|
So my wife goes to bed at 2 in the morning last night. I said I’d be right there. Just needed to finish off The Last of Us 2. Without spoilering it I had finished of the main story, I was back home. But the game just kept on going and going and going. Fell into bed at 5 in the morning. Same with Metal Gear Solid 4. I was ”just” going to watch the end movie and that fucker went on for like 1.5 hours. So is this a trend that some games outstays their welcome or drags on unnecessarily? I’m not even trying to plat games or get 100% on them, but 60-100 hours to finish a game is a bit too long, rarely have the developers the talent to keep the story interesting for that many hours. What are some of the longest games you’ve played from beginning to end not taking 100%-ing them into account and did you have fun all the way with them? gallilee fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Jan 28, 2023 |
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 12:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
on the whole games are actually the same length or shorter than they were in the ps2 era, open world games excepted. its just that as aaa game dev has become more about aping hollywood you get those insanely long end sequences. basically you're getting a hollywood movie but stretched out to 20 hours, so a 20 minute finale becomes a 2 hour finale. like resident evil 4 and the last of us 2 are about the same length its just that in resident evil the whole climax is about 30-45 minutes of gameplay and then a maybe 6-7 minute long cutscene ending, versus the finale of tlou2 where its like an entire hour long denouement with not that much gameplay. so its hard to find a good stopping point and it also feels like it drags way more. yknow. in conclusion resident evil 4 was good
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
I think there are exceptions of course, but I don't feel like games are that much longer. There's more bullshit involved to pad out the length of the game. Take open world games, if you beeline the main story you might finish the whole thing in 10 hrs or less. If you are supposed to play them right, there's travel time, there's activities to side track you like picking up chests or collectables. Then you have all this stuff and you need to spend time in the menu comparing stats or dealing with complicated game systems instead of actually playing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
There's a few genres that pride themselves on being a waste of your god drat time but I don't think it's an industry wide issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
nah
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Endorph posted:on the whole games are actually the same length or shorter than they were in the ps2 era, open world games excepted. its just that as aaa game dev has become more about aping hollywood you get those insanely long end sequences. basically you're getting a hollywood movie but stretched out to 20 hours, so a 20 minute finale becomes a 2 hour finale. like resident evil 4 and the last of us 2 are about the same length its just that in resident evil the whole climax is about 30-45 minutes of gameplay and then a maybe 6-7 minute long cutscene ending, versus the finale of tlou2 where its like an entire hour long denouement with not that much gameplay. so its hard to find a good stopping point and it also feels like it drags way more. yknow. Start->Skip cutscene. I don't want a movie, I wanna play a game. Put your narrative in the gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
cutscenes are good, except in the last of us
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
ghostinmyshell posted:I think there are exceptions of course, but I don't feel like games are that much longer. There's more bullshit involved to pad out the length of the game. Yeah, the Ubisoft way. I bought Farcry 6 and played for an hour or so and then I realised it’s the same padding bullshit in this game like in all their titles and I said gently caress it. Not well spent 70 bucks, but hey, at least they look good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Yes but probably overall only need to be slightly shorter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
I like big games and don’t usually get upset when there’s a lot of content for my bucks. Not all of them need to be that way and there are plenty of games out there that understand that. I think the answer is you’re getting older and have less time and patience for big long sprawling games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
On the contrary, I think games are getting shorter. Not all of them, obviously, but I was dumping 200-plus hours into Baldur's Gate more than twenty years ago. Plenty of games now clock in under five hours, which was considered unacceptable before digital distribution made flexible pricing more viable. That said, among the highest-profile Triple-A games, there has been a shift in the last ten years from linear shooters and adventure games to open-world extravaganzas. From your Gears of Wars and Uncharteds to your Horizons and Assassin's Creeds. So if we're talking specifically about the big-budget tentpoles, then I think you could argue those are longer on average. But industry-wide? Nah, definitely shorter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
In a younger day, i was a psycho game completist. The only game i could stand to plat in ages was Elden Ring. I played it for like 3 months, multiple characters, about 250+ hrs. Still nowhere near 1 char in morrowind. I think it's less that games are longer, but everyone is trying to make GAAS forever games which technically don't have an end and you play until YOU'RE done with em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 06:17
|
|
|
I think your problem is starting a game at 2am. I complete games more than ever before in my 30's but my wife goes to bed at 10pm and I go to bed at 12- 2am. Takes me a month to get through a 40hr game and I play one game at a time until it's done, assuming I get past the first 5h. In my 20's I never finished games at all. No stamina for it. Spent more money on games and got less out of it. cubicle gangster fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jan 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 07:12
|
|
|
I'm at a point where I'm finding it hard to invest tons of time into a single game unless it's really, really loving good. When games get advertised as "huge" and "40 hour story" I check out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 08:14
|
|
|
Endorph posted:cutscenes are good, except in the last of us I feel like strong anti-cutscene opinions are usually either the result of playing bad games or having undiagnosed ADHD (because the idea of just getting extremely mad/frustrated because you aren't pressing buttons for a couple minutes is pretty weird unless there's some reason that the very act of not doing things is uncomfortable). If you dislike the narrative of a game that much, just don't play it! There are more games than ever now, and it's not exactly difficult to avoid the ones that are cutscene-heavy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 08:39
|
|
|
man nurse posted:
Sadly I believe you are absolutely right. I can’t be bothered to start a game no matter how much I like to because I know I have to be somewhere or do something in an hour or two. (Also starting playing at 2am is indeed stupid, but I have to sneak it in when I don’t have any plans and the family is in bed)
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 09:12
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:On the contrary, I think games are getting shorter. Not all of them, obviously, but I was dumping 200-plus hours into Baldur's Gate more than twenty years ago. Plenty of games now clock in under five hours, which was considered unacceptable before digital distribution made flexible pricing more viable. I mean, back in the NES and SNES days, you could haul rear end through a lot of popular games faster than that. You had to be able to, in some cases, because there wasn't a save feature. If it couldn't be done in one session, it wasn't an option at all. It wasn't until the Playstation and Playstation 2 era that you really started getting the "I can beat this in an afternoon" thing treated as a problem, if memory serves. (And even then, you still had games hit decent sales numbers with that as a cited drawback in reviews. The Dreamcast Gundam game and Contra 4 seem to have been reasonably successful despite being under five hours, as was Kirby: The Crystal Shards). I think one reason games feel longer now, though, is a genre thing. Open world adventure games are pretty common among modern AAA games, and they're easy to draw out without adding much new content. Horizon Forbidden West, Elden Ring, and Assassin's Creed Valhalla are all ridiculously long, and it's partially a product of their basic structure. Then again, Last of Us 2 is nearly ten hours longer than the first game, so maybe it is just a thing with modern studios feeling the need to justify their budgets. Ytlaya posted:I feel like strong anti-cutscene opinions are usually either the result of playing bad games or having undiagnosed ADHD (because the idea of just getting extremely mad/frustrated because you aren't pressing buttons for a couple minutes is pretty weird unless there's some reason that the very act of not doing things is uncomfortable). If you dislike the narrative of a game that much, just don't play it! There are more games than ever now, and it's not exactly difficult to avoid the ones that are cutscene-heavy. I mean, a lot of really good games have bad plots. Just because you like the core mechanics doesn't mean you like the writing, and spending time watching someone's high school production of a sixth grader's fantasy spec-script while waiting to get back to the fun core gameplay just makes the wait more frustrating. I'd also say, even aside from quality, some of it is cutscene pacing. If you just beat a difficult boss fight after half a dozen tries, or finally cleared out a difficult puzzle, you're probably ready for a breather, so the cutscene can act as a reward. (You did well at the game, so here are more jokes, or some plot reveals, or just cool action scenes that don't work very well with the standard gameplay). However, if you just got a new ability, or entered a new area, or even just started the game, you're more likely in the mood to just play the game. A lot of cutscenes in the wrong place can kill momentum stone dead, delaying whatever you were excited about for so long that you can't even remember why you were excited.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 11:33
|
|
|
I don't think games are getting longer, I actually think there's more viable options for good, rewarding short game experiences these days than there used to be. While older games were often beatable in a single sitting, frequently the game was designed to be difficult enough that you had a lot of work to do in terms of memorisation and repeated attempts at the game until you could reach that point. IMHO one thing that I think makes a hell of a lot of games feel longer is the current popularity of sticking open worlds, crafting mechanics, and RPG elements like itemisation and leveling into any and all genres regardless of whether or not they actually serve the core game design by being there. This stuff bloats perfectly fine 10-20 hour games out to 60 hours without there being much differentiating the last 40 hours of running around ticking off icons on a map from what you were doing by hour 10 when you unlocked the last of the core mechanics. I've been enjoying modern games a lot more since I started treating 100%ing the game/exploring all side content as required rather than completely optional, and also just being better at looking at a game and going "actually I've played enough of that and I'm okay to stop".
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 11:43
|
|
|
I also feel like the introductory sequences to games are way longer. When I get a new 'big' game I feel like I have to block out two or three hours just to start it, because I know it is going to shove me through an endless unskippable tutorial. I kinda miss how older games would often have a seperate tutorial or training mode (like the obstacle course in Half Life) that would show you the ropes and then you can just get on with it. I feel like open world games should just start you in the open-world but let it be real obvious what you need to do to kick off the main plot, but it is pretty drat rare. You're often being led by the nose for ages before they let you wander around 'for real'. Sometimes it can be well done, but it very often isn't. Red Dead 2 for example. I love the game. I loved the story. But it was rather disheartening that I had to trudge around in the snow for several hours before I could just get on a horse and ride off to do cowboy things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 12:02
|
|
|
I liked Quantum Break's format. You play a chunk of the game, then you watch a 20 minute episode of a sci-fi TV show when you feel like continuing the plot, and get different scenes depending on your choices. If you don't have time, you can save there and quit until you want to come back to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 12:11
|
|
|
gallilee posted:Sadly I believe you are absolutely right. I can’t be bothered to start a game no matter how much I like to because I know I have to be somewhere or do something in an hour or two. This is it for me. I used to play Daggerfall, Star Control 2 and Wing Commander, and those weren't short games by any stretch of the imagination. We're just not 13 anymore with no responsibilities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:This is it for me. I used to play Daggerfall, Star Control 2 and Wing Commander, and those weren't short games by any stretch of the imagination. We're just not 13 anymore with no responsibilities. Same generation then. I finsihed Ultima 4-9 back in the day, finished EVERYTHING. I guess they were pretty drat long so my confession here just shot down my initial argument 😀
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
"Too long" for me means I got at least more than halfway through the game and I lost interest for whatever reasonand never finished. Last game I played like that was FFVI, greatest game of all time, and yet I have nearly 100 percented Shenmue 2, objectively not so great, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Very subjective. I also recently beat Dragon Quest 2 and I couldn't imagine trying to get through that for the first time back in the day, but not because it HAS to be that long. If you played it you understand. I think objectively speaking, Link's Adventure is smaller than A Link to the Past, but the former seems exponentially longer. Witcher 3 is hundreds of hours if you want and I still want more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
I feel like games are bigger in general but if you're just trying to get to the end credits they aren't that much longer. So yeah it's all padding, it's all the optional objectives that each make your character slightly stronger, it's the expanded gear and crafting system that you spend time getting materials and choosing upgrades, building pieces and equipping it all. It fleshed out the experience but it does mean you won't finish the game in the same time. Think about how much of that optional stuff is in God of War Ragnarök versus the original God of War trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
That sounds like more of a pacing thing, you thought the game was wrapping up then it kept going another 5 hrs. There's some games I actively avoid playing too close to bed since it's unpredictable if there'll be a natural break point to stop or not. Long story heavy games are one of those since it's always hard to tell how long their end sequences are going to be and sometimes there's a plot twist that both makes things take longer and makes you want to play more to see how it plays out. Most online play has issues with queue times or unpredictable match quality/length. You also don't want to be working on something RNG based or finding collectables that aren't explicitly marked out. Games with just really hard bosses/sequences can also be in this category if there's a legitimate chance of getting stuck on it for, like, hours. Usually this leads to me having one big long game I'm working on, but really only play when I have a couple hours available on weekends or something, alongside a few other games I know are good for shorter length. That may be a replaying a game I already beat and won't be tempted to over play or an only moderate difficulty platformer with natural break points due to levels. Vampire Survivors was a really good one in this regard since each run is capped at being only around 30 minutes. A lot of the games I play seem to hover around 20-30 hrs playtime. I think technically the older console games were shorter at their base, but since I was only buying like 1 game per 3 months back then, I'd do all the extra optional stuff to pad it out the extra 10 hrs. Like, the most recent game I finished was God of War 2018, which has a couple optional extra hard boss fights and optional areas post-game, which is normally the kind of thing I'd be into but decided to skip in favor of moving onto the next game. Meanwhile when RE4 came out, I fully finished out the mercenaries mode and the medals or whatever it was. I *think* both games ultimately averaged out into the 30-some hours range, but it's not like I have playtimes for both sitting right in front of me. These days I tend to favor the indie stuff, usually they're willing to do more experimental/interesting stuff because the games are almost always under 20 hrs and often well under 10. At the same time, some of these builder games like factorio or Oxygen Not Included I already have hundreds of hours in, which usually isn't something that would ever happen back in the day aside from MMOs like world of warcraft. So I really try to moderate how many of these longer games I take on in general. I still haven't played Witcher 3 or Like a Dragon despite really wanting to and already owning them, specifically because I know both of them will be something like 100 hrs each. I know once I get started, I'd be very tempted to marathon them for those 100 hrs and I could play through something like 6 other games in that same amount of playtime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
no. topic locked
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2023 19:54
|
|
