Games Are Too Long For Our Own Good

All Discussions > Steam Forums > Steam Discussions > Topic Details

Mr.Whitehead™ May 5 @ 12:41pm

Games Are Too Long For Our Own Good

Games are becoming such a time sink. It is the main reason games are not as fun as they used to be. It takes too long to get to the good stuff. Elden Ring would be more fun if it only took 20 hours to complete rather than 60-100. Leveling up, exploring the world, seeing better equipment, weapons, and arts of war sooner would make me play the game longer.

Elden Ring can be a hassle for some players (like me) to come back to because the world is big and completing another 60-100 hour run can be draining. The backlog is only getting bigger, and I'm realizing it will never be completed because games are taking too long to finish. Persona? That's 80-100 hours per game!! Baldur's Gate 3? Another 80-100 hour game! And I have hundreds of games in my library that are easily 30+ hour experiences.

If I can't beat it in under 20 hours, I can't play it.

What games are under 20 hours? It's mostly going to be your FPS campaigns like COD, Halo, Crysis, DOOM, Bioshock etc -- mixed in with some Castlevania, Devil May Cry, and Sonic games. If AAA games made a quality product with a 20 hr campaign, strong replayability, and a good end game at $50 -- we would be in a golden age. The closest game I can think of that comes to that ideal is Resident Evil 4 Remake. But then again, it's a remake of a game that came out in the early 00s which is one of the best console generations of all time. The game line ups in the early 00s was crazy, and we didn't know how good we had it back then.

Mandatory boring sidequest, battle passes, constant grinding of exp, materials, etc, empty open worlds, and more have been bloating our gaming experiences, and it has been giving us brainrot for years.

LESS. IS. MORE!!!!

< >

Showing 1-15 of 41 comments

xBCxRangers May 5 @ 12:45pm

Well, i never thought we'd come to a time people want, less content, not more.

And with the rising prices of these games, idk how many are gonna spend 80 dollars to play a four hour campaign. I know i'm not.

And so these 20 hours better be the standard for 80 dolllars.

Tito Shivan May 5 @ 12:50pm

One valuable lesson I learnt over the years is the fact that I don't need to finish every game I play.

HereIsPlenty May 5 @ 12:52pm

I have something like 60 games on my desktop (icons) that I "mean to get back to". Time is the enemy of man.

Yasahi May 5 @ 12:53pm

Originally posted by Mr.Whitehead™:
The backlog is only getting bigger, and I'm realizing it will never be completed because games are taking too long to finish. Persona? That's 80-100 hours per game!! Baldur's Gate 3? Another 80-100 hour game! And I have hundreds of games in my library that are easily 30+ hour experiences.

Don't buy a game if you don't have the time to play it. You are the issue here, not the length of the games.

Originally posted by Mr.Whitehead™:
If I can't beat it in under 20 hours, I can't play it.

Yes you can. You're choosing not to. Again, the issue is with you and your habits, not the games.

Originally posted by Mr.Whitehead™:
LESS. IS. MORE!!!!

If you believe this, why are you not living like it? Don't buy games if you have a backlog waiting.

Mr.Whitehead™ May 5 @ 1:38pm

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:
One valuable lesson I learnt over the years is the fact that I don't need to finish every game I play.

Right on, brotha. I'm starting to realize this as well. Thank you for your response.

Mr.Whitehead™ May 5 @ 1:41pm

Originally posted by HereIsPlenty:
I have something like 60 games on my desktop (icons) that I "mean to get back to". Time is the enemy of man.

I understand, and I agree with your point of view. I'm right there with you, bro.

Mr.Whitehead™ May 5 @ 1:49pm

Originally posted by xBCxRangers:
Well, i never thought we'd come to a time people want, less content, not more.

And with the rising prices of these games, idk how many are gonna spend 80 dollars to play a four hour campaign. I know i'm not.

And so these 20 hours better be the standard for 80 dolllars.

Yeah, I believe 20-25 hours is the sweet spot with a few content DLCs. Anything higher than that I believe they should just make a sequel, in my opinion. Thanks for your input.

Realigo Actual May 5 @ 2:11pm

Is true that games used to be shorter. But then all the games that I remember most, the ones that get at the meaning of the thing, were always the longer ones. There are shorter ones that I liked and can remember moments from, but not one of them is on the same level for me as the longer ones.

You change with a longer game because you have time and that puts it on a different level.

BJWyler May 5 @ 2:14pm

Originally posted by Mr.Whitehead™:
Games are becoming such a time sink. It is the main reason games are not as fun as they used to be. It takes too long to get to the good stuff. Elden Ring would be more fun if it only took 20 hours to complete rather than 60-100. Leveling up, exploring the world, seeing better equipment, weapons, and arts of war sooner would make me play the game longer.

Elden Ring can be a hassle for some players (like me) to come back to because the world is big and completing another 60-100 hour run can be draining. The backlog is only getting bigger, and I'm realizing it will never be completed because games are taking too long to finish. Persona? That's 80-100 hours per game!! Baldur's Gate 3? Another 80-100 hour game! And I have hundreds of games in my library that are easily 30+ hour experiences.

If I can't beat it in under 20 hours, I can't play it.

What games are under 20 hours? It's mostly going to be your FPS campaigns like COD, Halo, Crysis, DOOM, Bioshock etc -- mixed in with some Castlevania, Devil May Cry, and Sonic games. If AAA games made a quality product with a 20 hr campaign, strong replayability, and a good end game at $50 -- we would be in a golden age. The closest game I can think of that comes to that ideal is Resident Evil 4 Remake. But then again, it's a remake of a game that came out in the early 00s which is one of the best console generations of all time. The game line ups in the early 00s was crazy, and we didn't know how good we had it back then.

Mandatory boring sidequest, battle passes, constant grinding of exp, materials, etc, empty open worlds, and more have been bloating our gaming experiences, and it has been giving us brainrot for years.

LESS. IS. MORE!!!!

I disagree.

Mr.Whitehead™ May 5 @ 2:24pm

Originally posted by Realigo Actual:
Is true that games used to be shorter. But then all the games that I remember most, the ones that get at the meaning of the thing, were always the longer ones. There are shorter ones that I liked and can remember moments from, but not one of them is on the same level for me as the longer ones.

You change with a longer game because you have time and that puts it on a different level.

I understand your point of view. There are benefits to a longer experience. I'm not saying the game has to be super short (20 hours is mid length, imo), but at the same time, I don't want 30 hours of filler to bloat an otherwise quality game experience, in my very humble opinion. Thanks for the post.

#10

Mr.Whitehead™ May 5 @ 2:26pm

Originally posted by BJWyler:
Originally posted by Mr.Whitehead™:
Games are becoming such a time sink. It is the main reason games are not as fun as they used to be. It takes too long to get to the good stuff. Elden Ring would be more fun if it only took 20 hours to complete rather than 60-100. Leveling up, exploring the world, seeing better equipment, weapons, and arts of war sooner would make me play the game longer.

Elden Ring can be a hassle for some players (like me) to come back to because the world is big and completing another 60-100 hour run can be draining. The backlog is only getting bigger, and I'm realizing it will never be completed because games are taking too long to finish. Persona? That's 80-100 hours per game!! Baldur's Gate 3? Another 80-100 hour game! And I have hundreds of games in my library that are easily 30+ hour experiences.

If I can't beat it in under 20 hours, I can't play it.

What games are under 20 hours? It's mostly going to be your FPS campaigns like COD, Halo, Crysis, DOOM, Bioshock etc -- mixed in with some Castlevania, Devil May Cry, and Sonic games. If AAA games made a quality product with a 20 hr campaign, strong replayability, and a good end game at $50 -- we would be in a golden age. The closest game I can think of that comes to that ideal is Resident Evil 4 Remake. But then again, it's a remake of a game that came out in the early 00s which is one of the best console generations of all time. The game line ups in the early 00s was crazy, and we didn't know how good we had it back then.

Mandatory boring sidequest, battle passes, constant grinding of exp, materials, etc, empty open worlds, and more have been bloating our gaming experiences, and it has been giving us brainrot for years.

LESS. IS. MORE!!!!
I disagree.

OK.

#11

Eagle_of_Fire May 5 @ 2:32pm

Originally posted by Mr.Whitehead™:
Originally posted by xBCxRangers:
Well, i never thought we'd come to a time people want, less content, not more.

And with the rising prices of these games, idk how many are gonna spend 80 dollars to play a four hour campaign. I know i'm not.

And so these 20 hours better be the standard for 80 dolllars.

Yeah, I believe 20-25 hours is the sweet spot with a few content DLCs. Anything higher than that I believe they should just make a sequel, in my opinion. Thanks for your input.

The fact that you seem to have a huge deficit of attention do not make what you think is good the norm. Any game that only has 20 hours of content is a completely trash game to my eyes. One that I should never have bought or wasted time playing to begin with. And exceptions to this rule do exist but are so far in between that they are more like aberrations than actual exceptions.

A game is good or it is not. Period. The time played do not directly relate to this fact but if I overpay a game for the time I'm going to use it for then I'm just getting screwed over monetarily speaking and, like it or not, it is a huge part of the appreciation of the medium. All my best games in my top 10 games of all time I ever played I logged at the bare minimum thousand of hours. Each. 20 hours for 80 dollards? I'll just roll my eyes to this and move on with my day.

#12

Mr.Whitehead™ May 5 @ 2:49pm

Originally posted by Eagle_of_Fire:
Originally posted by Mr.Whitehead™:

Yeah, I believe 20-25 hours is the sweet spot with a few content DLCs. Anything higher than that I believe they should just make a sequel, in my opinion. Thanks for your input.
The fact that you seem to have a huge deficit of attention do not make what you think is good the norm. Any game that only has 20 hours of content is a completely trash game to my eyes. One that I should never have bought or wasted time playing to begin with. And exceptions to this rule do exist but are so far in between that they are more like aberrations than actual exceptions.

A game is good or it is not. Period. The time played do not directly relate to this fact but if I overpay a game for the time I'm going to use it for then I'm just getting screwed over monetarily speaking and, like it or not, it is a huge part of the appreciation of the medium. All my best games in my top 10 games of all time I ever played I logged at the bare minimum thousand of hours. Each. 20 hours for 80 dollards? I'll just roll my eyes to this and move on with my day.

Thank you for expressing your opinions here. I don't agree with everything that you said, but I do agree with some. You make some strong points here -- I would have to agree that "20 hours for $80" feels like I'm being scammed. Thanks again for the post.

#13

doomshadow612 May 5 @ 4:27pm

Sorry you have such a short attention span. Some people actually prefer more content for their money. I wouldn’t mind a 200+ hour RPG. It would take me ages to finish it, but if it’s good then it’s worth it

#14