they can't be even quality games if one is designed to waste your time with repetitive pointless side missions and generic junk loot like how the latter are always designed
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Short 10-15 hour linear focused game, or 100+ hour game with map with a lot of icons and busywork? Preference?
- Thread starter nogoodnamesleft
- Start date
It depends really. I do appreciate short games a lot more these days, but once in a while I also enjoy a game I can really sink my teeth in
I prefer short and focused games, however, games like Persona 5 are absolutely fine length wise for me.
See it's interesting. While I absolutely prefer a 10-15 hour game, I'll very rarely buy one for full price. Meanwhile if it's a 40+ hour game, I'll buy it without a second thought, even though I know I'll have less fun with it. I guess I inherently see less value in them.
This is kind of a loaded question to be honest, one your framing to heavily favor one over the other.
Neither. Give me a 25-40 hour game where I can pursue a linear narrative with optional side content that fleshes out explorable zones and allows me to better connect with the surrounding cast of characters. More open than your typical linear action-adventure title, while more restrained than your prototypical Ubisoft checkbox simulator.
In other words, your typical Bioware RPG :)
In other words, your typical Bioware RPG :)
I want more short games. I'm playing a lot of older games right now and it's amazing how short they all are. Resident Evil 2 is like 5 hours long!
These big 100+ hours games often have the advantage of being finishable in 15-30 hours if you rush stuff or avoid side content. The poll make it looking like everyone needed to waste 100 hours on them.
Though i would still rather have the shorter focused experience, or even a longer focused experience.
Though i would still rather have the shorter focused experience, or even a longer focused experience.
I work full time, my wife works full time, and we have three kids. And I still play every Assassin's Creed lol.
I just play a few hours at a time. If it takes me months to finish it, it's fine by me. I'm in no rush.
I actually prefer games that go up to 30-40hs, like single-player RPGs.
Shorter more linear games like Uncharted I'm also super fine with.
100 hour bloated games with infinite map icons... hell no.
Shorter more linear games like Uncharted I'm also super fine with.
100 hour bloated games with infinite map icons... hell no.
Long for the sake of long is a bad thing. This is what made me quit the Immortals Fenix Rising DLC. There's way too much filler in that game. Open world with lots to do isn't necessarily a bad thing (the Spider-Man games for example are great at it), but it must be engaging content, not just go everywhere and pick up a collectible ad nauseum
Exactly, I also like to play a lot of different games and have time for them too.
Poll's dumb and bias af: i.e. would you rather a nice Banh Mi or a shit-sandwich?
What about a focused ~100hr game? You can have long games that are still focused and without bloat.
Also what about a healthy median? 20-40hrs, with length long enough to carve a deep sweeping epic, yet lean and concist without extra fat and filler.
Games should be as long as they need to be. Whilst a game that's excessively long and disrespectful of player time is arguably the greater evil vs. a game that's too short to achieve meaningful payoff, but equally I'll normally take the game with greater scope provided its length contributes to higher highs.
Witcher 3 is anywhere from 30 to 100hrs, the Mass Effect games are all 20-40, most Soulsborne games can be as short as a handful of hours or in the hundreds.
What about a focused ~100hr game? You can have long games that are still focused and without bloat.
Also what about a healthy median? 20-40hrs, with length long enough to carve a deep sweeping epic, yet lean and concist without extra fat and filler.
Games should be as long as they need to be. Whilst a game that's excessively long and disrespectful of player time is arguably the greater evil vs. a game that's too short to achieve meaningful payoff, but equally I'll normally take the game with greater scope provided its length contributes to higher highs.
Witcher 3 is anywhere from 30 to 100hrs, the Mass Effect games are all 20-40, most Soulsborne games can be as short as a handful of hours or in the hundreds.
Last edited:
Yep, times have changed, and it's for the worse.
I remember those days when many games were under 10 hours even and even less than 5!
Only RPGs need to be long, everything else should be under 30 hours.
Depends on what I want at the current moment, both have their place.
My actual preference would be 15-25 hours long campaign with non linear level design (Dishonored, Prey, Deus Ex etc.).
My actual preference would be 15-25 hours long campaign with non linear level design (Dishonored, Prey, Deus Ex etc.).
No such thing as a ten hour game for me.
There are hour long games (retro, mostly) and time sinking monsters.
There are hour long games (retro, mostly) and time sinking monsters.
Or short as well, definitely for pacing and what the game offers. But yes, as long as the game can justify how short or long it is that is fine.
I usually prefer longer games as long as the core gameplay remains enjoyable. Generally speaking, I think somewhere in the 30-50 hour range is my personal sweet spot. Take for example, your average Ubisoft game. I generally like the formula and gameplay loop present in those games, but they're getting to a point where there's far too much bloat. AC: Valhalla had me ready to tap out by 75 hours, and I didn't finish it until I was at 111 hours.
Would you rather have the soft embrace of a ten hour artistic experience, or the violent brutality of 100 hour grueling march through hell itself?
Short games without a question. I can't stand open world games, I want a game which entertains me, not huge a 100 hours game in which I have to entertain myself by my own means, traversal huge maps created for the sake of timesink, see dozens of side content which quality doesn't stand a chance against mainline, etc. I want a short, linear, structured experience in which creators tell me the story they want to present and be done with it.
Some days Im a masochist, others Im a teddy bear so. The criticism of the question still stands (though I find this version immensely more funny)
Heh. I feel lucky. I basically stopped console gaming from 2014-2019 so I never got inundated with the open world games everyone else did. Yes I played Skyrim when it released on PS3 and I did play the original AC to completion but other than that I've not been exposed to them that much.
Fast forward to now, and these games are my preference. I mean for years I've been playing mobile rhythm games so to have a game like HZD or Ghost of Tsushima with all the different quests and things to do is revolutionary to me. I work a full time job, 4 ten hour shifts every week and I still prefer these types of games. I hope they continue to be made and improved.
Fast forward to now, and these games are my preference. I mean for years I've been playing mobile rhythm games so to have a game like HZD or Ghost of Tsushima with all the different quests and things to do is revolutionary to me. I work a full time job, 4 ten hour shifts every week and I still prefer these types of games. I hope they continue to be made and improved.
This poll is designed in the most biased way possible, and it didn't even have to be. Era's dislike of open worlds is well-documented. It's one of the biggest displays of the "Era bubble" , which is why there's always so many people shocked when Far Cry or another Ubi open-world breaks sales records.
Not a fan of 100 hour open world games, there are some that I like but they wouldve been better as shorter and more focused experiences.
