Rampant Games - Are RPGs Too Long?

Currently I have played NWN, the first (the one Bioware made) and the original game felt way too long, especially the prologue could have been cut, some other quests could as easily have been cut. I'm currently playing Shadows over Undrentide, and I feel it is very confusing and way too long….

A more current tedious job or assignment/quest for me was the whole Deep Roads quest in DA:O - way too long and tedius, in my opinion….

I would agree but I finish most RPG's in 3-4 days. Hell I finished Skyrim in a week but there's so much content you never get bored. I replayed with different characters and still find stuff I missed.

I understand and sympathize with gamers that can't finish games or find time to play them. Just don't mess up my games please. I have yet to play any game and go is it over yet.

I don't think RPGs are too long. In fact, the longer the better provided they don't reuse crap just to artificially create the perception of long-ness (DA2, anyone?). The CoD franchise can get away with charging $60+ for a 4-hour game, but that price is all about multiplayer and replayability (if that's your bag). An RPG gets 1 run through from me, with a second only after a few years has passed and only if it was good. If an RPG isn't at least 40 hours of quality material, it's disappointing to me and not likely worth what I likely paid.

That said, it's well known that the vast (I mean, the vast) majority of gamers never see the end of games, period, let alone the end of long games. As a writer, this would have to be frustrating. Why save your best work for the end of the game knowing that 1-in-a-gazillion or so people who play it will actually see it? More importantly, as a studio, why spend equal money on end-game content when you can front all of your budget for the first one or two acts, also realizing that's about as far as most reviewers will get before his/her article is due?

Perfect example of this is the Witcher 2. Act 1 was brilliant and took wonderfully forever to complete. Act 2 was still fairly good, but was a tad shorter. Act 3 took like 10 minutes, felt rushed, and was almost an afterthought in an otherwise excellent game. Either the studio ran out of money toward the end, or the writers ran out of ambition, or a combination of both.

A similar question, "Is that huge pile of dog crap in my yard too much dog crap?"

Correct answer, "Any dog crap in my yard is too much dog crap!"

This is a question of quality and perspective… For the sake of discussion I'll view the question of RPG length strictly from a CRPG gamer perspective(IMO tablets and phones are sufficiently different in form and function to alter one's perspective on what constitutes appropriate length also I can't even pretend to know the perspective of publisher big wigs, console gamers or devs). Meaningless filler content that does not tie into the main plot or relevant subplots should be kept to a minimum, random fedex/kill quests should not account for 20%+ of a RPGs content. Unless you're playing a RPG that explores the roles of Fedex delivery truck drivers and/or serial killers.

Long story short: A good RPG that offers chargen(multiple races, classes, stats or some analogue - which integrates, potentially alters and enhances the following), branching narrative, meaningful C&C, reactivity(how the world, environment, characters ect affects the PC and conversely how the PC affects them), decent pacing and varied gameplay/game experience as a result of all the aforementioned should play out how ever long it takes. If the above can be pulled off in 12-20 hours so be it, if the PC's journey takes 100 hours without excess filler then that is cool too. It's the experience being offered to the player, and his/her freedoms therein that should define the length.

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
Meaningless filler content that does not tie into the main plot or relevant subplots should be kept to a minimum, random fedex/kill quests should not account for 20%+ of a RPGs content.

I suggest you stay away from Star Wars The Old Republic, then. And I agree.

"We need RPGs that can be finished in a week or two (or maybe a single caffeine-fueled weekend)."

THAT I can agree with. We do need some lightweight, casual-friendly RPGs out there. If all RPGs are hardcore RPGs then we'll die out for sure. That's what Fable and some of the action RPGs can be for.

As many have said, quality is key. If you fill a game with stupid, predictable quests to kill off a bunch of same'y monsters then you've done a bad thing. If a quest isn't interesting then it either needs to be cut or fixed up so that it IS interesting. Preferably the latter - but there's only so much time so I'm afraid the former is going to be more common.

This isn't quite as true with action and strategy RPGs. In those games, the combat itself is providing most of the entertainment so you can pop a few less interesting quests into the mix. Though you might actually be better off with no quest at all - just let the player go hunting until they get back into the mood to quest again.

Originally Posted by Burress
They are definitely too long… The expectation is that an RPG should take at least 40 hours to beat on average.

I think that is the problem right there… The notion that you beat the game.

When you read a book or watch a movie, you don't beat it. You enjoy it for as long as it lasts, or you do the sensible thing and stop reading or watching if you find it boring.

Most games nowadays, I don't play to the end. One reason is that games often get more linear and repetitive towards the end. That does not mean that games are too long, though. Any game lasts as long as it's entertaining, which means that it can be too short, but never too long. If you keep playing a boring game just to beat it, to "win" in some ridiculous sense, then you are a loser by default.

If you decide to play a game that might last, say a few hundred hours for a single playthrough instead of 5-10 hours, no one going to sit there and play through the entire game in one sitting. So what does it matter how long a particular playthrough lasts.

Is it somehow more inconvenient to save your game with an RPG and pick it up again next weekend than it would be to play more matches of the same multplayer shooter or sports game?

Originally Posted by crpgnut
I think you could make one full Wheel of Time novel with just Nynaeve tugging on her braid

Oh god, indeed!

Currently I do indeed tend to prefer shorter games, as my game time is so limited. But as in everything - variety is the spice of life. Keep the epics, but make tighter games as well.

I do like longer RPGs - as long as they give me a sense of an achievement while after while.
Perhaps like chapters …
But in general my impression is that the longer the RPGs are, the less love for the detail is apparent with the environment and the NPCs, imho …

No, they're too short.

RPGs nowadays are too short, in my opinion.

They're definitely too long for me. My attention goes like a bell curve. Initially I'm wandering around, feeling the game, then I love the game and play it a lot, and then it dies down. Usually by the time I get to about 75% of the game (about 30-40 hours into it) I stop caring, I just ignore all side quests and try to complete the main quest before my attention just totally disappears and I start playing some other game.

You know what? I was going to log in and complain that I don't have enough time anymore, but that's honestly an excuse. I just have a bunch of other hobbies and interests that keep my attention:

- endurance athletic training
- landscaping
- making stuff (see DIYdrones and hack-a-day)
- minis (Battletech/Warmachine)
- video games, esp. indies

And then there's my work and study. I'm unmarried so there's not that (very large) time and emotional commitment.

Now looking at just video games and *just* the cheaply bought steam backlog I have, there's no way I'm going to get through everything and still cycle through the other stuff in my life. Heck I never even finished Oblivion, let alone Skyrim. Some of it had to do with fading interest, but a lot is just sheer intimidation at the amount of time and effort I'd have to devote to playing the games "properly". So I put them off and play smaller games. And I'm one who used to crank through the RPG play.

I think it's just a function of maturity and the other interests I have as well as available time. I just don't devote myself single-mindedly to RPGs anymore. I don't weary of them, but I've been there and done that and they don't throw new experiential magic at me the way they used to. It takes something extra special now to suck me in for a long play period.

So I've got a lot of sympathy for the people that genuinely don't have time (the family and kids are totally worth it though). And I've got sympathy for the people who remain die hard fans. My counsel to both sides is this: there's room for both. There can be focused awesome RPG experiences to be had inside a 15-20 hr play period as well as the 100+ epics. Why wail and gnash teeth over the existence of one or the other? Wouldn't it be better to see the value in both experiences and not begrudge your fellow RPGer the ability to do one or the other even if you're not inclined or don't have the time to engage in the bigger/smaller one. Both are good and both should exist.

My guess is that the gnashing of teeth I sometimes see expresses an anxiety that your preferred play style is somehow under attack and has the potential to deny you the experience you want by those "unwashed casual philistines"/"l33t RPG grognards with too much time on their hands". That's just a false dichotomy and my prescription for that is basically "ease up and chill"; your play style isn't going to go away, not with the myriad options we have going now what with kickstarter, steam, the already-mindbogglingly-large indie movement. I think you'll be more than covered. I remember the time about when Civ II came out. I couldn't find anything interesting RPG wise on store shelves. Now it's an embarrassment of riches for all preferences. It's not all hard-core style, but honestly demanding that of most or all games is just selfish. We gots options.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
No, they're too short.

Originally Posted by Cerberus
RPGs nowadays are too short, in my opinion.

I think you guys are nuts. jk

It obviously boils down to personal preference, but imo too many RPGS are simply bloated with unnecessary amounts of combat and cookie-cutter quests/locations. Devs need to start focusing more on quality over quantity, but I think they're afraid to because so many people scream murder if a game isn't 100+ hours long now, and one of the first things mentioned in reviews is game length.

Ironically, many of the people I know who think longer=better rarely end up playing those games to completion.

You cannot pause an rpg and continue later.

I often pause an rpg and continue later.

I love the 100+ hour RPGs as much as the next guy but the reality is that I only have a few hours a week for gaming. So at 3 or 4 hrs per week a long RPG can take me 7 months or more to finish. I must have played Oblivion for over a year (with a few breaks for something shorter). So there's definitely room for shorter RPGs.

Originally Posted by ishuman
I love the 100+ hour RPGs as much as the next guy but the reality is that I only have a few hours a week for gaming. So at 3 or 4 hrs per week a long RPG can take me 7 months or more to finish. I must have played Oblivion for over a year (with a few breaks for something shorter). So there's definitely room for shorter RPGs.

Why is finishing sooner than 7 months appealing? The journey should be the reward, otherwise you're playing a shitty game. If I had a game that lasted 7 months and I enjoyed it, I would think gaming zen had been achieved.

Originally Posted by ChaosTheory
Why is finishing sooner than 7 months appealing? The journey should be the reward, otherwise you're playing a shitty game. If I had a game that lasted 7 months and I enjoyed it, I would think gaming zen had been achieved.

< 7 months != unappealing. And I don't think I can sustain pleasure in *any* single thing that long.* You might be unique in that sentiment; I'm impressed but I'm definitely not with you on it.



*correction: I can't sustain pleasure and relaxation that long. Usually if things do go on that long it tends to be something more important and requires more perseverance, stubbornness, and shear bloody-mindedness than pleasure which can be its own reward (building character and all that).