Ideal lenght for cRPG?

Was wondering, what is your favorite lenght for crpg like Pillars or other Skyrim? Or maybe there is a big difference between Isometric and TPP?

 

My thoughs:

• 30 hours is sufficient, to have enought story and gameplay, but not be fed up with. That is a lenght of KOTOR or Shadowrun Dragonfall (great games).
• Even better if almost complete run takes 60 hours, but half of that is more or less optional, so we can play it our way. There are people who likes Dungeons, Boss fights, Wildneress, All text quests, collecting and so on.
• Say no to time soakers, like excesive managing inventory and vendors, or long travel times (no fast travel)
• Quality over quantity.
• No MMO style. Just because MMO are popular and well advertised does mean it is good gameplay.
• There is some potencial in post release support. Like adding Bounties or endless dungeon after release as free dlc.
• Only 10-25% players finish game at all, so pushing for some enourmous lenght could be waste.
• Expansions like WHite March are fair, since not not forcing to pay for content we dont wanna play is ok.

And You?

 

20 hours, even 15 is ok if the game has a great deal of replayability. 60 hours and more is a guarantee that I wont finish it unless we're talking about my game of the millenium, which is very unlikely to come around.

Eh, I don't think the issue can be boiled down to a consistent set of points that'll always be applicable. Generally, I'd say the rule of thumb would be that a game should be as long as its non-optional content can support. My preferences then kinda depend on what kind of game is it:

- If it's purely sandbox, just give me ... Stuff and I'll toy around with it for as long as I'm having fun. Mount and Blade or Elder Scrolls games are a good example. They have way more content than they could ever support before you see everything, but seeing everything's not really the point.

 

- If it's a driven experience reliant on a more complex central storyline, like Shadowrun: Dragonfall or Pillars of Eternity for that matter, I'd say that 20-30 hours are more than enough. If you really have a story which needs more than that to be told and to be explored, feel free to go for it, but neither Pillars nor Dragonfall did and only one of the two understood this. Guess which one. A bit 'shorter' length is preferable here since I personally start having issues with noticing and connecting details that happened like 3 weeks of real life ago while playing the game when they get referenced later on - I also don't enjoy padding that inevitably happens in story-centric RPGs longer than that. I'd compare this kind of experience to a movie - shorter and tighter experience.

 

- If it's an RPG driven by shorter, self-contained stories which are tied together by a much looser storyline, it can be pretty much as long as it can still tell interesting stories, like a TV show would be. An ideal example of this approach would be Fallout 2, Witcher 3 or Baldur's Gate 2 I suppose - the central storyline is always fairly simplistic and easy to follow, to the point where you won't miss much if you started playing it a year ago, get back to the game and just read a journal for a quick recap. The main strength of these games lies in self-contained side-stories, episodes that your characters go through. Sometimes they'll contribute to the main story in one way or another, but they should be always reasonably brief.

I can't really say.

South Park SoT and the shadowruns games were fine at 15-30 hours because they were very well done and not padded. Usually a much greater chance of finishing them.

Morrowind/FONV/etc type RPGs are great for the hundreds of hours u can sink into them because usually the exploration is just as important as the story. Padded is fine because usually the padded material IS the exploration. Only drawback is a lot less chance of finishing because of length and restart itis.

Hard to say, it's not one size fits all, even when dealing only with a specific genre.  That said, I'd say around 25 hours seems pretty good in many cases.  It's long enough that the game feels like a lengthy journey but short enough not to outstay its welcome, usually.  I'd much rather have a shorter game where all the content is high quality than a longer game packed with a bunch of mindless battles against trash mobs and/or needless busy work.  The armies of darkness are killing everyone, the world is on the brink of destruction!  You are the only one who can stop them!  But first, go pick some berries for these farmers that can't be arsed to do it themselves.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Keyrock

The question is posed wrong. If a game is God's gift to gaming, why would you want it to end after 15 hours? Or 30 hours?

 

If a game is good and can keep my interest, I see no ideal length. The longer the better.

 

...

 

On a slightly related topic: "I have no time for long games anymore" must be the dumbest argument ever. Do you honestly think ten eight hour long games take less time than one 80 hour game? The only thing that happens is that you have to pay $60 ten times instead of once.

 

...

 

On a slightly related topic: "I have no time for long games anymore" must be the dumbest argument ever. Do you honestly think ten eight hour long games take less time than one 80 hour game? The only thing that happens is that you have to pay $60 ten times instead of once.

 

Except maybe I want to play all 10 of those games and not just the one. I admire anyone who can play one game and just be happy with that, but I'm a serial polygamist when it comes to gaming. If a game takes 100 hours to beat, no matter how good it is, I probably will lose interest at some point. Not something I hold against the game, but I'd rather be able to finish a story line in a reasonable amount of hours, because if I step away from it to play something else, the odds of me being able to pick up that playthrough again are low. So then I start a new character and get a little further through the story because I remember enough to move faster, but there are limits to my time and patience with long games. 

30 hours is fine but sometimes I'm left wanting an expansion.

I prefer long games, as long as the game's good and keeps me entertained the longer the better. That said there are games in all sorts of lengths and if you want shorter games there are much more options than the handful of "big rpgs" every year. f.i. there wasn't a lengthy rpg(60-100hrs) release in 2016 if I'm not mistaken. So demanding shorter games from CDPR, OBS, Beth etc. seems greedy to me.

I prefer long games, as long as the game's good and keeps me entertained the longer the better. That said there are games in all sorts of lengths and if you want shorter games there are much more options than the handful of "big rpgs" every year. f.i. there wasn't a lengthy rpg(60-100hrs) release in 2016 if I'm not mistaken. So demanding shorter games from CDPR, OBS, Beth etc. seems greedy to me.

This might be a point of debate between the younger generation and the older one. Once you have a 9 to 5, a family and all the other obligations, your time becomes very valuable. Rather than play a 60 hour game that's been padded with grinding and meaningless collectibles, I would much rather have a shorter game that really delivers. Since it is very likely that I won't finish the former but will definitively enjoy the latter.

That has to be a trick question...

 

It has to be so long that you feel the time and money invested in it was worth it. Trying to put a number on it is as pointless as trying to give a game a "score".

Rather than play a 60 hour game that's been padded with grinding and meaningless collectibles, I would much rather have a shorter game that really delivers. Since it is very likely that I won't finish the former but will definitively enjoy the latter.

 

What you're saying here is that you prefer a good game before a bad game. Game length is irrelevant in this argument.

 

Instead, try this: which would you prefer? A 60 hour game that really delivers or a 10 hour game that really delivers?

I like to play a longer games (50+ hours) and mix it with small sessions of shorter games. Works well for me and I usually beat like 60+ games a year.

 

Rather than play a 60 hour game that's been padded with grinding and meaningless collectibles, I would much rather have a shorter game that really delivers. Since it is very likely that I won't finish the former but will definitively enjoy the latter.

 

What you're saying here is that you prefer a good game before a bad game. Game length is irrelevant in this argument.

 

Instead, try this: which would you prefer? A 60 hour game that really delivers or a 10 hour game that really delivers?

 

The thing is that longer games are harder to fill up because you have to spread them over such a long time. There will inevitably be points where the game feels dull, the trick is to keep those moments short or to keep you engaged by having you work towards a greater goal. For example, I love the Witcher 3 but the combat is dull and I quit at least 3 times before I finished it. Which I only did because of some mods that made it more engaging. It is not a bad game but the core gameplay is dull and repetitive, plus my fave build has been nerfed into oblivion(alchemy master race).

8" x 6"

 

I prefer long games, as long as the game's good and keeps me entertained the longer the better. That said there are games in all sorts of lengths and if you want shorter games there are much more options than the handful of "big rpgs" every year. f.i. there wasn't a lengthy rpg(60-100hrs) release in 2016 if I'm not mistaken. So demanding shorter games from CDPR, OBS, Beth etc. seems greedy to me.

This might be a point of debate between the younger generation and the older one. Once you have a 9 to 5, a family and all the other obligations, your time becomes very valuable. Rather than play a 60 hour game that's been padded with grinding and meaningless collectibles, I would much rather have a shorter game that really delivers. Since it is very likely that I won't finish the former but will definitively enjoy the latter.

 

 

I'm not debating... questioning anyone's preference. Just saying there are more shorter games than longer games nowadays. When/if I have all that, maybe I'll also stick with the crappy telltale interactive storytellers while hoping quality rpg developers to make shorter games but that day has not come yet(<in Balgruuf's voice).

8" x 6"

I don't get it.

 

 

I prefer long games, as long as the game's good and keeps me entertained the longer the better. That said there are games in all sorts of lengths and if you want shorter games there are much more options than the handful of "big rpgs" every year. f.i. there wasn't a lengthy rpg(60-100hrs) release in 2016 if I'm not mistaken. So demanding shorter games from CDPR, OBS, Beth etc. seems greedy to me.

This might be a point of debate between the younger generation and the older one. Once you have a 9 to 5, a family and all the other obligations, your time becomes very valuable. Rather than play a 60 hour game that's been padded with grinding and meaningless collectibles, I would much rather have a shorter game that really delivers. Since it is very likely that I won't finish the former but will definitively enjoy the latter.

 

 

I'm not debating... questioning anyone's preference. Just saying there are more shorter games than longer games nowadays. When/if I have all that, maybe I'll also stick with the crappy telltale interactive storytellers while hoping quality rpg developers to make shorter games but that day has not come yet(<in Balgruuf's voice).

 

I would hope for some examples because every game I play feels pretty long, also there you have to take into account how people play their games. I'm a completionist so it takes a long time for me to finish games.

It depends on the quality of the game. Arcanum and Planescape: Torment have both taken around 50-70 hours to finish but it was well worth it. Unfortunately I can't say the same when it comes to some other lengthy RPG's where the story is an afterthought. 

I would hope for some examples because every game I play feels pretty long, also there you have to take into account how people play their games. I'm a completionist so it takes a long time for me to finish games.

I don't know, I don't look for short games but most crowndfunded indie RPGs are rather short and there are many of them, supergiantgames' games are short also. People say Deus Ex: MD is short, I didn't like the game and stopped playing. Tyranny was short. My logic is there were no lengthy RPGs in 2016 so there must be good number of rather shorter ones. And my point is when you break it down there is only 1 or 2 lengthy RPGs coming out per year and I don't see the reason for complaining. Or maybe I'm drawing the line too high for a game to be lengthy.

 

RPGs need to be longer than most other type of games that has storytelling. Maybe if you have less time you should look into other genres, play 6 hours long battlefield/cod campaigns, play an episode of Hıtman, telltale games or watch a movie or don't.

 

 

Also show me the grind and meaningless collectibles and whatnot in New Vegas. Every open world game should take notes from NV and all Obs employees should replay it in a yearly basis to remember how to make a good game.

I don't agree that games are shorter now than they were in the past. Particularly with RPG's, it just depends on how you play them. Deus Ex was about 30 hours, which is about the same as the original. Tyranny is a bit shorter but Pillars of Eternity quite long, so it's not like there is a pattern here. Witcher 3 seems to be way longer than the original, etc.

 

Wait, is New Vegas an old game to you Quillon?

 

Games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate could be finished extremely fast if you knew what you were doing.

Games like Fallout and Baldur's Gate could be finished extremely fast if you knew what you were doing.

The original Fallout was a fairly brief game even when you didn't know what you were doing and I still think it was a lot better for it - how long to beat lists average of 30 hours for completionists. For me, Fallout 1 vs Fallout 2 is the textbook example of why do I prefer shorter games. Fallout 1 told the story it needed to for it to build its world and deliver its main storyline, whereas Fallout 2 was just full of more or less unrelated... Stuff.

Telling anyone "If you like short games go for cod noob" is both uncivil and untrue. Since there is pleanty of 30h games which are quite good, like: KOTOR, Shadowrun Dragonfall, Mass Effect 2. Even Fallout 1

Tyranny was shorter than PoE, but it also is the beast which tries to allow a very different stories in one game, and making storyline from pieces, which is something. (not being able to go to tower by force is annoying)

 

There is also money factor, crpg could sell in 1mln copies (which already is good number, and not all can count for that), assuming 45$ price tag minus fees and support cost, That determines how much you can do. And at some point there is a choice of quality vs quantity.

Edited January 17, 2017 by evilcat

 

I prefer long games, as long as the game's good and keeps me entertained the longer the better. That said there are games in all sorts of lengths and if you want shorter games there are much more options than the handful of "big rpgs" every year. f.i. there wasn't a lengthy rpg(60-100hrs) release in 2016 if I'm not mistaken. So demanding shorter games from CDPR, OBS, Beth etc. seems greedy to me.

 

This might be a point of debate between the younger generation and the older one. Once you have a 9 to 5, a family and all the other obligations, your time becomes very valuable. Rather than play a 60 hour game that's been padded with grinding and meaningless collectibles, I would much rather have a shorter game that really delivers. Since it is very likely that I won't finish the former but will definitively enjoy the latter.

Well I'll have all of that, and still I was able to put about 150 hours in Tales of Zestiria and about 90 hours in Star Ocean 5 in last 2 months of last year. Star Ocean had kind of dull but still I had a lot of fun playing it. And besides these two, I have also spent as much time with Demon's Souls, Soulcalibur V and Europa Universalis games. All in all I have finished 16 games in 2016.

Telling anyone "If you like short games go for cod noob" is both uncivil and untrue. 

 

 

Just saying, if you(anyone) don't have the time anymore and can't finish a rather lengthy RPG therefor won't be able to enjoy it; you should try other genres since they tend to be shorter than RPGs: I didn't/wouldn't call anyone a noob cos of playing cod, they say its campaign's very good this year, goes for BF also and Hıtman is also pretty well received. I don't like telltale games personally but especially game developers love it for some reason etc. Or don't play any of these but just don't try to make few big games smaller just cos you can't enjoy it like you used to. I mean if you please.

 

 

Wait, is New Vegas an old game to you Quillon?

 

Why? It could be considered old maybe but I usually can't retroplay "old" games, so I don't consider it old, Planning to playing it again soon. When there'll be projects like "New Vegas in F4's engine" like there is for Morrowind atm it might be truly old.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Quillon