Support NeoGAF

[BossLackey]

I'm getting really tired of these stretched out games. Time is precious to us all, yet we continue to have publishers and developer that think of "dollars per hour" as a saleable bullet point on their products.

For younger players, I understand that to a degree. Bang for your buck is something to consider when you have ample time and limited funds, but the inverse as an adult is almost more annoying. So many games I could play, but how many of them are padded to the gills with boring stretches of bullshit?

The games that keep coming to my mind that are nearly perfect when it comes to pacing and gameplay density are the Resident Evil games. They're well balanced with tight, dense campaigns that offer more in New Game + if you like, but are just as good as a one-shot. And they're just the right length.

I get it. Video games are expensive to make and a lot of people don't want to drop $70 on something that's over in 6 hours, but that doesn't mean I want a 60 hour game either. Legitimately, who the fuck has time for that!? If it were just a few games per year, that'd be one thing, but my backlog if counted in hours would take lifetimes.

I want the polish and mechanical complexity of AAA games and the quick hit and shorter campaigns of a lot of indie games. Is that so much to ask!?

 

[adamsapple]

Is this in reference to VII Rebirth?

 

[BossLackey]

Is this in reference to VII Rebirth?

...it might be

 

[The Cockatrice]

You're wrong. It's not the longevity that matters, its the variety, quality and depth of the gameplay that matters. Are you saying Elden Ring , Persona 5 or Baldurs Gate 3 are bad games for taking 100+ hours? No, they're not. A game can be 300 hours long for all I care as long as the gameplay is incredibly satisfying and fun to play.

 

[Hudo]

What's the black hole of gaming?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Get rid of your kids

Don't be poor

Problem solved

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

A fun 300 hours is 20x more valuable than a fun 15 hours.

 

[digdug2]

You're wrong. It's not the longevity that matters, its the variety, quality and depth of the gameplay that matters. Are you saying Elden Ring , Persona 5 or Baldurs Gate 3 are bad games for taking 100+ hours? No, they're not. A game can be 300 hours long for all I care as long as the gameplay is incredibly satisfying and fun to play.

Did AC Valhalla deserve 70 hours of your time? Many considered it great. I wasn't one of them.

 

[BossLackey]

You're wrong. It's not the longevity that matters, its the variety, quality and depth of the gameplay that matters. Are you saying Elden Ring , Persona 5 or Baldurs Gate 3 are bad games for taking 100+ hours? No, they're not. A game can be 300 hours long for all I care as long as the gameplay is incredibly satisfying and fun to play.

All three I own and all three are fantastic games. But for each game like this, I can name 10 that don't respect your time.

That's why I started with gameplay density. Elden Ring is dense. There's stuff to do constantly. I put 150 hours into it in 3 weeks. Something I very rarely do.

And despite it being so long, it's an exception to the rule.

 

[Buggy Loop]

These CEOs among many others are saying "no" and asks you "Have you heard about NFT?"



So vote with your money

 

[TintoConCasera]

You're wrong. It's not the longevity that matters, its the variety, quality and depth of the gameplay that matters. Are you saying Elden Ring , Persona 5 or Baldurs Gate 3 are bad games for taking 100+ hours? No, they're not. A game can be 300 hours long for all I care as long as the gameplay is incredibly satisfying and fun to play.

The thing with those games is that, even if very long, most of the time is spent engaging with the game mechanincs, like engaging in combat in ER, building your character or role-playing in BG3 or fusing demons, battling them and chasing waifus in Persona.

But on the other hand, there are games like Cyberpunk 2077 where most of my play time was spent in the car driving from point A to B. This might have been my fault since I could have used fast travel but, if the open world isn't fun then why the fuck make the game open world in the first place?

 

[BossLackey]

A fun 300 hours is 20x more valuable than a fun 15 hours.

But these hours are not created equal for the vast majority of games. REmake 2 was five times more fun in the time it took me to beat it than the same time in FFVII Rebirth. They're not even remotely close in that regard.

 

[BossLackey]

The thing with those games is that, even if very long, most of the time is spent engaging with the game mechanincs, like engaging in combat in ER, building your character or role-playing in BG3 or fusing demons, battling them and chasing waifus in Persona.

But on the other hand, there are games like Cyberpunk 2077 where most of my play time was spent in the car driving from point A to B. This might have been my fault since I could have used fast travel but, if the open world isn't fun then why the fuck make the game open world in the first place?

This is exactly my point. Thank you.

 

[MagiusNecros]

Yeah I agree. Probably gonna reassess what games are worth the cash and pretty much demand that a game must be fun and have replayability that will have me keep playing the game for at least 200+ hours instead of games I'll only play once within a 24 hour timeframe.

 

[The Cockatrice]

All three I own and all three are fantastic games. But for each game like this, I can name 10 that don't respect your time.

That's why I started with gameplay density. Elden Ring is dense. There's stuff to do constantly. I put 150 hours into it in 3 weeks. Something I very rarely do.

And despite it being so long, it's an exception to the rule.

Then we should force developers to make more of these exceptions and not shorter games.

Did AC Valhalla deserve 70 hours of your time? Many considered it great. I wasn't one of them.

As someone who has played all AC games, with Odyssey being my favorite, it did not deserve my time. I actually abandoned it as I was nearing 70 hours, the story kept going nowhere, and it looked like I was about to play another 200 hours. Its the only AC I ever abandoned. In this case OP is right.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

But these hours are not created equal for the vast majority of games. REmake 2 was five times more fun in the time it took me to beat it than the same time in FFVII Rebirth. They're not even remotely close in that regard.

Most people dont find value in short, one and done games.

The market prefers longer games.

 

[The Cockatrice]

The thing with those games is that, even if very long, most of the time is spent engaging with the game mechanincs, like engaging in combat in ER, building your character or role-playing in BG3 or fusing demons, battling them and chasing waifus in Persona.

But on the other hand, there are games like Cyberpunk 2077 where most of my play time was spent in the car driving from point A to B. This might have been my fault since I could have used fast travel but, if the open world isn't fun then why the fuck make the game open world in the first place?

Totally agree, even though Cyberpunk is one of my favorite games of all time, and I loved spending every minute in it, so much that I played it 3 times and never fast traveled. But yes, in other games, going from point A to point B for half the game is and can be tedious as hell.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Pretty sure everyone agrees that excessive bloat in games suck. They’re like the empty calories of the videogame world, and serve no useful purpose other than to support RPG lite mechanics that aren’t needed.

There’s a massive difference between spending 100hrs doing copy/paste bloat in Assassin’s Creed and 100hrs in a fun online multiplayer game.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I dunno, I'm looking forward to putting in another 150+ hours into Baldur's Gate 3 once the games is finally done being patched.

Game length doesn't bug me as long as there's a reason for it. I don't mind a long game as long as the story or gameplay support the reason for length, if it feels like it's being mindlessly dragged out and too repetitious ala AssCreed Valhalla/Odyssey, I just zone out while playing and then eventually give up and never touch it again.

 

[rofif]

Perfectly said. Perfectly.
Ff7 rebirth can go to hell. Overstating its welcome but for bad reasons which is just bloat and stuff that should be cut.

Re2 remake or 4 remake are essentially perfect game. 8-10houra but replayability thorough the roof despite being linear.
Uncharted 4 the same thing for me. 15 hours but I get back to it every year.
I will replay game that’s 10-20 hours and I will rarely replay open world bloats.
Dark souls got amazing replayability and it’s a fraction of Elden ring.
While ER is great it might be an exemption. It’s one bloated game that’s good. But could use some trimming.

And I still replay half life 2. I did this year. Everything is detailed and hand crafted. You find something new each time

 

[Solidus_T]

This probably deserves its own thread, but Mark breaks down the reasons why gameplay density is so important and the underlying reasons why developers have been weaseling away from these core game design fundamentals. I have been saying what this man is saying for over a decade. The departure from arcades has had a profound impact on video game design, for worse.

 

[TintoConCasera]

Totally agree, even though Cyberpunk is one of my favorite games of all time, and I loved spending every minute in it, so much that I played it 3 times and never fast traveled. But yes, in other games, going from point A to point B for half the game is and can be tedious as hell.

To be honest, going from point A to B isn't that bad when the cars are cool as hell and the radio full of bangers.

 

[The Cockatrice]

To be honest, going from point A to B isn't that bad when the cars are cool as hell and the radio full of bangers.

Lmao, I think I drove the Kusanagi bike 80% of the time but yep, the radio music tingled my eardrums and u can't deny its visuals and architecture make u wanna stop and take a screenshot every minute but I get it. It's not for everyone.

 

[jshackles]

Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth has consumed my life the last few weeks since it released. I just finished it yesterday after 80 hours, and it still consumes my thoughts at work - and probably will for a while. I found it fun and engaging throughout. I liked the open world sections. I liked the battle system. I liked all the mini-games that everyone's shitting on. I finished the Queens Blood quest line. I thought the added character interactions and world building (even the weird Kingdom-Hearts-esque stuff at the end) were all incredible. I haven't decided yet if I like it more than the original, but it's close.

Then I contrast that with a game that OP says is a masterpiece of gameplay density - Elden Ring, which I also played for 80 hours. And in those 80 hours I did have fun at times, but found the experience to be frustrating and maddening. So much so that I eventually gave up about 9/10ths of the way through the game and never returned to finish it.

And yet again another example is I've played 80 hours of Vampire Survivors on Steam (and probably at least that much again on Xbox, Switch, and Android combined). I love this game, the mechanics are simple, but I think the gameplay loop is super satisfying. Most people play it for a few hours then bounce - it's not really designed to be an 80-hour experience unless you want it to be.

Anyway, I think OP is wrong - I love long games (and I'm old and have work and other responsibilities). If you don't enjoy long games, don't play them? When thinking about buying a game, look online at places like HowLongToBeat and find out if the length of the game suits you.

 

[Dacvak]

You're wrong. It's not the longevity that matters, its the variety, quality and depth of the gameplay that matters. Are you saying Elden Ring , Persona 5 or Baldurs Gate 3 are bad games for taking 100+ hours? No, they're not. A game can be 300 hours long for all I care as long as the gameplay is incredibly satisfying and fun to play.

You and OP are saying the same thing. You’re just giving examples of games that are the exceptions, not the rule.

 

[BossLackey]

This probably deserves its own thread, but Mark breaks down the reasons why gameplay density is so important and the underlying reasons why developers have been weaseling away from these core game design fundamentals. I have been saying what this man is saying for over a decade. The departure from arcades has had a profound impact on video game design, for worse.

I guess it's no wonder I play a ton of arcade games (Shmups, Run n' Guns, Beat 'em Ups) as well as arcade inspired genres like action platformers and roguelikes.

 

[hyperbertha]

A fun 300 hours is 20x more valuable than a fun 15 hours.

Depends on quality of fun. The level of fun in a creative challenging game like Zelda or dar souls is entirely higher quality than a never ending bullet sponge heavy trash like destiny 2.

 

[joeygreco1985]

See this is why I loved the COD campaigns. 4 hours-ish, cinematic and tight experience, and you're done. No fluff. Thats what I want, then everyone adn their uncle complains "LOL those COD campaigns are too short not worth it" so now we get bloated 40 hour bullshit and live-service trash.

 

[hyperbertha]

You and OP are saying the same thing. You’re just giving examples of games that are the exceptions, not the rule.

But persona 5 is the definition of padding. It's among the most boring games I've ever played.

 

[BossLackey]

Anyway, I think OP is wrong - I love long games (and I'm old and have work and other responsibilities). If you don't enjoy long games, don't play them? When thinking about buying a game, look online at places like HowLongToBeat and find out if the length of the game suits you.

People are conflating two of my points. Density is not the same thing as length. And density is my foremost argument. There are plenty of games that are long that I also enjoyed, but they're very rare compared to the bloatware we get most of the time.

These are exceptions.

 

[BossLackey]

But persona 5 is the definition of padding. It's among the most boring games I've ever played.

Persona 5 is so padded that I know, without exaggeration, around 10 diehard JRPG fans that played 80% of it and just could not finish it.

In fact, I actually don't know anybody personally that has finished it.

If that doesn't perfectly illustrate my point, I don't know what the fuck does. If even the people that are obsessed with a game can't finish it, then that's a problem and saying otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

 

[hyperbertha]

Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth has consumed my life the last few weeks since it released. I just finished it yesterday after 80 hours, and it still consumes my thoughts at work - and probably will for a while. I found it fun and engaging throughout. I liked the open world sections. I liked the battle system. I liked all the mini-games that everyone's shitting on. I finished the Queens Blood quest line. I thought the added character interactions and world building (even the weird Kingdom-Hearts-esque stuff at the end) were all incredible. I haven't decided yet if I like it more than the original, but it's close.

Then I contrast that with a game that OP says is a masterpiece of gameplay density - Elden Ring, which I also played for 80 hours. And in those 80 hours I did have fun at times, but found the experience to be frustrating and maddening. So much so that I eventually gave up about 9/10ths of the way through the game and never returned to finish it.

And yet again another example is I've played 80 hours of Vampire Survivors on Steam (and probably at least that much again on Xbox, Switch, and Android combined). I love this game, the mechanics are simple, but I think the gameplay loop is super satisfying. Most people play it for a few hours then bounce - it's not really designed to be an 80-hour experience unless you want it to be.

Anyway, I think OP is wrong - I love long games (and I'm old and have work and other responsibilities). If you don't enjoy long games, don't play them? When thinking about buying a game, look online at places like HowLongToBeat and find out if the length of the game suits you.

These games aren't examples of padded out trash. Ac Valhalla, diablo 4, ff16 etc are prime examples of boring copy paste design. There are long form games that manage to stay interesting but they are a rare breed.

 

[Dacvak]

People are conflating two of my points. Density is not the same thing as length. And density is my foremost argument. There are plenty of games that are long that I also enjoyed, but they're very rare compared to the bloatware we get most of the time.

These are exceptions.

I actually read your post, which seemed pretty clear. Btw, I love the term “gameplay density”, which I’m not sure I’ve heard before. Definitely gonna start using that.

And fwiw, I agree with your post. I’d rather have short games that respect my time with higher-quality content than [insert any random Ubisoft game] with dozens of hours of bullshit that doesn’t matter.

 

[GymWolf]

The remilk part 1 was 5 hours section bloated into 40, i can only imagine how bad part 2 is.

But i usually have no problem with super long games, just boring bloated ones.

 

[Raven117]

Some games are glorious sprawling multiple multiple hours affairs, others… are 15 hours stretched to 40.

The first category is amazing. The others are tedious… and otherwise very annoying.

 

[Toons]

I dont agree, but I dont disagree.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

Let's be honest, the Assassin's Creed games are really the only big AAA games that "don't respect" your time. This is not a massive issue in the industry. If I'm paying 70$, I need at least 25-30 hours of content to make it worthwhile. Fuck the idea of 10-15hr experiences for that price. Rather games just dumb down graphics to save costs if need be

 

[TheInfamousKira]

I think the thing is people are into different types of games. Sounds like some no shit, Sherlock stuff, but bare with me: In an age where games are huge, both in cost and size, not guaranteed to be in a playable state, and not guaranteed to be any good even if it is - people look to basically any big release as an opportunity to get some engagement out of a hobby that's becoming increasingly gourmet. These people don't care if you get a AAA 300 hour game that is meant to be an immersive deal. But they also want to have their tastes represented in a project that doesn't look like it was made on RPG Maker. It has a lot of parallels to my thoughts on Gamergate 2.0, actually.

 

[fart town usa]

All three I own and all three are fantastic games. But for each game like this, I can name 10 that don't respect your time.

That's why I started with gameplay density. Elden Ring is dense. There's stuff to do constantly. I put 150 hours into it in 3 weeks. Something I very rarely do.

And despite it being so long, it's an exception to the rule.

Dude picked 3 games that are GOAT-tier status and ignores countless obvious examples.

You're 100% right.

 

[Nydius]

I see it's time for the monthly (or is it weekly?) "games are too long, they need to be shorter" topic on GAF.

Kudos for using more interesting terminology ("gameplay density") instead of saying "games are too long", though.

 

[jshackles]

People are conflating two of my points. Density is not the same thing as length. And density is my foremost argument. There are plenty of games that are long that I also enjoyed, but they're very rare compared to the bloatware we get most of the time.

These are exceptions.

If you only like a very small subset of (thing), then you actually just don't like (thing).

Lots of different people can play the same game, and draw different conclusions about how "dense" they thought it was. It will all come down to a matter of personal opinion and preference. Your best bet will be to find a reviewer or review outlet that likes the same stuff you do, for the same reasons, and rely on their opinions as to whether a particular long game is worth it. Otherwise, like you said, you'll mostly find what you consider to be trash or filler (that other people consider density I guess).

These games aren't examples of padded out trash. Ac Valhalla, diablo 4, ff16 etc are prime examples of boring copy paste design. There are long form games that manage to stay interesting but they are a rare breed.

I'm laughing slightly because those three games you listed are games I dropped part-way through. But my post was also pointing out that my opinion on Rebirth's density was different from OPs. Same with Elden Ring. Not sure if OP played Vampire Survivors, but I know I'm in the minority of gamers who can be endlessly entertained by it.

Just pointing out that the length of a game is usually pretty fixed (a long game is typically long for everyone that plays it), but the ongoing enjoyment of a game - it's density as OP calls it - is entirely subjective to the player.

 

[Hrk69]

I love me some long games but I agree with OP's premise

 

[WoJ]

As someone who had often shit on long padded games with meaningless filler I kind of agree....but also don't. Just don't do the side stuff.

I've spent a ton of time doing side content in Rebirth and really like it. I am sure part of that is because I played Final Fantasy VII when I was 15 years old back in 1997 and seeing the game and its world expanded on is just cool to see.

I also enjoy shorter, more focused, tighter experiences and more "gaemplay dense" games as you called it. There's so many options out there these day. There truly is room for all. Vote with your wallet if you don't like something.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Depends on quality of fun. The level of fun in a creative challenging game like Zelda or dar souls is entirely higher quality than a never ending bullet sponge heavy trash like destiny 2.

This is not true, and it's what's getting people in trouble.

You're cherry picking too.

The market has been shifting in this direction for decades because the short one and done game is less attractive than the 50+ hour experience...on average.

 

[T4keD0wN]

You guys dont like spending >75% of playtime walking?

 

[hyperbertha]

This is not true, and it's what's getting people in trouble.

You're cherry picking too.

The market has been shifting in this direction for decades because the short one and done game is less attractive than the 50+ hour experience...on average.

What is not true exactly....

 

[hyperbertha]

Let's be honest, the Assassin's Creed games are really the only big AAA games that "don't respect" your time. This is not a massive issue in the industry. If I'm paying 70$, I need at least 25-30 hours of content to make it worthwhile. Fuck the idea of 10-15hr experiences for that price. Rather games just dumb down graphics to save costs if need be

Horizon, farcry, persona 5, ff16 all have this issue

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

What is not true exactly....

The idea that short games are a higher quality than long games doesn't shake out. The market trends say otherwise.

 

[GametimeUK]

I will replay an 8 to 15 hour game to death if its well paced. Especially if it provides awesome unlocks etc.

However, I will only really play a 40 hour game once.

So this price per runtime metric actually benefits shorter games in the long run when it comes to my taste as I will accumulate more playtime on a shorter game.

 

[SoloCamo]

Proceeds to ignore the hours I've dumped into TES Games, mainly Morrowind. But that game I suppose isn't long per se, just so much to do and see. Density is the key take away, I've played less than 5 hour long games that were amazing and I've racked up hundreds of hours in other games (over years mind you).