Anybody else thinks modern games are too long?

[Zera]

@Erik Twice: Your argument is solid, but I have some conflicts with it.

...because games are cheap and chances are that long, poddling 80 hours game with inmense replay value will sit on a shelf with a hundred other unplayed games.

First off, games are not cheap. Depending on what kinds of games you like (old vs new, digital vs retail), the price of games can be anywhere from $5 to $60. $60 is a very significant amount of money. Unless you have enough money to buy more than one retail game every month or two, you have to make that $60 count. Secondly, if you have unplayed games, why the heck are you buying more?

After all, if Commandos costs 60 cents, Thief II costs 2 euros and Railroad Tycoon three, does their lenght really matter that much?

Those games are all over a decade old. I'm sure they're fun, but they're not my style of gameplay anyways.

Like I said, I might want a $60 game. Does the cost/quality/length ratio matter now?

And even if not, try the following scenario: There are two games. They are (presumably) the same cost and the same quality, but one is slightly longer (perhaps an extra level).

You can only afford one. Which will you get?

[Magical CC]

I've got one for ya. There's a book - the best book in the world, I promise - but it's only one page long and costs as much as an average book. Will you buy it?

Bullshit. Honestly, totally bullshit. Only a child could brings up something like that. And only fools actually like that kind of argument. There's nothing like that in real life. Dont bring up unrealistic facts to an argument. If you want an example, make sure that's it realistic. How about this? I know a 5 year old kids who can outrun Usan Bolt in his prime. Do you like it?

Edited December 6, 2014 by Magical Amber

[Erik Twice]

First off, games are not cheap. Depending on what kinds of games you like (old vs new, digital vs retail), the price of games can be anywhere from $5 to $60. $60 is a very significant amount of money.

That's a bit like saying that eating is expensive because you only like to eat out at your city's most popular restaurants.

Sure, if you refuse to play games that aren't brand new, that have digital versions, that are indie or released through Humble Bundle and you absolutely must play them on release day instead of watiing three months for the inevitable price drop or Steam sale then you'll spend a lot of money on games. But you will spend a lot of money not because games are expensive but because of the rules you are imposing on yourself.

And even if not, try the following scenario: There are two games. They are (presumably) the same cost and the same quality, but one is slightly longer (perhaps an extra level).

You can only afford one. Which will you get?

Does it really matter?

Of all the things I might look for in a game, lenght just isn't important. It's isn't a decisive factor, I won't buy a game because it's longer. It's not a concern to me because I have access to more games than I can actually play.

[solrocknroll]

First off, games are not cheap. Depending on what kinds of games you like (old vs new, digital vs retail), the price of games can be anywhere from $5 to $60. $60 is a very significant amount of money. Unless you have enough money to buy more than one retail game every month or two, you have to make that $60 count. Secondly, if you have unplayed games, why the heck are you buying more?

why even ask this

i've probably beaten slightly less than half the games I own, and that doesn't matter to me.

[Integrity]

Does the cost/quality/length ratio matter now?

do you understand what a ratio is? you've done a lot of posting about how the ratio is not worth it but it is a ratio. mathematically, if the cost is high, the quality and/or length have to be high to compensate. that is why it is called a ratio.

jesus man

EDIT: also your hypotheticals blow so far, hth

Edited December 6, 2014 by Integrity

[Junkhead]

If that game's awesome, I have NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO reason to complain, at all. The more, the better, in this case. In fact, I'm currently playing Alice: Madness Returns. I just started Chapter 3 (out of 6 chapters) and I'm 8 hours in, already. I never want it to end. ;u;

[Shinehollow]

I don't really care if they're too long because they give me something to do when I'm not working/out of a job.

Plus,modern games?Long?Seriously,play Sonic Generations,the best Sonic on a home console in 20 years-the thing's so freaking short I made it to the final boss in about an hour.

[Skynstein]

I don't really care if they're too long because they give me something to do when I'm not working/out of a job.

Plus,modern games?Long?Seriously,play Sonic Generations,the best Sonic on a home console in 20 years-the thing's so freaking short I made it to the final boss in about an hour.

But Sonic has always been short. If you got the skill, you can also finish the classic Genesis ones in an hour and a half tops. Sonic 3 & Knuckles is the exception, because it's two games in one.

[Zera]

Bullshit. Honestly, totally bullshit. Only a child could brings up something like that. And only fools actually like that kind of argument. There's nothing like that in real life. Dont bring up unrealistic facts to an argument. If you want an example, make sure that's it realistic. How about this? I know a 5 year old kids who can outrun Usan Bolt in his prime. Do you like it?

Your scathing comment is at odds with your cutesy avatar. If you can't appreciate a preposterous joke, perhaps you ought to change your avatar to this:

@Erik Twice: I had a bad feeling you would make the assumption that I only buy $60 games. Truth be told, I think 95% of games at that price aren't worth it. Every month or two I spend anything from $20-$50 on games. It might be A Game By Treasure That I Need Now™, or two affordable used games, or three cheap digital titles. Because different games cost different amounts of money, I need a way to gauge value. And I do that as follows:

Quality x Length = Fun

Length / Cost = Value

Notice that both quality and length are in the first equation. A high quality game needs length for the quality to grow, and a high length game needs quality otherwise the game won't be fun. Quality is what makes a game fun, and length is an amplifier of what quality there is, good or bad. I will demonstrate with an example (a real one this time).

Me: Mighty Switch Force is pretty fun!

Me: I beat the first boss! On to world 2!

CREDITS

Me: But...Mighty Flip Champs had five worlds...why does this game only have one and cost nearly the same amount? : [

My Review: Mighty Switch Force is fun, but pathetically short. 6/10 Okay

I think expectations also play a role. Since Switch Force is in the same series as Flip Champs, I expected them to be of comparable length, and they weren't.

I beat Mighty Switch force in about two hours. I've played games on kongregate.com for two hours. Except those games were free.

To return to the heart of the topic, namely the title... "Anybody else think modern games are too long?"

In my opinion, no. If you tell me a game is too long, I'll simply state one of my mottoes:

If you feel a game is too long, that only means the quality wasn't high enough to justify the length.

When I think of my favorite games, I always think of games that I wish were longer or had sequels. This makes sense though. After all, if a game is perfect or nearly perfect, then literally the only way to improve it is to have more of it. Of course, you might prefer shorter games if you have little free time, don't like investing yourself in something, etc. In that case, length isn't very important. And for such people, I have a list of recommendations:

[spoiler='Short but Fun]

Rez (5 stages, 1 hour total)

Geometry Wars 2 or 3 (Several modes, levels can last a few minutes)

Nights Into Dreams HD (10 Dreams, up to 10 minutes each)

Ikaruga (5 Stages, 1/2 hour total )

Bangai-O Spirits (150 Stages from 10 seconds to a few minutes)

Sin and Punishment: Star Successor (7 stages from 20-40 min, 3-4 Hours total)

Luigi's Mansion (Plenty of save points, 5-7 Hours total)

Pikmin (30 in-game days, roughly 15 minutes each)

The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds (The shortest Zelda game I've played, with plentiful savepoints)

Mario Kart 7 or 8 (It's a racing game, so play sessions are short)

These are some of my picks from what I've played, but there are many more fun and short games besides these.

[Junkhead]

I don't really care if they're too long because they give me something to do when I'm not working/out of a job.

Plus,modern games?Long?Seriously,play Sonic Generations,the best Sonic on a home console in 20 years-the thing's so freaking short I made it to the final boss in about an hour.

Is the 3DS version that short? I have it and I think it's pretty cool, but I'm curious about the PS3 version, it looks so rad.

[peener weener]

how the fuck can you place value on a game by using length / cost? do you really think the value people see out of their money is only affected by the length of a game? do longer movies and albums have objectively more value than shorter ones? do bigger visual works have more value than smaller ones?

[Zera]

how the fuck can you place value on a game by using length / cost? do you really think the value people see out of their money is only affected by the length of a game? do longer movies and albums have objectively more value than shorter ones? do bigger visual works have more value than smaller ones?

Length is easily measurable and entertainment mostly exists to kill time. I do not, however, buy a game purely on value. Far from it; if a game is crap then I couldn't care less how long it is. But I have another example that will explain how I see things.

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess is an awesome game.

The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds is an awesome game.

If I were to judge these two games purely on quality, I'd say they're about even. I wouldn't tip the scale in favor of either one.

I fully enjoyed TP for about 50 hours. It cost $50. What a coincidence!

I fully enjoyed ALBW for about 20 hours. Not as much fun stuff in there. So a $20 sounds like an equivalent deal. One dollar for one hour of smiles.

But ALBW is not $20. It is $40. Therefore, in my opinion, ALBW is, dollar for dollar, less valuable than TP. Half as valuable, to be exact.

So TP is just as fun as ALBW, but twice as valuable. Therefore, I consider TP to be the superior game, as the developers have given me more for less.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Zera

[Magical CC]

how the fuck can you place value on a game by using length / cost? do you really think the value people see out of their money is only affected by the length of a game? do longer movies and albums have objectively more value than shorter ones? do bigger visual works have more value than smaller ones?

Length/cost is not the only thing that desires the value of a game, are you out of your mind? Have anybody here imply anything like that? Also, remember ground zeroes?

Edited December 8, 2014 by Magical Amber

[eclipse]

Kindly cut the snark (this goes back several posts, but I was out of the house at the time).

[Tryhard]

Ground Zeroes was a game that was insultingly short for the price it was released at.

However it was also an extremely good game for what it was. The price was a pisstake, but the game was good. That's one of the extreme cases where even MGS hardcore fans would feel cautious about recommendeding that game just because of its extreme brevity, but for most "short" action games, that's not as much the case.

Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, for example, is a game that follows a 6-12 hour action game timespan, and though I haven't played it myself generally gets universal positive praise. I think if you asked most if they felt like they got their money's worth even if they picked it up at full price, most people who enjoyed the game would say yes even if they see it as far shorter than the standard RPG or such.

any feelings of disappointment at length are almost always directly avoided by me (though usually this holds more true for PC games then console games) because I very rarely pre-order and usually wait for the game I want to be on sale for a good price. I've got enough already in my backlog, anyway. But even if a game is what I think is a little short, then I would have more qualms about the quality of the game. If it's shit or meh, I really don't care about the length anyway. But if a game is exceedingly long, especially in the case of grindfests, it may feel as though it is an addiction - sort of like binge eating junk food, when a game can be just as satisfying, if not a huge time investment, such as Portal or something. Shit, my favourite game ever, Diablo II, can be breezed through on Normal (there are higher difficulties, but it is the exact same game) difficulty in about 12-14 hours (and much shorter on subsequent runs). Doesn't mean I haven't put thousands of hours into it over the years. It's the sort of thing that when I complete it I immediately want to replay it and try something new. After I complete a really lengthy game I generally do not want to go back to it for a decent amount of time.

I find it hard to equate games of equal quality (and equal how?) and say the longer one is better. Often, shorter games are far more polished for the amount you play.

After playing Baldur's Gate II, Elder Scrolls, MMOs etc like a completionist and its ridiculous length I've kind of appreciated having shorter games every once and a while.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Tryhard