Games don't need to be so long -- give me the tighter, shorter experiences

Assassin's Creed shifting to a live service model concerns me because it's not addressing the series' current core issue -- bloat.

[Lore]

How about a long meaty game without bloat?

[Levii_92]

Hahah this ! 😂 the title of the article makes it sound like every longer game is all bloat.

[neutralgamer1992]

Levii_92

A lot of long AAA games are made longer by adding fetch quests. Also what is long to me a game which is 20+ hours is long. In my opinion game main story should be 15-20 hours of quality content and 10-15 of of aide content that doesn't feel filler

Really disappointing when we see publishers make the games longer simply because they know they can sell more copies. Quality over quantity any day of the week. Ubi soft games simply don't touch most are copy and paste

[Profchaos]

You can have that in something like Rdr2 which takes 8 to 10 years to make.
So you can have that but don't expect frequent releases.

Unfortunately bloat exists because publishers feel they need to put as much in a single player game as possible to avoid players trading the game in during the initial prime selling time which is the first few months.

I'd your game is a 8 hour story driven game that offers zero bloat no fetch quests for random NPCs etc the fear is that people will simply buy the pre owned discount copy

[TheDoomedGuy]

But aren't long games just as much at risk of being bought at a pre-owned discount?

May even be more likely since it's highly unlikely you'll replay such a long games content again.

[porkChop]

Personally I would be happy with shorter games without bloat. And by shorter I don't mean 5 hours. If a game is 100 hours, realistically only 50-60 of those hours are compelling and meaningful content.

So give me the 50-60 hour game, and don't waste time or money developing 40-50 hours of throwaway shit that you know I won't enjoy. It'll be cheaper to make, and it'll release faster.

Games currently are getting so big that fatigue is becoming a real problem for a lot of people. When it feels like you'll never be able to finish a game players get discouraged and lose interest.

[spicelicka]

Yes. Must every game now be an open world RPG/Semi-RPG experience now? I think we have too many open world games that are littered with grindy quests.

[brewin]

Thats the thing, "bloat" is such a subjective term that you cannot pinpoint what bloat actually is! Ones person bloat is another epic side quest. We get what we want out of the games we play. If hunting down koroks or other trinkets to get upgrades isnt your thing, maybe play and buy different games? There are plenty of games that dont have any of that stuff. Theres sports games, shooters, etc. Bloat, aka side content, is what makes games feel worth the money and if developers didnt include them people would complain.

Look at the remake of Mafia 1 for example. This big open world, with no side content. There was no bloat, it was just all story missions. And people complained that this huge open world was wasted. What would Spider Man, GTA, AC, and ALL those other games be like without the "bloat" that that youre talking about?!

[anast]

Snail news day. There are a ton of short games, so not every game has that design phil. 60% completion rate is not bad for Last of Us part 2. And UBI is a s"#$% company, they are easy to pick on, I know I do it every chance I get.

[neutralgamer1992]

Ubi deserve a lot more than they get. Gamers focus on EA and Activision but ubi are way worst because they found way to include MT in single player games

[mkis007]

Made Immortals FR a bore for me to be honest, without the currency bloat I think there is an excellent game there.

[anast]

UBI is a part of the EA squad. UBI gets a pass for having 4 different version of a game, live service MTs and "copy pasting" content, but when others do it, they are they devil.

[GoodGuy09]

Just needs to be quality after quality. No boring, pointless, and forced filler. Gow 2018 was a great example and managed to be well lengthed too.

[neutralgamer1992]

Couldn't agree more. Make the game fun to play with quality content and gamers will want to check it out. Instead of making the games 50 hours with a lot of filled content and forcing gamers to play that content or buy xp boosters

[potedude]

I recently played What remains of Edith Finch, which is 2 hours max, and it was incredible! But my favourite game of all time is The Witcher 3 which I've sunk huge hours into.

Both games were different lengths and both were amazing quality - no filler. You are completely correct.

[masterfox]

Next game article:

"Games don't need to be so short -- give me the wider, bigger experiences"

You will never gonna please them, if the game needs to be bigger good , if the game needs to be shorter good too, it just depends what type of game is going to be created, length of a game doesn't depend of some people that need to be pleased, hell with them , it depends of the premise of the game, seriously there are some people outhere that consider themselves furballs, cats, zebras, binarypolymatrix or dogs, so don't take them seriously and just go for the main premise of the game project. :D :D

[Jericho1337]

Depends on the game though doesn’t it. There is a place for both.

[Tetsujin]

I want good games. I want something I can visit multiple times and still have the same experience(s) as I did first play through.

[on_line_forever]

This is the reason why I like fromsoftware games and so excited for Elden Ring

[Smitty2020]

Just like us British with the weather if it’s raining we moan if it’s hot we moan we can’t win. Same with the game length

[demonseye]

yes and no. I mean one of the best experiences in gaming I had was the witcher wild hunt. one of the reasons was because it was long. it kept me entertained the world feels alive. even with DLC added it didn't feel too long. Red dead did a great job as well although shorter. at the end of the day, long or short it doesn't matter as long as the quality is good. who the hell complains about a long quality game.

[on_line_forever]

yes the most important thing is quality in games .

[Puty]

I liked the PoP trilogy, these games were short and sweet. Also Uncharted trilogy managed to find that balance to end when gameplay was starting to get repetitive. That's why I am not a big fan of UC4, the only one in the series I don't have a platinum trophy for.

[Furesis]

Here we go, another repeating opinion piece. Games length is a balancing act that at the end of the day comes down to the developers, and i'm not gonna lie there are games that i wish were longer because of how engaging the combat/story was, and it's also true vice versa. But if we are talking now then yes a lot of games have bad filler content which i believe is a bad habit that we have catched from too many open world games. This is a much deeper conversation with mixing opinions, likes etc. but in general i feel it's just that there is too much bad filler content, rather than the actual games length being too long.

[on_line_forever]

All we need from developers is to focus on Quality over quantity in all games . I really miss the old days when we play good Quality games on PS 1 & 2 genrations.

[TheTony316]

15-20 hours is the sweetspot for me.

[Einhander1971]

Agreed alot of games nowadays aren't fun just a grind. Quality over quantity. Fed up with Metroidvania, souls like rubbish as well.

[metalhead]

Then cut the price in half for that. I’m not paying $70+ for a five hour experience.

[Magog]

If the mechanics of the game are good mastering them takes time. I don't want to beat a game just as I'm getting good at it. Good games should be long. Bad ones it doesn't matter. How many truly good games are released each year? Why would you want those to be shorter? Assassin's Creed hasn't been good in a long time.

[TheGreatGazoo30]

I disagree, in massive open worlds, there needs to be things to find and do in every direction. There needs to be side quests and random encounters in every direction. There needs to be materials and chests in every direction so players can choose their own paths. AC Valhalla is a 50-60 HR game unless you try to do everything, which is a personal choice and not what's intended. Turn the icons on the map off, do what you naturally come across, don't use a guide to help you find every single collectable and weapon, and the games will be more fun, and shorter.

[chicken_in_the_corn]

Shorter games are better for story telling too. I can't think of a single really long game that had a strong story.

[TheTony316]

Persona 5 but that's a very rare exception.

[on_line_forever]

Vagrant story & parasite eve 2

[isarai]

I mean there are other, better games, just play something else 🤷‍♂️ honestly 1, 2 and 4 were the only AC games i really enjoyed playing, and they just keep getting progressively NOT AC and i don't find them fun at all anymore.

[slayernz]

as soon as i saw the title for this story my first thought went to valhalla.....i was quite invested in the main story arc, and then doing some of the other territories i didnt see that particular character and story for probably 20-25 hours.....so by the time that picked up again i had lost interest and just wanted to finish it.....too much filler content

[DrShoe]

This sort of argument always comes from game reviewers who usually get their games for free. Of course, it makes sense for them to have shorter games. It means they can review more and get paid more. For the rest of us, who pay $70 for a game, a shorter game is the last thing I want. At least, if it's intended to be short allow for replayibility. But, otherwise, this sort of argument can go die in a fire.

[CS7]

As an adult with many responsibilities, I actively seek out shorter high quality games. I have no problem with an excellent 10 hour game. At this point in my life I’d rather spend $70 on a short sweet experience than a 100 hour long game that I would finish next year.

Spiderman MM and R&C were right up my alley! Can’t wait for Kena as well.

I’m all for options, short games, long games, make something for everyone. Not just the people with lots of free time.

[2moda5gamer]

It's not always about the side content. GTA5's main campaign was paced quite well and kept the player wanting more.
RDR2 on the other hand has a solid beginning few hours and end few hours, but the middle of the main campaign was a bloated, poorly paced boring slug - and this is coming from someone who welcomed the slower pace to the game.
FF7R really stretched much of its main story (could have been 10-15 hours shorter), but unlike many other games, its side missions (even for fetch quests) were quite tight and mostly fun.

It's really hard to settle exactly where these issues lie with each game - but it's evident that bog standard types of gameplay left over from the ps2 era just simply don't cut it anymore.

[TheDoomedGuy]

Long games are just as fine as short games. The persona games are long and wouldn't be the same without their length.

I personally prefer big open areas ala dishonored vs ope worlds like breath of the wild. Areas can easily be filled with content and interesting things vs open worlds tend to look samey throughout most of it's expanse.

[brewin]

Yeah ok, lets pay more money for shorter games?! F that. Then we will have a bunch of games that can be beat in a weekend. Maybe shorter games are good for the ADD generation, the ones who [prefer to watch someone play it on twitch rather than play it themselves. But most of us want good, meaty experiences.

I find it laughable when people mention "bloat" and "fetch quests" etc. Isnt that basically every game? And how short is too short? Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart is a great experience, but that shit was WAYYYY too short. AC Valhalla, as much as people on here like to complain, is great with its length. You could beat that game in 35-40 hours easily, but the "side" content is extra meaty, and great! Anyone who says otherwise didnt play it.

Then we have stuff like Zelda BotW. That game can easily take 100+ hours with its frequent "fetch quests" and "bloat". Sad that people are complaining about extra content in a game that you dont need to do to complete the game. If you look at sales, the best selling games are the ones that have nice, long meaty experiences. GTA5, Red Dead 2, Zelda BotW, Assassins Creed, Horizon Zero Dawn, Skyrim, Fallout, Spider Man, etc. Those are all top sellers and they are all super long experiences that include what some would consider "bloat". Ill take those games over these super short 10-15 experiences all day.

[gold_drake]

what??
ok sure, but i aint paying 60 or 70 quid for a 10h experience.

[arivera3000]

I agree, I think 10-12hrs is a good amount of time for a single player game. Rpg like The Witcher or FF15 15-20hrs.

[brewin]

"Rpg like The Witcher or FF15 15-20hrs."

Lol, so you basically want them to break ONE game into 3-4 games all being 15 hours each, cuz thats pretty much what SE is doing with FF7 Remake. Final Fantasy games have always been 50+ hour experiences, even back in the day. Episodic RPGs are worse than DLC passes. Give me the full game, not 1/3 of it for full price. With games being $70 now I expect a full experience for my $$$ not a 1/3 experience. You can keep that shit!

[sourOG]

I agree.

[brewin]

I think we really need to look at what a "live service" game actually is. These days, the majority of games can be considered as such due to the nature of this era of game development: patches, post launch content, season passes, etc, etc. Some games change so much after updates that sites have started re-reviewing them 6 months in. Games are essentially still "in development" once they are released to the public. Even the current hot games like Ratchet and Clank get post launch patches that alter the game to some degree. There is also DLC to purchase with the "Deluxe Edition" upgrade, and who knows if they will add more content down the line.

The majority of AAA games have all received some kind of patch or enhancement at some point, so couldnt these games all be considered as "service" games? Are they ever really done with development as long as the game is still being played? I think articles like these are trying to mask what has already become a reality in gaming: we are all just glorified beta testers!

[WillyC009]

Or a developer can make a game as long or short as they wish? Then the purchasing public can make the decision on whether they want to invest their time and money into.

Options….what a novel idea.

[Tzuno]

Exactly! Valhalla is a bloated mess

[Rambokind]

I love long games. Stop.

[Dragonopolis]

Be careful what you wish for. Developers/Publishers might actually listen and shorten the content...... but

Pricing will not change. We will pay the same price but get less for our money... Also, Developers who might listen and do shorten a game will still use all the same tricks/bloat so all we will get is a 20 hr game with the same bloat with very short real content that we all pay the same price as we did before but nothing changes except its shorter.

Long games are fine as long as the grind is not overly done. the rewards for spending that time should be the worth the effort, and the story content makes sense with less filler content.

Basically its not length but content that is the issue and changing the length of the game is not going to fix the problems.

...one of my major issues is Game Saves.... We, the players, should control when we leave the game; not the other way. It should be an industry standard/right that a player can save and leave whenever the person wants too without a penalty for all the time we had already invested up to the time of the save.....

We all have important things to do in addition to entertainment and a game developer is not going to tell when I can do something else.