Shorter compact games vs Longer games?

[1111111111]

It is very well known that Gamers do not complete games.

Data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17XDvG-oJlYDHmVoDYdqqGlS1JC0MdRuuCe5uVm8GXaM/edit#gid=0

A significant majority fail to even reach the halfway mark. This indicates that there is a surplus of content that Gamers do not need or require. Knowing this, why do rpg players clamor for 80 hour epics? During the Kickstarter era, many gamers begged obsidian to create crpgs with huge campaign for pillars. However why bother with huge immersive worlds when many fail to even reach Raedric.

Personally I don't like this take. No matter how many gamers fail to explore a games full capacity, I love long campaigns in crpgs. I loved both PoE games and I don't care that some people thought it was too long simply because... I'm a very niche person that enjoys these typses of games no matter how much of a hyper minority I seem to be.

However, is there a case for Rpgs having too much bloat and unnecessary mechanics that make the game feel too long, bloated and unwieldy to gamers?

 

[CryptRat]

The longer the better, as long as the game is not longer than its real content allows (different enemies with different properties and skills, different spells with different effects... , the same as before with different picture, damage and hp is not real content).

Regarding mechaniscs, this kind of games needs a lot. For a good dungeon you need a good combat system which supports different classes, some cool atmospheric writing, good non-combat interactions once again supporting different classes, traps and puzzles, and overall good layout and interesting placement of loot. Some good wilderness travelling system can add a lot to the game too, some towns full of life can too and so can some big intricate quest.

They're plenty of very complete games which are great, and they're plenty of very focused games which are great too, so there's no universal law as to wether devs should totally focus on what works the best in their own game and make, for example, a game taking place in a coherent single dungeon full of traps and monsters, and let other possible aspects go or on the contrary try to make everything work good enough to make a game which feels like an overall complete campaign ala Realms Of Arkania.

 

[Nekot-The-Brave]

It depends on if the game is compelling enough for an 80 hour campaign or not. Most games now a days are just that long because of either poor design constraints or being overly ambitious and not skilled enough to make it work.

Pillars for example was just mediocre at best. I can see why people didn't get past the first section.

 

[mondblut]

Starting and learning the game is an investment. If it's not going to entertain me for months, I am not going to bother.

 

[V_K]

I think there's a huge problem with measuring the size of a game in hours.
What one typically wants is a big game - a large gameworld densely filled with varied and interesting levels. But this has nothing to do with the game being long. The game being long might mean e.g. drawn out animations, overwritten dialogs, cutscenes galore, grinding and trash combats - and any number of other things that are absolutely detrimental to gameplay.
And conversely, a big game that doesn't have those things might actually not be very long. For example, I'm currently playing Avernum 3 (the re-remake - because I can't be arsed getting the original Exile 3 to run) - it's a huge game with several continents, numerous towns and dungeons. But it's so fast-paced, utterly devoid of overwritten dialogs and overlong animations, that it clocks at around 50-55 hours, going by howlongtobeat. And would have been at least 10 hours shorter if Vogel didn't love trash combats so much. Many classic games are even shorter, like e.g. Pool of Radiance and most of Goldbox which typically clock around 25-35 hours.
Personally, I get a craving for an epic open world experience every now and then. But the older I get the less tolerance I have for games that waste my time.

 

[NJClaw]

Immediately change your username or delete one of your posts, the current situation is unacceptable.

 

[V_K]

Immediately change your username or delete one of your posts, the current situation is unacceptable.

Why not write 1111111109 more instead?

 

[Harthwain]

However, is there a case for Rpgs having too much bloat and unnecessary mechanics that make the game feel too long, bloated and unwieldy to gamers?

The game in question could be so bland people just don't feel motivated to finish it. I remember games I finished purely because I wanted to see the end (Vampire the Masquerade: Redemption, for example).

I will admit I never finished The Witcher 3 exactly because it had so much stuff to do I kept getting sidetracked and at some point got my fill of the game. In case of Divinity: Original Sin 1 (and 2) the story was so bland that the only thing that kept me going was the combat part of it, but one time I dropped the game and somehow never returned to finish it. On the flipside I played Banners of Ruin multiple times and got all achievements for it, so it isn't as simple as me not being interested in games anymore.

 

[Narushima]

Starting and learning the game is an investment.

To me, discovery is the most interesting aspect of a game. After that it loses its charm and can become formulaic. And it's not like video games have amazing stories to keep you hooked.

 

[Verylittlefishes]

It depends on game.
While you can easily score 100+ hours in Dark Souls and won't even notice, some open-world monotonous RPGs, even the good ones, are pure chore after first 50 hours when you saw everything and can kill almost anything. If the game is not that good, you should be really depressed to complete it.

Spoiler

fuck you, Deadfire

 

[Takamori]

It depends on game.
While you can easily score 100+ hours in Dark Souls and won't even notice, some open-world monotonous RPGs, even the good ones, are pure chore after first 50 hours when you saw everything and can kill almost anything. If the game is not that good, you should be really depressed to complete it.

Spoiler

fuck you, Deadfire

Meh clocked 250 hours in Deadfire, the combat and encounters were all right even if the story was shit.


As for OP, well I want to enjoy video games so if its long with good quality content I don't mind at all. Problem you got too many peasants wanting shorter games because they just want to consume product and skip to the next of the list instead of enjoying the medium

 

[Bohrain]

From development perspective a long linear game is preferable to a shorter, more reactive game with similar amount of content. RPG's track shitton of variables to track and testing the permutations becomes very time and labor intensive. And then there is the fact that there aren't a lot of games that strive to be short, but different on each playthrough so you have less development experience and less pooled knowledge of what works and what doesn't.
And finally you don't necessarily get a short game that's replayable, you might just game a plain short game. I finished Outer Worlds in less than a week, but didn't really want to go through second playthrough. The reactivity basically results in allowing the player to do content in the order they want, but there is very little mutually exclusive gameplay content. I understand that allowing the player to do x before y or vice versa requires a ton of work to make sure scripts work, dialogue makes sense and the critical path stays open. But I'd rather have something like the mid part of Witcher 2 where you make a clear cut choice that determines all the content available at that point, because it felt tangibly different.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

It depends on the quality of the content.

DA:I is a long game full chock on MMO tier fetch quest on a big empty world. It's shit and would be better if the shit contents are cut.

A good short game on the other hand will be memorable but might cause blue ball on the players. But really it is much better to have a reasonably tight experience than long one that is total shitshow.

 

[racofer]

I thought The Witcher 3 could not remain good for its entirety. 150 hours later, after I was 100% done with it, I wanted a lot more. Off to NG+ in the near future.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

Upon casual reflection, there are only two or three games I have ever really played where I felt they just dragged on too long.

Icewind Dale 2
Pillars of Eternity
Neverwinter Nights 2 (OC)

Each of them reflections of the other. A wealth of unrealized potential buried under heaps of mediocrity. The common thread? Josh Sawyer as a lead designer. So, in response, I'd say that a game is only in danger of being too long if Josh Sawyer is at the helm.

 

[JarlFrank]

I generally prefer shorter games just because that means there's less chance of filler bullshit, but if a game can genuinely provide 500 hours of fun, I'm gonna take it.

I also like it when part of the content is optional rather than mandatory. I replay Morrowind every couple of years because I love it so much, and every playthrough follows a different route. I can choose to focus on the main quest only, go for any of the guilds, just randomly explore, etc etc. It has hundreds of hours of content if you want it to but you can also play through it in as little as 30 hours or so (or if you use exploits and the alternate main quest solution, less than an hour lmao).

I prefer this to games with a hundred hours of mandatory content that you HAVE to go through every time, because there's a high chance of some of it (or a lot) being boring filler. I love Arcanum to bits and re-play it almost as often as Morrowind, but I wish I could skip the Black Mountain Clan and the Wheel Clan Dredge because those dungeons are just tedious.

As long as the content provided by the game is good and fun, the game can go on and on and I won't ever get bored of it. But once the game introduces shitty boring padding, I'd rather it be shorter.

 

[Poseidon00]

Im usually going through one long rpg and one or two non RPGs I can mess around with in short bursts, like a fighting game or Subnautica or something.

 

[Marat]

Let me put it this way: a good game can be too short but it can't be too long.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Long like a visual novel is bad. Long like Daggerfall is good.

 

[mondblut]

Starting and learning the game is an investment.

To me, discovery is the most interesting aspect of a game. After that it loses its charm and can become formulaic.

You must be young. As far as I am concerned, a new game is like a new job. I am not gonna bother learning the ropes if I am getting dismissed in a week.

 

[Narushima]

You must be young.

It's just a question of taste, no need to be condescending.
And it's also because I'm not young that I don't have tens of hours to spend on a game.

 

[Tyranicon]

The codex vastly prefers high-quality, high content games.

I mean, if the content is all at a high standard of quality, why wouldn't you want more of it (especially if it's optional)?

 

[Narushima]

I mean, if the content is all at a high standard of quality, why wouldn't you want more of it (especially if it's optional)?

I'd say for the same reason you don't eat nothing but ice cream for all your meals.

 

[Tyranicon]

I mean, if the content is all at a high standard of quality, why wouldn't you want more of it (especially if it's optional)?

I'd say for the same reason you don't eat nothing but ice cream for all your meals.

Don't assume my meal preferences.

But seriously, if it wasn't going to lead to an early grave, I would eat nothing but steak and other cuts of red meat.

I see the "short and sweet" argument mostly from other devs, cause adding content sometimes can be a massive grind.

 

[mondblut]

You must be young.

It's just a question of taste, no need to be condescending.
And it's also because I'm not young that I don't have tens of hours to spend on a game.

You have admitted that you can still be charmed by games and find something to discover in there. Yes, you are young.