mean look at Endless Ocean, know what's keeping me from that game? It's ENDLESS so I mean when do I know when I've done enough?

Longer?

That's why they make more games, I don't want 60 hours because while that 60 is going on there's more games that need me to play them.

I find it funny that 2 people have chosen "button" as their answer.

And it looks like nobody has chosen "yes", even though some people are saying that I have a point.

Interesting. Interesting indeed.

The polls work now?

One second while I go vote then

I find it funny that 2 people have chosen "button" as their answer.

And it looks like nobody has chosen "yes", even though some people are saying that I have a point.

Interesting. Interesting indeed.

bob_newman

[QUOTE="WolfWatch"]It isn't that games are too long, I wish they would be longer.Jaysonguy

What?

I've got games to play, I want new games and I can't have all the old ones piling up not finished (more)

I mean look at Endless Ocean, know what's keeping me from that game? It's ENDLESS so I mean when do I know when I've done enough?

Longer?

That's why they make more games, I don't want 60 hours because while that 60 is going on there's more games that need me to play them.

Well Endless ocean wasn't meant to be finished. NMH could have been longer for instance. I finished Galaxy in the first week, could have been longer. Zelda took me idk, maybe a month but i took longer breaks from it. I liked the length in zelda games. Windwaker was nice as well.

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"]

[QUOTE="WolfWatch"]It isn't that games are too long, I wish they would be longer.WolfWatch

What?

I've got games to play, I want new games and I can't have all the old ones piling up not finished (more)

I mean look at Endless Ocean, know what's keeping me from that game? It's ENDLESS so I mean when do I know when I've done enough?

Longer?

That's why they make more games, I don't want 60 hours because while that 60 is going on there's more games that need me to play them.

Well Endless ocean wasn't meant to be finished. NMH could have been longer for instance. I finished Galaxy in the first week, could have been longer. Zelda took me idk, maybe a month but i took longer breaks from it. I liked the length in zelda games. Windwaker was nice as well.

Ok, so here's a question while I can still form words lol

You're the kind of person who wants all movies to clock in at 3 hours? King Kong is the right length for you and you'd like the length to be more mainstream?

[QUOTE="WolfWatch"]It isn't that games are too long, I wish they would be longer.Jaysonguy

What?

I've got games to play, I want new games and I can't have all the old ones piling up not finished (more)

I mean look at Endless Ocean, know what's keeping me from that game? It's ENDLESS so I mean when do I know when I've done enough?

Longer?

That's why they make more games, I don't want 60 hours because while that 60 is going on there's more games that need me to play them.

It's really not as "endless" as they make it out to be. Like one reviewer said: It's the biggest lie since the Never-Ending Story.

I've got the game, and that type of game is ideal for me, because even though there's a loose storyline to follow, you don't have to follow it at all. Most of the time, I just find myself swimming around, checking stuff out. And I only ever play for an hour or so at a time. If you can get past the "non-game" style the game has going for it, it's the perfect title for people who simply don't have the time to dedicate their lives to it.

Would people be happy if they made games that were shorter, but cost less?

Zack and Wiki is a game that doesn't take very long, but it's only $30 right now. I've actually gone through and played that one again, but I haven't touched Zelda:TP since the first playthrough. I actually feel like I got more for my money with the shorter game, for some reason. I guess replayability is the most important aspect in a game, in my opinion.

Would people be happy if they made games that were shorter, but cost less?

Zack and Wiki is a game that doesn't take very long, but it's only $30 right now. I've actually gone through and played that one again, but I haven't touched Zelda:TP since the first playthrough. I actually feel like I got more for my money with the shorter game, for some reason. I guess replayability is the most important aspect in a game, in my opinion.

bob_newman

money isn't the issue. length, quality, difficulty, and value is.

What?

I've got games to play, I want new games and I can't have all the old ones piling up not finished (more)

I mean look at Endless Ocean, know what's keeping me from that game? It's ENDLESS so I mean when do I know when I've done enough?

Longer?

That's why they make more games, I don't want 60 hours because while that 60 is going on there's more games that need me to play them.

Jaysonguy

Do you play every game that comes out?

I'd honestly believe you if you said yes...

Then again, the amount of hours you put into a game really depends on how much you enjoy playing it. A game can be, in theory, really short, say 12-15 hours long on a standard difficulty. If you like the game, but get bored of it by the end you might have played the game once or twice. Say you really enjoy this game, so much so that one playthrough is not enough, and you play through it one, two, even three more times. All of a sudden that 12 hour game suddenly has a new time on it of maybe 36 hours. A substantial increase.

It really comes down to how much you like the game. I'll give an Example. Pokemon Diamond is a rather lengthy game, maybe taking the average gamer about 20+ hours to complete. Wanna guess how many hours I've put into the game... 202 hours at the moment. What can I say, the game is amazing and I enjoy every minute of it. Another game could be Mass Effect. A 12-25 hour game. I've done all the side quests, played through it multiple times, and still have achievements to unlock. Right now I've played the game for about 65-70 hours. That's a lot of time.

So yeah, the length of a game is really determined by how much you enjoy the game, and how much time you put into it. That's my thoughts on the subject at least...

[QUOTE="bob_newman"]

Would people be happy if they made games that were shorter, but cost less?

Zack and Wiki is a game that doesn't take very long, but it's only $30 right now. I've actually gone through and played that one again, but I haven't touched Zelda:TP since the first playthrough. I actually feel like I got more for my money with the shorter game, for some reason. I guess replayability is the most important aspect in a game, in my opinion.

WolfWatch

money isn't the issue. length, quality, difficulty, and value is.

If that's the case, then why are they making WiiWare games? They are definately going to be shorter.

Sam and Max is coming to WiiWare I believe, and those games are short, but got great reviews. They have "episodes" instead of one long game, and it seems to be a great idea.

I would rather pay $25 for a game that is half the length, as long as they keep making "episodes" to keep it going.

What is the point of a 40 hour story? Things often get dragged out, and sometimes it just feels like they're stretching the material to cover a longer gameplay time.

An important element to Zelda games has always been about the story. If the Zelda franchise had cheaper, shorter games, but more frequent games, not only would each episode sell well, but it would give us more stories.

This is just a thought though. Don't take it too seriously.

It really comes down to how much you like the game. I'll give an Example. Pokemon Diamond is a rather lengthy game, maybe taking the average gamer about 20+ hours to complete. Wanna guess how many hours I've put into the game... 202 hours at the moment. What can I say, the game is amazing and I enjoy every minute of it. Another game could be Mass Effect. A 12-25 hour game. I've done all the side quests, played through it multiple times, and still have achievements to unlock. Right now I've played the game for about 65-70 hours. That's a lot of time.

So yeah, the length of a game is really determined by how much you enjoy the game, and how much time you put into it. That's my thoughts on the subject at least...

Niff_T

A HA! We've come to the rub!

See I think this is part of Bob's point (If I'm wrong Bob say so)

A game like Pokemon allows you to spend tens of hours in the game not doing anything particularly story driven. I mean sure you can finish Pokemon lickity split but at the same time you can log in monster hours (pun made me laugh lol) just grinding out levels in the game.

[QUOTE="Niff_T"]

It really comes down to how much you like the game. I'll give an Example. Pokemon Diamond is a rather lengthy game, maybe taking the average gamer about 20+ hours to complete. Wanna guess how many hours I've put into the game... 202 hours at the moment. What can I say, the game is amazing and I enjoy every minute of it. Another game could be Mass Effect. A 12-25 hour game. I've done all the side quests, played through it multiple times, and still have achievements to unlock. Right now I've played the game for about 65-70 hours. That's a lot of time.

So yeah, the length of a game is really determined by how much you enjoy the game, and how much time you put into it. That's my thoughts on the subject at least...

Jaysonguy

A HA! We've come to the rub!

See I think this is part of Bob's point (If I'm wrong Bob say so)

A game like Pokemon allows you to spend tens of hours in the game not doing anything particularly story driven. I mean sure you can finish Pokemon lickity split but at the same time you can log in monster hours (pun made me laugh lol) just grinding out levels in the game.

Yep, exactly my point.

Side quests, and the ability to screw around in the game world, are what gives games their replay value.

When a game consists of 40+ hours of just story, it becomes unnecessarily stretched out in many areas.

Mario games are a good example of situations where you don't have to follow the story to play, and they even let you go back to your favorite levels and do it again if you want (which I do).

A story doesn't need to be 30 or 40 hours: some of the best literature ever written are short stories.

A longer story doesn't equal a better story. That's my argument here.

well I may be a freak but I beat zelda in 3 days (thanksgiving weekend, annoying family over, locked self in room and played relentlessly) but the longer the better. More bang for my buck. I don't want to pay 50 bucks for 6-10 hours of entertainment (unless there's some amazing online)

I suppose campaigns could be shorter with awesome online. That's what CoD4 is right. Short but great campaign and awesome online

[QUOTE="Jaysonguy"][QUOTE="Niff_T"]

It really comes down to how much you like the game. I'll give an Example. Pokemon Diamond is a rather lengthy game, maybe taking the average gamer about 20+ hours to complete. Wanna guess how many hours I've put into the game... 202 hours at the moment. What can I say, the game is amazing and I enjoy every minute of it. Another game could be Mass Effect. A 12-25 hour game. I've done all the side quests, played through it multiple times, and still have achievements to unlock. Right now I've played the game for about 65-70 hours. That's a lot of time.

So yeah, the length of a game is really determined by how much you enjoy the game, and how much time you put into it. That's my thoughts on the subject at least...

bob_newman

A HA! We've come to the rub!

See I think this is part of Bob's point (If I'm wrong Bob say so)

A game like Pokemon allows you to spend tens of hours in the game not doing anything particularly story driven. I mean sure you can finish Pokemon lickity split but at the same time you can log in monster hours (pun made me laugh lol) just grinding out levels in the game.

Yep, exactly my point.

Side quests, and the ability to screw around in the game world, are what gives games their replay value.

When a game consists of 40+ hours of just story, it becomes unnecessarily stretched out in many areas.

Mario games are a good example of situations where you don't have to follow the story to play, and they even let you go back to your favorite levels and do it again if you want (which I do).

A story doesn't need to be 30 or 40 hours: some of the best literature ever written are short stories.

A longer story doesn't equal a better story. That's my argument here.

Well I feel the opposite of you. Rpgs have to be a minimum of 40 hours for me to be worth buying (it has to be a good story granted, but there's a ton of good longstory driven rpgs out there)and having enough side quests. These kind of games also have replay value in themselfs because you want to relive the experience. I just feel cheated when I bought a $50 games and it was only 20 hours of gameplay and the story didn't get to me. But that's just with RPGS, I have a blast with Mario Galaxy because of the gameplay experience and Umbrella Chronicles with it's replay value elements.

I guess what i'm trying to say is a game has to be worth $50. MP3 is good, but it's lacking somethig, maybe it's lenght, a more complicated story or some replay value, like multiplayer or DLC.

Yeah I know what you mean. I have other things to do, Sometimes my games just go unfinished. Mostly RPG's, then when I get back to them I can't remember the story and stuff. On the other hand games are expensive now a days and I dont want to pay 60 dollars for a 5 hour game (heavenly sword). There needs to be a balance, I think 15 hours to 20 is a good amount.Minishdriveby

One of my ideas that I put forth was that maybe they can make shorter games for a cheaper price point, but make them more frequent, like Sam and Max.

[QUOTE="Minishdriveby"]Yeah I know what you mean. I have other things to do, Sometimes my games just go unfinished. Mostly RPG's, then when I get back to them I can't remember the story and stuff. On the other hand games are expensive now a days and I dont want to pay 60 dollars for a 5 hour game (heavenly sword). There needs to be a balance, I think 15 hours to 20 is a good amount.bob_newman

One of my ideas that I put forth was that maybe they can make shorter games for a cheaper price point, but make them more frequent, like Sam and Max.

That's a good idea. But there is the problem of waiting. Like lets say the games were broken up into parts. A game like okami would lets say be 3 parts . I dont think I could bare waiting for the other 2 installments, some games I want to keep on going. Im just saying I dont want to pay 50 to 60 dollars for a 5 hour game. I dont really mind paying that much if its at least 20 hours you know.

Maybe if they are shorter games they should sell them at a lower price. I think that's a better idea. like 5 hour games lets say 40 dollars. 15 to 30 hours umm 50. and 35+ 60 (price of a 360/ps3 game). Of course this pricing may vary. Most likely on different consoles.

Just checked my PS2 and I have 70 hours logged on Contra Shattered Soldier. Still haven't seen all the endings. FFXII: 89 hours, and maybe halfway through the story. Don't think I'll ever play it again. I still go to the fishing hole in Zelda TP, and wish there was another opportunity for sumo wrestling, but I probably won't start over from the beginning.

You make a good point about the different aspects that make a game worth playing. A big part of which is just creating a world that's fun to visit even after you've saved it. For shorter games, it's important to have a manageable challenge to keep it rewarding.

Games are too short, if anything, these days.aransom

I don't think you read my post properly, if at all.

I love games to be long. I want every game to have almost infinite replay value.

A 40 hour, stretched out story mode leaves the game at 40 hours. If there are things like side quests, fun sandbox-style elements (a la GTA), and other random things, the game can end up being 100 hours or more.

Someone agreed with me, but didn't know it:

It really comes down to how much you like the game. I'll give an Example. Pokemon Diamond is a rather lengthy game, maybe taking the average gamer about 20+ hours to complete. Wanna guess how many hours I've put into the game... 202 hours at the moment. What can I say, the game is amazing and I enjoy every minute of it. Another game could be Mass Effect. A 12-25 hour game. I've done all the side quests, played through it multiple times, and still have achievements to unlock. Right now I've played the game for about 65-70 hours. That's a lot of time.

Niff_T

Again, nobody seems to be fully reading what I'm saying. There were maybe 3 people out of everyone here who took the time to read it right and think about it.

I read it, you were complaining about the story of SPM being too long, because you don't want to have to go through the whole story again. I wish the main quest of SPM was longer, I wish the main quest of Zelda TP was longer, I wish the main quest of MP3 was longer. A game that takes 20 hours to complete the main story is considered normal nowadays, ten years ago, it would be considered short. If they could make a game that took two hours to complete, but you could play it 100 times and it would be different and interesting every time, I'd be all for it, but that's not the way they make games.aransom

That's why I'm saying that's how they should make games. That's my whole point here. LoZ:OoT had a lot more replayability in it than TP did. One major complaint about TP was the lack of side quests and such.

I have nothing against games with a long story, as long as they have a quality in which you can just take a break from the main story and go at your own pace. That's all I'm saying.

God no. Main quests/stories are not long enough for me. Side quests are great and a vital peice of any long game to help break up things up along with increasing the play time, but I will never sacrifice main game length just so its easier for some people to replay a game. I want games to keep me in the world for as long as possible in one run, not force me to relive the same things over again with the most basic of differences in order to get my fill of it.

In and ideal world devs could create a game that is fresh with each new playthrough, but they cant. Mass Effect, TES and Kotor series are among the few games that have the ability to really provide a slighty different experience through replaying them, even then you basically get everything out of them through 2, maybe 3 run throughs at the most. Not many games can do this, and not all games should have to do this.

Some people just don';t have the time to keep track of the convoluted stories either

How many times have you been partially through a game and have to stop playing for whatever reason then go to grab it again but you're completely lost because you were on the 26th hour of an epic 39 hour crusade?

There is no starting point in these games besides the title screen.

Jaysonguy

One of the greatest "inventions" in a video game ever was the synopsis option in Tales of Symphonia for the GC. I stepped away from that game for a week or more at a time sometimes. Whenever I came back, I could read the synopsis and it guides you where you need to go next. The main story is between 40-50 hours and has more twists and turns than a track on Mario Kart. All long story games should have that option or some kind of option to tell you where you are in the story.

To answer the topic, yes I feel games can be too long these days. I would generally be happy with 20-30 hours. Not too long, not too short, you can fit in a good story, and you can replay it without it disrupting newer games.

First of all many replies in here are depressing

Secondly I don't think that many of you are getting the point so I want to simplify it until Bob gets here and changes the direction lol

It's not about having a game that totals 10 hours to finish. It's about having a game that at minimum takes 10-20 hours to finish but if you choose to play out all the side stories you can make the game stretch to 40-60 hours.

This means that it's in YOUR hands how long you want the game to be. If you don't want to do every little thing in a game (because most of it is boring hello Zelda I'm looking at you) then you'll end up with a shorter game. If you don't mind playing through boring spots in games then have it at and play for 50.

rabid dogs away!

we need more games with depth like ZTP

i've gotten kinda sick of the mini game mashup games for wii!

Some people just don';t have the time to keep track of the convoluted stories either

How many times have you been partially through a game and have to stop playing for whatever reason then go to grab it again but you're completely lost because you were on the 26th hour of an epic 39 hour crusade?

There is no starting point in these games besides the title screen.

Jaysonguy

ok, im in need of an online - which game is more fun in gameplay and campaign or watever? Battalion wars 2 or mario strikers.

which is the best buy?

Which has more people online?

which is longest in single player?