Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

A good RPG cannot be short

buffalo bill

Arcane
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
1,004
Doom rl and infra arcana

Two of the best contemporary RPGs I've played and finished, and each can be beaten in a few hours max.
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
Lets be clear i am talking about first time kind of length

You're disagreeing with blaine on the definition then. He specifically said he considers AOD's length to be the sum of all playthroughs required to see every scene of the game. Unless what you meant was that we'd have to consider blind playthroughs, and not single playthroughs, of course.

As for fallout, I can only talk for myself. I only talked about the first game, and I claimed, and still do, that a regular [main quest + side quests] playthrough takes around 20 hours. Which is corroborated by others here and How Long To Beat.
I argue for my self not for Blaine,he is pretty reasonable and intelligent guy that knows his shit about rpgs and i do respect him even if we disagree some times. I must have missed that part,but i highly doubt that he is arguing about having to taking in to account all the playtroughs that it takes to finish the game. Form what i gathered is talking that the length of AoD is the length of all its campaigns,the same way you have to take the length of all the campaigns in NOX. I do believe when talking about rpg's length we should take the time needed to finish on a virgin playtrough with all the shit done.

I am not throwing shit at you for the fallout mate. Just saying that all this assholes that say they have finished fallout2 in 10-15 hours on their first play of the game can go and fuck themself for 15 hours with a nice battle mace in the ass!
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
Too many gamers have been trained into thinking long=good.

Let's be as fair as possible here. The original statement wasn't that an rpg has to be long to be any good. It was that it can't be any good if it happened to be short.
Which imo is not the same thing. If we consider a medium range in terms of length, that is.
It's actually interesting to discuss this topic, and some have tried to flesh the question out a bit. But it ultimately went back to binary reflexions and absolute affirmations.

Hmm, I suppose you are right maybe I should amend that to be "Too many gamers have been trained into thinking short=bad". Indeed, when a AAA $70 title is a mere 15 hours I get why people feel ripped off if that 15 hours wsn't orgasmic bliss. But I've played too many titles with way too much padding to drive up that playtime. I also don't buy the latest AAA priced games anymore though.
I am not saying that short games are bad or there should be some money/hour ratio. Just that short doesn't make good rpg.

You also think Spellforce is a good game, so you obviously have no taste. :positive:
People that say Spellforce 3 is a bad game should go and do some neck stretching exorcises.:mixedemotions:
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
As I say to the ladies: "my cock is short but long enough do get the job done in a satisfactory way".

Exactly the same goes for good RPGs:
- I'd rather have 20-40hours quality gameplay, rather than 80-120hours filler/grinding content because developers needed to add "100hours plus" to the box

obviously, one doesnt exclude the other. Good games (Fallout/Arcanum/Dark Souls) can be "short if you know what to do"-ish but we so filled with optional content that you have fun exploring additional stuff to get new story/item/skills etc.

Btw. Josh Sawyer also commented on this that Icewind Dale II was too long, due to the trope that RPGs "must by definition take 100+ hours to complete".
I find that wrong.
20-40 hours is a long game mate. That is what i am talking about. Short games are less than 20 hours. You can't have good rpg with 5 hours game.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,235
People mentioning System Shock 2: the game is bordering the line of shortness, yet it can get away with it because it's a) only partially an RPG, and b) damn near pure gameplay without lengthy story segments and animation. This means that despite being short, its RPG systems still see a lot of use/relevance over those 15 hours, and it is wholesome enough. Now in your typical traditional RPG, there's loads of text to read, maybe some some animated scripted events you merely watch, sometimes a large open area with lots of walking and casual exploration (towns). In these events, the complex DnD-derived systems are inactive, or only partially relevant (skill checks in dialogue, loot you find when robbing houses etc). System Shock 2 doesn't fuck around with any of that, it's straight gameplay from start to finish where the systems are near-always at play in full, with the exception of the tutorial and Shodan reveal. It gets away with being a short RPG because it's not really an RPG, at least in a traditional sense.
 
Last edited:

CryptRat

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
3,548
But is there really a causal link between game length and quality of content? other than exactly in the other direction (i.e. the longer a game is the more likely it contains large sections of filler content suckitude).
I'd argue it's significantly easier to create a game with 10 hours of top notch quality, polished content than to create one with 50 hours.
If most "good" games are of 30-60 h length it's because most games are of that length, naturally the good ones among them will also be of that length. Implying it's the length that's decisive for the quality of the content (longer = better content, short= content must suck) is a fallacy.
You're exagerrating a lot. First it's not exactly "short = content must suck", it is that maybe your game is short because a longer game wouldn't support your system, in which case although you were right no to try and bloat the length, the fact is that your system is still just too simple for your game to be some top tier one, or at the opposite you just didn't take the time to fill your game with content supporting your systems, once again it's alright but you could have done better.

Different genres are differents. In Super Meat Boy one more level is just one more level, you can add or remove a level (the probable stupidity regarding difficulty curve put aside, you can even technically totally randomize the order of the levels) and it doesn't change the rest of the game, and for that reasons you can make a 30 minute very good plateformer. For a more organic overall experience an adventure game like Day of the tentacle mostly consists on one big section, and I'd say you can't make a much shorter top tier adventure game (less that, let's say, something like 4 hours) because to be at that level of good an adventure game requires at least such a big section of interconnected puzzles.

And RPGs are of one more kind of beasts, you can't distinguish different sections of an RPG like you would distinguish different levels in a plateformer or sections in a adventure game because managing your party through the entire game is half of the experience, seeing your party slowly growing stronger and learning how to use each member effectively, unlocking new skills and spells, ect. If the RPG system is not complex then it's not good, and if it's complex then the game needs some meat where using all those new options (spells, skills, weapons) you unlock during the game or the game is not complex overall so it's not good.

How good are we talking about? Sure Paper Sorcerer is pure fun, Voidspire Tactics is also pure fun, the game has perfect system and content for a 20 hour game which is exactly the length of the game. Swords and Sorcery : Underworld is a very nice little Might & Magic experience, but compared with Might & Magic 2 I've played recently it just have much less content, it's not shorter for no reason, it's shorter because it's overall a simpler game. I'm very glad they made Swords and Sorcery : Underworld that way, they're not a big team and there's absolutely no reason to try and make your game longer than its content by tricks, it's just stupid, but ultimately putting the two game one near another and saying they're just as good is a bit of an exagerration, like saying the awesomeness of Worlds of Xeen has absolutely nothing to do with its total length. Naturally long games are great.

Feel free to disagree but I consider that Paper Sorcerer, Voidspire Tactics or Swords and Sorcery : Underworld are worse than the very well-made long-ass non-linear complex big party games with tons of content, with a harsh, slow beginning, where you slowly have to improve by finding some solvable areas like Disciples of Steel or whatever, there are not tons of such very good very big games but they compete in another category as far as I'm concerned. It's definitely harder to make a good long RPG, and if you can't for whatever reason then just don't, just make a to-the-point short game, but there's much merit in managing to doing the naturally long one. It's not about having a 40 hour game with 3 actually different and interesting skills, 3 actually different and interesting enemies and 3 times the same dungeon (well by the way overall the dungeon layouts in Disciples of Steel actually are very far from impressively good but anyway) to make your game longer, which is indeed utterly stupid, it's taking the time to implement all kind of different skills and spells and enough unique situations so that composing and managing a 8-character party is interesting, and then different dungeons, situations, enemies where you'll get to use them for on overall big satisfying experience, otherwise what you have made is just some dumbbed-down or simply rushed game, which may be very fun but can't compete with ambitious games which fullfill their ambitions such as for example Star Trail or several Might & Magic games.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,656
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
Games like Diablo 1 are easily sub-10 hours if you happen to select the OP option (in this case sorceror), even for a first time player. But it's similar to SS2 in that it's not really a pure RPG and its clearly designed for replayability with a different character archetype.

Does anyone actually make RPGs that are that short through? Like, full price $50-$60 on release RPG that has less than 10 hours of content? Even genres that are usually shorter than RPGs (i.e. almost all of them) usually have more than 10 hours of stuff to do before finishing. The only exceptions I can think of fall in to the category of games designed for replayability and games designed for multiplayer.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,385
Location
Copenhagen
Vampire Bloodlines was breddy short. I don't know how long it took me, but I feel like it was around 20.
Well if you were rushing through the critical path I guess https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=10890

My playthrough of AP was 32 hours and it wasn't particularly completionist

Apparently you were pretty leisurely https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=401

If you don't bother with sneaking at all, AP goes by extremely quick.

I played a non-lethal playthrough on my latest, might be it
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
Games like Diablo 1 are easily sub-10 hours if you happen to select the OP option (in this case sorceror), even for a first time player. But it's similar to SS2 in that it's not really a pure RPG and its clearly designed for replayability with a different character archetype.

Does anyone actually make RPGs that are that short through? Like, full price $50-$60 on release RPG that has less than 10 hours of content? Even genres that are usually shorter than RPGs (i.e. almost all of them) usually have more than 10 hours of stuff to do before finishing. The only exceptions I can think of fall in to the category of games designed for replayability and games designed for multiplayer.
2013912-1441306700364-gc_-_Bastion_-_THUMB.jpg
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
Games like Diablo 1 are easily sub-10 hours if you happen to select the OP option (in this case sorceror), even for a first time player. But it's similar to SS2 in that it's not really a pure RPG and its clearly designed for replayability with a different character archetype.

Does anyone actually make RPGs that are that short through? Like, full price $50-$60 on release RPG that has less than 10 hours of content? Even genres that are usually shorter than RPGs (i.e. almost all of them) usually have more than 10 hours of stuff to do before finishing. The only exceptions I can think of fall in to the category of games designed for replayability and games designed for multiplayer.
2013912-1441306700364-gc_-_Bastion_-_THUMB.jpg

Hence why I stated "full price $50-$60 on release" games. If we're including indie budget games then we might as well go all the way to free 20-minute flash games.
 

fantadomat

Arcane
Edgy Vatnik Wumao
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
37,087
Location
Bulgaria
Games like Diablo 1 are easily sub-10 hours if you happen to select the OP option (in this case sorceror), even for a first time player. But it's similar to SS2 in that it's not really a pure RPG and its clearly designed for replayability with a different character archetype.

Does anyone actually make RPGs that are that short through? Like, full price $50-$60 on release RPG that has less than 10 hours of content? Even genres that are usually shorter than RPGs (i.e. almost all of them) usually have more than 10 hours of stuff to do before finishing. The only exceptions I can think of fall in to the category of games designed for replayability and games designed for multiplayer.
2013912-1441306700364-gc_-_Bastion_-_THUMB.jpg

Hence why I stated "full price $50-$60 on release" games. If we're including indie budget games then we might as well go all the way to free 20-minute flash games.
Sorry mate,that skipped my mind,i was reading shit on the "Cassandra Khaw" thread while posting.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
Ahh, I remembered something:

Roughly 10-15ish hours. Story-wise it's independent enough to qualify as it's own game, though if it wasn't an expansion pack it would probably have 5-10ish hours of extra tutorial and introductory content.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
Roughly 10-15ish hours.
It's actually at least twice that if you do everything https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=6517 :M

MotB's combat/dialogue pacing is done well enough that it feels shorter than it is.

Fastest: 12h

That's a reasonable estimate of MotB's game length, +/- a bit depending if you actually rush or hang around for stuff. There's not that much of MotB to get sidetracked in so the only way to extend gametime significantly is if you're needing to reload to get through fights or can't figure out what to do.

Otherwise the sample size is waaaay too low to take those numbers as gospel and the average is heavily skewed by at least one player reporting a completely outlandish 49h.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,656
That's a reasonable estimate of MotB's game length, +/- a bit depending if you actually rush or hang around for stuff.
14 people submitting to main and extras is large enough. 12 is absurdly short, and is as much of an outlier as that 49 judging by everyone else's playtime.
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
That's a reasonable estimate of MotB's game length, +/- a bit depending if you actually rush or hang around for stuff.
14 people submitting to main and extras is large enough. 12 is absurdly short, and is as much of an outlier as that 49 judging by everyone else's playtime.

21 people as a whole is not enough of a sample size.

12 shouldn't be considered an outlier, MotB is entirely completeable with a normal playstyle (i.e. not speed running with prior knowledge) in that time frame, while there's no reasonable instance in which you can say that MotB is a more than 30 hour game and 49 hours is patently absurd. Whoever posts these times must have fallen asleep or alt-tabbed to look at porn for half their playtime.

Further evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIWq-_K1rBU&index=60&list=PLFE98556CAA5F14C1
Let's play, 60 episodes of ~11 mins each. That's 11 hours, and that's with mouthbreather taking a minute or more out of every episode to talk to the audience.

Here's another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylcmJftDec0&list=PLzw_r3FRBpcM1EGW4FRG27BkaeQTNnoe_&index=27

27 episodes, a little over 30 mins each. Let's say 14 hours.

I stand by my 10-15 hours estimate. These let's plays seem to be in the vein of your "normal + extra" or "completionist" categories. Main quest only and without the talk overs would make them both 1-2 hours shorter.
 
Last edited:

Deleted Member 16721

Guest
I want 100 hour RPGs where you can actually wander, get lost and explore lots of content. Even if I don't finish it, it enhances the time I do spend because it lends to an aura of "epicness".

Good RPGs can be short. Chrono Trigger is 20-30 hours, although as a kid I spent more because you'd have a little bit of exploring, figuring out what to do at times and just having fun instead of running from checkpoint to checkpoint or quest hub to quest hub mindlessly. That's why I say a little getting lost in an RPG is a good thing. If the game is so streamlined you just run from point to point or everything points you directly where you have to go then it's not really an enjoyable game for me anymore and more like a duty or job or some dumb shit.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,656
21 people as a whole is not enough of a sample size.

12 shouldn't be considered an outlier, MotB is entirely completeable with a normal playstyle (i.e. not speed running with prior knowledge) in that time frame, while there's no reasonable instance in which you can say that MotB is a more than 30 hour game and 49 hours is patently absurd. Whoever posts these times must have fallen asleep or alt-tabbed to look at porn for half their playtime.

Further evidence:

You say 21 isn't enough, and then you post a single person as evidence. :hmmm:

LPs don't linger over text, poring over every line, and I doubt that person is playing blindly. Things always go quicker on replays.

Here's more stats https://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/939027-neverwinter-nights-2-mask-of-the-betrayer/stats
45 players, the majority took 20-40 hours. A very small percentage claim 8-12 (doing the math, just two).

And finally https://www.gamespot.com/articles/neverwinter-nights-2-mask-of-the-betrayer-hands-on/1100-6179110/
With Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer, Atari and developer Obsidian Entertainment will try to follow up on your personal saga through a new campaign that will offer between 20 to 25 hours of gameplay.
That's Atari and Obsidian's own playtesters giving that number.
 

Deleted Member 16721

Guest
21 people as a whole is not enough of a sample size.

12 shouldn't be considered an outlier, MotB is entirely completeable with a normal playstyle (i.e. not speed running with prior knowledge) in that time frame, while there's no reasonable instance in which you can say that MotB is a more than 30 hour game and 49 hours is patently absurd. Whoever posts these times must have fallen asleep or alt-tabbed to look at porn for half their playtime.

Further evidence:

You say 21 isn't enough, and then you post a single person as evidence. :hmmm:

LPs don't linger over text, poring over every line, and I doubt that person is playing blindly. Things always go quicker on replays.

Here's more stats https://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/939027-neverwinter-nights-2-mask-of-the-betrayer/stats
45 players, the majority took 20-40 hours. A very small percentage claim 8-12 (doing the math, just two).

And finally https://www.gamespot.com/articles/neverwinter-nights-2-mask-of-the-betrayer-hands-on/1100-6179110/
With Neverwinter Nights 2: Mask of the Betrayer, Atari and developer Obsidian Entertainment will try to follow up on your personal saga through a new campaign that will offer between 20 to 25 hours of gameplay.
That's Atari and Obsidian's own playtesters giving that number.

And back in the day it was different if you were playing it for the first time and/or not using the internet, or not having a lot of experience with games like it. So when ppl told me recently Chrono Trigger could be beat in less than 20, I was like, no way. As a kid I spent double that I'm sure. So it's just different nowadays with more factors to consider IMO.

My slow ass always takes more time to beat an RPG too. I'd probably get 40 hours out of that. :D
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
14,152
2 recorded LPs is much better evidence than people making up times post-facto. One is evidence, the other is just a guess, since no one is playing with a stopwatch. And these LPs are taking tons of time talking to the audience, you'd easily have the first one as sub 10 hours without that.
 

Deleted Member 16721

Guest
2 recorded LPs is much better evidence than people making up times post-facto. One is evidence, the other is just a guess, since no one is playing with a stopwatch. And these LPs are taking tons of time talking to the audience, you'd easily have the first one as sub 10 hours without that.

And? He probably knows the game inside out, built his characters and party expertly and more. Look at the "blind" LPs where the player has no foreknowledge of the game. Even better, look at players who play it as their first CRPG or first RTWP game, etc.. That number will go way up.

I mean technically Morrowind can be beat in 5 minutes. Does that mean it's really a 5 minute game and not a 100+ hour one? :)
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,656
2 recorded LPs is much better evidence than people making up times post-facto. One is evidence, the other is just a guess, since no one is playing with a stopwatch. And these LPs are taking tons of time talking to the audience, you'd easily have the first one as sub 10 hours without that.

The best evidence is the fact that a bunch of angry fans didn't beat down Obsidian's door for releasing an expansion pack that ended up only being half the time they promised. A lot of people were livid with Black Isle because Heart of Winter was "only" 10-15 hours long. No way would they ever release an expansion pack that short ever again.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom