• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Game length vs reply: which do you prefer?

B

bjork

Member
I was just thinking today, that I used to replay my games more in past generations than I have in this one. It seems like a lot of people did the same... you'd get a game, beat it, then replay it to master it, then replay it more to exploit glitches or find errors.

But nowadays, it seems like instead of games being fun enough to replay multiple times, they're made with "x hours of gameplay!" being touted... but is that really better?

I take something like Aria of Sorrow, or SotN... it's short, but you can replay it a lot of different ways, or even make up your own requirements, like someone on here who was playing with only knuckles. But LoI feels tedious and drawn out for the purpose of being long.

I can understand length on an RPG, and I think most sports games are built for replay (as in, versus as opposed to playing multiple seasons), but in other games, I'd really rather have a game that's not insanely long, but is enjoyable on many replays.

How about you folks?
 
I can understand length on an RPG, and I think most sports games are built for replay (as in, versus as opposed to playing multiple seasons), but in other games, I'd really rather have a game that's not insanely long, but is enjoyable on many replays.
Click to expand...
I agree. Depends on the type of game, but lately I've been favoring replayability, or at least games that aren't overly long.

When I see a review of a game mention that it's on the short side, that's now a positive for me. I don't have time to play super-long epics these days... Something like RE4 or the first Onimusha is just about right. For RPG's, I like about Chrono Trigger or FFVII's length.

For instance, it actually turned me off when I heard the producer of the new Zelda comment that he was shooting for a 70+ hour game, 2 to 3 times as long as OoT. Give me a break, I've got a ton of other games sitting on the shelf.
 
My motto-shorter games and cheaper prices.

I love action adventure games,something like Fable took me 30 hours because I took my time soaking up the areas and returning to them again and again. StillI 'd prefer shorter games,because I'm as slow as shit with progressing through games,and it makes my backlog even worse.

I've been playing Doom3 a ton and recently saw a walkthrough. I checked out the number of stages and found that I'm just at the halway point,holy fuck. See what I mean, I play my games in spurts,I can't sit infront of a game for more than 60-75minutes before I get burned out,I'll return to it again later. So for me-shorter games aren't a problem,I'd actually prefer this. Just as long as they also lower the pricing on them as well.
 
"Game lenght vs reply" OMGZ0RZ!!!!

Anyway.

I'd rather have replay. I just don't have the time to put into a game that needs to be played for x amount of hours. Also, it's really rare that I'll go back and replay an RPG that I've beaten (which the exception of Final Fantasy IV and VII. Oh, and Suikoden I and II.) Yet, if I can just sit down for a bit and play through a game, I seem to have far more fun.

On the other hand though, a good story is sometimes a really good thing. I guess it depends on what I feel like getting into at the time.
 
I can beat Contra in under 30 minutes.

I can beat Banjo-Kazooie in 15 hours.

I'd rather beat Contra 30 straight times in a row than have to go through Banjo-Kazooie again.
 
Depends on the genre, but generally I prefer replay value as long as the game has adequate length. Some games excel in both areas, like RE4 and Viewtiful Joe.
 
give me something short and sweet --- take 80 hours of something and condense it into 10 hours that smack me in the damn face like GodofWar....

I just can't spend 150 hours on some tacticle story-based RPG --- but I can spend 150 hours one 30 different AdvanceWar sorties....

I miss games based on sorties.
 
As long as the quality doesn't suffer, the longer, the better. I can't recall a game which I enjoyed as much second time through (some genres don't count, of course).
 
I think Unison hit on the key point. It's how padded out a game is, and that applies to both length and replay value. You can't force either. It's bad to dilute a 20 hour game to get another 8-10 hourse out of it. Similarly I also thinks it bad to force some semblance of replay, by throwing in some ultimately dissapointing unlockables, just to get people to replay a game over and over.

From my own experience I've replayed games that are considered to traditionally have lots of replay value (like Ico and FFVII), and I've also not replayed games that are thought of a highly replayable, like KOTOR and R&C3.

Replayability may seem like an easy thing, but I think it can actually be more dangerous than people'd think. You've got to account for people's nature to want to complete something. If you artificially try to infuse replay value, then you risk making people burn out on the game before they feel satisfied that they've completed it as much as they want.
 
sammy said:
give me something short and sweet --- take 80 hours of something and condense it into 10 hours that smack me in the damn face like GodofWar....
Click to expand...

IAWTP.

I am tired of games that use filler to extend the gameplay experience. I can see how someone who just paid 50 dollars for a game would want it to last more than 5 hours though, but money for games isn't that big of an issue for me anymore so I favor a great experience over a great value nowadays.
 
Can't a game be long and have replay value? Take ToS for example. It took me 74 hours to beat yet I'm replaying it. And its worth it because by breaking the seals in reverse order events have changed giving a new perspective to them.
 
bionic77 said:
IAWTP.

I am tired of games that use filler to extend the gameplay experience. I can see how someone who just paid 50 dollars for a game would want it to last more than 5 hours though, but money for games isn't that big of an issue for me anymore so I favor a great experience over a great value nowadays.
Click to expand...

If you're a collector then full price for a game that's over in 5 hours is sucky, but if, like me, you don't bother hanging onto your games, it just means getting them traded in when their value is higher.
 
I prefer replayability, but long games are good too. Short games with no replayability make me feel ripped off. I kinda feel that way about God of War. I liked the game when I was playing it, but it was way way too short and I don't feeling like playing it again. Games like that should not be full price.
 
I like a shorter, more focused game, and I think most game producers are starting to see it that way too. That said, the amount of action in an "action" game like RE4 is a nice surprise, because I don't expect something like that to be 20 hours. There's no way in hell I care anymore about playing through a 70+ hour rpg. There's maybe a handful of developers who are even close to capable of maintaining action/narrative that long (and Namco isn't one of them).

If it's a scoring game or arcade style and lasts only a few hours...well, then I expect those few hours to be excellent or worth replaying for a higher score. That's the nature of the genre and I'm as satisfied about that now as I was in the past.
 
Definitely replay over length. I find myself replaying games instead of finishing really long ones. Last big RPGs I got through was FFX and Suikoden 3. Luckily Suikoden 4 was shorter. I'm about 10 hours into Xenosaga, Star Ocean 3 and KotOR without any wish to continue. Actually, same thing with Jak 3 and GTA:SA. These are all excellent games (with the exception of Suikoden 4 I'd rate them at 9/10), but I just don't feel like spending all that time. I'm anxious to try out God of War... maybe I can finish it before the regular boredom sets in.

Unlockables or what-have-you actually make a game worse for me. Since I don't have enough time to play through big games multiple times, I tend to look around carefully so I don't miss anything the first time around. Which makes the game slower and ultimately more boring.

Then again I am spending at least 20 hours a week on WoW. If that's not a contradiction, I don't know what is.
 
Die Squirrel Die said:
If you're a collector then full price for a game that's over in 5 hours is sucky, but if, like me, you don't bother hanging onto your games, it just means getting them traded in when their value is higher.
Click to expand...

I don't mind paying full price for a 5 hour game if that 5 hours is a great experience and these days you can get 90% of games for 20 dollars if you wait 3 months, so I don't think price as big of a concern as it used to be.

I don't have as much free time as I used to and I don't want to waste it collecting garbage or looking for keys so I don't really care that much about game length anymore as long as the time I do spend on the game is time well spent.
 
long games categorically suck. and it's not just that most of them have boring stretches. re4 is taut throughout, and i was still getting sick of it 10 hours in (the first 10 hours took a few days, the subsequent 10 took a month). i'm trying to think of a 20 hour+ game that didn't bore me at some point. the only one i can come up with is ninja gaiden (which lasts 30 hours on first run and which i ran through three times :/). but ninja gaiden is so ridiculously good that it's exempt from most rules.

the best games are of course infinitely replayable skill-based arcade games. 30 minutes of heaven > 30 hours of vague distraction.
 
Drohne, you are right as rain. Though I recall you saying that you play RPG's like a perfectionist, so even you get caught up in longer games from time to time, huh?

Btw, about how long was Blood Will Tell?
 
tough call. prime 1 and 2 some of my favourite games ever, but I won't ever replay them, due to length. Yoshi touch and go on the other hand.... I guess I like both. See resident evil 4 for a way to accomplish both.
 
Long games get repetitive. Repetitive games get boring. Therefore short and exciting >>>>>>>>>>> long and boring.
 
i...can't really remember how long blood will tell was. probably 10-12 hours? but it's split into discrete chapters, each of which is fairly short. good format, i thought.

and yeah, on the rare occasion that i do get caught up in an rpg, i tend to play hell out of it. i've spent better than a hundred hours each on tactics ogre, ff tactics, and morrowind.
 
Replay value+fun is what I see as the most important thing than lenght. Sure it might be great to have a legthy title, but I've rather something simple than something that would begin to bore in a 30+ hr period. Face it, with a girlfriend,work and other things to do with my life, games mean little to me these days.

BTW, I would take Ghost Squad over both Halo 2 and Half-Life 2 any day. Sure it might not be big as those, but it provides me with more enjoyment than what those offer. Whats interesting, this is a very, very short title.
 
I was just thinking that last night when playing RE4 (that games a masterpiece btw). I definately prefer replay. There are a couple of reasons publishers should take note of this too.

1. It seems most publishers don't want to risk money on a new series, so why not make a shorter game i.e. saving money and release a sequel every year to continue the story. They could reduce the price of the initial game and make money off of future installments whether they be a sequel or extra downloadable leves, etc.

2. Developers keep saying that games are going to be the new entertainment that replaces movies. The problem is, you can watch a movie in a couple of hours. Games are never going to reach the popularity of movies if they take 30+ hours to beat. Most people start getting bored with games that take more than 15 - 20 hours to beat. Keeping the game short, but having replay is the solution.

Let's just say a company spends "X" amount of money developing a game that's 30 hours long. They plan on selling the game for $50. Why not make the one 30 hour game into two 15 hour games and charge $35 a piece. They're making more money and the consumer wins too, because the game is cheaper and they're left with a good taste in their mouth and want a sequel.
 
drohne said:
long games categorically suck. and it's not just that most of them have boring stretches. re4 is taut throughout, and i was still getting sick of it 10 hours in (the first 10 hours took a few days, the subsequent 10 took a month). i'm trying to think of a 20 hour+ game that didn't bore me at some point. the only one i can come up with is ninja gaiden (which lasts 30 hours on first run and which i ran through three times :/). but ninja gaiden is so ridiculously good that it's exempt from most rules.

the best games are of course infinitely replayable skill-based arcade games. 30 minutes of heaven > 30 hours of vague distraction.
Click to expand...

I like all types of games so I don't want to say that arcade games are the best.

One thing I do love about older games (and something that is especially true of skill based arcade games ;)) is that you can get a sense of accomplishing something in a quick play through. I hate when I have to play a game for at least an hour to get anything done. Makes it so you have to schedule your life around a game.
 
I'm with Musashi on the shorter and more focused games. I'd rather the developers focus on a kick-ass 20 hour game than try and draw it out just to say the gameplay is longer.

As for replaying games, I guess I'd have to finish some first. This is another reason why I'd like to see more shorter and focused games.. :P
 
This is why Dynasty Warriors can't be beat for one of the most addictively rewarding gameplay experiences this generation.

90 Minutes, kill as much as you can and still win the battle!

I prefer games I can play over and over. With most modern games, I play them once and never again. Ratchet & Clank, Ape Escape, Silent Hill, etc. The initial play through is so demanding, and in some instances sorely lacking in sheer fun; that I am not compelled to go back and play through the game.

One design element that pisses me off to no end is Capcom's Resident Evil style item micromanagement and diminishing returns game system. Playing through the first RE game, I reached a point where I was screwed on ammo and the only course of action available to me was restart, or play through using only my knife. Screw that. I just traded it in. That's not fun.

The same thing happened with Megaman Zero. OOPS! I shouldn't have used that sprite! Now I can either restart, or bang my f'ing head against this wall over and over again until I get it right.

Perhaps my aptitude for gaming has changed with my age; or maybe game design these days just isn't to my tastes. I used to be able to run through Ghouls 'n Ghosts over and over on the Genesis. Replaying a level wasn't some massive 10 hour production, it was 15-20 minutes, if even, and if you got killed - no big deal. Pattern memorization and reflexes won the day.

There's been a lot of cool stuff added to games in modern times, save points, and such - but the constant "We must design this game to provide X amount of hours per Y dollars" line of thinking has totally arsed everything up.

MORE FUN, LESS DULL!

Dynasty Warriors rox!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
What is your idea video game length?
2 3
108
760
WoJ replied
  • Poll
Fighting games, or Hero Shooters, which do you prefer?
Analysis 
25
2K
Danjin44 replied
  • Poll
After a few years of shows by the Dorito's King, as a gamer, do you prefer Geoff's shows or would prefer E3 came back?
2
90
558
Fbh replied
  • Poll
Halo on PlayStation vs Sonic on Nintendo, which felt strangest to you?
Drama  2 3
109
990
Griffon replied
Condemned 1 & 2 or The Darkness 1 & 2 | Which series would you prefer gets remade?
2 3
128
1K
scoobidoo112 replied
Top Bottom