People Are Rejecting "100 Hour Games"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- The bubble has burst.
Subscribe to the WhatCulture Gaming Podcast anywhere you get your podcasts!!
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Podbay: podbay.fm/p/wh...
----------
For more awesome content, check out whatculture.com...
Find us on Twitter: / wculturegaming
Catch us on Facebook: / whatcultureg. .
We don t reject 100 hour games, we reject bad games that are trying to monetize and put out crap
Yea i think BG3, persona 5 and elden ring prove we arent. We just dont want 30 hour games that are poorly padded to be 100 hours.
This👍
ANOTHER SETTLEMENT NEEDS YOUR HELP
Looking at you FF7Rebirth
I don't mind 100 hour games, what I mind is cynical, soulless cash grab games.
That’s most of them tho 😅
We don't reject 100 hour games. We reject 100 hours slop.
A game that can entertain you for 100 hours wiht main and side content, fun exploration, alternative routes, but which could be "completed" in, say, 30 hours if you mainly stay on track is something else entirely from "grind. grind. grind. repeat the same content. Buy our packs." With bits of half-arsed story in between.
Nonsense. People are rejecting BAD 100 hour games. Just like they would with BAD 10 hour games.
Not entirely true. Assassin's Creed Odyssey is considered good and I gave up on it because I found it too long and too overwhelming with too much content. If I'm paying for a three-course meal and you throw a buffet at me that's not exactly an upgrade if that's not what I wanted. Game should be designed to be finished not designed to last as long as possible
@@OversoulGamingOdyssey was designed to not be finished in 1 week.
It was designed to be played in long term, because it took 2 years from odyssey to Valhalla and now 4 almost 5 years from Valhalla to Shadows,Mirage was supposed to be a DLC(part of Valhalla).
Valhalla+Dawn of Ragnarok+Mirage can be refered as same Game split in parts.
The problem with 100+ h games comes when you start manage your free time.
8h=work,2h=eat and wash,6-8h=sleep/day(minus weekends) make a total of 16-18h out of 24/day that leaves you with max 6h free time(and i don't think anybody sane use their free time only for gaming)
Now imagine a 4h dedication/daily(including weekends/or sometimes you don't play during work days but "recover" during weekend),it takes you 25+ days to finish a 100+ game for a single game.
This is the sole reason i gave up Witcher 3,FFrebirth and many other games...too long till finish.
Yet,there are games that are 20+h or even 30+h and i wish they were longer.
@OversoulGaming That's your personal opinion. Sometimes people bounce off of games and sometimes they see what the draw is but it doesn't click. It doesn't make the game bad just personal things. I.E , I like Odyssey but I am aware that someone else probably won't.
Baldur’s gate 3, metaphor refantazio, people aren’t tired of long games, just soulless ones
BG3 is short though, and its short length and terrible uglified character creation are a testament to what's wrong with these other flop games.
Don't bother trying to @ me and Uhm Ackshually, I 100%d BG3, you probably did not.
@@jaeusa160nah, you really didn't 100% BG3, troll.
@@TheMarcHicks You're right, technically I didn't finish Honour mode because I can't stand grindy RNG laden tedium.
Damn, caught, I only 100%d literally everything else.
I do appreciate how the response wasn't on the merit of an objectively short and middling game, but to try to attack the poster. XD
@jaeusa160 because BG3 was neither short nor middling, objectively speaking-as confirmed by the roughly 70 hour run-time, major replay value, its 96% ratings on Steam and its weekly peak player count of over 100,000 players-thus proving you're a total liar. You still haven't disproven my assertion that you are lying, BTW. Now be a good boy and run off and play some more CoD. I suspect that is more suited to someone of your level of intelligence and attention span.
I am very tired of the length of Elden Ring.
Yeah its not that it's too long, its that these guys are lazy. Don't listen to what people in the industry try and tell you. Basically when you hear "People are sick of 100 hour games" from a dev, or a publisher, is basically them say "We don't want to make 100hr games." or "We can't make 100 hour game that keeps people engaged."
If a game is good, people will play it for thousands of hours.
"We don't want to make 100 hour games" is patently untrue. They want to make 1,000 hour games. 10,000 hour games, even. INFINITE HOUR GAMES. They just want to automate it, to where they do the equivalent of making a 20 hour game, and then pepper repeats of that 20 hours worth of content, with incredibly slight variations, across a massive and boring procedurally generated world until it would take you countless hours to complete all of it.
I have over 100 hours on baltro... On the switch , my phone and my computer... Each. If the game is good we will play. Hell people are still playing Skyrim 15, years later for fucks sake
Agreed, I have so many games that are fun and fantastically written that I have well over 100+ hours. I think I got like 1,000+ for just Baldur’s Gate 3 lol
@@kingangel3252I am guilty of the Skyrim thing lmao it is in my rotation of games I play throughout the week lol along with Baldur’s Gate 3, XCOM 2 and any newer game I add in there.
Problem is that most developers just want to extend the game for the sake of it, I remember in Borderlands 3 I was so fed up with the game after like 25 hours and felt trapped cause I had already spent that many hours but the game was just massively overstaying it's welcome and everything was feeling dull and repetitive to the point I ended up hating the game
People don't reject '100 hours games', they reject badly written ones.
Thank you bruh🎯
Badly written, and overly simplified gameplay to appease a wider audience.
I've played games where the story was bad, but the gameplay was so much fun that I played it through anyway. I've played games with bad gameplay, but such a good story I powered through for it.
If a game doesn't have either, what is supposed to keep me interested, exactly? I don't play games for the sake of playing games, which is apparently what these publishers/studios/execs think anymore.
Good comment. I can easily smash out 100 hours on a game I enjoy.
Yes yes yes. Well said. Valhalla was an absolute snooze fest. No life in it.
For me, it's the ones that are tedious to get all the way through and not because they are long but because they are repetitive and dull for all of said game not spicing it up much. As such it's not because they are long but most games don't know what to do with a game that is that long amd just fill it up with a bunch of the same boring tasks ad nauseum with little variety to make getting through the massive length worth it.
I prefer 100+ hours games. If I'm paying £70 for a game, you better fucking believe I want to get £70 worth of game out of it.
If games are "100 hours+", they have to be worth my time and not waste it. Nobody wants to grind away unnecessarily with nothing to show for it.
And yet… Skyrim, Fallout 4. Open to mods. Still fun, years later. Not massively monetized. Some link, perhaps.
Modding support is SO IMPORTANT. We saw that all the way back in the doom 2/quake 3 era.
Those games are only that long, because we get sidetracked and start helping a traveling merchant find his lost cat, being a cat himself......
@monsutaman1 or just walking around the scenery and picking flowers, crouching your way across the country with your bow in hand like a mf loonatic.... random, non specific example of course..... skyrims best quality is the modders. I log on at least once a week to see what new, completely unhinged monstrosity has made its way into the list, it's a good time
@ "skyrims best quality is the modders"
💯
People love 100 hour games
They don't love 100 hours of procedurally generated content.
Depends how it's done. No Man's Sky for example is almost all procedurally generated and people play that for 1000's of hours. I think what people really hate is padding, stuff like radio towers in far cry games for example. Not real conent but takes a few hours to get them all. Boring repetetive crap like that making up 60-70-80% of the 100 hours sucks.
@nekogod i see your point, but that is NMS now. When it released, People didn't play it like that. But the studio kept adding in more and more content and not all of it procedurally generated. And you don't constantly have someone saying "Another Settlement needs your help" with repeating structures and locations.
Procedurally generation is fine when you have enough variables that it doesn't "feel" like you are going to the same places. There is only so many times I can go to a building or camp and see the same layout, with the same style of enemies, before the repetition gets boring (for me it is 3 times).
We're not rejecting 100-hour games. We're rejecting the concept of having to pay for every hour
I seek them out. I like to get my money’s worth
try path of exile 2 thousands of hours of gameplay
Length can be a poor metric of value though. A 35 hour game with 32 hours of solid content is worth more than a 100 hour game with 80 hours of filler. Any game can be 100's of hours if it wants to be, but it's the quality of those hours that determines if you got your moneys worth.
I've got over 1200 hours in warframe and it's free 🤷♀️ I've got every vampire survivors dlc and have spent hundreds of hours on that dopamine high, and still spent less than the average AAA game.
Money's worth is subjective to me. 10 hours of pure genuine fun is better than 80 hours of tedious fetch quests regardless of price. Saying that the length of the game is directly correlated to its cost value is a logical fallacy that can be scientifically disproven
Thats because the "100 hour" games have about 5-10 hours of actual story, and 90 hours of repeat escort/defense/fetch sidequests.
Yup that is ac Valhalla.
JRPG’s are my favorite genre, so 100 hours is a pretty average amount of time to sink into a single title for me, but poorly made games do NOT get there. Nobody is going to force themselves to suffer through tens of hours of a game they aren’t enjoying
No. People don't like lazy games. I refer you to BG3
Ehhhhh... like BG3 is an alright game. But it's short af and the characters, oh boy do they really show off "modern" western sensibilities in terms of uglification.
It's a decent game, I give it a 6/10 as someone who did 100% it.
But it's more a half-exception that proves the rule. They put sufficient effort into the gameplay for it to not bomb.
And because it had the right politics, western "journalism" did all the shilling.
A lot of people buy a 100 hour game, developer: people only want long games; a lot of people buy a short game, developer: people only want short games, rinse, repeat.
People want good games. Whether it’s long or short doesn’t matter. If it’s good, people will play it. And yeah, making a good game is hard. It requires a lot of time, dedication and thought that you can’t just focus group or boil down to a simple formula.
Devs need to return to when they made the game they wanted to make because they wanted to make it. Not with a focus on "how will this be received?" Make what you want to make and put the quality into it, and the playerbase interested in that specific thing will show up. Rather than a diluted experience in the name of "appealing to the widest audience possible."
I personally don't mind long games at all. I think most gamers feel this way. A lot of us have hundreds if not thousands of hours in games like Vampire Survivors or Balatro, or BG3, or RimWorld, Factorio... you get it. It's not that we don't like the idea of endlessly replayable games. It's that the games they (especially AAA) try to feed us are often stupid and padded out. Being long for the sake of being long rather than because they actually made a fun and compelling game that we just want to keep playing.
A lot of adult gamers just dont have the time for it anymore. Between work, kids, and other responsibilities we might have 10 hours a week to game at most. That makes beating a 100+ hour game months to beat, and thats just exhausting. Especially when you have people who spoil the ending within a week of launch. I love my long RPGs with a deep passion, but I might play 1 or 2 a year nowadays.
Heh, sucks to be those adults with zero free time. I'm glad, that I'm not one of them, cuz I never going to have a partner and other unecesary responsibilities. I might be the luckiest person alive, cuz I don't need to work either and still getting same amount of money for free and for a reason, so my life is 90% freedom, other 10% is just deal with bills and some other "important" stuff.
I don't think people are rejecting 100 hours games, i think people are rejecting 100 hours of repetitive and boring content in the game.
It's not a rejection of 100 hour games, I think it's rejection of the fad of 100 hour continuous games being the be all and end all of gaming.
There will always be an audience for big expansive games, as long as they're well written. Same as small directed experiences will always have a place. That's always been the case, gaming media just seems to have forgotten that small things existed out of the indie space, and the industry zoned in on that.
This means “we want to make less for the same amount of money and increase our bottom line.”
This is not a good trend.
That's a very narrow-minded way of looking at it. Instead look at it like we get more games like the Silent Hill 2 remake that can be easily finished in 20 hours or less and are some of the best experiences you could ever have in gaming history. Truly some of the objectively best and most popular games ever made are short, linear single player experiences. The length of the game is not directly correlated with its dollar value. That's a logical fallacy. $60 for 10 hours of the most fun I've ever had is objectively more worth than $60 for 80 hours of tedious fetch quests
@ I mean is it narrow minded? Or is that just capitalism and what we get from it?
I never said that short games don’t have a place or aren’t fun. But for that to become the norm for full price, is bad news.
I don’t want to play games with 100 hours of repetitive, watered-down ‘content’.
MGS1 is my favourite game of all time. It was about 8-10 hours long - short by today’s standards - but it was so, SO sweet. I adored every single second of it. ❤
As a working adult with limited free time, I’m appreciating short games more and more
Don't avoid them but certain Genres definitely make me feel like I'm losing to much progress if stepping away for an extended time.
The problem with the game industry is that devs only listen to what they want and stick their heads in the sand.
My backlog is so big and with what feels like less and less time in the day to play I can't afford to spend my time on a 100 hour one
A point that's not often discussed aside from the terribly written games with annoying overly large maps is that these types of games are often made a slog to grind by design so that greedy devs can sell you back solutions to skip the grind.
One of the most relevant examples I can think of right now is Ubisoft selling things like XP Gain Increases or other stat modifying buffs to lessen the grind in Assassins Creed games.
No gamer is going to enjoy a game where they are forced to spend time grinding knowing that devs are dangling the originally intended stats behind a pay wall. They didn't sign up to play an ARPG like PoE2 or something like that, they wanted to play an Assassins Creed game.
Unfortunately stuff like that will only get worse rather than better. Just look at what Jagex is doing to Runescape right now...
No we dont. We reject Ubisoft style boring 100 hour games. The Witcher 3 is the perfect length
This is why roguelikes have become so popular. The player can determine how long the game will take until it is finished.
1 of the reasons AC1 is my favourite. Most of my time in it is running around doing parkour and combat anyway, 1000s of hours over the years
personally i love 100+ hour games, i really enjoyed AC valhalla since i got so much play for the price, while i was very dissapointed in AC mirage since i was able to complete it in a single weekend
100 hour games are FINE. TikTok culture will end up making games the "2 minute games". NO, I want EXPANSIVE open worlds with LOTS to DO.
I feel a good game/story is one that ends naturally, if the story you want to tell ends up being 20 hours long or 100 hours long... just having a push for shorter games will just cause a want for 100-hour games down the road.
If the gameplay and the objectives are intriguing, I'm fine with it being 100 hours. But I usually find the ones that become more of a melatonin for my sleep depravity.
Yeah I have to thoroughly disagree with that narrative. I just finished thank goodness you're here and it was such a delightful 2 and 1/2 hour game but then again I've got over a thousand hours in Minecraft and grounded and 7 Days to die and I'm certainly not bored. Not every game needs to be 100 hours is the moral of the story
I have literally thousands of hours in minecraft. It doesn't get boring because it is so driven by player creativity and knows exactly what it is and leans into it, hard. Sometimes you just need to uproot a mountain one block at a time to soothe the brain ache
IMO it's not the length of the game, it's the gameplay. What sets something like Skyrim apart and keeps it fun hundreds of hours in is how varied the gameplay can be. You can be a mage, rogue, warrior, spellsword, archer, paladin, or whatever blend of styles you want. Sure the mechanics aren't great by modern standards but there's a lot of freedom to keep you engaged there. The Souls games are smiliar because many weapons play so differently that you build around them and define your style. There's of course also magic and some stealth to engage with. For someting like Starfield, and maybe this is just me, but no matter how many different guns you give me it still largely boils down to point and shoot. The different particle effects you give to the various projectiles or the design of the gun itself only does so much for my monkey brain before I get tired of shooting things.
The idea extends to your open-world survival games too. Something like Conan Exiles is super basic but the game is largely about letting you craft your own fun. If that works for you, it really works for you. If not, you probably didn't pick up the game to begin with.
I think that 100 hour games still have a place but careful consideration needs to be taken when it comes to the gameplay loop. Even if I still loved Assassins Creed, do I want to be doing the exact same thing for 100 hours? I don't care how deep or well written the quests are. If I'm doing the exact same thing to the exact same type of enemies over and over I'll check out before the credits roll.
The gaming industry isn’t just an industry such as Hollywood we have genuine people who bust their butts making their own games learning coding and they have their own communities but at the same hand we have giant studios pumping out 60hr gameplay games that plenty of people sink their teeth into to find everything what my point is we have a VERY diverse community of gamers and many different preferences so I highly doubt that people would stray away from such. The only reason I see company’s doing so is to save money and, the fact many games developers leak the conditions they were under, I assume that is why we won’t see such because people with money can’t see others that work for them as people.
I personally am done with overlong games. In my life I simply don't have the time anymore. I simply don't think a game's value should be measured in hours.
This!
Please give me an example and then an example of games you play
@@insertgenericusernamehere2402 persona 5 royale is a fantastic game but it’s like 150 hours if you focus on just the main stuff. I only made it 40 hours in before I called it quits. But again it was great.
AC Odyssey another massive game and fun but again I called it quits because it’s too long and world is just too big.
Now cyberpunk (after all the updates) is fantastic. World isn’t too big and is easily done in about 40-60 hours.
God of war same thing, last of us, metal gear, etc
The 40 - 60 hour mark is perfect!
@@polo424242 Too long seems like such a odd thing to get pressed about, I get a map being huge being frustrating but if you only put a few hours in a night it's not so bad? To me at least. You can play multiple games. I've still not 100% GTA 5 yet but I love it. Still go on it every now and then
@@polo424242 those games are in the 40 to 60 hour market or less if you just do the main story.
We wanted bigger and cooler worlds, companies decided to go AI/procedural environments, which ended up creating shallow seas, look like a full world, but with no content. I'm guessing they don't have the person power or time to put the art into crafting by hand especially if they put all their money/stats in AI building? Now they maybe don't have the talent to do that?
Path of Exile 2 is a game that, for it's genre, is a rarity. End Game was priority in development and is the primary focus while in Early Access. I havent even reached End Game yet and im already 100 hours in. I even created a second character to replay the campaign again because the gameplay was so addictive. I understand this game is genre specific... Basically, it only has legs because people that play games like this are playing it BECAUSE it is such an endless loop of gameplay. Story is basically irrelevant and gameplay is the reason it's so addictive. Its just crazy that an indie developer was able to crack the code that AAA developers havent been able to do.
I'll gladly play gta 6 if it is 100 hours
I think majority of casual gaming audience have discovered they can have amazing experiences from shorter games. And that's it. I think as experience of this audience grows, they understand what they like and what they don't, and they don't preorder, they don't automatically buy games on sale, but actually invest time to look around for recommendations.
So actually, yes, this is great thing, although industry leadership as always are caught with their pants down, because they don't actually know or do actual research how to move business forward. They just react.
Which has ended up them in a ditch.
I rejected them years ago as a person who works 50 hours a week I don't have time for 100 games, give me a nice 8 hour game with amazing action or story or whatever but they are the best type of games
Recently played a game called Trepang 2 absolutely loved it and it only lasted like 6 hours but never regretted buying it
i'm reminded of a key & peele sketch where beethoven has to pitch one of his symphonies to a modern club music producer. the producer constantly cuts him off and only wants him to play the same 5 seconds in a loop. i feel like that's the state most AAA game publishers are in right now.
People reject 100 hour games that grind 100 for the sake of it. Meanwhile Skyrim is so deep you can just keep playing different ways
AAA studios will never concentrate on shorter single player games becasue they are addicted to long games with the grind and microtransaction full $70 + titles.
As a mainly RPG and JRPG fan, I will never be tired of 100 hour long games as long as the story and gameplay are good.
I won't mind 100 hours IF it gives me something to do.
The last games I put 100+ hours into that is advertised for 100+ hours is Cyberpunk 2077. I don't have time for pointless XP/Power/Currency grinds, empty open worlds, level-based access restrictions.
I don’t have a problem with 100 hour games. I play them sometimes, and I also love shorter games as well. The problem is when a game that shouldn’t be padded out to 100 hours is, and it just loses the fun factor. A game needs to be a length that makes sense, not just an infinite experience that tries to steal your money for basically nothing.
It's not 100+ games that are the problem! It's the slop and lack of creativity that people dislike. Once again they've missed the point.
I think there's a misconception with wanting 100 hour games and wanting something worth these extreme price points. I'm not spending $70 on anything that's gonna take me 10 to 20 hours to play through and I think most people agree. What we're really asking for though, is for the shorter games to have a price point reflective of that.
As a 42 year old who has maybe an hour or 2 a week to game, i find myself enjoying shorter games where i dont feel like im playing the same thing for years
God, these two are boring. A better line up would be Psy/Jules and Jess.
As many people said: people aren't rejecting 100 hour games. Yes, they aren't for everyone but if you make a long game, make it worth people's time and money. Especially since the games went up to 70 bucks, people are less likely to instantly buy a game on release. People are finally thinking about their own money and making sure, they don't waste it on terrible games.
The thread keeps saying people reject bad 100 hour games. Not necessarily. If the game is 100 hours long, it has to change and add variety otherwise it becomes monotonous, no matter how good it is.
i LOVE 100+ hour games! my favorite of all time is the witcher 3 and i sank hundreds of hours into that and was actually disappointed when cyberpunk was shorter. we don’t want SUCKY ones.
I’m not tired of 100 hour games, just 100 hour low effort games or blatantly money grabbing online trash games.
All successful companies/products generate copycats, regardless of industry. The mistake that rival developers made was thinking that Skyrim, Witcher 3, Fallout 4, or any of the FromSoftware games were great successful/great because of their size. But these games aren't great solely or even primarily due to their size, they also have A LOT of quality storytelling, detailed lore and (for the most part) enjoyable game mechanics. Bioware used to make great 100 hour games but have been on backslide specifically because they have started to neglect these details (and cause EA ruins everything good it buys).
It's like in sports when a certain team wins with a certain playstyle and then you have a bunch of organizations trying unsuccessfully to copy them because they don't have the right types of players and infrastructure in place.
Companies can't just bet large on empty, cookie-cut games and expect an even bigger (or endless) payout. Sometimes you have to let design and storytelling take the lead. I think people are constantly looking for rich worlds and meaty stories!
no. we're sick of spending tens of hours grinding. people only really enjoy a 100+ hour game on NG+ when they've levelled up everything and can actually enjoy the game rather than having to either slog through it or go back to level up to continue. old RPG's didn't need you to spend hours upon hours grinding to get stronger. you could just play through them as normal, you explored the world and did all those little side quests because they were interesting and entertaining, not because you needed to gather supplies or level up to continue the game.
take a look at BG3, easily a 100 hour game where you'll still miss tons of things. no one is diverting from the main story because everything is connected to the story or on the way there while being interesting on its own.
right now i'm playing Cyberpunk 2077 and i'm having to grind to level up because there's such a massive world filled with nothing quests just meant to level you, the game has no NG+ meaning if you haven't gone old school and grinded up to max or near max on your first playthrough and saved leaving the main story and good sidequests undone you're going to spend tens of hours grinding to level. it's tedious it's boring, it's not fun. i think the last open world game i played that wasn't endless filler was Witcher 3
People don't hate 100 hour games, they just hate repetitive bloat that is used to "justify" a $70 asking price.
The problem isn't the time of the game it's the quality. If you have a great game and its less then 20 hours but you fill it with fluff to get it up to 40 plus hours you now have a bad game. We don't want check lists. We want experiences.
No one is asking devs to quit creating 100 hour games.Hell I'll play a game that's 60hrs if the characters,story and gameplay are fun and worth my time.But when games like AC Valhalla,Anthem,Marvel's Avengers and SSKTJL are in the bargin bin.Those are the cesspool of games that no one should put in 10-30hrs.All we ask from devs is to respect out time and money.
I've started replaying Elden Ring and I think my total play time is around the 90 hour mark at the moment anyway long story short I'm mid game on this playthrough, I'm exploring a lot more than I did last time round and finding loads of stuff I missed last time. Nothing wrong with 100 hour games if done right.
As comments have said, people aren't really tired of long games, people are just tired of ones that are badly done, either be it through monetization, soulless development, or poor writing. Hell, if I was tired of long games, I wouldn't be as big of a fan of the Trails series, and JRPGs as a whole over the years as I am.
I have never ever agreed with needing a game to be 100+ plus, even 40+ hours plus. Respect my time and give me an experience that works. I say “that works” because buying a product that does not work on launch day really only is accepted in gaming. Gaming is too big and profitable to be such a frustrating experience.
To some extent, this is true. Not all of us have all the time in the world to constantly devote to long-winded games, especially if they are not well-written and/or well-programmed. I'd rather have a well-made game that I can beat in a certain amount of hours with a lot of replay value than a game that takes forever to play and loses me partway through due to flaws in its design.
As someone who went through Elden Ring 3 times, sitting at a nice 600+ hours, sunk 265+ in DA Inquisition, RDR2 at 560+ and still going, and the Like A Dragon RPGS both sitting at 120+ each, BG3 at 300+, I highly disagree.
I did dump DA Veilguard though. Didn't grab me. The overall presentation just doesn't make sense, the story didn't grab me, choices didn't matter, etc. Combat was decent. You can't really screw up a God of War style system unless you make it slow. But I think that and character customization was decent.
AAA games aren't grabbing people anymore. They promise too much and under deliver. I had more fun playing Slitterhead, a not so polished but unique AA horror game experience in similar vain to Deadly Premonition that will become a cult classic.
People aren't rejecting long games, they're rejecting overhyped and under-delivered games.
The problem aint the 100 hours is what fills them, having a bunch of repetitive quests, filling the games with stupid, uninteresting and useless colectibles, bad gameplay, bad story, heck i finished witcher 3 with dlcs at 145 hours and loved it all, just make good games
I completely agree. I got Star Wars Outlaws over Christmas, and whilst I really enjoy it, I am struggling to keep playing it. The game is so huge that I just dread sinking so much time into it... And then when I end up actually playing games for a bit, I'm more likely to have a few games of CoD or FIFA because my time gaming is so limited that I feel like 30 minutes to an hour of playtime will barely make a dent in my progression in a 100+ hour game.
I think that gaming peaked creatively at a point, where the majority of people who have interest in single-player games are now getting into their 30s or older (I know I am!) and just have less and less time to play. Meanwhile, the gamers that have time to game now - The younger generation - Have more interest in online, non-story-based games such as Fortnite, GTA online, etc.
For me, game developers need to re-assess their target markets and what we want. The most I've enjoyed a game in the last few years was Stray. I completed that to Platinum and had a great time with a simple game which I could finish over a few sessions.
The majority of 100+ hour games are actually 20-30 hour games with an obscene amount of pointless bloat. That is why so many tap out at the 20-25 hour mark of massive games. A game doesn't need to be 100+ hours to be seen as "good". A game needs to be good to justify playing it for 100+ hours. And the problem is, most just aren't.
If a game is well made and well written then 100+ hours isn’t that bad, but when it’s padded with procedurally generated content and copy paste side missions then a shorter and more focused experience is probably better
I honestly don't care if the game is short or long, what I care is if the game fun to play. That's why I love musou games a lot because they were fun to play and I'm not getting tired mowing down thousands of enemies.
I'm fine with 100 hour games. What I'm against is 20 hours of gameplay and 80 hours of busy work.
“People Are Rejecting 100 Hours”
Does Final Fantasy ring a bell?
Its not that gamer dont want 100 hours games, BG3 is prooved that. What we dont want is the game with 100 hours be boring.
I rarely finish a 100 hour game ,i just prefer 10-20 hour game that gives me a good experience.
From experience, the sweet spot has been 30+ hour games for me at least. I have played a few 100 hour games that were okay. The problem is thzt the vast majority of 100 hour games are actually 30 hour games with ridiculous grind, repetition, forced levelling and microtransactions.
I think devs should be less afraid to make "shorter" games that are high quality and not just padded slop. However, the cynic in me suspects that this is just a way to try and cut corners even more. Make smaller games that are just as mediocre or bad as the current slop but sold at the same price.
Im obsessed with FF7. i still havent done rebirth. Not even got to Junon yet. Bores me to death, to do 10mins of story progression you have to do 2-4hrs of fetch quests that add nothing to the story
Here is what it is, the business-ification of anything, MAKES IT SUCK.
Look at anything before generalized-ahole-business people got a hold of it versus after; every-single-time, more money less of the original thing.
"Hurp-de-durp, but graphics! -but world size! -but, but, but..." No. Everything starts with story, and that's the first thing business takes for granted, cheaps out on, and doesn't invest in equally.
If profit is your metric for quality, you are the problem. Oblige yourself to a long walk off a short cliff, you'll be doing us all a very big favor.
Sounds like something the Gaming Industry would claim to justify shorter games at higher prices
Some of us actually want shorter games. Price should not be determined by length. 60.00 for 10 hours of the most fun I've ever had is objectively better than $60 for 80 hours of tedious fetch quests. Saying that short games shouldn't be as expensive just because they are shorter is a logical fallacy. They took just as much money and effort to make and they often have better stories than big open world games
Once again the industry takes the wrong lesson and blames everything except the games being bad for their poor sales.
Correlation is not equivalent to causation. I blame the economy more than anything
The problem isn't long games, it's that not every game has to be long. There arent many AAA games that are like 10-30 hours, everything is bloated anymore. There just isnt much out there in terms of a high budget, mid sized game. My favorite games tend to be the massive open worlds that suck you in, but I would love to see some more like 15 hour games like a Bioshock or something. Look at the high budget games this year...Final Fantasy Rebirth, Stalker 2, Dragons Dogma 2, Black Myth Wukong, Like a Dragon Infinite wealth, Metaphor Refantazio, Starwars outlaws, Suicide Squad, etc - most are like 50 hours minimum or live service games. There were some big releases that were like 20-40 hours like Echoes of Wisdom or the Silent Hill 2 remake or Indiana Jones but you only have so much time to play games, its okay if some of these are 10-30 hours instead of 75+
Can we reject 100-hour books next? Brandon Sanderson must be stopped!
People are not tired of 100 hours long games. They are tired of poor empty Tripple A garbage made from parasites in suits with no soul and passion, written by an AI and Life Service Trash. Bullshit for "Engagement" not for "Entertainment".....from the f ing entertainment industry. This is their only job. Wow mind blowing the concept...make good game and people buy it
100 hours in a game like Final Fantasy 7 or Elden Ring is totally fine. But not every AAA game is up to that standard. Also, there’s only so much time in the day, so most people can’t juggle 4-5 “100 hour” games in a year, much less every other month or so.
Wow, what a surprise, who would've thought...Stretching out a 6-8h game with multiple meaningless fetch quests, bland side quests and loot or unlockables that are barely worth reading the item description could alienate long time gamers.... Quelle surprise
What I HATE is the oversimplified catch the WIDE AUDIENCE games. Theres so bloody many of them. And in my experience. For every 10. 9 of them are essentially half assed money schemes
As someone who's put hundreds of hours into Skyrim, No Man's Sky, Elden Ring, Souls, etc., it's a welcome contrast to play a game like Balatro or Papers Please, which takes far less time, but the quality is just as good.
The pendulum has definitely started to swing away from epic AAA games with WAY too much bloat and filler for cash-grab purposes, in favor of smaller stories and condensed gameplay time for modern gamers. Nothing wrong with that at all, especially when developers continue to founder with badly executed AAA IP (-cough- CONCORD!!)
This just feels so much like the tail wagging the dog. All of a sudden, last year, these articles started showing up, all with variations of "people hate long games", and all I could think the entire time was....what people? Where are you getting this data?!?!?
A few junk-quality poser AAA games that cost too much and just so happened to also be long, fail, and you assume the public rejects them outright? That is simply asinine. As many of the other comments have already pointed out...the fact that some of the best games over the last few years were also long as hell immediately invalidates your argument.
Stop trying to make fetch happen, it's not going to happen...and in this case, probably just irritate more fans
I love me some 100+ hour games. But I retired this year and have no life...
People would gladly play a 100 hour game if doesn't take over 45 hours to be good, or if it's utter trash like veilguard. Ubisoft can scream they made 100 hour rpg all they want, but when their idea of exploration is "2/350" fragments, it's not fun anymore, cyberpunk 2077 is one of the newer games who people have gladly played over 100 hours, witcher 3, Skyrim, fallout, bg3 (repeatedly), when devs don't understand between what's engagement and endless grinding it makes the players less inclined to play, elden ring has grinding like souls game in general,but it exists so that the difficulty can't be scaled too easily by players, it serves a purpose, in mmo's grinding is done mainly because to not let players go through contents faster. Ubisoft rpg has a large map, but it's bloated as fk, there's also battlepass for a single player games. Tahts why it's so dull. Stealth focused games shouldn't have level up systems. Its not just ubisoft in particular, people just wants games to get to the point. Dont put side contents for the sake of making them, just make it more engaging
I'm sure fans are just fine with the prospect of a well executed 100 hour game. Don't make assumptions regarding what your viewers want or don't want to play.
Damn I actually am first. Real though outer wilds is my favorite game ever and it lasts 50 or so hours and can never be played again.