Short games are unironically superior to long games. Very rarely do long games justify their length

Short games are unironically superior to long games. Very rarely do long games justify their length.

There's nothing better than an economical game. No filler bullshit, just a joy ride from beginning to end.

I agree.

Most games are unable to carry their length, so I agree.

My favourite game is probably Megaman 4, so I somewhat agree. But I don't think its a rule. Short games CAN be better than long games because the devs can put more care into the level design, and the overall pacing of the game.

That being said, a short game by a shitty dev is worse than a long game with by a shitty dev. The Order 1886 is worse than Warframe, both are shit games but you can spent a lot more time with Warframe. Dunno if that means Warframe is better, but I think the little of Warframe that is good you have more of.

I concur

>that feel after beating an awesome but short game

Portal 1 was too short IMO. If it was Metal Gear Rising long it would have been perfect.

The question is how many hours is still considered a short game before it goes in long game territory?

I agree, but what are some examples of short games worth their initial price?

If you had a 10/10 or 9/10 time with it, it was worth the initial price. Length be damned.

>Spending $60 on an 8 hour game

4hrs=short
8-12hrs=medium
12+=long

Stop quantifying quality with a scale.

>12+ is long

Call of Duty campaigns are longer than that, 20 hours is the minimum

I would say a short game can be completed, including most collectables and side quests, in less than 7 or 8 hours by someone new to the game.

If it's good then fucking yes, absolutely.

I got way more money than I got time to spend.

I pretty much agree. There's too many games that wear out their welcome because their length doesn't match their content.

Prey is a good game and I was damn near considering it a masterpiece in the first half, but the second half dragged too much. It's clear they ran out of time. Breath of the Wild is similar but replace "first half" with the first ten hours and "second half" with the entire rest of the game.

>Spending 60 dollars on a 100 hour JRPG where only 10 hours are 9-10/10 and most hours are 5-6/10
LOL

>8-12hrs=medium
>12+=long
Stop this.

Short games dont need to be full prices. I miss A and AA games that didn't cost full price.
But regardless, i have over 100h on rising because it was amazing game, even though a single playthrough is 6h max. Wouldn't be mad a putting 60 bucks on it

>Spend money on a game you complete in an afternoon
>b-but muh narrative!!!

MGSRR is one of my favorite games exactly for that reason(although even it could cut of a level or 2) .I hope more games like that get made

Less than 12 hours is short
More than 24 hours is long.

In my opinion.

yep,thats why i dont like rpgs

Agreed, and it's probably the reason why I can't get in to most WRPG's these days. Too much time spent doing pointless side quests for the sake of improving your character rather than actually doing something meaningful towards the plot.

Medium>Short>>Long

I agree completely. The best games are those that can be beaten in a few hours, but have enough depth and variety to be replayed over and over without becoming boring. A great example would be Star Fox 64 -- each play-through only lasts about an hour or two, but you can replay it dozens of times because you're always exploring new routes and finding new secrets, and even once you've found them all, the game still feels rewarding because you're constantly chasing your high score and progressively mastering the game's mechanics.

MGR:R was 4 hours long, user...

*Blocks your path*
*but only for like 7 hours*

I agree, but Rising isn't really a good example of it.

Shit was basically 3-5 hours long and I had zero urge to replay it once I beat it, on topic of enemy variety being pathetically small.

i had a better time the 2nd time around and the third time was still a damm good time so fuck you

>20 hour game stretched to 200 hours

I honestly don't mind

IMO size is irrelevant - quality is king. I would rather play a good long game than a bad short one .... or vice versa.

I agree. It could be my bias because I grew up with arcade games, but I fail to see how "WHOA EPIC 60 HOURS OF CONTENT" should amaze me when most of time devs are lazy and fill games with fetch quests and other cheap tricks. IMO 6 or 7 hours to finish a game are pretty ok, if the game is really good I'll return to it.

Agree, Hellblade was amazing but I finished it in one sitting. If it was any longer it would've been unnecessarily long.

which is bad because? I found the mission after sundowner to be completely forgetable
i just replayed the boss fights over and over whenever i was bored, i got about 50 hours played lol. I fucking love them. Didnt care about enemy variety much since i found that the boss battles were the thing that grabbed me most.

I'm 250 hrs into Fallout 4 and have just got to the institute ....

>Very rarely do long games justify their length.
And in that case, by your own argument, it's unequivocally better than a short game. So really this all boils down to "a good game is better than a bad game". I never thought about it before, but I think you might be onto something here.

absolutely correct

Boy do I love spending $60 for a (at most) 20 hour experience.

Don't worry the $40 season pass will give you 5 more hours of amazing experience.

>2018
>Not having an absolute massive backlog.

"Muh bang for muh buck" argument holds no water after digital distribution made the price of gaming plummet.

We are drowning in games, overly long games have no reason to exist anymore.

>Spending $60 on any game

That's $7.50 per hour of the game...which, frankly, is a better deal than most movies.

The moral of the story is, fuck video games, fuck TV and movies. Go out and read books.

So... Portal 2?

Game length doesn't really mean shit anymore. Seems like every game has stupid computer-generated filler shit for days. Even the big budget shiny trip A games have maybe 15 hours of nice content maximum and the rest of the total 50 hours is diarrhea.

.... yeah

Short games usually have better overall quality, but you still need a long game to invest your time into. Also Freeware >

I really don't see the appeal in games being time sinks for the sake of being time sinks.

It really depends on pacing and level design too. If the designers made a gameplay system that still feels fresh after 6+hours of gameplay(short game) then I don't see any issue with it not being a long game. RE4 was longer than 5 and even if the last part was kinda bland compared to the previous game it still managed to have more interesting and fun moments than 5.
What i really hate is the notion that lots of content = good, back in the ps1 there were a lot of shitty rpgs that were praised for being super long despite most of it's content being pretty much just spamming attack to win, the modern day example would be your average open world game.

Same.

Agreed, time is limited and many games wouldn't even be better with more content as the core concept can be exhausted, like Superhot may have been a very short fps but if it was 10 hours idk if I would have even finished it. Titanfall 2 and Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons are also pretty much perfect length for what they are.

^This

I pay less than 7.50 for my cinema ticket

Keep the momentum goin and the thrillride short and sweet. then tack on a grindy end game for neets and welfare kids and obsessive trophy hunters to flesh out 100hrs+ but totally not necessary. That's what i think the future is.

Paying 70$ for the Order 1886 is a total ripoff.

This statement is wrong if the game has no replayability.

Resident evil 2 is a good example. Short game that can be finished in 2 hours but have loads of collectables and unlockables

Viewtiful Joe

No.

Recommend me some good short games.

You only need for a game to be long if it's so easy that someone that's never played a game before would be able to beat it in a day otherwise. How about you play a game made by someone that doesn't expect their buyers to be children or retards? Oh right, it's because you're so hopelessly addicted to modern games with their unreadable graphics, cheevos, rpg and casino elements, and "story focus" that old games seem outdated to you.

Resident Evil is generally a franchise with short but quality campaigns.

There are some exceptions like RE6 which is super Long, coincidentally it also happens to be a fucking terrible game.

>7.5 USD/hour
>Better than most movies
>When you can see a 2.5 hour movie for $5 easily
Sure thing, user.
However, in response to as well you do have to take into account the quality of time you spend. Time is money, so if the game is only minorly more enjoyable than part time work you can get, then the actual cost to you is very different. The problem with a lot of 20 hour+ games is that they become a slog. Instead of getting enjoyment, it becomes tedious and you might as well be doing data entry for all the enjoyment it gives you. This drags the value down

The Bastion

Cave Story

Are there any 12+ hour games that DON'T have some sort of filler?

You must be describing JRPG's. The recently released Persona 5 and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 are both 100h+ games, despite being highly linear and railroaded affairs.

Historically, WRPG's have tended to be shorter than JRPG's. And WRPG's actually have non-combat gameplay like stealth and diplomacy, so the side quests can be interesting mini-adventures like defending someone in a trial or disguising yourself to sneak into an antagonist's because. JRPG's by contrast typically only let you interact with the world by killing stuff, so they take much more inspiration from MMO's and have their side quests revolve around killing and fetching stuff.

Mass Effect 1 if you don't play the bad side missions is pretty tight. Hollow Knight doesn't have any weak areas that you have to do though some would consider what you do to get the true ending to be bad. Super Mario 64 and the Galaxy games are also consistently fun.