Depends on the game and the gamer. |
I find stuff like earlier CoD etcs single player trivial nonsense, so I’m happy enough that they aren’t more than eight or so hours long. But sit me in front of a JRPG which expects me to grind on the same (or different coloured but the same model) enemies for hours and hours and I’ll happily zombie away at it for ages – I’m a bit miffed if I can finish a JRPG in under 30 hours (even without much grinding). On the other hand I got bored of all the Fallout games, Borderlands and Skyrim after less than twenty hours and never went back to them apart from the occasional mess about.
For me I think the difference is entirely in presentation. Some games reward you in tiny, incremental ways that make the effort seem worthwhile (something I think JRPG do far better than our own – getting a few extra VIT can suddenly make you seem like you leapt over a mountain) while others are more skill based and, basically, once you learn how to play it’s all just whether you’re playing crap or not more than the in game skills. I mean for all the fun skills in Borderlands 2, it basically comes down to shooting stuff in the face.
So… in answer to the question yes, I think many western games are getting too much padding and are paced poorly or at least reward you badly for your time. I think Dragon Age 2 is a prime criminal in that debate; it’s like they made it longer because people expect an RPG to be long. A bit of editing could have trimmed five hours of that game with no great loss.
#9327293, By SClaw Are games too long?
SClaw 826 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 7 years ago