General News - Are RPG's Too Long?

I'm in the quality over quantity camp. At least, that's my conclusion after the last not quite 5 year of new games that have long gameplay time (DAI, The Witcher 3, Divinity Original Sin, Pillars of Eternity, Skyrim, Saint-Rows, FFXIII-2, etc). At some point they all seems to start to drag and I get bored. That mean I either rush the main storyline or stop playing.

What I conclude from those games is that my ability to stand a game for dozens of hours is directly tied to the gameplay, story structure and the exploration quality. If it is repetitive (gameplay, encounters, exploration, etc), if the gameplay isn't that interesting (DPS all the time, instead of having to change tactics, etc) and/or the story feel disconnected from the gameworld, I'm not going to stand over 40 hours of it.

In other word, at the current quality level, 40-60 hours is my max.

40 hours of deep gameplay with high replayability any day.

As many have said, so long as it's done well it can go on forever. But realistically there comes a point where things get spread to thin and become soulless, repetitive or throwaway. That's the point they should stop.

Mass Effect 1, DA:Origins, The Witcher 2 & 3, Morrowind, just a few examples where the nailed the balance bang on.

The Witcher 2's replayability is astounding due to the branching story. I'd personally prefer shorter games with several different defined paths.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better…w_of_headlines

I believe this is relevant here.

If you're going for a heavy weight experience, then it needs to have a lot of different aspects complementing one another…exploration, story, characters, atmosphere, quests, combat, fun mini games, etc.
Few dozen hours long game can cause even more fatigue if it offers little more than hack, hack, dodge, hack- no matter how good it's combat system.
Game play: Full experience.

Every year the same story… a lazy reviewer / gamer complaining that RPGs are too long. Good RPGs (games in general) cannot ever be too long. Unless you find your own life too long. Our brain craves for pleasant experience, so if you are having fun, than a game cannot be too long. You don't have to finish it in one session, you know. Lazy reviewers…

The less MMOish,fodder quests and/or excessive grinding an RPG has,the more difficult is it to create a quality game that can keep people interested for more than 30-40 hours(give or take).
That is the mark of truly great games in my opinion.

Games like Fallout 2,Baldur's Gate 2 and Risen i would say are great and however long it takes you to complete them,it is worth it.
Games like Skyrim,FarCry 3 and 4 and others while they are definitely fun,i consider them too long for what they offer.They fall in the category i described in the begging and i like to call them "map cleaners".

While I love big game exploration, it needs to be meaningful. Useful hand-placed and custom designed loot, deeply crafted stories in quests with choices and consequences, meaningful character progression even into the stratosphere. Most big games do not offer that for every square inch. Morrowind was close.

If a dev sacrifices quality for quantity, it's a poor trade IMHO. Lots of generic quests and generic loot rather than fewer deeper quests/choices and hand placed/designed loot makes me lose interest after a while.

While I have been a hardcore completionist in the past, I am losing patence with generic lazy design. Skellige isles in Witcher 3 was the first time I haven't fully explored an area because all those small isles are generic and offered nothing of value. Fallout 4 is giving me the same feeling, and I will not be surprised if I don't see everything in the Commonwealth as well.

I have plenty of time for big worlds, but they need to continuously offer me something new to experience.

Originally Posted by Merin
As I get older, I actually agree with the sentiment. Devoting dozens of hours to games as an adult with a job and a kid and other things to do, it just doesn't have the appeal anymore. Teenage and college years, sure. Loner adult with no friends or family or other hobbies, maybe.

This is me too. But still, I do love the idea that there are RPGs out there that are lengthy even though I may not play them or only play them for a while.

The biggest impediment I have with playing lengthy CRPGs is the inevitable interruptions I'll have. These interruptions might last months and when they do I find it so hard to remember what the hell I was doing and where I was in the story that I often feel like I have to start over. This very thing has occurred with The Witcher 3. I started playing the game and have about 70 hours into it.

But I stopped at the beginning of summer 2015 and haven't played since. Now when I think about starting up again, I feel like I should just start over. The conundrum with this is that if I start over again, I'll likely get an interruption again near the same point in my gameplay as the first time around. If I continue on where I left off, it feels like a choppy experience. There's no good choice.

I wouldn't consider Oblivion and Skyrim as particularly deep CRPGs or even part of my top 5 favorites of all time. But one thing I appreciated about those two games is how easy it was to pick up and continue on even after years of having been away… due largely to the quest log and the way the game organizes the quests and story.

If there are lots of filler quests and trash mobs, then they are too long.

The article makes no mention of The Age of Decadence. Therefore, the article is trash.

No. Unless you are respawning fluff to extend it superficially.

I would like a good mix to be honest Lately, I've been sort of against a long RPGs like PoE, DA:I but I think it's because those were more quantity over quality. If a game is enjoyable, naturally, I wouldn't feel the game is "long". BG2 is one of the biggest/longest RPG out there, and yet I don't remember myself complaining that the game is "too long". Rather, I loved the fact it is choke full of contents.

In saying that, I also don't mind a short length RPG as well - as Merlin mentioned, I'm really short of time these days. After work, I barely have time to play games (usually 30mins max and that is totally not enough to get into an RPG). On weekend, one day is dedicated to rest and clean up of the house, and on second day, I would like to go out and have some fun with family, friends etc.

In summary, I would like a good mix of short and long RPGs that focus on quality over quantity

Originally Posted by Aubrielle
Why you wouldn't want more content is beyond me, but Syfy Games' Tony Nguyen thinks that RPG's could be better if they were condensed…

Condensed in that they are more substantial, I agree. Not necessarily shorter.

I guess I just assumed people only play a game if it is good quality. I suppose if it is a generic question (are RPG's too long) then for sure - any game of poor quality is going to be too long. Heck even 10 hours is too long for a game of poor quality.

When I answered I was only thinking of games of what I consider to be good quality*. I don't play games I don't consider to be good quality. In that context then I like long RPG's for the most part. Quality and fun doesn't always equate to length beyond wanting a decent enough length, as I already pointed out, to sink into the game. To some degree the more I like a game the more I want it to be longer but a lot depends on the type of game it is.

Getting a bit off track. Some of the comments just made me consider a different way of looking at the question as I hadn't considered the question when it comes to a generic viewpoint on quality.

*Disclaimer: Good quality here is meant to mean it is good quality to the person playing not what might be considered good quality at some objective level, majority level, or another individuals idea of good quality.

I'm all for length, provided it's quality content. If you're just adding hours with filler combat, unpolished or poorly put together story, I'd rather the game be shorter and consistently engaging from start to finish.

It doesn't have to be length in a linear sense.

I think cinematic linear RPGs like Kotor are cool and I love Kotor.. but I play Morrowind for 13 years and still find new stuff…. I like free-form, non-linear experiences like that best. Nearly unlimited replayability. And you can play 1 character forever. Now add modding tools. Ouch

Originally Posted by luj1
It doesn't have to be length in a linear sense.

I think cinematic linear RPGs like Kotor are cool and I love Kotor.. but I play Morrowind for 13 years and still find new stuff…. I like free-form, non-linear experiences like that best. Nearly unlimited replayability. And you can play 1 character forever. Now add modding tools. Ouch

Yeah, I'm not a part of that camp. I need a story to propel more forward or I lose interest.

I have no clue if they are to long. The few games I choice now of days to put my time into I enjoy. If they take 20 hours or 400 hours.

I can see anyone under the age of 40 losing interest fast and anyone over 30 not having a lot of free time.

Being picky and not trying to play everything is maybe the way to go.

Longer the better for me. The whole premise of an RPG is undertaking an epic quest. The more epic and huge the quest, the better the sense of immersion in the game. Give me a 100+ hour beast of an RPG any day.