Is there such thing as "a campaign that's too long" ?

is there such thing as "a campaign that's too long" ?

Yes. A campaign that's 600343894834903480243 hours long is too long. The actual number that would be the unanimous breaking point for everyone would be significantly lower than that, but everyone has a breaking point.

Yeah, when it's just repeats of missions over and over to the point of exertion.

Sure, if the mechanics, level design and challenges the game presents to you aren't varied enough and you've already mastered everything the game offers yet the game keeps going and throwing redundant scenarios. Now add a story that's also going nowhere too and you have a game that should've ended hours ago.

If the game sucks, yes. Crysis 2 is an exemple, the game is horrible and the campaign just keep on dragging forever.

no

Nothing is too long for NEETs with nothing else to live for.

Alien Isolation, I'd argue Persona 5. Beat shido and then that optional dungeon isn't really optional anymore and now it's about someone completely different and go fuck them up. Maybe not to long but it lost its momentum.

Not really. A campaign being too long is the result of a campaign being poorly paced.

>Gears of War 2
Because it was incredibly dull and kept going on and on. It wasn't actually that long but it was boring so it felt like it lasted longer than it did. I can't believe I'm complaining about a modern shooter's campaign being TOO LONG but any length of suck is too long of a suck.

>Okami
Should have ended by the snow level. By that point the gimmicks really began to wear thin and it didn't offer enough to keep it fresh or interesting.

Alien Isolation

Outlast

DmC 4

Depends on the game. You wouldn't want to play an action game like DMC with a 50 hour campaign because the idea is to replay the game multiple times and get better and better each time and that's hard to do when the game is long. You also wouldn't want to play an 8 hour RPG because a slow but gradual sense of progression is a rewarding feeling for the genre.

Persona 5 overstayed its welcome when I got to the worst party member's dungeon. Little did I know, there was still 60 more hours to go.

Yes, if the gameplay gets repetitive or the level design starts suffering or the narrative can't support it.

There's no arbitrary cutoff or anything. If most players that actually finish them game enjoyed themselves start to finish then it's not too long.

If most players agree the final part of the game drags(Persona 5) then it's too long.

Xenoblade Chronicles. A lot of JRPGs fall prey to "overstaying your welcome" predicament.

The Witcher 3, for a variety of reasons, chief among them the obviously rushed final act. Finding Ciri and Kaer Morhen were underwhelming, but the fact that it actually continues, begins backtracking, and has even more flashback exposition is infuriating.

It's hard to tell a good story right, it really is an underappreciated aspect.

Haven't played it but Bravely Default is apparently bad at that and most jRPGs for that matter.

Bravely Default is bad because the dialogue is for children who haven't started school yet.

So yeah, 40-60 hours of pre-k television is pretty hard to sit through.

Yes, it's called neverwinter nights 2

Yes. Typically I can't stand ca,paigns that take longer than 40 hours, and even that is already tough.
I remember playing Arc Rise Fantasia, initially thought it would be your typical 30 hours JRPG, by the time I hit 40 hours I only wanted it to end already. Fucktard of a game still had another 50 hours to go. By the time I hit the final dungeon I wasn't even interested in figuring out how to beat the bosses, just cheated my stats skyhigh and was done with it.

So far W3 was the only game I spent abput a 100 hours in (including both DLC) where the story didn't start to drag for me.

Had anpther 10 hours to go, for a total of 50, is what I wanted to type.

Chaser
That shot dragged for 20 hours

Not technically, as long as it doesn't get too repetitive and stays varied. But try making a 100+ hour campaign that does that.

Bloated out shit like Final Fantasy XIII or MGSV

>Okami

Absolutely this.
For me Okami is the number one "game that dragged on for too long".

That usually means a campaign that's getting repetitive and out of ideas

Pretty much any horror game turns too shit if you go too long. The moment you start treating jumpscares and spooky shit as mild annoyances the game better be near it's final act pr that shit is gonna draaaag.

>dark souls
apparently not
because there have been 5 games of the exact same shit and people eat it up.

Assuming it's coming up with new, good stuff, even if it is just new settings, then I wouldn't say so.

I'd probably buy a game with a good 1000 hour long campaign even if I never intended to play it, JUST because I think that would be cool as fuck.

Yes.

More often than not, a story that lasts longer than 20 hours will become a trainwreck due to shit pacing.

Yes if it's a single player game then I want to get my money's worth. If the main focus is multiplayer and esports, the developers shouldn't be putting too many resources into the singleplayer as no one will play it.

Yeah I can hardly recall anything stand out apart from the first missions. It's like sandbox stuff the entire way through.

Oh now that I think about it a few mission had skulls but it was nothing like the uniquely flavoured boss battles of the previous games.

This.

Yes.

I really liked Witcher 3 and I'll disagree with the length comment. I felt that it was as long as it needed to be as an open world RPG.

Gears of War is nail on the head. Every entry. I think it's because the pacing is all fucked and it seems like it'll conclude and then the next Act happens. I played 1-3 and felt that way for each of them.

Except in the first the game is like 80% the first two acts and then all of a sudden you are hopping on a train for no reason and the game ends.

> Doom 2016
> Tomb Raider 2013
Both would be better if a bit shorter. You get annoyed by YET ANOTHER TWIST THAT FORCES YOU TO MAKE A SINGLE ACTION A WHOLE LEVEL.
Not to mention that both games heavily suffered from decent but repetetive gameplay.

Dragon Quest VII
I couldn't even be bothered to finish it but I'm sure it's good.

it's all about pacing

I felt Code Veronica kind of dragged on a bit too long for a classic-style RE.

Alien: Isolation

I'd actually give these two a pass.

The problem with these games is they are littered with so much """optional""" """content""" that nobody ever does and it kills your momentum everytime the game tries to lecture you about what you should be doing i.e. collecting GPS caches fuck your friends about to die.

Mass Effect Andromeda is like this. The story is just a bit shit and (so far) it just seems like your toolset is as good as it gets from the first world. Progression stems from you levelling up... and it isn't enough on it's own.

Nioh is the opposite! It introduces gameplay mechanics and progression at various parts of the game. Your character progression is limited by your completion of the main story and completing missions unlocks permanent upgrades to your repitoire. About half way through the game they introduce a clan mechanic, which was a nice surprise. Plus the story is alright.

Hack'n'slashes (e.g. Titan's Quest and Loki).

DarkSiders II.

When games dont introduce new mechanics and just repeat the same shit they introduced in the first hour. To hide the non progression of game mechanics they just increase the stats of stuff.

Assasins creed 2