Are Games Too Long Now?

[Dyne]

It seems like it! I'm 280 hours into Witcher 3 and probably only 40% done (but let's be honest I've left it on over night a few times). I have no real desire to finish the game at all... once you get to a certain point it feels like you've seen everything and you're just going to be repeating the same activities over and over. It's not just The Witcher 3 that does that... took me months to finish Fallout 4 because it was so boring after the first few hours. I'm probably never going to touch Mass Effect: Andromeda again after setting up 3 planets. Still haven't finished Dragon Age: Inquisition years later. Etc. (I know that's two Bioware games... not picking on them I just can't think of any others off the top of my head; I have about 800 games and have finished maybe 2 of them).

I don't NEED dozens of hours of fetch quests to pad out the games length and I don't need to walk for 20 minutes across featureless terrain (I will say the Witcher keeps things interesting in that regard) just to unlock a quick travel point. Everyone jumps for joy when a developer says they're releasing a DLC that adds 20 hours of gameplay to a game and I cry with agony because I know that what they're really saying is they've added 2 hours of actual interesting content and 18 hours of "I need these herbs to make healing potions for this sick child" quests.

Stop yourselves.

[TheSwampyBogard]

Originally posted by Dyne:

It seems like it! I'm 280 hours into Witcher 3 and probably only 40% done (but let's be honest I've left it on over night a few times). I have no real desire to finish the game at all... once you get to a certain point it feels like you've seen everything and you're just going to be repeating the same activities over and over. It's not just The Witcher 3 that does that... took me months to finish Fallout 4 because it was so boring after the first few hours. I'm probably never going to touch Mass Effect: Andromeda again after setting up 3 planets. Still haven't finished Dragon Age: Inquisition years later. Etc. (I know that's two Bioware games... not picking on them I just can't think of any others off the top of my head; I have about 800 games and have finished maybe 2 of them).

I don't NEED dozens of hours of fetch quests to pad out the games length and I don't need to walk for 20 minutes across featureless terrain (I will say the Witcher keeps things interesting in that regard) just to unlock a quick travel point. Everyone jumps for joy when a developer says they're releasing a DLC that adds 20 hours of gameplay to a game and I cry with agony because I know that what they're really saying is they've added 2 hours of actual interesting content and 18 hours of "I need these herbs to make healing potions for this sick child" quests.

Stop yourselves.

Then just play the main storyline... The game is massive, true, and has hundreds of hours of content, but if you just rushed the story you could maybe finish in 2-3 days. Most people dont think or play like this, so why would they want the game to essentially be "worse" for the few, especially if you can already get what your asking for? Honestly, if the Witchers handling of questing and content isnt good enough for you i doubt any game is.

[Dyne]

This was obviously about a trend in general to add a lot of filler to games. If you took it as an affront to The Witcher 3 (which I love but as I said can't finish) then I apologize.

[namresaw33]

I kind of know what you mean. I played FO4 a lot recently (second playthrough) and got to the point where I just rushed the main quests until the end. Mostly because I was ready for something new.

[Dyne]

Yeah there is definitely a point in a lot of the Fallout / Elder Scrolls games in which you hit a wall where you don't want to play anymore, unfortunately. I remember diving into Oblivion for my 3rd or so playthrough and thinking "OK I'm going to hit every cave and location I see so I can see the whole game!" yeah that lasted for about 4 caves. lol

[TheSwampyBogard]

Originally posted by Dyne:

This was obviously about a trend in general to add a lot of filler to games. If you took it as an affront to The Witcher 3 (which I love but as I said can't finish) then I apologize.

I certainly dont think its a perfect game, im just saying that if you dont like what the Witcher has to offer in terms of execution of content, then you probably wont like any other games execution of content, which seems to be the case. Every single RPG out there has filler in it, but I dont neccesarilly get bored of the Witchers way of handling it, because at least to me most quests feel pretty unique.

Filler is used in most forms of entertaining media in general, like Movies and TV. Sure, it doesnt HAVE to be there to progress the purpose, but is there any harm in having it? Even less it seems to me in the case of the Witcher, as your not forced to engage in it.

[Dyne]

^ That is a fair point although you paint me to be a lot more negative than I meant to be. Haha. I don't watch TV for the reason you mentioned so I can't really argue with you there. If we're going to talk about the Witcher's execution of content then to that I'll say I felt like there wasn't a lot of depth to it. The world is massive and looks alive but when you examine it closer, none of those people matter. I understand it would have been an enormous undertaking to name every character in The Witcher and give them dialogue options but... some games find a middle ground. Take Inquisition for example, lots of people hate it and I admit it is far from great, but they pepper in meaningful NPC's in their towns and throughout the larger maps. Most of the towns in The Witcher don't have anybody to talk to except for one quest giver.

That said, the game still finds an appropriate way to roll out its lore and make you feel like you're in a living world. Just don't look too hard.

[TheSwampyBogard]

Originally posted by Dyne:

^ That is a fair point although you paint me to be a lot more negative than I meant to be. Haha. I don't watch TV for the reason you mentioned so I can't really argue with you there. If we're going to talk about the Witcher's execution of content then to that I'll say I felt like there wasn't a lot of depth to it. The world is massive and looks alive but when you examine it closer, none of those people matter. I understand it would have been an enormous undertaking to name every character in The Witcher and give them dialogue options but... some games find a middle ground. Take Inquisition for example, lots of people hate it and I admit it is far from great, but they pepper in meaningful NPC's in their towns and throughout the larger maps. Most of the towns in The Witcher don't have anybody to talk to except for one quest giver.

That said, the game still finds an appropriate way to roll out its lore and make you feel like you're in a living world. Just don't look too hard.

Guess its just up to personal taste then, cause I mostly get the vibe from those smaller towns and cities that Geralt is just there to do his work and be done. They dont neccessarily need to make every character interesting, or more so interested in you, because thats actually what annoyed me in quite a few games myself haha.

Take Skyrim for example. You could take a stroll through Markarth from the gate to the prison, and I can guarantee you that nearly every NPC will speak some nonsense to you that quite frankly you could care less about. "Spare a copper", "Weather isnt good for my crops","My *ssholes on fire!". Does anyone really care?

Anyways, I think the way TW3 does things is pretty acceptable for me. Like I said, I dont really want to talk to each and every person, because I have no reason to. The people who do matter, though, have as much depth as they probably should.

[Dyne]

All good points and yeah I agree now that The Witcher is definitely on the better end of what I was talking about. Always nice to have a polite and thoughtful debate, especially here.

[MaximumEffort]

I found Glitcher 3 to be short. Just over 170 hours for that world size + DLCs.

F4 took me around 400 hours for the base game + DLCs

[Dyne]

If 170 hours is too short of a game for you, you might need other hobbies. lol

[Spacey]

Witcher 3 is huge and I love it. Fallout 4 was buggy and it was kinda boring. Nothing special in that game. Fallout 3 and New Vegas were much better. I like games that are 20+ hours at least. Basically do not play anything beside that because I think that it is a waste of money to spend like 40-50 bucks on game that you complete in like two days.

[Mr. Coffeek]

280 hours and didn't even finished the base game? What the... What have you been doing? It took me about 150 hours doing everything, contracts treasure hunt etc.

[jss1138]

I take the opposite view.

5 hours to finish Battlefield 1?! I ain't paying $60 for that!

[Dyne]

Originally posted by Coffeek, Devourer of Gods:

280 hours and didn't even finished the base game? What the... What have you been doing? It took me about 150 hours doing everything, contracts treasure hunt etc.

Explicitly stated that I left the game on overnight several times.

[TheSwampyBogard]

Originally posted by Coffeek, Devourer of Gods:

280 hours and didn't even finished the base game? What the... What have you been doing? It took me about 150 hours doing everything, contracts treasure hunt etc.

If youve played 150 hours, you havent done everything...