...No?
Web surfing is literally part of my job lmfao, if I'm gonna spit 8+ hours on a computer for work there's gonna be downtime
Consider this: maybe I just want a 6-8 hour game and that's it
- Thread starter Silky
- Start date
...No?
Web surfing is literally part of my job lmfao, if I'm gonna spit 8+ hours on a computer for work there's gonna be downtime
Prey is a long add game. I put at least 40 hours into it and didn't even do everything
Which is why as a community we should recommend the OP games that fall in line with what he/she is looking for.
Time is all perspective. What is long for him, might be short for me. Imagine if 10 years from now every game made requires you to spend 3000 hours on it to finish. Some people would be fine while others would feel like that is just too long.
The same can be said for games today. In OPs case, the current length of games is fine, but sometimes he wants short games without the filler.
What's stopping you from playing the highly rated, but short in length indies? There's a billion choices out there, so play what suits your needs instead of complaining about something others enjoy.
You are being pretty abrasive with that whole "anti-deodorant sludge" comment you made, lol. People were also being really dismissive but I don't think it's really necessary to shit on people who may like to play a game for 6 hours on a Saturday
Fair enough. I can relate, with my work taking place on a computer as well.
Nothing...is stopping me
Im gonna complain regardless if other people enjoy them, I couldn't care less if other people enjoy them . My greivances aren't taking away from your experiences at all.
The point is not that games should be longer.
The point is that games should be exactly the length the developer/creator believes they should be to create a complete and entertaining experience and not a moment longer or shorter.
If you bounce off it sooner than that, that's cool. Can't please everyone. But I'd rather that creators are encouraged to create the games they want rather than be limited to some snide "6-7 HOURS ONLY BECAUSE IM AN ADULT PLEASE" nonsense.
If they have 6-7 hours of great ideas, story, and gameplay, awesome. if they have 20 hours of great ideas, story, and gameplay, please, let me have it. I just want it to be high quality, however much there is of it.
This is especially missing the mark these days when people who have jobs and are totally responsible will binge watch entire seasons of TV shows in their off time.
I've never understood this complaint. Maybe you can enlighten me? Surely the length of the game is irrelevant, and it's the quality that counts. If you don't have much time for games, you don't have much time for games. Whether that's one long game or multiple short games, you don't have much time for them. Surely you want to fill that time with a game that is enjoyable to you and ticks the boxes for what you look for in a game? You don't have to finish each game in a single sitting. And surely story-heavy games aren't a problem to keep start/stopping, for the same reason TV series with episodes spread out in weekly doses don't suffer from story quality as a result of asking the audience to remember where they were between episodes.
I swear I could easily make an argument for lack of time being a reason for long games: I don't have the time to learn new gameplay mechanics and control schemes for short games. I want a game like Skyrim or The Witcher 3 that has hundreds of hours of content for me under one cohesive control scheme, with a continuous story, so I can keep coming back for months at a time and feel "at home" straight away rather than bothering to learn all these new mechanics, characters, worlds etc every time in short games.
I really do think "length" is a pointless metric, and you should just look for games that feature gameplay you enjoy.
I swear I could easily make an argument for lack of time being a reason for long games: I don't have the time to learn new gameplay mechanics and control schemes for short games. I want a game like Skyrim or The Witcher 3 that has hundreds of hours of content for me under one cohesive control scheme, with a continuous story, so I can keep coming back for months at a time and feel "at home" straight away rather than bothering to learn all these new mechanics, characters, worlds etc every time in short games.
I really do think "length" is a pointless metric, and you should just look for games that feature gameplay you enjoy.
There's nothing wrong with the reasons in the OP, but it's the suggestion that companies are wrong and misguided that people likely take offense at. The reasons we're not getting many of those games any longer is simple: They don't sell well enough. Or at least sell well at anywhere near retail. People can't provide these rich, short, high quality experiences if almost every single time it's attempted, it's a sales bomb that leaves a studio on the brink of dissolving.
You mention Dishonored. And few studios on the planet could create better games than those. But they were kind of a disaster for Arkane. If the cream of the crop puts a studio's life in jeopardy, it doesn't speak well for products that are tiers below that (in quality).
Sales aside, this is also how I've always felt. Give me an amazing experience that I can play for many months and I'm in love. Much cheaper. And as you said, no need to constantly waste time learning new mechanics. It's a win-win.
You mention Dishonored. And few studios on the planet could create better games than those. But they were kind of a disaster for Arkane. If the cream of the crop puts a studio's life in jeopardy, it doesn't speak well for products that are tiers below that (in quality).
Sales aside, this is also how I've always felt. Give me an amazing experience that I can play for many months and I'm in love. Much cheaper. And as you said, no need to constantly waste time learning new mechanics. It's a win-win.
Games are longer because many gamers associate game length with value. "6 hrs long and it's $60? No, thanks. Will rent or wait for a sale." Some expectations have also gotten out of hand. I'm confused with Destiny fans that got 30+ hrs out of the game, paid $60 or less, but complain they don't have enough content. It's not an MMO and you're not paying them monthly to continue your enjoyment. I saw a Monster Hunter post that someone got bored after 100 hrs. I say you got your money's worth.
P5 will slow down at some point , pretty much all rpg do , often at the middle , but if you're just focused on the story and don't care to play it in hard setting and do everything ... i doubt you really have to grind ... just follow the flow of the game
People should be measuring quality over quantity, though. I'd rather have the most amazing 6 hours I'm gonna replay for years to come than a 50 hour slog fest that makes me question my own existence.
The older I get the more I start to hate long games so I'm with OP. I wish JRPGs were SNES length again and action games never need to be over 10 hours.
It's not illogical at all, most games are too long for the limited gameplay loop they offer.
If I could wave a magic wand and make every open world game disappear I would with no hesitation. They're dreadful.
It's not illogical at all, most games are too long for the limited gameplay loop they offer.
Binding of Issac released on steam for $5.
Unless you're exceptionally skilled or using a guide, getting to the true ending of that game will probably take 50+ hours of runs.
The average playtime for this game among people who didn't just install it for 30 mins and stop is somewhere near 100 hours.
Is that a bad thing? Some people played this game for a year straight. What a horrible thing!
Unless you're exceptionally skilled or using a guide, getting to the true ending of that game will probably take 50+ hours of runs.
The average playtime for this game among people who didn't just install it for 30 mins and stop is somewhere near 100 hours.
Is that a bad thing? Some people played this game for a year straight. What a horrible thing!
I like Life is Strange and The Council. Telltale titles I am effectively burned out on. The last one I played was The Wolf Among Us. Someday I'll start Tales from the Borderlands but I don't really feel the need to.
I still play Spelunky so I don't understand where this comment is coming from at all
This thread might have more unhelpful people than I've seen in any other thread. Why cant people just help a man out?
That said here are some games that might be good. I don't know what games you like but these are some shorter ones I know of.
The new Tomb Raider games - 20 hours for me to finish 1st one
DOOM - probably about 15 hours
Undertale - supposed to be short (i have 58 minutes in it but not finished)
Mirrors Edge Catalyst - 25 hours (don't have to play 1st one)
Wolfenstein: New Blood - 15 hours
XCOM 2 (story is hardly there so you can play it one mission at a time and not worry about finishing anything)
Steep (I don't have it but I imagine its just goofing around on a mountain completing objectives)
Cuphead (supposed to be short and hard, don't have it tho)
Kentucky Route Zero - I'm 5 hours in with 2 parts left to play. Part 5 isn't out yet but its been about 1 hour per part. Im guessing 6-7 hours total when all is finished
Firewatch - 4 hours
Hotline Miami - 6 hours
Hotline Miami 2 - 11 hours
Inside - 4 hours
LIMBO - 3 hours
Max Payne 3 - 12 hours
Metro 2033 - 10 hours
Rocket League - put as much time in it as you want but I have 567 hours because im a piece of shit.
I'd say most story heavy FPS games are on the shorter side. Even Call of Duty is short if you dont count multiplayer. Also WTF is TW3?
It seems I have more time than you, but I get what youre saying. Im really flexible with my time outside of work and play pretty much whenever I want for however long I want. BUT I also dont want to spend 80 hours finishing a game, I feel like a lazy piece of shit if I put that much time into a game (though not always the case). I just feel bad about how many hours I put into some games. Shorter games at least let me feel a sense of completion and I can sweep it out of my mind afterwards.
That said here are some games that might be good. I don't know what games you like but these are some shorter ones I know of.
The new Tomb Raider games - 20 hours for me to finish 1st one
DOOM - probably about 15 hours
Undertale - supposed to be short (i have 58 minutes in it but not finished)
Mirrors Edge Catalyst - 25 hours (don't have to play 1st one)
Wolfenstein: New Blood - 15 hours
XCOM 2 (story is hardly there so you can play it one mission at a time and not worry about finishing anything)
Steep (I don't have it but I imagine its just goofing around on a mountain completing objectives)
Cuphead (supposed to be short and hard, don't have it tho)
Kentucky Route Zero - I'm 5 hours in with 2 parts left to play. Part 5 isn't out yet but its been about 1 hour per part. Im guessing 6-7 hours total when all is finished
Firewatch - 4 hours
Hotline Miami - 6 hours
Hotline Miami 2 - 11 hours
Inside - 4 hours
LIMBO - 3 hours
Max Payne 3 - 12 hours
Metro 2033 - 10 hours
Rocket League - put as much time in it as you want but I have 567 hours because im a piece of shit.
I'd say most story heavy FPS games are on the shorter side. Even Call of Duty is short if you dont count multiplayer. Also WTF is TW3?
Check out Book of Demons.
It's a nod to Diablo, with a simple looking appearance.
Before you start your adventure you can literally choose about how long you feel like playing, and the game will construct the levels around that. I rarely have long periods of time to play, so that worked out great for me. If I only wanted a 20 minute adventure, I went for that selection. It doesn't take a tremendous amount of time to complete the entire game, but there's additional classes you can play if you feel like going back.
That's my recommendation since your first post asks for them.
Edit: I'm not sure if it's on consoles.
I don't replay many games these days. So longer is better if it isn't just padded with crap to expand the length.
Also, OP, if you want games recommended to you, some relevant info would be what platforms you actually own and are willing to play.
It surprised me.
There's a free demo on Steam if you want to check it out.
Yes it is illogical, because that has nothing to do with your personal time and everything to do with your personal taste...
"I dont have time for" is not interchangeable with "I don't like"...
You don't get how someone can get bored of selecting the attack menu option for 100 hours? People lose interest in repetitive tasks after a while, it's not a hard concept to grasp.
It seems like for many people it is. "This game had more things to do after I stopped having fun with it. This is a PROBLEM"
that was pretty abrasive, but then so are a lot of replies in this thread. go back through and count the number of assumptions people make about OP based on wanting a game that doesn't take 30+ hours to beat.
Same thing.
What should matter is if the game is good or not. Just play good/great games and when you're done , buy another ..If you don't have time , then just don't buy another game untill you're done with the one you're currently playing.
Unless there is a memory issue where you forget about a game unless you play it regulary , taking your time is both efficient and cost less in the long run . Be it on switch , vita , PS4 , XBONE or PC , a quick look at their store front should provide plenty of choices either way ..so OP , pick a genre you like and enjoy it untill you're bored then pick another game untill you run your money dry
A lot of people on this forum and who play games in general could use a shakeup to get away from the "i need to play everything the week it comes out" mentality, and just slow down and enjoy fewer games not for hours and hours daily, but over months and even years instead of expecting to finish things in a week.
Except you're kinda misrepresenting the issues here . Bungie chew more than it can bite and made "promises" that it did not keep . If they had not misrepresented the game as a quasi mmo-like experience , and did not also just drop their original intend because of internal strifes and development galore , less people would complain . Happen with quite a few anticipated blockbuster games falling short of their hype , regardless of their length . And it's not as , if there were not issues with features and the quality of the added content as well . Even if yeah you could release something as massive as Monster Hunter World , you'd still find idiots rushing through it in two weeks demanding more post game content immediately ..
Hell let's not forget that Destiny 2 is still in the process of adding features from the first game (and its dlc content) that they arbitrarily removed
Now , that's a post i can 100% agree with . A wide array and variety of games exist for that reason and to cater to most tastes out there .
You 100% missed my point. And the OP has stated multiple times that there are some games he/she enjoys for long periods of time.
Still, the request is for short games. Simple enough, right? For lots of gamers, including me, games that stretch over 25 or 30 hours need to justify it with interesting or evolving gameplay. Many games fail this test. Rather than continue to play something that's become bland just because there's 80 hours of game time available, some people prefer to pay 5, 10, 15 dollars or whatever to play something that's shorter, more satisfying, or just more fun. There are exceptions of course (I'm a Fire Emblem fan), but if I can play three games for $45-$50 on Switch vs. buying an 80 hour game for $50-$60, I'm probably going to take the three games because I'll get more variety, probably get the satisfaction of actually beating them, and I'll still feel like I got a good bang for my buck.
They already are shorter , and there are already titles falling within your need , you just can't expect all of them to be that way
No they do not.
There is already a market in place for short games , why should all game be the same ? Why change AAA games ? just play games that are already short .
I'm with OP. Add the fact that I hate rogue-like and procedural generation (which cuts out a lot of indies) and it becomes very hard to find new games to play
Last great short game I played was Momodora: Reverie under the moonlight which I have played for 5 hours according to steam. And I would say it is one of the greatest videogame experiences I have ever had.
Also there is Transistor which was incredible except for the fact that they lock all the interesting abilities until way late in the game so you never really get to use them (what is the opposite of bloat?)
Other short games I have enjoyed:
Bastion
Child of Light
Hyper Light Drifter
Cuphead
Fez
Jotun
The Swapper
Ori and the blind forest
Last great short game I played was Momodora: Reverie under the moonlight which I have played for 5 hours according to steam. And I would say it is one of the greatest videogame experiences I have ever had.
Also there is Transistor which was incredible except for the fact that they lock all the interesting abilities until way late in the game so you never really get to use them (what is the opposite of bloat?)
Other short games I have enjoyed:
Bastion
Child of Light
Hyper Light Drifter
Cuphead
Fez
Jotun
The Swapper
Ori and the blind forest
Why should they be long and require more extensive time commitments?
The thing is that all these big games have optional sidequests,so the playtime can be considerably smaller. Why do people think that they have to do everything in a game and then whine about length?
The market isn't big on full price 6-8hr games. That's why a lot of them are dying out.
A game isn't a time commitment, you can literally return to it continue from where you left off. The games don't need to be shorter.
This is a valid topic and I'm surprised at the defensive backlash from the first couple posts and throughout this thread. Short campaigns and stories in games are almost always looked down upon from what I've seen on forums and even reviews - points are taken away as if it's an objective negative trait.
What about short stories in literature? Short films? It's a legitimate form in every medium but games, at least that's the impression I get from people.
I'll gladly play $60 for a well crafted short game if it has high replayability and good challenge. Games like Mega Man X where I played it non stop, beating it over and over again in a day or two, and not because I didn't have anything else to play. How about games like The Order or Mirrors's Edge?
What about short stories in literature? Short films? It's a legitimate form in every medium but games, at least that's the impression I get from people.
I'll gladly play $60 for a well crafted short game if it has high replayability and good challenge. Games like Mega Man X where I played it non stop, beating it over and over again in a day or two, and not because I didn't have anything else to play. How about games like The Order or Mirrors's Edge?
Because they are already that way , are satisfying a current demand and the ones not intrested already have an alternative.
Not all games should be similar .. There is value is short games and there is value in long games.
A game being short doesn't mean that it's bad . A game being long doesn't mean that it's bad either.
Not to mention that AAA games cost more and thus are expected to have content within to justify the price. I don't pay a game 70+€ and expect to be done with it in 6 hours.