General News - Are RPG's Too Long?

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.

Whenever I think about role-playing games, the first thing that comes to mind is the thought of embarking on a grand-scale adventure filled with hours upon hours of content. In fact, one of the reasons why I decided to purchase Fallout 4 the very first day it came out — despite how notoriously glitchy Bethesda games tend to be at launch — was because I knew that I was going to spend dozens of hours seeing everything the game had to offer. True to my expectations, I did spend over forty hours exploring the Boston Commonwealth, shooting countless numbers of Ghouls, Raiders, and whatever the wasteland wanted to throw at me. I didn't even finish half the list of the available side quests, or even half of the supposedly short main quest line!

During that, I discovered a little gem called Undertale. While it's enjoyable for its own reasons — which I highly recommend that you find out for yourself — one of the main things about it that stood out to me was that it was a relatively condensed adventure. Although you won't explore a vast wasteland or anything even remotely comparable, I feel like the game still somehow managed to deliver a satisfying journey. In just around ten hours, I got to meet an interesting cast of characters that I came to love, witnessed a story full of genuinely unexpected twists and turns, and even managed to tear up more times than I'd like to admit. So, it has me wondering: should RPGs be shorter to deliver a more focused experience?

Click to expand...

Read more.

More information.

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.

But I find myself gravitating towards playing a handful of quick games between lengthy RPGs, and I also find myself easily distracted away from lengthy RPGs again. These used to be my bread-and-butter, and I still consider it above and beyond my favorite genre of games, but...

I find myself have better experiences with shorter ones.

Also, never been a big fan of open-ended nor open-world, so the more RPGs gravitate towards that, the less I enjoy them. So since those are becoming norms, maybe that's part of it. But open-ended and open-world do drastically increase game length, so... they may be inexorably correlated if not directly tied together.

RPGs can never be too long. In fact, RPGs can only be too short.
RPG is basically one's kitchen. If you can't stand it, you're free to leave.

If short games are someone's thing, there are plenty of overpriced just a few hours long stuff like Wolfenstein out there.

The very reason people love RPGs is roleplaying a character for days, weeks even months. Leave RPGs as they are.

To me an RPG has to be at least around 30 hours long. That's because the RPGs I enjoy have a long enough character/party advancement system, and I get to celebrate each new acquired skill, and play with that skill for a few hours until I get the next skill. Of course, games like Fallout 4 don't really apply (and I don't care much about them) as new skills are basically 'you get 10% better at the same thing you were doing', and I consider them pretty much just shooters with lots of cutscenes.

I would agree in general with the concept that rpgs, or good games generally, can't be too long. You can always stop if you are no longer enjoying a game, right? The additional content is still there for people who are still loving it. Selfishly, though, I would definitely prefer that some games are shorter. I am not a rabid completionist who cares about achievements, but I do want to see and complete all the content a game has to offer. I recently finished Skyrim and its DLC, and I was taking notes on every single location to make sure that I cleared every single one. It bothered me to be leaving some areas unexplored. However, after 350+ hours, it was clear the game held no more challenge and that there was nothing new to see, even though there were plenty of undiscovered locations out there. As I say, selfishly, I would have preferred that they cut down the number of samey areas. (Interestingly, I never felt that way in Nehrim - maybe because the character development and striving for new equipment was better...) I stopped playing Skyrim after finishing the main Dragonborn DLC quest - I could not face ferreting out every last sidequest... and I felt guilty about stopping.

The sweet spot for me is 20-40 hours for a game, rpgs can be longer but most are not worth 100 hours tho I did spend a ton of time in W3 and F4 this year. I just don't want to spend 100 hours in a game anymore (unless the story is fantastic) as theres tons of others things I like to do as well as gaming.

Merin said:

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.

Click to expand...

There's usually so few games I want to play that I'm rationing how much time I spend on a game, so I love it if it lasts 100 hours and it takes me 3 months to play it. If I wasn't playing it I wouldn't have any game time at all. Lately RPG fans have been really spoiled but I'm not counting on that to last.

I'm Merin's loner adult with no friends, family or other hobbies, so I want the games as long as possible to pass enjoyable hours of my otherwise meaningless existence

I like games that are at least 30 hours in length or longer. For the same reason I prefer a full book over a short story. I like things I can really sink into. I don't want to learn mechanics, lore, form bonds with characters, and just as that is happening have the game end a short 10 hours later. If I invest in a game I want to get some length out of it. If I want something short to divert my attention for an hour here and there I can play tetris or solitaire.

My favorite is a game where the main story line is 30-60 hours to do but there is side content that can extend the game out by many more hours if wanted. That way if I want to focus on the main story I can and balance it with my time available to extend the game time and invest more in it if I desire.

I don't have anything against shorter games though - I just don't tend to prefer them personally. I prefer medium to long games for the reasons stated.

There are short RPG's, long RPG's and loooong RPG'S. In other words, something for everyone.

pibbur who prefer the loooong experiences.

I don't think rpgs are too long as a rule.
Some rpgs are too long though. When there is too many pointless side-quests and filler content in a game just for the sake of making it a longer experience it can be a bit rubbish. I'd rather they just made it shorter, more focused, and more consistent. There are some great, short rpgs out there.

As long as the content is good though, the games can be as long as you like! I cheerfully sank 100hrs into D:OS and Dark Souls. And would have taken more of both....

I'll take quality over quantity any day. It's not that I am opposed to some RPGs with dozens of hours of content, but with few exceptions, my general experience has been that very long RPGs are full of filler content. Fetch quests, kill x number of y monster quests, trash encounters, mandatory grinding, long unskippable tutorial areas, and long cut scenes are all features that I could happily do without.

Bigger is not always better, but the major developers / publishers seem to think it is. Moreover, things like hidden areas, branching paths, and secret content that is easy to miss on a first play through seem to be rare these days, because many players are obsessed with getting things like Steam achievements. Thankfully there's still a few mid-level / indie RPG developers that aren't as concerned with making the biggest, most epic RPG, but instead games that are actually fun to play… But not many.

crpgnut said:

I'm Merin's loner adult with no friends, family or other hobbies, so I want the games as long as possible to pass enjoyable hours of my otherwise meaningless existence

Click to expand...

We like you. That sorta counts as friends!

daveyd said:

Bigger is not always better, but the major developers / publishers seem to think it is.

Click to expand...

Not only them but that unfortunately seems to hold true for indies/crowdfunding RPGs as well. They seem to think that just because Infinity RPGs were long, people want more long RPGs with tons of filler and padding. End result: Pillars of Eternity.
And to a slightly lesser extent this also seems to hold true for Divinity Original Sin and Wasteland 2 apparently as I remember reading from a lot of people how they ran out of steam ~40 or ~50 hours in.
This always makes me wish that those devs would target a more focused ~40 to 60 hours experience from the start. Quality > quantity indeed. More content is only better if it is better .

If I want short games, I play Solitaire or Freecell. I want a bigass, endless world.

A game can never be too big, at least for me. I love a game I can actually get lost in.

I don't have problems with short or long games, but I do have problem with games which are padded with crap to make it seems long. Even worse is when the padded bits are not optionals. Dragon Age Inquisition is a game which is padded to make it seems long but thankfully you can ignore most of the padding.

I'm in the quality over quantity content. I grew up with the old linear rpgs, with a few sidequests here and there, and I like that type of design. I'm 34 now, with a family to take care of, and still try to play games quite regularly. I try a lot of new titles (that I get from this site ), and have the same feeling as Merin for a lot of them.

I feel like I lose focus and interest after a few hours in, because story progresses too slowly and character development is very simple/sluggish. You have to spend hours on the padding to progress your character in a way that it can be built interestingly, or skip it all, and feel like you're not really playing the game and missing out on a lot.

I've played Skyrim, the witcher, dragon age 3 and similar games that were advertised as 'huge open world', and finished with a very unsatisfied feeling. In Skyrim I had exactly the same feeling as Jaguar, where I had to clench my jaw and grind through the padding to explore those hidden areas and find all the secrets… only to stop after a while, because it's all the same (or worse, the 'reward' chests after a boss drop an apple, a broom and 2 copper pennies) generic content. What makes a game fun for me is the creativity that the designers put into it. Discovering something new and original is what drives me to continue playing a game, be it in the form of story, loot, or character progression. A game that has a routine for area creation or loot, or that rehashes content for the sake of area/game size, I will rarely find appealing.

In that retrospect, I think the last game that really gave me a "jesus this is a fantastic game", was the first dragon age. In dragon age 2, they made encounters and skills generic, in dragon age 3 they added a generic world with multiplayer quests on top of that. Pillars of eternity almost did it right with it's custom content (and I did manage to play through the whole game there, which is a feat in itself lately), but then screwed itself over by trying to overly balance classes, resulting in that 'meh' feeling they were trying to avoid in the first place.

/rant

I don't care how long or short a game is, as long as it holds my interest for its duration. Many games are too long only because they are padded - or they FEEL long because they are incredibly dull or repetitive.

I spent over 100 hours on Baldur's Gate II and loved every minute of it. Neverwinter Nights on the other hand put me to sleep after the first couple of hours and halfway through, the game felt too long.

I am currently enjoying DA:I but already feel like it has too much content and not much of it really compelling enough.

This is a hard one.

The hours I've sunk into some games are horrendous, and I never wanted some of them to end.
Like first time playing the baldurs gate series etc.

I think a lot depends on what kind of player you are, but I'm in the compulsive "do everything" group so after playing 100+ hours of dragon age 3 I'm getting fatigue and no wish to start the game after the kids have gone to sleep. And I still haven't done any of the DLCs and all areas in the main story...

I've realized that for me to actually complete a game the sweet spot is around 40-60 hours with all side quests (since I will be doing them..) if its an RPG-ish kind of game.

Dragon Age Origins took me a bit longer but still held me, and the Mass Effect games were on spot for me length wise.

I have ended up in the Quality over quantity camp as life moved on
C