Support NeoGAF

[Lunatic_Gamer]

In a recent interview, former Bethesda developer Will Shen noted that audiences are quickly becoming tired of bigger and bigger games. He also acknowledged that his past titles, including Skyrim and Fallout 4, played a role in popularizing the trend of bigger and bigger games.

A large section of the audience is becoming fatigued at investing 30-plus hours into a game.
-Will Shen

As per Will Shen, audiences are less interested in spending 30 to 100 hours on a game today. He believes this is the reason more compact experiences are seeing a resurgence today.

Still, there is certainly a market for longer games. This is why many are so excited about GTA 6 and various future RPGs that offer similarly lengthy experiences

Fans Are Tired of 100 Hour Long Games, Says Former Starfield Dev

A former Starfield developer has stated that the industry has found itself moving away from big games due to fan fatigue.

tech4gamers.com

 

[HRK69]

Eh no? I love them

 

[TintoConCasera]

You could say there´s people asking for shorter games, yeah, but I doubt fans of long RPGs are among those.

 

[Hudo]

Well, if the experience is to fly from one boring procedurally generated landscape to another with repeating outposts in it, then yes.

 

[winjer]

People are tired of games padded with filler quests and activities.

The issue is filler, not how long a game lasts. Make a game with 100 hours of real quality content, not filler, and no one will complain.

That devs cant understand this simple fact is telling of how much they are disconnected from their audience.

 

[Skifi28]

100+ hours on Baldur's Gate was amazing and I wanted more. 100 hours of Starfield is used as a form of punishment on some countries. People are tired of boring copy-paste 100 hours.

 

[MayauMiao]

I do have limits when it comes to single player games.

Can't say the same about multiplayer or open world online games.

 

[Little Mac]

I agree. Depending on the genre, 20-50 hours is the sweet spot.

 

[sono]

I dont agree.

Generalising customers to suit.

 

[LectureMaster]

 

[TrebleShot]

Hes absolutely correct, shorter, more detailed and higher quality is best.
Sometimes I have to check how long a game is to beat and some of them I instantly NOPE out of.
I think 10-15 hours is the sweet spot for single player linear games.

20-25 for action adventures with open worlds.
Anything hitting 25+ for the main campaign (no side stuff) is usually a bloated mess.

 

[zokie]

nope i am not one of them , its a good value for my $$$ especially for JRPG

 

[Laptop1991]

No i'm not, i still play Fallout 3/New Vegas, Fallout 4, Skyrim and if the Oblivion remaster is real, that too plus i'm currently playing Fallout London as well and loving all the Content, I am tired however of playing big games with either boring procedural content or a hardly any content at all, and not forgetting the online mmo ones with stores. there's a big difference, more nonesense from dev's again who don't understand their real fans.

 

[laynelane]

Fans are not tired of 100 hour long games as long as they're good. It's human nature to want more of a good thing and games are no exception. However, busy work and radiant quests are examples of lazily padding out the length of games - I can agree that I am tired of that kind of stuff.

 

[killatopak]

No, I’m not.

We’re just tired of shitty games.

 

[GymWolf]

Nah, we are tired of Bethesda 100 hours games, people had a blast with bg3 and other long but good games.

I'm sure i'm gonna ejaculate profusely during my hundreds of hours with mh wilds for example.

 

[Larxia]

Hes absolutely correct, shorter, more detailed and higher quality is best.
Sometimes I have to check how long a game is to beat and some of them I instantly NOPE out of.
I think 10-15 hours is the sweet spot for single player linear games.

20-25 for action adventures with open worlds.
Anything hitting 25+ for the main campaign (no side stuff) is usually a bloated mess.

No he's not, you can't generalise things like that. There are plenty of great long games, it's just that the majority of publishers decide to artificially boost the lenght by doing boring copy paste, and that's what people don't like.
Claiming that people don't like long games is just a lame excuse to justify their failures, the same way some people claimed about people being tired of hero shooters and gaas, just before Marvel Rivals arrived for example.

I spent over 200 hours on Baldur's Gate 3, and I can tell you that in these 200 hours, there was less repetitivity than in many 15 hours long games. It just depends on how games are made...

 

[DeepSpace5D]

Nah, long games just have to do a good job keeping the player engaged. Loved the entire runtime of my 400 hours in Elden Ring.

 

[IDKFA]

Eh no? I love them

Same.

I love an epic, open world RPG with 100 hours of gameplay.

I also love short, one and done, games with a 10 hour campaign.

Why can't we have both? It doesn't need to be one or the other.

 

[Mokus]

Nope. If the game is well designed, has good gameplay and the stories/missions are good it's going to be fun for hundreds of hours.

 

[Danjin44]

Nope, if the game is satisfying I can spend close to 500 hours on them.

If people don’t want to play long games then they should play shorter games, problem solved.

 

[CompleteGlobalSaturation]

I hate excessively long single player games.

Who the fuck has time for 50+ hour experiences?

I would rather replay a GOOD short game 2-3x than to play one 50+ hour slog.

I've spent over 100 hours on Space Marine 2 - over a period of months - because I enjoy it so much.

However, when I have a 50+ hour single player game ahead of me, I am immediately filled with dread with how long the game is.

 

[Calverz]

Personally I believe that there is still an audience for games of this length. However, the mass market has changed and I believe now, more than ever that audience has shrunk partly to live service games where people can only spend so much time on a game. So stuff like Fortnite, cod amongst others is more demanding of people’s time meaning it’s hard to find time to play other long games.

But, Elden ring is a long game that had mass market success. And I think that’s due to the design of the game and its immediacy where much of that is playing , rather than reading dialogue and watching cutscenes. I think a lot of the traditional rpg stuff, modern gamers don’t have much patience for now especially when they have these live games distracting them.

 

[clarky]

Hes absolutely correct, shorter, more detailed and higher quality is best.
Sometimes I have to check how long a game is to beat and some of them I instantly NOPE out of.
I think 10-15 hours is the sweet spot for single player linear games.

20-25 for action adventures with open worlds.
Anything hitting 25+ for the main campaign (no side stuff) is usually a bloated mess.

All depends on the type of game. Single player story type games the yeah.

 

[Sweden85]

I love them, just make good games and not sh*t like Starfield

 

[drganon]

No, people just thought starfield sucked.

 

[Ridicululzz]

At the end of the day the game just needs to be FUN.

 

[Mr Hyde]

I'm bored and burnt out on 100 hour open world games, even the stellar ones such as Elden Ring and Tears of the Kingdom. It feels like the games never end amd just goes on and on and on. Preferably for me would be 50 hour on rpg and open world and 15-20 hour for more linear and compact single player games. Make the games shorter but more replayable with good game mechanics, ng+ and tight level design instead of empty worlds with fetch quests and endless filler content.

 

[Darchaos]

Hell no, just shitdevs that makes shitgames would say this. What a fucking stupid thing to say, holy retardism!

 

[CliffBronger]

I've no problem with 100+ hour games as long as the game is good.

I'm currently playing Stalker 2 I'm at the 70 hour mark, I've been going side quests and chasing artifacts and feel as though I've barely touched the surface, great game.

 

[Little Mac]

I agree. Depending on the genre, 20-50 hours is the sweet spot.

According to Google:

It takes 34 hours to beat FF6, and roughly 58 hours to do everything
It takes roughly 27 hours too beat Chrono Trigger with extras
It takes roughly 15 hours to beat Metroid Prime
It takes roughly 15 hours to 100% Castlevania SOTN
It takes roughly 35 hours to 100% Mario Galaxy
It takes roughly 22 hours to 100% Shadow of the Colossus
It takes roughly 18 hours to 100% Astro Bot
It takes roughly 29 hours to beat and 59 hours to 100% Wind Waker
It takes roughly 15 hours to beat and 23 hours to 100% The Last of Us
It takes roughly 9 hours to beat the OG God of War and 13 hours to 100%

These are just some of my favorite games, and arguably pinnacles of certain genres. Good games don't waste the players time. Bloat can ruin an otherwise fantastic experience.

 

[Rockondevil]

If it’s fun for the entire 100+ hours then I’ll be happy for its length.
I enjoyed Starfield but not as much as other RPG’s which is why it didn’t get as many hours as others.

 

[Schmendrick]

you guys think 50-100 hours is a "long" game?

 

[Mephisto40]

Didn't hear anybody getting bored with Balder's Gate

Maybe make a game that keeps players engaged for 100 hours, instead of making a bunch of planets with nothing to do on them

 

[Rawbutt Jellybean]

I agree. I miss when it felt like most AAA games were 10-15 hours and focused. Now they're filled with low quality busy work just to hit some random high hour mark.

 

[Clintizzle]

100 hours of fetch quests is very different to 100 hours of unique and complex quests.

In Starfields case, 50 hours of loading screens/animations.

 

[TheCrowsReaper]

Don’t speak for me. They’re my favorite type of game.

 

[Mister Wolf]

 

[pudel]

There is clearly a market for short games and for larger games. I dont understand this weird generalization takes.

 

[KungFucius]

I agree. I love big games, but many are just too big. 10-20 hours is good enough. If your game really needs to be 100 hours, consider splitting it up and releasing a sequel quickly.

Maybe the big games could benefit from having no BS side content which I always tend to do early and then tire of the game before either hate finishing it, or uninstalling it and moving on.

 

[Certinty]

In general, I prefer games which are under 15 hours, I won't deny that.

But if a much longer game comes around and the content is actually quality, not dragged out repetitive filler, let's say Red Dead Redemption 2 level, I'll happily keep on playing.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

Didn't hear anybody getting bored with Balder's Gate

Maybe make a game that keeps players engaged for 100 hours, instead of making a bunch of planets with nothing to do on them

This is what I came here to say really. Providing the game is actually engaging then sure, 100 hours is fine. BG3 took me and my wife 110 hours and there wasn't a point where we couldn't beat a fight or progress without taking a while.

Elden Ring also took me 80-90 hours and I'm on another play through which is around 70 hours at the moment.

The point is that a lot of games I've played don't warrant the long running time. They get stale after 20 hours and are generally just can't hold my interest. Make the game engaging for that length of time and people will play it to the end.

Edit: To be very clear, Starfield was super fucking boring at the 12 hour point for me.

 

[KungFucius]

Didn't hear anybody getting bored with Balder's Gate

Maybe make a game that keeps players engaged for 100 hours, instead of making a bunch of planets with nothing to do on them

I love Larian games and love RPGs but still haven't played this game because I am intimidated by the length. Maybe I should play it now since it is cold and awful out.

 

[GymWolf]

Hes absolutely correct, shorter, more detailed and higher quality is best.
Sometimes I have to check how long a game is to beat and some of them I instantly NOPE out of.
I think 10-15 hours is the sweet spot for single player linear games.

20-25 for action adventures with open worlds.
Anything hitting 25+ for the main campaign (no side stuff) is usually a bloated mess.

No he is not, long games are perfectly fine if they are quality games.

 

[delishcaek]

If the game is good I don't mind playing them for 100+ hours.

However I can't play them one after another. Even more so when they are all samey like Ubisoft games. I need a palate cleanser in between.

 

[Sanepar]

No we are not. I want tons of quality long rpgs. Stop this bullshit.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Make a big RPG with tons of copy-pasted content and constant loading screens and act surprised that people don't want to play it for 100 hours or more. Now go and see how many people still play BG3. There is definitely room for very long games, but you need to make a good one first.

 

[Mister Wolf]

I love Larian games and love RPGs but still haven't played this game because I am intimidated by the length. Maybe I should play it now since it is cold and awful out.

Best wait for this next patch thats adding new classes and other stuff.

Baldur's Gate 3 - Community Update #30 Photo Mode, Cross-Play, and 12 Subclasses Coming Next Year - Steam News

Like an aged mentor in an inspiring 1980s film montage, we’re filled with pride seeing all the mods you've been crafting and using since the release of our official mod tools in September. In just under three months, you've uploaded more than 3,000 mods, downloaded over 70 million, and created a...

store.steampowered.com

 

[samoilaaa]

ofc if the game is crap

 

[Unknown Soldier]

There are too many 100+ hour games with a lot of time wasting, busy work, and collect-a-thon goals

Like Ubisoft games

It's hard to fill a whole 100+ hours with truly meaningful content but there's a few games I don't mind spending 100+ hours with

Starfield isn't one of those