Sure… I'll go with the 30 hours benchmark too… here are games I finish below (or very close) to that mark:
- Expeditions: Viking
- Shadowrun Returns & Hong Kong
- Mass Effect Andromeda
- Elex
- Mutant Year Zero
- Banner Saga
- West of Loathing
And a few of my all-time favourites:
- Fallout 1
- Final Tantasy Tactics
- Knights of the Old Republic
I think your original post on this topic is the unclear one that contradicts itself. You started by saying "I've never associated length to quality" and then ended it by saying "Make 'short games' en-vogue… make the RPG genre poorer, inherently".
So, which is it?
What I take issue with is the idea that an RPG can't be amazing if its short. That's a ludicrous notion. You can roll your eyes again if you'd like or state some reasons why you think otherwise.
Ok, so I've clearly failed to communicate what I was saying in a way that you could understand, so I'll clarify this aspect before moving onto your game choices.
Firstly, where I say I've never associated quality with length it means I've never been informed of a game's length and immediately made a mental image in my head as to whether that means I will or wont like the game. That information has no baring on quality in my mind.
However, if a game is advertised as 20 hours or under, it does necessitate a mental note as to whether the product is going to be a
fully fledged RPG.
Secondly, regards how long is a piece of string, you've now kindly clarified 30 hours [thanks Pladio
] , which is, handily for you, the exact amount of hours people normally expect an RPG to be at it's minimum. When people refer to 'short' in regards to RPGs they normally mean 20 hours and under, because those are the real outliers, traditionally. 30 hours is not short.
So when I said that promoting short games as the new en-vogue as being damaging to the genre I do not mean that it reduces quality, I mean that it reduces the chance of getting a fully fledged RPG.
I shall now use the games you listed as proof of what I have just said:
[stats taken from the website How Long To Beat]
Expeditions Viking:
28 hrs. (bee-line main quest)
32 hrs. (+ side quests)
50 hrs. (completionist)
Shadowrun Hong Kong:
20.5 hrs. (m)
28.5 hrs. (s)
43.5 hrs. (c)
Mass Effect: Andromeda:
18.5 hrs. (m)
64 hrs. (s)
92.5 hrs. (c)
Elex:
27 hrs. (m)
48.5 hrs. (s)
72 hrs. (c)
Fallout:
16.5 hrs. (m)
22.5 hrs. (s)
32 hrs. (c)
FF Tactics
39 hrs. (m)
59 hrs. (s)
93 hrs. (c)
KOTOR:
29 hrs. (m)
35.5 hrs. (s)
46.5 hrs. (c)
And in each case for the above games the game was not designed to be short. Making a short game was not the intention of the developer. The games can be played quickly, but they are not designed to be. They are all designed to be long games. Dare I even say that if someone plays only for bee-lining the main quest then that person is not an RPG aficionado, that person is someone who likes to play games and sometimes likes to play RPGs. To always play RPGs as main-quest bee-line games is to not
play RPGs.
As for the other games on your list:
Shadowrun Returns: Was not a complete game when it was released. It later had the Dead Man's Switch content added to it and even then the developers only considered it a proof of concept for better things to come. It was not considered a full RPG.
Banner Saga: Is an episodic series where a full RPG is released slowly over time in many parts. While each part can be played in a 10 or so hours if you rush it, when factoring in the entire narrative intent over the trilogy it's well over 30 hours for the 'complete game'.
West of Loathing: Is a fun little cheap game. There are many fun little cheap games available in the marketplace.
I do not believe West of Loathing and Mutant Year Zero by themselves act as evidence that RPGs would achieve better quality by providing less quantity.
Also For Your Information:
Skyrim:
33 hrs. (m)
108 hrs. (s)
225 hrs. (c)
By your above definition, Skyrim is a short game.
