52 replies to this topic

[Spookie]

Singh400, on 14 April 2010 - 18:12, said:

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.

[mokthraka]

Sethos, on 14 April 2010 - 18:11, said:

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

[goji]

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

Cuz if its good were guaranteed a sequel

[Singh400]

Spookie, on 14 April 2010 - 18:55, said:

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

Bit of a paradox there.

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.

[WastedJoker]

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...

[Draconian Guppy]

Not too short not too long

[clotz2000]

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...

[Jimmy0]

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.

[soniqstylz]

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

[Hot]

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

[NikkiRox]

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

[mokthraka]

Singh400, on 14 April 2010 - 21:22, said:

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.

[Pablo2008jedi]

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.

[+LingeringSoul]

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.

[Massiveterra]

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

But I think I'm kidding myself still