Jump to content



Photo

Do you prefer longer or shorter games?


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you prefer longer or shorter games?

Do you prefer longer or shorter games?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#16 Spookie

Spookie

    ...

  • 5,072 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 04
  • Location: Wirral, England.

Posted 14 April 2010 - 18:55

Depends. Bioshock, GoW series, CoD4 & CoD6 were just the right length. But BF:BC2 was too long and dragged on.


Bioshock was about 12-14 hours. But BC2, which lasted 7 hours, is too long?

Bit of a paradox there. :p


#17 mokthraka

mokthraka

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 09
  • Location: Oregon, USA

Posted 14 April 2010 - 19:27

I'm starting to lean towards shorter, as most games these days are repetition and grinding even great games quickly turn sour as it's hard to maintain that element of
surprise and freshness, so everything quickly becomes a chore and feels like the developers just added some more levels with even more enemies, just to prolong the game than try to
innovate the game as you progress. I do enjoy long games, when they are quality from start till finish and they manage to keep an immersive atmosphere but they are so far and few in between.

So honestly, I tend to quickly complete a game to get it out of the way and focus on Multiplayer - The only place where true challenges can be found and where you can use tactical skill to outsmart
enemies. Outsmarting some crappy AI doesn't really give you the same adrenalin boost.

yeah games like mass effect and oblivion are sweet. and long
really I like any game from bethesda or bioware

not sure how anyone can say cod4/5/6 where a good length.

I mean I guess if you like paying $60 for 6 hours of gameplay.

I mean hell you could use that $60 on other stuff that would be more fun

#18 goji

goji

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,894 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 03
  • Location: Monster Island

Posted 14 April 2010 - 19:28

Good story and quality production values over long or short game any day.

Cuz if its good were guaranteed a sequel :p

#19 Singh400

Singh400

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,839 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 10

Posted 14 April 2010 - 21:22

Bioshock was about 12-14 hours. But BC2, which lasted 7 hours, is too long?

Bit of a paradox there. :p

Quality of gameplay being the main factor. Those 12 hours were very immerse and a perfect example of how it should be done. BC2 SP though dragged on and felt like an age to get through.

#20 WastedJoker

WastedJoker

    Rampant Sciolist

  • 3,603 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 05
  • Location: Sunderland, UK

Posted 14 April 2010 - 21:24

I like longer games that allow you to play for shorter periods of time without sacrificing enjoyment. I hate longer games where you can't really gain any headway unless you're sitting for 3hrs...

#21 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 14 April 2010 - 21:27

Not too short not too long :)

#22 clotz2000

clotz2000

    Party Like A Rockstar, Sleep's Boring

  • 627 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 02
  • Location: California
  • OS: Win7, Win8 (Testing), OSX Lion
  • Phone: Galaxy SIII

Posted 14 April 2010 - 21:32

Depends on the game, I enjoyed spending alot of time playing Mass Effect 2, but for the most part 8-10hrs is perfect, 5-6hrs is a little on the short side for my taste.
Some games (MW2) I don't mind the shortness of the single player because of how many hours I spend playing online...

#23 Jimmy0

Jimmy0

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,022 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 06
  • Location: Hampshire, England

Posted 14 April 2010 - 21:51

A longer game I guess, but I don't want it made longer by grinding/repetitive tasks/etc. If it's going to do that I'd rather they just made it shorter and cut the crap.

#24 soniqstylz

soniqstylz

    Neowin Trophy Slore

  • 8,647 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 06
  • Location: In your panty drawer

Posted 15 April 2010 - 00:00

It's not the length that matters, it's how you use it.

#25 Hot

Hot

    Eat Me

  • 1,340 posts
  • Joined: 09-August 09

Posted 15 April 2010 - 00:06

The longer, the better. I love advancing and advancing with no end in sight. Refining my previous score, not so much.

#26 NikkiRox

NikkiRox

    DON'T GIVE HIM THE STICK!

  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 04
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 15 April 2010 - 07:28

Don't care! as long as the game is good! :D

#27 mokthraka

mokthraka

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 09
  • Location: Oregon, USA

Posted 15 April 2010 - 07:32

Quality of gameplay being the main factor. Those 12 hours were very immerse and a perfect example of how it should be done. BC2 SP though dragged on and felt like an age to get through.

yeah BC2 SP sucked imo.

hated the way the changed all the characters. haggard was no longer as funny. all he did was cuss and stuff. which is what i hated, they cussed way to much.

#28 Pablo2008jedi

Pablo2008jedi

    Old Gamer

  • 1,459 posts
  • Joined: 23-December 04
  • Location: Scotland!

Posted 15 April 2010 - 08:41

For me, a game has to be good and long for me to buy it on release day. None of this 15-20hr rubbish for £40.

Examples:

MSG4
Final Fantasy XIII
GTA4
Heavy Rain (if you include replay value)

They are about the only games that I bought at release day and thought it was worth every penny.

#29 +LingeringSoul

LingeringSoul

    Wings won't take me, heights don't phase me

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: 22-June 04
  • Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada

Posted 15 April 2010 - 13:50

I like long games, but a lot of developers lately have been resorting to padding in order to make their games longer. Final Fantasy XIII is perhaps the worst culprit that I have come across in some time. Some of the areas at the start of the game were twice as long as they should have been, and those areas were long solely because you were running through two or three variations of the exact same room over and over again. I understand that it's an RPG, and that repetition is a necessary evil to ensure that your characters are strong enough going forward, but it just goes to show you that it's quite easy to make a long game. On the other hand, it's very difficult to make a long game with no filler.

Short games have the obvious disadvantage of being poor value propositions. I've already put in my order for Splinter Cell: Conviction, but now I'm a little nervous at the supposed 5-7 hours of single-player gameplay with little to no replay value. Truth be told, I never rush through my games, and I'm quite a slow player generally speaking (I think I clocked 25 hours in Mass Effect 2's first playthrough and 55 hours in Final Fantasy XIII), so I'm usually not disappointed by the length of a game.

#30 Massiveterra

Massiveterra

    ◕ ◡ ◕

  • 3,601 posts
  • Joined: 24-July 08
  • Location: New Jersey

Posted 15 April 2010 - 14:07

If FF13 was a 15 hour game it would have been so much better.

But I think I'm kidding myself still