Ideal lenght for cRPG?

[Hurlshort]

You had used New Vegas as an example of a good lengthy game, so I was curious if you thought it was old or new. I would agree that it is a newer game. I'm just not sure how that helps your statement that old games were longer than new ones. You could argue that Fallout 4 is longer and has more to do than any Fallout game before it. Granted it is rubbish, but that's a different argument.

[Quillon]

I'm just not sure how that helps your statement that old games were longer than new ones.

That's not my statement. I said there are more shorter games than longer games nowadays. With increased cost and time to make those big lengty RPGs we see them less often these days.

 

If I had claimed that old games were longer tho why would I argue F4s being lengthier than previous ones? It shouldn't be longer than NV anyway if we'are not counting "infinite quests".

[Elerond]

Ideal length depends on what game focuses on and what kind mechanics it uses.

 

Open world exploration RPGs like Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls and Fallout series or Bioware's Dragon Age 3 you need much longer length as in those games focus in exploring world and finding content more than anything else. So in them play time tends to be much longer than in other games because of that exploration, but they are games that have very low replayability percent.

 

In action oriented story driven games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age 2 or Alpha Protocol ideal play time is much shorter, because in them focus is in story and player choices how to forward the story. 

 

Hardest RPG genre to determine ideal playtime is what I call balanced RPGs like Baldur's Gates, Fallout 1&2, Dragon Age: Origins, Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin. Because they have that time consuming exploration, character building, but they also have heavy focus on narrative and player choices. In such games focusing in one aspect over others usually makes game become dull.

[Keyrock]

 

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?

There's more to it than that, though. Some of us like variety. Even a game that's really good throughout can become tiring after a while and I just want to experience something different. Now, I can put a long game on hold with the intention of coming back to it after playing something else, but often times I simply won't. I'll give you an example: When I played AssCreed 4, a game I have a ton of praise for, I had to take a break after some 30 hours. It's a testament to how much I enjoyed the game that I lasted that long before needing a break and I did return to it and finish it eventually, but there are definitely times I don't return to a game. Rare is the game that can keep my attention and not burn me out past 25 or 30 hours.

[Undecaf]

Between 30-60 hours is about ideal for me depending on the game type. Some games benefit from shorter length while others from longer, but generally under 30 tends to feel short and over 60 starts to drag on.

 

DX:HR was a bit on the short side with its 20-or so-hour campaign, while with New Vegas (and other similiar games) I start to feel compelled to wrap things up around the 60-hour mark (instinctively, I don't keep track on how long I've played).

[Oerwinde]

Depends on the game. Stick of Truth felt like about the right length despite being like 10 hours long. I think Tyranny and PoE were about the same length, but I felt like Tyranny was a bit short, while PoE was a good length. I think for a CRPG 30 hours is good for the main campaign and a bit of side-questing, but if that can get pushed to 60 through sidequests I would be super happy.

[MaxQuest]

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?

 

Personal preference for a game I enjoy is:

- 40 hours for main quest

- 80-100 hours for completionist run

 

And for expansions:

- 15-20 hours for main quest

- 20-40 hours for completionist run

 

So kind of mix between NWN Series, Witcher Series and PoE.

Edited January 20, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Raithe]

I really don't think there's a one size fits all for this question.

It can really depend on the type and style of the main quest, the nature of the world you're exploring, the way side-quests are handled along with the way of exploring the world and the lore presented to you.

 

Too many different things can come together to make a good rpg feel drawn out or too short and missing depth.

 

Edit:

Also on consideration, one other aspect to complicate matters - A game can feel perfectly lengthy (or not) for your first playthrough, but then on later attempts at playing it, that perception can shift when you have to drag yourself through certain content to explore other areas.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Raithe

[evilcat]

There is this page for beat times, interesting in some way.

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=13434

 

There is also branching thing. Branching quests are cool since allow to play our way, but may result in perception of shorter gametime. Like Witcher 2 having significant different act 2, or Tyranny. In PoE that is Rodrick stronghold, which was nice quest, we could aproach it in different ways, but at once experience only 1 path.

 

Extreme example are grand strategies like civilization or europa universalis  which is more or less are the same game, but if you like it you may sink in for many hours.

 

There is also question how much gameplay game support, most activities in game may become boring. This is big plus for big games, that if we develop versalite gameplay we may as well make game potencially longer and slap bigger price tag on it.

 

There may be Bioware trauma, making KoToR MMO and Dragon Age Inqusition similar to MMO (or Assasins Creed) which was disappointing. Less roleplaying for rpg fans to enjoy, and Dragon Age gameplay isnt that interesting (Mass Effect gameplay is more responsive if you are into power shooters).

 

Bethesda probably have good idea of making main quest shorter (if you care about it) but having large potencial of exploration. Witcher 3 on the other hand is more 50:50 but at some point player may be borred with sailing over Skellige, escorting Dwarves, or going with another Sorceress into cave.

Edited January 20, 2017 by evilcat

[rjshae]

I like a cRPG that can hold my interest. Otherwise it doesn't really matter how long it is.

[Harry Easter]

I would say ... 30-40 for the first time (realistically speaking it will be 50-60, if I don't know how to solve quests). In my experience the stories of those games have a good pacing and the fun comes from the replay-value.

[BrotherFerg]

I want between 100 and 200 hours. I don't wait around the computer all day for years for a game to come and complete it in a week. I want to feel like I spent atleast a significant portion of my life there.

[Lexx]

But if the game has 100 and 200 hours and turns out to be half a turd, will you still spend all that time on it?

[Hurlshort]

I want between 100 and 200 hours. I don't wait around the computer all day for years for a game to come and complete it in a week. I want to feel like I spent atleast a significant portion of my life there.

 

Maybe don't do the bolded part.

[BrotherFerg]

But if the game has 100 and 200 hours and turns out to be half a turd, will you still spend all that time on it?

Yes

[Elerond]

But if the game has 100 and 200 hours and turns out to be half a turd, will you still spend all that time on it?

 

If I don't like game after couple hours I stop playing if I don't have before hand knowledge that it gets better after sometime. But these days I take quite little risk with games that I buy, as I seem to have quite little time to play games these days. Like I didn't even log 1000 hours last years all games combined.

[Harry Easter]

 

But if the game has 100 and 200 hours and turns out to be half a turd, will you still spend all that time on it?

Yes

 

I give you that, you're dedicated.

 

Hmm, I think the best length should be ... 40-50 hours ( If I do everything on my first playthrough). And if the game is very storyfocused, I would say that 30-40 hours are enough (including side quests). It's more about replayability for me. 70 hours for one playthrough are too long and mostly the hours are filled with uneventful fights or way too long marches through the gameworld.

[Fenixp]

 

But if the game has 100 and 200 hours and turns out to be half a turd, will you still spend all that time on it?

Yes

 

Well then, Free to Play Asian MMOs are your dream genre. They're free, and you can spend thousands of hours with 9/10ths of a turd!

 

Really, I think it's mostly all about just how much of your time are you willing to let the game waste.

"But videogames are always a waste of time!"

Everything is a waste of time, which is why I prefer when I get to genuinely enjoy that waste of time through an through as opposed to having to endure half a game to get to the enjoyable bits. I do that at work.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Fenixp

[RangerSWG]

 

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.

 

Interesting, maybe I'm strange in this one: I'm 7-4 working, have a wife and obligations, but I still love being able to invest a hundred hours+ in a game like Witcher 3, Europa Universalis, or Football Manager (though not as much this year's version). If the game supports the weight of its ambition, then I have no problem following it all the way through. If it doesn't, then I do find at my age than I'm less willing to endure dross. Goes for my reading too. Used to be I'd finish every book no matter how poor as a matter of economic utility. Now I have no interest in throwing good time after poorly spent money. 

[daveyd]

I've found that most of my favorite CRPGs of recent years have been on the relatively short side. For ex: HBS Shadowrun games, Expeditions: Viking, and Age of Decadence.  All pretty short, especially Age of Decadence, though that game in particular has a great deal of replay value.   And I played through all of those games a few times. 

That said, I'm not sure that the reason I like them is any way related to them being shorter.  Perhaps it is connected in the sense that the developers took a quality over quantity approach (I found those games had less "filler content" than many other RPGs I've played), but then I would have been thrilled if any of those games had expansion DLC released (as long as the quality of the base game was maintained). 

A longer CRPG that I enjoyed was Dead State though it did tend to get a bit repetitive at times but still I enjoyed it enough to play it to completion which is something I can't say for many longer RPGs. 

[SonicMage117]

Hard to say because it depends on the game or rather the sub-genre of the game thereof in question.

 

I've played some 15 hour indie rpg's with more depth and better writing than a 60 hour infinity engine game. I'll refrain from giving names to prevent an argument but those who have played indie rpg's woll know what I'm talking about.

 

I think a huge fall of both older (classic) and new (modern) rpg's is that nearly every one of them is either a fetch quest, a grind-fest or pumped with some filler nonsense. That's all eliminated with hyper-focused indie rpg's though. I guess there's a huge difference in quality and passion when you're a small company with no money striving to make a great game vs a AAA large budget company like 90's Bioware. The small company will always do better.