Author Topic: Anyone else tired of the long ass games? (Read 2916 times)

Himu · « **on:** February 11, 2009, 02:31:53 PM »

Why are rpgs so long? Why must they be 50-80 hours? I haven't finished Fallout 3 and Persona 4 because of this shit, but I've beaten MM9, RE4, and spent replaying short ass games for the Genesis in the past month. I just think it's stupid to have a game so long when you can play a game that's so short SO MANY TIMES instead. It's like, what's the point?

I think...I think...lil Himu's at the point where he's turning away rpgs.

Oh my God.

archie4208 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:36:35 PM »

Short games

JRPGs

Vizzys · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:37:00 PM »

:'(

Kestastrophe · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:39:07 PM »

I feel your pain Himu. I have been playing the Last Remnant since December and I have just recently made it to the second disc :'(. It is definitely giving me gaming fatigue

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:43:38 PM »

In this stage in my life, yes. I really only have time for a 10-15 hour game. If I get wrapped up in a 40-50 hour game, I don't usually finish it.

Himu · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:45:41 PM »

I always get gaming fatigue after these long games. Fuck.

Bebpo · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:46:23 PM »

A 10 hour FPS that is too long feels longer than a 50 hour rpg that is paced just right IMO.

I'm tired of games that are too long and wear out their welcome. The actual hour time is not a factor. I'm playing Super Robot Wars Z and it's over 200 hours long and after having played 100 hours+ I don't feel it dragging or being too long. Yet Sonic Unleashed felt like it was taking foreeeeeever to finish.

Himu · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:48:55 PM »

Quote from: Bebpo on February 11, 2009, 02:46:23 PM

A 10 hour FPS that is too long feels longer than a 50 hour rpg that is paced just right IMO.

I can agree with this. Half Life 2 is a good example of one.

T234 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:50:49 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 11, 2009, 02:48:55 PM

Quote from: Bebpo on February 11, 2009, 02:46:23 PM
A 10 hour FPS that is too long feels longer than a 50 hour rpg that is paced just right IMO.

I can agree with this. Half Life 2 is a good example of one.

YOU BOUT TO CROSS SOME FUCKIN LINES MAN

Himu · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2009, 02:54:47 PM »

Quote from: T234 on February 11, 2009, 02:50:49 PM

Quote from: Himuro on February 11, 2009, 02:48:55 PM
Quote from: Bebpo on February 11, 2009, 02:46:23 PM
A 10 hour FPS that is too long feels longer than a 50 hour rpg that is paced just right IMO.

I can agree with this. Half Life 2 is a good example of one.

YOU BOUT TO CROSS SOME FUCKIN LINES MAN

What? Tell me that game isn't longer than it should be. The vehicle stages, in particular are a bunch of hogwash.

tiesto · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:00:41 PM »

Many of the best RPGs from the past (SNES/PSX days aka the golden age of the genre) were 20-35 hours long, nowadays I agree there's too much padding and optional shit in them, designed to fuck with people with OCD.

I'm not so much tired of long games as I just don't have the time to play anymore. I never understood the GAF RPG crew who regularly blows through 60+ hour long games in days.

T234 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:00:53 PM »

The vehicle stages do drag a bit, but the game's length is exactly what I want in a shooter.

demi · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:03:28 PM »

Nope, love them. Go back to the park Himuro

Himu · « **Reply #13 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:03:44 PM »

Face it t234. Riddick is the better fps.

Quote from: tiesto on February 11, 2009, 03:00:41 PM

Many of the best RPGs from the past (SNES/PSX days aka the golden age of the genre) were 20-35 hours long, nowadays I agree there's too much padding and optional shit in them, designed to fuck with people with OCD.

Yeah, 16 bit and 32 bit rpgs were the best.

T234 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:12:35 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 11, 2009, 03:03:44 PM

Face it t234. Riddick is the better fps.

Quote from: tiesto on February 11, 2009, 03:00:41 PM
Many of the best RPGs from the past (SNES/PSX days aka the golden age of the genre) were 20-35 hours long, nowadays I agree there's too much padding and optional shit in them, designed to fuck with people with OCD.

Yeah, 16 bit and 32 bit rpgs were the best.

YOU JUST MADE THE SHITLIST

WE'RE FIGHTING

SAY YOUR PRAYERS AND WANK YOUR COCK IN THE CHURCH BATHROOM HIMURO

Himu · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:15:55 PM »

lol

T234 annihilated...

MMaRsu · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:16:23 PM »

Hell no, then again, I barely ever play those crappy JRPG games.

I love long games, but only if they are good. I pay 60 euro's for it, it should be long and not fucking 5 hours.

T234 · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:17:44 PM »

Quote

Himuro
I got himuroids
Senior Member

Posts: 24949

xenophobic+grace

Unignore


Re: Anyone else tired of the long ass games?
« Reply #15 on: Today at 05:15:55 PM »

Reply with quoteQuote
Show
This user is currently ignored.

Yep, shitlisted.

MCD · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:18:21 PM »

depends on my mood.

Bloodwake · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:20:07 PM »

Seriously, Riddick is better than HL2?

You must be on some awesome crack Himuro.

Vizzys · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:21:05 PM »

short games i buy for full price piss me off, example: mirrors edge/uncharted type short

Himu · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:23:14 PM »

Quote from: Bloodwake on February 11, 2009, 03:20:07 PM

Seriously, Riddick is better than HL2?

You must be on some awesome crack Himuro.

It is though. Better pacing, better shooting, better blend of genres. And you're a badass in Riddick too. All Gordan Freeman does in HL2 is run away the entire game because he's a fucking pussy.

Vizzys · « **Reply #22 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:25:05 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 11, 2009, 03:23:14 PM

Quote from: Bloodwake on February 11, 2009, 03:20:07 PM
Seriously, Riddick is better than HL2?

You must be on some awesome crack Himuro.

It is though. Better pacing, better shooting, better blend of genres. And you're a badass in Riddick too. All Gordan Freeman does in HL2 is run away the entire game because he's a fucking pussy.

gordon freeman is very manly, liar

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Himu · « **Reply #23 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:26:30 PM »

Riddick is my favorite single player fps. HL2 can suck it. I should play Ep1 and Ep2 when Mupepe gives me back my copy of Orange Box.

tiesto · « **Reply #24 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:27:31 PM »

I also prefer to replay short games, while I hardly ever bother with replaying the longer ones. I actually liked the length of Mirror's Edge, since I think action games wear out their welcome a lot quicker than RPGs or adventure games, and are made to be replayed.

HL2 EP2 was a fantastic length too.

Himu · « **Reply #25 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:29:14 PM »

Last summer, I played and beat Mega Man 2 almost every day.

Bebpo · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:48:20 PM »

Quote from: tiesto on February 11, 2009, 03:00:41 PM

Many of the best RPGs from the past (SNES/PSX days aka the golden age of the genre) were 20-35 hours long, nowadays I agree there's too much padding and optional shit in them, designed to fuck with people with OCD.

Nothing wrong with lots of optional stuff in games. I will never hold it against a game if the optional things are repetitive or cheaply made. They are just a bonus for if you dig the game and you want more hours with it. Like the Mass Effect sidequest are all just cut & paste jobs, but they're optional so just do 'em if you want. They don't bring down the game at all.

bork · « **Reply #27 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:50:42 PM »

I don't have this problem since I don't play boring J-RPGs. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz

Tucah · « **Reply #28 on:** February 11, 2009, 03:54:57 PM »

Short games are awesome, not a fan of 100 hour JRPGs.

ToxicAdam · « **Reply #29 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:00:44 PM »

Yea, it's a bummer when you realize you outgrow JRPG's. I can't even replay the old ones (like Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior) anymore.

I think Tales of Symphonia back in 2004 was the one that broke me.

Fragamemnon · « **Reply #30 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:05:09 PM »

I love love love long games.

I spent eighty hours last year on ONE game of Europa Universalis 3: In Nomine and over 120 between two Hearts of Iron 2 games. The time went by in a flash playing them, I didn't even notice it pass me by. Right now I am playing Kharkov: Doughnut Disaster and every fucking turn takes over an hour but taking the time to plan everything out and do it just right is worth it.

The market needs a wide spectrum of games for all types of players, nothing wrong with games that are short, medium , or long IMO.

Tauntaun · « **Reply #31 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:08:28 PM »

This is why I play FPS and RTS. Also, I just don't have the time to commit to a long rpg.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

:'(

[close]

Positive Touch · « **Reply #32 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:10:24 PM »

Quote from: ToxicAdam on February 11, 2009, 04:00:44 PM

Yea, it's a bummer when you realize you outgrow JRPG's. I can't even replay the old ones (like Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior) anymore.

I think Tales of Symphonia back in 2004 was the one that broke me.

so true. I used to play them all the time back in the 16 & 32 bit days (though it's not like I had much of a choice in the ps1 days), but now i too can't even make it more than a few hours into games i used to love the shit out of. never happened to me with any other games, just rpgs.

Bebpo · « **Reply #33 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:14:59 PM »

Quote from: Tauntaun on February 11, 2009, 04:08:28 PM

This is why I play FPS and RTS. Also, I just don't have the time to commit to a long rpg.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
:'(
[close]

Ironically I can't play RTS games because each map takes too long

cool breeze · « **Reply #34 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:15:47 PM »

depends on the genre or how good the game is. If Fallout 3 was 8 to 20 hours, I would have bitched about it. If Mass Effect was 50+ hours, I would have bitched about it. The bad thing is that some dev pad their games by recycling gameplay (Dead Space, Assassin's Creed) instead of having a short game with better pacing. Also, too many games these days are front loaded. MGS4, GTA4, etc. that they start to feel tired by the end.

duckman2000 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:18:28 PM »

I don't have time for long games, so I tend to favor short, action packed ones, preferably with good MP or individual skirmish levels that can be replayed at will. Racing games also work, as long as there are three or four great racing circuits. ODST is probably going to be my GOTY for that reason. I couldn't even imagine playing something like Fallout 3 these days.

bork · « **Reply #36 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:25:38 PM »

Quote from: Bebpo on February 11, 2009, 04:14:59 PM

Ironically I can't play RTS games because each map takes too long

WHAT WHAT WHAT

Himu · « **Reply #37 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:30:05 PM »

wrong thread

Fragamemnon · « **Reply #38 on:** February 11, 2009, 04:38:59 PM »

Quote from: Bebpo on February 11, 2009, 04:14:59 PM

Quote from: Tauntaun on February 11, 2009, 04:08:28 PM
This is why I play FPS and RTS. Also, I just don't have the time to commit to a long rpg.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
:'(
[close]

Ironically I can't play RTS games because each map takes too long

if that's the only thing holding you back, check out the command and conquer 3 / red alert 3 games and Dawn of War 2. Stuff is fast and almost always wraps up in 15 minutes or less. Same for Blizzard's stuff.

pilonv1 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 11, 2009, 05:46:18 PM »

short games rule. i dont have time for long games either these days.

saints row - perfect length
fable 2 - perfect length

im playing midnight club la now and just doing 2-3 races at a time in stints.

Bebpo · « **Reply #40 on:** February 11, 2009, 06:56:49 PM »

Quote from: pilonv1 on February 11, 2009, 05:46:18 PM

short games rule. i dont have time for long games either these days.

saints row - perfect length
fable 2 - perfect length

im playing midnight club la now and just doing 2-3 races at a time in stints.

Saints Row is pretty long though. I enjoy sandbox GTA-type games, but I've never finished any of the GTAs or either SR because they have like a hundred missions.

Quote from: Fragamemnon on February 11, 2009, 04:38:59 PM

if that's the only thing holding you back, check out the command and conquer 3 / red alert 3 games and Dawn of War 2. Stuff is fast and almost always wraps up in 15 minutes or less. Same for Blizzard's stuff.

I dunno, I tried the C&C3 demo when it came out and maybe it's just because I'm bad at RTS games but after 30-45 mins I was still building and moving guys who get killed and then I make more guys and they get killed and I just shut the thing off.

otoh, I actually finished the Halo Wars demo because the maps were short and there wasn't a whole lot of building and management. I think my favorite part of the game was limiting your unit count to 30 so it's less about building a huge army and more about building the right units.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #41 on:** February 11, 2009, 07:00:57 PM »

I heartily disagree. Best game I've played this gen so far has been Fallout 3, and I've pumped more than 100 hours into it. Then again I have lots of spare time.

Bildi · « **Reply #42 on:** February 11, 2009, 07:06:39 PM »

I like variety. I'm rarely play snooze-fest JRPGs anymore so when something like Fallout 3 comes along I'm happy to sink a ton of time into it.

I do love my mid-length action games though like Dead Space, Metroid Prime and RE4 at around 25-30 hours. And shorter ones like R6V or Condemned are a cool to blast through since I have little time to game.

Bebpo · « **Reply #43 on:** February 11, 2009, 07:13:07 PM »

Man, this forum is full of rpg haters.

I don't have all the time in the world (I'm sure I game less than demi) and I still manage to get through about 1 rpg a month and that's while playing non-rpg titles and having some social lifeing.

I mean a lot of people who don't play rpgs play online games. People spend 50-200 hours a month playing online. In that same time they could finish an rpg or two a month instead.

I don't play online games because I don't have the time. People who play online games (and I don't mean mmos, I mean like Halo/R6/CoD/etc...) don't have time for rpgs. Hmmmmmmmm....

pilonv1 · « **Reply #44 on:** February 11, 2009, 07:34:16 PM »

Quote from: Bebpo on February 11, 2009, 06:56:49 PM

Quote from: pilonv1 on February 11, 2009, 05:46:18 PM
short games rule. i dont have time for long games either these days.

saints row - perfect length
fable 2 - perfect length

im playing midnight club la now and just doing 2-3 races at a time in stints.

Saints Row is pretty long though. I enjoy sandbox GTA-type games, but I've never finished any of the GTAs or either SR because they have like a hundred missions.

You can get through the main story missions in under 15 hours though.

Fallout 3 has length but you could finish the story in short time too.

I dont hate RPGs either, I put plenty of time into Lost Odyssey. But I have no time for shit ones (sup Trusty Bell and Infinite Undiscovery)

tiesto · « **Reply #45 on:** February 11, 2009, 07:57:15 PM »

Quote from: Bebpo on February 11, 2009, 07:13:07 PM

Man, this forum is full of rpg haters.

I don't have all the time in the world (I'm sure I game less than demi) and I still manage to get through about 1 rpg a month and that's while playing non-rpg titles and having some social lifeing.

I mean a lot of people who don't play rpgs play online games. People spend 50-200 hours a month playing online. In that same time they could finish an rpg or two a month instead.

I don't play online games because I don't have the time. People who play online games (and I don't mean mmos, I mean like Halo/R6/CoD/etc...) don't have time for rpgs. Hmmmmmmmm....

Honestly, the RPG hatin' on this forum is no where near what it's like on GAF. Actually a lot of people here are big RPG fans, but yeah lately they've been pretty time consuming (Fallout 3=55 hours, TOV=65 hours).

WrikaWrek · « **Reply #46 on:** February 11, 2009, 08:01:10 PM »

Yes.

Seriously, at 40 hours i still hadn't finished FFXII. Give me a break. I wanted a game, not a wife.

MoxManiac · « **Reply #47 on:** February 11, 2009, 08:04:20 PM »

Quote from: Bebpo on February 11, 2009, 02:46:23 PM

A 10 hour FPS that is too long feels longer than a 50 hour rpg that is paced just right IMO.

I'm tired of games that are too long and wear out their welcome. The actual hour time is not a factor. I'm playing Super Robot Wars Z and it's over 200 hours long and after having played 100 hours+ I don't feel it dragging or being too long. Yet Sonic Unleashed felt like it was taking foreeeeeever to finish.

I agree somewhat, the problem is 90% (probably higher) of JRPGs are paced terribly and wear out their welcome before the end.

demi · « **Reply #48 on:** February 11, 2009, 08:17:54 PM »

Oh I'm sure you guys lead such important lives. Boo fuckin hoo. Stop playing them then.

Pimpbaa · « **Reply #49 on:** February 11, 2009, 09:21:38 PM »

I'd rather have a long ass game I'll never finish than one I finish the second day of owning it.

tiesto · « **Reply #50 on:** February 12, 2009, 08:57:03 AM »

It's not so much a game's length that I'm getting sick of, though... it's more so the propensity of save points. If I only have an hour of game time, I won't play games that I know are very sparse on the save points (Infinite Undiscovery, FFXII, where I was waiting an hour to find a save point)...

chronovore · « **Reply #51 on:** February 12, 2009, 06:06:52 PM »

Quote from: WrikaWrek on February 11, 2009, 08:01:10 PM

Yes.

Seriously, at 40 hours i still hadn't finished FFXII. Give me a break. I wanted a game, not a wife.

It takes you 40 hours to finish your wife?

brawndolicious · « **Reply #52 on:** February 12, 2009, 06:14:18 PM »

uh..if it uses 50 hours then I'm fine with it. Even if the game has barely and side-quests and if I don't have much free time, long games are fun in a unique way because it takes you a while to really build up your character and learn the game. It's fun to pick to have one on the backlog but I do usually lean towards buying short games (<20 hours long) because most games are like that and I don't like just playing one game.

MMaRsu · « **Reply #53 on:** February 12, 2009, 07:21:33 PM »

'What's the better rpg btw, Infinite Undiscovery ( dont really like the style or previous Tri ACe games ) or Last Remnant?

LR gets pretty bad scores and has a lower Metacritic rate then Too Human $:-\$

demi · « **Reply #54 on:** February 12, 2009, 07:25:27 PM »

The Last Remnant is one of the best RPGs I've played

Bildi · « **Reply #55 on:** February 12, 2009, 07:38:13 PM »

Quote from: tiesto on February 12, 2009, 08:57:03 AM

It's not so much a game's length that I'm getting sick of, though... it's more so the propensity of save points. If I only have an hour of game time, I won't play games that I know are very sparse on the save points (Infinite Undiscovery, FFXII, where I was waiting an hour to find a save point)...

Definitely. I wanted to get to bed one night because of work the next day but was stuck in the middle of Lost Odyssey's big-ass funeral sequence which I think went for about an hour.

trh · « **Reply #56 on:** February 12, 2009, 07:40:52 PM »

Long games

It takes quite a lot for me to get hooked on one.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

Error2k4 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 12, 2009, 08:26:42 PM »

short games without replayability

long games

the only good short games are the ones that are replayable, i can't justify paying 60 bucks for 8 hours game if I'm only going to play it once. even if it's replayable, I'll think twice before buying it.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #58 on:** February 12, 2009, 08:42:13 PM »

I like a long RPG once in a while. Have to be in the mood for one and once that is broken, I can't get back into it (see: Blue Dragon)

Himu · « **Reply #59 on:** February 12, 2009, 09:37:53 PM »

Quote from: Error2k4 on February 12, 2009, 08:26:42 PM

short games without replayability

long games

the only good short games are the ones that are replayable, i can't justify paying 60 bucks for 8 hours game if I'm only going to play it once. even if it's replayable, I'll think twice before buying it.

Replayability is subjective. If I like a game damn enough I'll replay it.

News:

Author Topic: Anyone else tired of the long ass games? (Read 2916 times)