This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
| Cookie | Duration | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional | 11 months | The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-others | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other. |
| cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance | 11 months | This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". |
| viewed_cookie_policy | 11 months | The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data. |
That’s a legitimate take. Some games are too long
After slogging through AC Vahalla’s 50 hour main story, I agree. I was damn adamant to finish it.
There’s plenty of shorter games out there. There’s games for everyone
You don’t have to play every game.
You don’t have to finish every game.
Breath of the Wild isnt even a long game. Not unless you want it to be. The game let’s you walk up to Hyrule Castle whenever you please
If a games story is 10-12 hours but the game takes over 100 hours to finish because of fetch quests and collectibles, and the games progression I stunted because of that then fuck that game. That’s exactly how most “open world” games are.
There is actually a good point hiding behind that obnoxious heading, shame the article has as much padding as the later Assassin’s Creed games.
This isn’t even remotely close to the worst take.
If the gameplay loop doesn’t have enough variety or cool stuff or perhaps even progression, then a 60 hour or more game can turn into a slog. AC Valhalla comes to mind. Other games of such length fare better occasionally.
Games are too long. It feels like every AAA game nowadays has to be 60 hours. That’d be just swell if it was all great content. It isn’t. It’s 7-10 hours of solid big budget production values and 45 hours of filler, rinse and repeat low effort side content.
The games industry will be a healthier and better place when we can get back to a time when someone could actually beat a AAA game in a reasonable amount of time. It seems like the only people against this idea are kids who have all the time in the world to dedicate to massive time sinks.
For the adults in the room, it’s way, way, way too much filler bullshit. Elden Ring is the only recent AAA open world 60+ hour game I can think of in recent memory that earned its length. God of War wasn’t really open world but for arguments sake I’ll throw that one in the “good” pile too.
As someone who loves gaming but for whom the practicalities of life make time for gaming sessions few and far between, I *kind of* agree with this. I selfishly wish there was more of a market for shorter, linear AAA experiences (10-20 hrs). I generally don’t have the time for the big, open world RPGs I’ve always loved. I don’t play consistently enough to get any fulfillment from competitive online shooters. So I’m kind of relegated to indies, ALOT of rogue likes which for the most part I’m fine with, but that doesn’t always scratch the itch. I could still chip away at big RPGs, but I either forget where I am and continually restart or inevitably lose interest when the next big thing comes along (me problem, I’m well aware, hence I *selfishly* wish).
On a side note, if anyone has suggestions (Switch or PS4) that meet my albeit vague criteria, they’d be much appreciated.
if this is the dumbest take you’ve heard about gaming you must have been living inside a cocoon or something up until today.
You think THIS is the worst take….
I actually don’t disagree with this. I would rather have ana amazing short 10 hour experience than a long drawn out 30 hour one. Now there I’d massive nuance here but at a glance without reading the article I don’t entirely disagree with the statement.
Depends on the game, not every game has the story or devs to make it worth playing for 50+ hours.
Assassins creed Valhalla is bloated and would benefit from filler content being cut. A game like the last of us is a short game but the quality is such that it’s worth experiencing.
Personally I tend to prefer shorter games. 12 is enough before I start getting bored, unless the game is something special.
Swap these pictures of elden ring and breath of the wild with any Ubisoft game and I bet everyone will suddenly agree with her.
Well I definitely see how it would make the reporter’s job easier.
Why not just link the article?
Not gonna lie. I agree with her perspective.
I will avoid games entirely if I know they’ll take me hours upon hours… and some of those games I probably would have loved to play…
But I just don’t have time anymore. And that sucks. I wish I did…
The older I’ve gotten, the more I dislike long open world games. I really just want some straightforward. Having a kid did this really.
Wish I had more time for my hobby but I have more fun with my little wild child.
Nah I’m tryna have a life. I miss like 6-13 hour campaigns. 20 hours max. I don’t have 4 months to play each new game. I play ESO for the long haul. I want good fun quick stories and fun multiplayer.
After getting older and gaining a job/responsibilities I sympathize with this viewpoint more
Honestly i feel this. Most open world games have a story that could be told over the course of a few hours, maybe 5-10 tops. But they drag it out to walking around an empty map with nothing cool or exciting to force a minimum 80 hr completion. The other problem is every games seems to have crafting amd an XP system. Why cant more games just ha e a metroid style upgrade system? Hey, heres a cool gadget, you can use it now. I really despise that I feel forced to kill 8k chickens in order to raise my damage number just to have a chance at clearing a boss. Just give me an actual upgrade rather than just a bigger number. A tri-shot laser upgrade is cool. Going from 7 damage up to 10 is not cool, just convenient.
Its a majority or triple A games now also. Every game is open world! Yay! Honestly fuck that. I just want to be told a story. Direct me where to go. Guide the story at the pace a writer intended rather than let the player decide how fast a story is told. I want more linear games, with less numbers, and pure simple challenges. I want video games that tell a story, one that I have almost 0 control over. I dont want the main character to be morally ambiguous because the player has a choice.
New games are subpar as fuck today in comparison to older games.
I like long games, but if that length is because the game is filled with pointless fetch quests and endless grind, then I don’t want it.
I’m looking at you, Ubisoft.
This is the worst take you’ve seen? You don’t look at a lot of gaming takes
This is actually a totally fine take, broadly speaking. Not every game needs to be so long. More isn’t always better.
I don’t really see the problem. The author isn’t saying don’t make long games, she’s just expressing that games don’t have to be long to be good.
Nah, I agree with the title. Not every game needs to be 180-240h long. Sometimes a 3h game, with a good enjoyable loop to replay is enough.
I actually agree with this, but it’s worded badly.
The two games shown are horrendous examples btw. What I am about to say does not apply to them because they utilize length and content extremely well.
Many games these days arbitrarily pump up their hours using filler content to seem more “expansive” and have a greater “bang-for-your-buck” because many people see a games value in it’s playtime, so any short games are seen as wastes on money. “Why would I spend 20 bucks on this game to get 7 hours out of it when I could spend 60 bucks on this game to get 120 hours?” Games like Assassin’s Creed and even Horizon: Zero Dawn (I cannot speak for Forbidden West) come to mind. I would actually love if game devs who don’t have any more good shit to put in their game simply don’t put in more shit. Give me a AAA game that is tight and exciting and filled to the brim with fun for all 10 hours instead of a 150 hour slog with a few good moments.
The two games above are the only open-world games I’ve enjoyed because every other open-world game felt like “point A to point B with pointless shit in the middle” Meanwhile the fun of Elden Ring and BotW came out of exploring and dicking around between major checkpoints. It makes me sad because if so much time wasn’t wasted on filler content in other games the main stuff could be improved even more.
Honestly I don’t think the sentiment is without merit
No I don’t think the “stop releasing long games” is the way to put it, but honestly it’s nice to have a full experience without it taking months to enjoy when I have a full busy life
A LOT of long games include a ton of fluff, a ton of stuff that takes time but isn’t super fun, I’d rather have a jam packed shorter game most of the time
Yes there’s long games I love, but it’s weird to me how much people value games by length, we don’t do that with movies, books, tv shows, that isn’t the main selling point in concerts, we don’t judge albums primarily by how many minutes it is. Yes there’s a point where an experience can be too short and leave you wishing you got more in a bad way, but I really don’t judge an entertainment experience in dollars per hour.
Some games benefit from being longer and need that time to deliver their full experience and that’s great, but I’ve definitely had my share of 10-15 hour games that really stick with me and I loved, and I don’t think back and be like “well I loved it, but man I paid 6 dollars per hour of entertainment, give me a solid $1 per hour experience that’s ok and fun sometimes and just ok at others any day”, that’s just a really bizarre thing to me that seems to be gaining traction.
I don’t know, there’s already way more games I’d love to play that I don’t have the time for, so longer certainly isn’t among the top things I value
Poorly worded. Modern high budget games tend to have a lot of bloat that artificially increases length. This isn’t unique in the modern era, but it is far more ubiquitous than it was pre-7th gen. Before, you’d need a JRPG or MMO to hit 100+ hours. Now any carbon-copy sandbox can easily surpass those numbers. Even the good ones aren’t exempt from bloat. Anyone who uses “you’re not supposed to collect them all” to excuse 900 Korok Seeds is misguided, to use the least offensive term.
Variety is the spice of life and sage is the herb of sausages. So long as there’s a good degree of variety and shit to do, big games are great.
No, that’s reasonable, I think.
I’ll never mind having content, but I think trying to push for as much of it as possible will lead to either far, far more burnout in the industry, or a LOT of ’empty’ content.
I would rather 99% of the games I play don’t turn into Ubisoft tower climbing sims dotted with ‘content’ that really just consists of the same 3 or 4 gameplay moments looped for ‘thousands of hours of enjoyment!’.
I honestly kinda agree. I’d be better with several shorter games, than one long one. Also not enough new IP’s today, I’d prefer a new story and characters, than another assassin’s creed, fifa etc. Because it’s the same as with marvel movies, you won’t understand it in full until you play all 20 games dating to the 90s