"Devs Respond: Are Games “Too Long"? "

[Deleted member 2595]

This!

I recently played XCOM: Chimera Squad and it does this well in some ways.

You can change difficulty during the game, you can skip a lot of the fights and only play the 'essential path'. And you can even change a parameter that eases up the 'metagame' so that you can play in a more relaxed fashion and focus on the main battles.

If they just added a faster way to skip all cutscenes and animations the game would be a complete joy.

I'm of the opinion that if you aren't introducing any new gameplay elements/challenges/areas what have you, then you should just end the game.

Click to shrink...

Agreed although as per discussion with Ruisu below it's a little off topic... but still valid

I don't get this comparison. The way you read a book or watch a movie changes nothing about how long it actually is.

Click to shrink...

True, I guess that persons post kind of moved on to a different topic about consumption style and then I continued that

I guess if you think of something like GTA V, they added a "skip encounter" button if you get stuck on a fight. And if you didn't have that button, you could get stuck on certain parts for a long time. The game length would be bloated. So allowing people to skip past anything difficult then that would alleviate the issue.

Because games are interactive the whole rule set is kind of different? Difficulty spikes or skill/accessibility have a big impact on length. Like some people beat TLOUP2 in 20 hours, others in 40

 

[Moist_Owlet]

Yes TLOU2 is paced badly

 

[Heromanz]

Are games really too long when
Many of best-selling games of the generation are long-ass games? I feel like the more your video game audience really doesn't care about the length of a game since they don't really buy that many games a year compared to someone on here.

 

[SecondNature]

people decried $60 8 hour games in the past.

I am fine with long games. I feel some people really need to learn to take breaks. There are so many people who get frustrated playing a game trying to beat it and then get mad when it slows its pace.

It's like reading books. Some are long and detailed. Some are short and concise. Let me enjoy the variety.

 

[ZeroX]

Developers should really take a look at their Trophy statistics. For instance, half of the people completed Final Fantasy VII Remastered. That seems lik a good amount. There is a significant drop at chapter 14, the chapter that is clearly stated to be too long by people here. Otherwise there is a 2-3% drop with each chapter. Only one third of the players finished Assassin's Creed Odyssey on the other hand, with a significant drop after sequence 6.

Click to shrink...

Yep. The numbers don't lie. Basically the best games, the most popular, talked about titles, the GOTYs, the 90+ MC games are beaten by only half the people that play them. 50% completion is considered very high. Most games are lower. That tells you that either games are too long, or at the very least not compelling enough to keep people playing.

the statistics will also tell you that JRPG fans also have a LOT of time on their hands. That's basically the one genre where 100+ hours is perfectly fine.

 

[cloudknight]

It's a balance. A game has to either have compelling gameplay throughout and/or a narrative that holds up the game. In many cases in modern games, the devs think the gameplay point is about quantity (I.e. Ubisoft sandboxes). Gameplay has to evolve and stay interesting. If 5 hours in, I'm doing the same combat thing with different configurations of enemies, that's not gonna hold up. For narratives, I can count on two hands how many games actually have a story that hold up a game by themselves.

So the end result, for me at least, is that most games fall flat about 5-7 hours in.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Is it that hard to believe that some of us found tlou 2 overly long? That it has pacing problems and the overall execution is not as effective as the original?

Click to shrink...

You can easily cut through the game and save up those 10 hours. Just don't research any buildings, don't do Seattle etc. It's your choice to play it for over 30 hours and look for every single building, drawer, etc.

I actually felt every single flashback came at the perfect time and it was great to get to know more about everything.
The game had a lot to uncover.

But of course it's okay to not enjoy the pacing and overall nature of the game, including length. And it's also ok to prefer the first game. Why wouldn't it?

TLOU2 is doing a lot more more than the first game anyway. And it's harder to digest.

 

[Elfgore]

I haven't played The Last of Us II, but I did just finish the first and it feels really short. Almost to the point Joel and Ellie's relationship feels incredibly rushed from the player's POV. I understand there is the implied passing of time between levels, but it just felt like Joel went from hating her to loving her in a level. The game could have used more length, which it seems ND did with II, just more than most people wanted.

This isn't a topic you can broadly stroke all of games or even just genres with either. Final Fantasy XV and The Witcher 3 are very long games. To me, the former feels bloated with boring hunts and other side content that exists to seemingly just exist. I as a player am just expected to do them for the experience and loot. The Witcher has similar setups, with many monster hunts and side quests, I enjoyed them because the game gave context to them and each one was a contained little story. Yeah, I still got experience and loot, but I got an enjoyable little story to go along with it.

Are games really too long when
Many of best-selling games of the generation are long-ass games? I feel like the more your video game audience really doesn't care about the length of a game since they don't really buy that many games a year compared to someone on here.

Click to shrink...

They also rarely finish games. The Witcher 3 is sitting at a 27% completion rate of any difficulty on Steam. I'm baffled developers continue to chase length when it looks like most people won't bother finishing their game. Does the illusion of length help sales? I'm genuinely curious about this since seemingly most people don't bother finishing games.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Yep. The numbers don't lie. Basically the best games, the most popular, talked about titles, the GOTYs, the 90+ MC games are beaten by only half the people that play them. 50% completion is considered very high. Most games are lower.

Click to shrink...

I just realized TLOU2 has been completed by 36% of everyone that played it. That's huge for a game that came out 2 weeks ago, was bought by millions of people and can last 35 hours.
I'm sure it's surpassing FFVIIR in a bit which is quite incredible.

 

[Deleted member 13101]

That starting tweet came from a guy who used to revel in and rave about jrpgs. Opinions can change quickly depending on which type of game you prefer.

Thanks for the vid recommendation.

 

[Heromanz]

I haven't played The Last of Us II, but I did just finish the first and it feels really short. Almost to the point Joel and Ellie's relationship feels incredibly rushed from the player's POV. I understand there is the implied passing of time between levels, but it just felt like Joel went from hating her to loving her in a level. The game could have used more length, which it seems ND did with II, just more than most people wanted.

This isn't a topic you can broadly stroke all of games or even just genres with either. Final Fantasy XV and The Witcher 3 are very long games. To me, the former feels bloated with boring hunts and other side content that exists to seemingly just exist. I as a player am just expected to do them for the experience and loot. The Witcher has similar setups, with many monster hunts and side quests, I enjoyed them because the game gave context to them and each one was a contained little story. Yeah, I still got experience and loot, but I got an enjoyable little story to go along with it.


They also rarely finish games. The Witcher 3 is sitting at a 27% completion rate of any difficulty on Steam. I'm baffled developers continue to chase length when it looks like most people won't bother finishing their game. Does the illusion of length help sales? I'm genuinely curious about this since seemingly most people don't bother finishing games.

Click to shrink...

people barely finish games are there a couple hours long I think that's just the nature of the industry. Like abzu is a 2 hour game that only 40% of the people have have beaten it.

 

[Deer]

I know many don't have time to listen to the whole thing, but I just wanna chime in that it touches upon a lot of the things people mention here: completion rate statistics/trophies, player engagement, consumption styles, how long sessions a player plays a game(leading to 'can this just end') and how player agency affects the perceived 'time'.

And the discussion is about perceived length/content and not only actual hours, though that of course is part of it. They also talk about how 'editing' works in a videogame and when in the process cuts usually happen.

It's super interesting, I didn't know who Alanah Pearce was before this, but she seems really smart and eloquently states her opinions. I'll be checking out more episodes!

 

[Lightjolly]

Hollow Knight was another game I felt was about 5 hours too long. Okami, my lord that game dragged on forever.

I feel 15 hours is the sweetspot

 

[Enduin]

I like longer games generally. I want to really be able to bite into a game and take it in for a while. Especially if they have any kind of meaningful narrative element. I want time for the story and for the gameplay to develop properly and fully mature and feel all angles explored. For me that generally means most games around or under 10-12 hours tend to feel lacking in that regard. They either rush through story events, don't give the plot or characters time to breath or interact in meaningful ways, and/or their combat never really evolves much and doesn't explore what it can do or there really wasn't anything terribly deep or great about it to begin with to sustain a decent sized game. 15-25 is the sweet spot for me for most Action Adventure/Shooter type story driven games, 25-60 for big open world or RPGs.

In the end it all depends on the game and the experience you're going for. As a consumer my wallet can only support so much, combined with my general taste for more story driven games, RPGs and the like I'm not going to be out there day 1 dropping 60+ on a game I will finish in a single day or over a single weekend with ease. That said there are a lot of games that definitely pad things out unnecessarily. Content for contents sake is waste. If you're systems and content are actively supporting and enriching the core mechanics and experience of the game and are just there for players to waste time then they're probably suck and shouldn't be in there. DAI, AC: Odyssey and a lot of other open world(-ish) games tend to fall into this. Shitty resource management, crafting systems, meaningless quests, etc that are just there to waste player's time and pad things out.

I took my sweet time playing TLoU2 and still beat it at 25 hours. I had zero issues with its pacing or length, it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience for me. I found the gameplay and narrative were able to sustain and keep up with that play time and I would have happily played longer if there was more content to support it.

 

[lunanto]

In this particular debate, the length of the game is inherently linked to the use the game makes of its time.

In the case of The Last of Us Part II, the length is absolutely NOT justified.

 

[TaterTots]

Most games are too long for me these days. I rarely finish games before I get bored of them. At some point it becomes redundant. For example, DOOM 2016 was the best game I played that year for that first 6 hours or so, but I got bored around 9 hours and stopped playing. Weird how something can change on the flip of a dime.

 

[Deleted member 13077]

Also, developers need to start giving the option of refresher tutorials if you don't start up the game in a while as a standard feature.

A huge number of the games I don't finish are because I take a week or so off playing them and the mechanics just fall away and I end up having to start over.

 

[KeRaSh]

Currently finishing up Days Gone and while I enjoyed most of it, I think it could have shaved off a few hours.

 

[Euron]

i think there is just a level of nuance to the games are too long discussion that gets lost in just talking about literal length

Click to shrink...

Developers shouldn't add ideas just for the sake of adding ideas though. Spider-Man's probably the best example of this. As good as the movement, traversal, and combat are, it's not a game that could last with a 100 hour story (though much of that is probably attributed to the map) so it doesn't have one.

On the other hand, as strong as its base is, it's one of the biggest offenders this gen of introducing ideas that detract from an overall great base experience:

Spoiler: Gameplay Spoilers with Mid-Story Spoilers

The Mary Jane and Miles stealth sections received backlash and rightfully so. There were some good ideas showcased, like working in tandem with SpiderMan in Grand Central but overall the mechanics just aren't fleshed out enough for an on the ground powerless stealth game. Most of these sequences are either heavily scripted or just involve taking advantage of weaknesses in the AI and running past everything. They're not long so it's not as big of an offender as the early Assassin's Creed games but they're just a roadblock rather than a feature.

And the puzzle/lab sections aren't awful but they're just simple mini games that eat a bit of time rather than add a new feature that enhances the game

This is why we should be very excited hearing that Spider-Man Miles is a shorter game. It should be less likely that Insomniac feels the need to add segments outside of the core game just to add some perceived semblance of variety.

 

[Lindsay]

Maybe games could start including seperate modes for time conscious people:

- Experience Mode: this would the full game filler, padding, bloat, all the usual stuffs.
- Story Mode: and this would be cutting the zillions of sidequests down to a key few, ramping up exp gains (if applicable), jumping past blatant nothingness to the next story parts.

I have no doubt this would end in disaster and spawn wars pitting Experience players vs Story players, among other trouble it would cause but hey its an idea!

 

[piratepwnsninja]

I do think it is worth bringing up that game lengths vary wildly based on how much of a completionist a player is. A game like Assassin's Creed Odyssey can swing from a 40 hour experience for just the critical path, while 100%ing it with the DLC is going to push 150 hours.

These sprawling worlds aren't made for a single type of player. They are made to serve multiple types of players by providing a playground of activities in which to partake, while making few of them mandatory aspects. At least after the game teaches you about everything you could do, just so you know it's there.

Literally something I've been through on every project I've been on is identifying what types of players we want to focus our experience on, and what parts of the game appeal to each of those.

Gamer Motivation Profile

apps.quanticfoundry.com

 

[thepenguin55]

It's really dependent on just how much I like the gameplay loop. If it's anything less than "I love it" then long games can feel like a major slog. There are very few games with a gameplay loop where I'm like "50 hours of this please". I'm much more partial to being left wanting more than finishing a game and thinking "fucking finally".

 

[thepenguin55]

I do think it is worth bringing up that game lengths vary wildly based on how much of a completionist a player is. A game like Assassin's Creed Odyssey can swing from a 40 hour experience for just the critical path, while 100%ing it with the DLC is going to push 150 hours.

These sprawling worlds aren't made for a single type of player. They are made to serve multiple types of players by providing a playground of activities in which to partake, while making few of them mandatory aspects. At least after the game teaches you about everything you could do, just so you know it's there.

Literally something I've been through on every project I've been on is identifying what types of players we want to focus or experience on, and what parts of the game appeal to each of those.

Gamer Motivation Profile

apps.quanticfoundry.com

Click to shrink...

But even 40... does that campaign need to be 40 hours? Why could it not be 20? Making the campaign that long just feels unnecessary especially with all the side content and dlc. Like, if you want to make a 300 hour game go for it as long as the main story campaign makes up only 8 to 20 of those 300 hours.

 

[Shroki]

i think there is just a level of nuance to the games are too long discussion that gets lost in just talking about literal length

Click to shrink...

I would think this is fair, but I think saying "games are too long" is still general and weird when you can just say "The Last of Us 2" was too long or whatever you think is a specific offender. I don't see a pattern that the industry needs to walk back as far as game length other than the fact that there are more open world games which are inherently long, but still variable in length becuase of side-quests, collectables, etc.

 

[piratepwnsninja]

But even 40... does that campaign need to be 40 hours? Why could it not be 20? Making the campaign that long just feels unnecessary especially with all the side content and dlc. Like, if you want to make a 300 hour game go for it as long as the main story campaign makes up only 8 to 20 of those 300 hours.

Click to shrink...

That just feels like am arbitrary limitation based on personal tastes, though. This isn't meant to suggest that criticism of superfluous narrative shouldn't exist, but it feels disingenuous to think that everything can, or should, fit into a singular range.

 

[JigglesBunny]

I think saying "video games are too long" is too broad and vague. Most AAA video games released over the course of the last generation are certainly too long, though. I will always take a concise 6-20 hour long experience over a massive open world filled with side quests, loot, long stretches of time dedicated solely to traversal, etc.

 

[Dr. Mario]

i think there is just a level of nuance to the games are too long discussion that gets lost in just talking about literal length

Click to shrink...

That's true, but it can also simply be just that. After investing twenty hours into something I just really want to move on to something else. Very rare is the game that I'm not hate playing the other 20 hours to completion.

 

[Deleted member 21709]

Alanah is killing it with her podcast these days.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

Yes, games suffer from excessive bloat and a need to do absolutely under the sun because it's expected. How many open world games have a list of 10 activities you do another 20 times each throughout your play time? How many games create increasingly arbitrary goals to work towards just to unlock stuff because it incentivizes microtransactions and boosters to be used? How many times has a single player game made you go "Can I please just get through this encounter to get through the rest of the story"?

Yes, there's a place for longer content in all mediums... but video games have normalized spending excessively long amounts of time playing them just to even get to a credits screen for the first time. It's just like video games have no sense of editing and trimming down to make a more complete and meaningful product. The gaming populace is partially responsible for this because there's a section that live and die by rigid philosophies like $1 = 1 hour of gameplay or complain about shorter experiences every time they possibly can. A tighter product that can communicate ideas to the audience more effectively is always going to be a benefit even if games remain longer, and it feels too often like those voices encouraging that sort of behavior just clearly aren't there in development.

 

[Musubi]

When someone says "this game is too long" most of the time that just comes off to me as someone not wanting to invest the time in.

We are at a point in the industry where there is finally a lot of choice out there for people I think that variety is extremely positive. I would never want to see all games trend a specific way.

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Some games are, for sure. Especially with open world games being so trendy over the last several years, with no end in sight. Bigger is not always better.

 

[Nostradamus]

It's not about length but quality and pacing. TLOUII is incredible and doesn't drag at all for example. Having said that, not all games have a big enough budget to offer enough variety that last for tens of hours.

 

[Jeremy]

I dislike this complaint...

Ebert got it right when he said (about movies) something like "no good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough."

I think a lot of the "too long" complaint stems from a lot of contemporary gamers being more concerned about narrative payoff in games than gameplay.

 

[En-ou]

Devs should focus on quality of gameplay and pacing, the root, not a surface level thing like how long it should be. Length of game should be a byproduct of the experience you are creating for the player. If you create a one of a kind experience why would I give a shit how long a game is. As a gamer I hunger for a great and unique experience not some checklist that I have to finish 5 games this week.

 

[JCLShay]

10 year-old me: What is this argument even?! I can only afford a game or two a year, they BETTER last me awhile.

35 year-old me: Yes. Please. They are. Shorten them. I have so many I want to play but so little time.

 

[RedSwirl]

Honestly, any game where the story mode requires more than 20 or 30 hours to get to the end credits for the first time is sort of asking a lot of any adult player. Beyond that though, replayability, extra content, and endless game modes (multiplayer) are things people will happily spend hundreds of hours on because they're playing it however much they want to play it.

All this might be less of an issue to someone who might buy fewer than five new games per year.

 

[y2dvd]

When someone says "this game is too long" most of the time that just comes off to me as someone not wanting to invest the time in.

We are at a point in the industry where there is finally a lot of choice out there for people I think that variety is extremely positive. I would never want to see all games trend a specific way.

Click to shrink...

Err, they already invested 20 hours into it. Tells me they invested the time.

That one tweet is spot on. Too long can become repetitive which is how I eventually felt in TLOU2.

 

[Genio88]

I think they are too long, for older gamers they are too long cause we have always less time for gaming and more good and long games releasing every month, and for younger gamers cause they have time but they also love to play hundreds of hours on multiplayer online games like Fortnite, Minecraft, FIFA etc and they don't want to commit in longer single player experiences which would keep them away too long from their favorite games as service

 

[ThisIsBlitz21]

Theres a lot of games where brevity would make it better.

No, Im not arguing against your typical big AAA epics. The stuff like Assassins Creed Odysseys, Skyrims, Horizons, GTA's Witchers have their place in gaming (and I like a lot of them to).

But games like Alien Isolation, TLoU 2, and Days Gone would be way better if it cut off a few hours in the end (or in days gone case, like half the game, lmao).

Its not the length thats the issue. Its the gameplay systems and what not that cant sustain the length, so its better for some said games to be shorter.

 

[Pyro]

Adding it to my Watch Later. I gotta say though I do think most AAA games are too long. I think it's a combination of meeting player's expectations of length and running out of ideas for gameplay. It's why the Star Wars Squadrons game at $40 excites me. It's too early to decide if it's gonna be a significant part of the upcoming gen, but smaller games with AAA production values at a more reasonable price and shorter turnaround (e.g. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice) could be the new definition of the AA game in the console space. PC has had this advantage for a while now.

 

[grosvenor92]

I started listening to podcast recently and have been enjoying it.

I agree some games are too long. I'm playing through Days Gone and even though I'm enjoying it I does feel like the story isn't progressing much.

Games that aren't RPG's should ideally be 10-12 hours imo

 

[Hadok]

yeah sometimes....
i finished TLOU 2 (unfortunately,i didn't like it ,i think it was terrible),and yeah it was tooo long.
A Plague Tale: Innocence was perfect for me.Or Uncharted Lost Legacy.Perfect Length,great pacing.

 

[sacrificengineer]

While I agree that some games are indeed too big for their own good, what can really help a lot is your own effort to properly pace your game playthroughs. Play in shorter sessions over a longer period of time, make breaks to vent away the fatigue. Go through the story without much distraction first, and, if you really liked the game, return for a second playthrough later to do the side-stuff / interesting achievements and whatnot. Clear-out or even "default" on your backlog and don't pretend that you have time for all the stuff that ever got you excited - pick things, be reasonably selective, don't play five games at the same time. Adapt, in a way, and learn to enjoy stuff again. And, of course, value shorter and more focused experiences when you do encounter them. Overall though, very agreed with Layden's points.

 

[RisingStar]

Thanks for the recommendation, but I don't have an hour, is there a synopsis to the question in the title? Also, there's only one designer on that panel?

Click to shrink...

Lol this comment is perfect. I know it's not the subject matter but really losing my shit at hour long analysis of things lately on YouTube.

On topic, bloat is a serious annoyance and it's very much evident in Ubisoft games, and even in other titles like Days Gone. While one aspect of games being too long being a negative falls under pacing and entertainment but developers should be aware of if their game is even worth the extra length?

Many "bloated" games can easily shave off a few hours. On the other hand, while I'm strictly more single player entertainment oriented these days, a shorter game feels far more unfulfilling. A bloated game will affect its quality whereas a short game will always have questions about its replayability. Especially with the rumours of games getting more expensive, (especially being fucked in Canada with over 100 dollars for a single game), I will be far more selective of games.

 

[MrKlaw]

What is length?

is it the main campaign story and gameplay? Including all side quests? Including a certain percentage of side quests?

If side stories are done in a way that you can easily skip/ignore without affecting the primary story, while providing something interesting for others to play - then that's a good balance. If you don't have a ton of time you can choose to finish more quickly. Or you can extract more perceived value by taking on the additional content

 

[Noctis]

It's all about personal enjoyment, TLOU2 could've gone for 10 more hours I wouldn't had mind since I didn't want for it to end. Many players either FOMO or older players not wanting to invest time.. for me it's a YOU problem and not a dev problem since there's plenty of options out there nowadays.

 

[Thera]

Your game being "too long" typically translates to not having enough interesting ideas to support its length. It's not that stuff just stopped becoming fun, it's that you stopped presenting ways for that engagement to inspire new ideas.

Shit like sidequest bloat or redundant encounter design doesn't help.

Click to shrink...

.

 

[Timu]

Pacing matters more than length but length can be a huge problem if the game didn't deserve to be as long as it is. Nowadays I just buy longer games cheaper so I know if it takes me a while to beat a game it won't feel as bad as paying more for it.

 

[jdstorm]

I do find a lot of AAA games too long. Just this year for example, FF7 Remake had about 20 hours of quality critical path content but it was bloated out to 30 with the repetition (Hojo's Lab in particular).

I think TLOU2 could've been a few hours less without harming the storytelling, but it bothered me a lot less.

I tend to play most games through review codes or rentals so "getting my money's worth" isn't ever really a concern for me. I'd rather have a concise experience that respects my time rather than one padded out with obvious bloat to justify the cost (I think that's the case in FF7R, whereas TLOU2 I think it's just the story they wanted to tell).

But yeah there are few games I've played that I felt *needed* to be 30 hours long. I want to play Persona 5 but the fact it's like 50 hours minimum is just incredibly offputting.

I generally prefer polished AAA games in the 10-15 hour range.

Click to shrink...

interesting you should say that about FFVIIR because personally aside from the "forced walk" sections, in general I thought the game was incredibly rushed and would have preferred it aimed for a Yakuza like 40 hours

 

[sun-drop]

i don't get this games are too long thing .. from a consumer POV that is. what started this conversation? the length of TLOU2 ? Jesus ... a game as good as that i will take all the content i can get thanks.

So many games are needlessly padded with side missions and repetitive missions yes ... but the problem there is poor game design, not some arbitrary hate on some specific hour count