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

What do you prefer? Length or quality?

L

Littleberu

Banned
Do you prefer a game that's short but awesome (i.e. Viewtiful Joe, MGS3, etc) or a game that's long but average (most RPG actually)?

I myself prefer short but sweet games. I don't really have the time to play long quest RPGs.
 
Err, I'd hardly call MGS3 "short". Most people I know who have played the game took upwards of 20+ hours. I've played shorter RPGs...

Short but sweet would be something like ICO or Silent Hill 3. Each one only lasted between 5-8 hours...but the experiences were truly amazing.

I would most certainly prefer a truly wonderful, but short, experience over a lengthy one. If a fantastic experience can end up a bit longer, that's even better. MGS3, RE4, and Ninja Gaiden all nailed it. Each game was fantastic from beginning to end, but they were all ~20 hours long. Of course, games of that quality and length require some serious development time.
 
Quality of course. I still don't understand people's problem paying $50 for a game that can be beaten in under 10 hours (see God of War). Hell, they pay $20 for a 90 min movie that they only watch once.
 
oh, definitely length. by a mile. my favorite game is tic-tac-toe with myself, played on a paper grid the size of a football field.
 
Reilly said:
Quality of course. I still don't understand people's problem paying $50 for a game that can be beaten in under 10 hours (see God of War). Hell, they pay $20 for a 90 min movie that they only watch once.
Click to expand...

That is very true. I don't understand why people gladly shell out for DVDs but can't stand to throw down for a game. I suppose I don't really see either as terribly expensive, but I'd much rather throw down $40 or $50 for something that will last me much longer than $15-25 for something that won't. I know some people enjoy re-watching movies over and over, but I generally don't do that. I'm happy to own my favorites on DVD, of course, but most movies will never join my small collection.
 
Quality > *.

Game length is mad overrated. The only people that complain about a 10-15 hour, non-rpg game being too short are people with no lives. And RPGs are fine that have a length of a little over 20, max 30 hours or so.
 
Definitely quality. I don't mind short games at all. In fact, I've been known to avoid long games simply because I don't have the time to play them (this is the main reason why I avoid most RPGs).

In addition, I've often found that people complaining about a game's length are playing it on too light of a setting -- if you don't like blowing through games, try starting on Hard instead of Normal or Easy. Even if the game doesn't have many stages or what have you, you'll spend more time on them.
 
I prefer games that have lasting value. I don't want them to be long for the sake of being long (Fucking Final Fantasy Filler Fluff), and I feel kinda ripped off if a game is excellent but is disposable after 20 hours (HL2, MGS2, PoP:SoT, probably RE4 and GoW).

What I really like are games that you never really put into storage, or never want to remove from your harddrive. People are still rabid about Starcraft and Counterstrike, and they will probably play Halo 2 online until the supply of working Xboxes dries up. I find it very satisfying to see Warcraft 3 and UT2004 icons on my desktop and know my $50 is still working. I don't get the same satisfaction when I look at System Shock 2 sitting on my bookshelf.
 
Quality, for sure. I'd much rather play a shorter game that I enjoy every moment of as opposed to a longer game that drags along in spots, or where I lose interest halfway through.

I think replay value is important on shorter games, though, too. A game like Katamari Damacy which is short, yet quality, and fun to play more than once, is a winner in my book. I've played games like Katamari a lot more than games much longer than it, which fail to hold my interest through the entire thing.
 
I rarely keep interest in any game that's much over 20hrs long, even the absolute best games I've played this gen finished before the 20hr mark (RE4, Metroid, Half-Life2, Halo). For me, that's the perfect length for most games. I'd enjoy RPG's if they weren't so long, but when those games are all about the story, for me there's nothing more boring than a story being dragged out over 60hrs.
 
Is the game more than five hours long? I'm set, if so.

Hell, I've even made exceptions. Rez, Clock Tower and the like.
 
Slo said:
I prefer games that have lasting value. I don't want them to be long for the sake of being long (Fucking Final Fantasy Filler Fluff), and I feel kinda ripped off if a game is excellent but is disposable after 20 hours (HL2, MGS2, PoP:SoT, probably RE4 and GoW).
Click to expand...


r u serios? you cannot be serios...
 
Quality. The design philosophy that went behind games like Half-Life 2, God of War, and Max Payne 2, are what this industry needs far, far more of, imo.

That said, I'll always have a soft spot for old school, traditional Japanese-style RPGs because of the nostalgia, and even though many are tedius, I enjoy them.
 
DEFINITELY not length. But something can be quality and still not be 'fun'. I'll take a game that stays fun throughout the course of the entire game. I don't care if it's a 20 minute game or a 20 hour game, if the game is fun, the replay value is infinite.
 
I tend to like the shorter RPGs (25-35 hours is the perfect length) as long as they still have that "epic" feel behind them. RPGs were around 20-35 hours in the 16 bit era, then as soon as PSX hit, every game seemed to jump to 40-60 hours. I'm in the middle of the last dungeon of Baten Kaitos, my clock is at 55 hours! They really have to calm down...
 
SonicMegaDrive said:
DEFINITELY not length. But something can be quality and still not be 'fun'. I'll take a game that stays fun throughout the course of the entire game. I don't care if it's a 20 minute game or a 20 hour game, if the game is fun, the replay value is infinite.
Click to expand...

Exactly. All of my all-time favorite games have gotten hundreds, even thousands, of hours of clock-time. One of those games was Monster Rancher; if you blew through it with the goal to just beat the final boss, it might take less than 4 hours. Yet I logged over 1000 virtual years of play time in MR1, each taking as much as an hour and sometimes more, and again in MR2.
 
Reilly said:
r u serios? you cannot be serios...
Click to expand...

i R TOTALLY S3RIOUS DOODER!

Don't misunderstand me, HL2 was my favorite game from last year. Well worth the money and I don't regret playing it, but right now it's really worth nothing to me now since I don't touch it anymore.

Last summer I subscribed to Gamefly and blew through 10-15 "must have" console games in 4 months, and it only cost me $65. It was awesome. I had a great time, but I didn't regret sending them back to Gamefly when I was done. Not a single one. Why spend $50 for a title that you're going to play for a week and never play again?
 
They're both important, but there's priorities of importance... with these two its:

1) Quality (I'm not talking polish here, I'm talking quality gameplay)
2) Longevity
 
Both. Length doesn't have to mean that a game takes 50 hours to beat. Just that it is worthy to be played that long. The strategy and skill-based action games (something like Halo 2) can be played for what feels like forever.
 
I mostly look forward Quality and then Replay Value. Length is of no importance whatsoever.

From my point of view, replay value is defined by :

A) Multiplayer and/or online game (ex. : Halo 2)
B) Game in which the goal is not to "end" the game but rather become better (ex. : Tony Hawk, puzzle games, fighting games, side scrolling shooters)


But hey, this type of mentality is dying slowly, with the death of arcades, and the rise of MMORPGs.
 
I'll take shorter games with quality and high replayablity. Kirby Canvas Curse is a damn fine example of a 'short' game that oozes replayability and has real meat on its bones.

('short' of course by our modern standard of 60 hour RPGs and GTA games and Rare-style collect-a-thons.)
 
I really don't like short games, no matter how 'good' because there is only so much enjoyment to be had. Once you reach a good length though, being good is better than being a lot longer.

I'd rather buy a 20 hour awesome game over a
60 hour decent game over a
3 hour extremely awesome game
 
and I feel kinda ripped off if a game is excellent but is disposable after 20 hours
Click to expand...

An opinion is an opinion, but I'm curious, do you actually have a DVD movie collection or commonly purchase them? Do you tend to only place value in owning something that will last for a very long time? Or does that only apply to games? I'm a bit curious to know. :)
 
dark10x said:
An opinion is an opinion, but I'm curious, do you actually have a DVD movie collection or commonly purchase them? Do you tend to only place value in owning something that will last for a very long time? Or does that only apply to games? I'm a bit curious to know. :)
Click to expand...

^
|

I know this wasn't asked of me, but as I too, would feal ripped off for buying a very short game I thought I'd answer.

No, I don't have a movie collection. I will ocasionally be given movies as a gift, but I never buy them myself. The only time I watch movies is:

theatre
tv
pay per view if I really want to see it and its cheap
blockbuster if I'm with people and we want to see a movie


I do have anime dvd's, but then I can't even tell you how many times I've watched Berserk or the Kenshin OVA so the hours add up pretty fast.
 
I'd go with the cliche answer of "A little bit of both". I can't stand to play long but boring games, they drive me to sleep, and a short but awesome game would make me feel like I was cheated out of $50 and leaves me wanting more so a good mix of both length and quality is needed.
 
Slo said:
Don't misunderstand me, HL2 was my favorite game from last year. Well worth the money and I don't regret playing it, but right now it's really worth nothing to me now since I don't touch it anymore.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of CS: Source?
 
I prefer both at the same time because you want the pleasure to last but since almost no develloper can deliver it, i only crave for quality and also replayability.

I can't stand 30 hours games with only 15 hours of fun. Gimme a total awesome 15 hours game instead. I don't pay for filling stuff, i want to pay for entertainment.

I also have an example i want to point out. RE4. This game was awesome and was somewhat 25-30 hours. There was almost no filling parts in this game. The extras entice you to replay it. That's what i want in terms of quality.
And RE4 was at the limit. One or two hours longer and i would have feel it's filler stuff.
 
Hmm i'm open to either depending on the genre and the difficulty of the game. A game can be short if it's got a decent degree of increasing difficulty and in contrast a game better be long as hell if it's tomato can easy (LoZ:WW for GC would have had to been 7 dungeons longer for me to put it even consider putting it in the same category as OOT and MM).

The only category i go in expecting some kind of quota on is RPG's. They don't have to be 70 hours long (i don't mind though if the gameplay is good enough and the story can actually carry you for 70 hours). IMO, the main storyline beginning to end should take at least 30-35 hours your first time through. If it takes longer great; if it takes less i'm usually left saying "man that woulda been great if it was a little longer".
 
quality is better.

I like game not too long, packed with detail and thing to do.

I prefer to have the game finished in one week, and finish it 3 or 4 time a year than a long ok game that you just don't want to replay ever.

Take Rez, kinda a short game by many standard. Yet i probably loged more our in it and finished it more than many RPG.

Of course this need to have a solid game at the base. Developer that can't get that early should just axe the game instead of doing makeup over it.
 
If I could get more games like DK Jungle Beat at a lower price, I certainly wouldnt mind.

Its why I'm partially hoping for a sequel when the Rev. comes out
 
On a similar note, there's a reason I don't play games for the sake of story. Once the story ends (whether it be 5 or 50 hours), that's it really. It's like reading a book. You'll enjoy it once, and maybe reread it again some time in its lifetime, but most books aren't stuff that you can open and read once a week. The comparison doesn't even favor video games, as very few games come even close to matching the storytelling abilities of even the average novel.

Once the story ends, you need gameplay to fall back on. Something that would make replaying the game worth it. Many older RPGs have this quality, by being lots of fun and allowing a level of customization (The first FF games were special for their customizability. Beat FF1? Play it again using mostly Black Mages. Or use some fighters and red mages). I play games to have fun, not listen to a story. That's not what they should be designed for.
 
From being a rpg fan in my younger years :) i have definitly switched to quality over quantity, no more power leveling or item hunting.

Best game to describe it perhaps is Jade Empire, shorter than your normal rpg, pretty easy, great story and presentation, streamlined combat system and overall more lika an adventure game than a rpg. 20 hours of goodness is perfect and better than 40 hours of running around in various dungeons that don't add to the game in any other way than leveling up your chars.
 
dark10x said:
An opinion is an opinion, but I'm curious, do you actually have a DVD movie collection or commonly purchase them? Do you tend to only place value in owning something that will last for a very long time? Or does that only apply to games? I'm a bit curious to know. :)
Click to expand...

I knew this was coming. :)

I myself own only about 5 DVDs in total, but my daughter owns about 30. I don't care to watch a movie more than once, so I'm basically paying $20 for 2 hours of entertainment. That's a little steep, imo, so the ones I own are my all time favorites. On the other hand, my 4 year old daughter has watched Monsters Inc. roughly 6,000 times, so the same $20 was pretty good investment.

I don't dislike playing 10-20 hour games, I just don't particularily like buying 10-20 hour games. I'm a family guy, I've got a mortgage and a car payment, so I can't keep up with the spending habits of most GAFers. You guys consume and dispose games like crazy, I often see ending spoilers posted for a new release on the second day it's available. Consume, dispose. Consume, dispose. I can't do that at $50 a pop. Maybe at $20, but not $50.

A 20 hour game for $50 seems like an adequate ROI for entertainment, but if I finish a game every two weeks, then I'm spending $100 a month on games! On the other hand, I just bought Battlefield 2 and I expect it to be on my harddrive for 6 months plus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • 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
600
Fbh replied
  • Poll
What is your idea video game length?
2 3
108
863
WoJ replied
How would you prefer Chrono Trigger gets remade?
2 3
134
1K
StueyDuck replied
Bluetooth Headsets Do Work for Gaming (If You Know What You’re Doing)
24
188
TrebleShot replied
Switch Insane Bundle! What happened to Nintendo's Seal of Quality?
7
1K
Wolzard replied
Top Bottom