Depends on the genre I'd say. Player retention is definitely a complicated issue, and bigger AAA releases do tend to bloat things (especially when they go for the open world/Ubisoft method). As for indies, I play a lot of roguelites, so I think I have a skewed perspective on "too short" there.
I‘ve been playing many really good games without completing them. I‘m always like „man, just let me finish it“ trying to rush the story, but it keeps throwing stuff at me. What’s wrong with doing a 30 hour game these days?
Its an issue most prevalent in RPGs imo because there’s no way you can have a 50 hour runtime and not have some really bad moments or quests that would’ve been avoided had the game been shorter
If it is a hot take it really shouldn't be. Because of Steams 2 hour return policy and people exploiting it, along with the frankly asinine dollar per hour value metric, it seems we're really disincentivizing low time/high impact experiences. It's a real shame!
I guess it also depends on the definition of "short".
Most people would agree that 2 hours is short. Some would argue that 10hrs is short, but people with less free time might consider the same 10hrs to be just right.
In AAA they probably do market research against their target demographic.
For AAA games, definitely not a hot take. Its pretty well known that games are getting bigger and bigger ever since open world games got a lot of praise. People want studios to replicate that and thats not a good thing.
I think it has been an issue since the late 2000s, especially with the whole "games are automatiaclly better as open worlds" meme
I myself prefer shorter games but with great replayability, like Pizza Tower where you're seeking P ranks after beating the game
I mean...a lot of games by big developers are creeping up to being 100.00 for the standard edition. I better be getting 40 to 50 plus hours of gameplay for that much money.
Indie games are typically much cheaper tho, so I don't mind them being shorter if the gameplay and art style is good.
I've kinda been getting that vibe sometimes too. There is genuinely nothing wrong with some games being short but sweet. I remember seeing some people think VHR was too short and easy a while back and it is ultimately their opinion, but sometimes I just think "Do you want games to exhaust you?"
I'm starting to notice that, too. But games don't necessarily have to be too short nor too long. They just got to have a playthrough runtime that's satisfying enough for people to enjoy and stick around with (but that's just what I think)
In this day and age, it's important to have both short arcade-style games like Crimzon Clover and long grand epic games like Breath of the Wild. So, I completely agree with you.
It seems that that games should provide infinite entertainment and you don't see that asked of any other form out there. Books and movies and just end. Why can't a game?
While we're here I can't stand the term "postgame" because if there's still content to do you're not "post" anything god dammit.
I’d MUCH rather play a polished 2 hour experience in a game than play a polished 2 hour experience that’s padded out with fetch quests and random things to make the story 8-10 hours
Fair, like dont get me wrong i have games that i wish were longer but after thinking about idk how theyd be longer, least not without sacrificing other quality stuff like gameplay or story
Whats funny is some games in the PS2/Gamecube era sometimes had tons of padding (especially for 100%) so this feels more like a "time is a flat circle" thing
Oh I didnt even think of Difficulty spikes but yeah, thats classic.
Theres also stuff like forcing you to grind either cause you need money, EXP, or just need to do a mini-game more than once to progress. Bloody Roar 4 had a TERRIBLE mission mode that was just the same fight 100 times PER CHARACTER
I think King of Fighters Maximum Impact might've done something similar, or it's sequel perhaps, and that's not even mentioning the infamous "NES difficulty"
Lots of indie games are short. I personally like a mixture. I love to check out indie games cause sometimes you can find amazing games that hardly anyone has heard of.
Depends on the game. Some games need to get straight to the point and not pad out game time or force players to revisit, and some need to be well paced and fleshed out. But it really all depends on your style of game.
yeah it's definitely the truth. I barely play any singleplayer games, and the most fun I've had was the like 6/7 hour long BF3 campaign, same goes for BF Bad Company 2. I just don't see a world in which I can even consider buying a game with a campaign longer than 10 hours (exception being GTAs).
part of me thinks it's because of a lot of gamers deeming a game "a waste of time/money" if it's short like not everything has to be a big budget 500 hour experience
might be wrong.
plenty of great short games out there to chow down on, it's a matter of time, money, and interest isn't it. where you see the big trailer for whatever big thing you care about, under the hood and beneath the undertow who knows what devs are up to. i've played a litany of cool stuffs
I think it depends on the genre and who develops it. No one is expecting a 50+ hour campaign from a shooter/indie game, but tons of people won’t buy a Square Enix rpg if the game is $70 with 20 hours of story. Some people buy games with the idea that every dollar spent should be an hour of gameplay.
Finishing a game fills me with a sense of accomplishment like no other and I almost never get that feeling anymore. I don’t always have the energy for a game that wants me for that long!! Beating a game in 3 or 4 sessions can feel amazing!
I'd say that I'm okay with long games as long as the "main story" content is short, like 20 or 30 hours. And now you put all of your 100 or 200 hours in optional content.
Or like roguelikes, you can technically finish the main game in a few hours, but you'll decide how long you want to play it.
i feel sharb's talking about how some games are too afraid of being short so they pad it out to be longer than they should be. not so much about games being 20-50 hours or something. thats a different thing.
sonic unleashed is a good example of this (medals existed just to pad things)
Honestly, the thought that every new game needs to be 40 hrs of nonstop action with a Oscar winning story is part of why budgets are so overbloated. More AAA games that just act as a short, fun experience would be great to see. Not too unrealistic either with the rise of small indir games doing well
A little. But I definitely could do with games being more focused. I can't finish games like cyberpunk because the core of the game is good, but is watered down by all that surrounds it. I finished elden ring cause the core was perfect, and nothing felt stapled on to pad the world out.
I think the real question here is, are there actually really long games or are you forcing yourself to do all of the side content just because it's there?
I'm at 300+ hours in FFX but it only took me 35 hours to beat the story.
Agreed. I'd rather have a replayable and fun 6 to 10 hour game than a tedious 100 hour game. When will developers remember that for something other than online multiplayer?
Comments
A Story About My Uncle by Coffee Stain Studios.
I have more respect for Pirates by comparison, at least least they want to actually play the game.
Like why even bother sinking money into this if you're not playing this stuff for fun
Most people would agree that 2 hours is short. Some would argue that 10hrs is short, but people with less free time might consider the same 10hrs to be just right.
In AAA they probably do market research against their target demographic.
I myself prefer shorter games but with great replayability, like Pizza Tower where you're seeking P ranks after beating the game
Indie games are typically much cheaper tho, so I don't mind them being shorter if the gameplay and art style is good.
just wanted to point this out since a lot of people are misunderstanding her post. she's talking about short games that are too scared of being short
While we're here I can't stand the term "postgame" because if there's still content to do you're not "post" anything god dammit.
But im stupid and insane so what do i know? :3c
Theres also stuff like forcing you to grind either cause you need money, EXP, or just need to do a mini-game more than once to progress. Bloody Roar 4 had a TERRIBLE mission mode that was just the same fight 100 times PER CHARACTER
And the TGA GOTY this year was like 12 hours long.
I love short indie games because it means it doesn’t take as long for them to come out + extra development time can be used for polish!
plenty of great short games out there to chow down on, it's a matter of time, money, and interest isn't it. where you see the big trailer for whatever big thing you care about, under the hood and beneath the undertow who knows what devs are up to. i've played a litany of cool stuffs
Or like roguelikes, you can technically finish the main game in a few hours, but you'll decide how long you want to play it.
sonic unleashed is a good example of this (medals existed just to pad things)
I miss being able to boot up a game that I can finish in a 20 to 25 hour window and have a complete story.
Now it seems only shooters have short campaigns so they can get you into multiplayer
I'm at 300+ hours in FFX but it only took me 35 hours to beat the story.