RPGs are too long

[KateMicucci]

60 hours is a very long time for one video game. For comparison, it would take about 60 hours to read the entire Harry Potter series and only 26 hours to read LOTR. Most players are not going to complete a 60-hour game before they either get bored, or the game mechanics collapse under their own bloat.

Many RTS games used to include separate single-player campaigns for each faction that could be completed in any order. Such a system would be preferable for RPGs. Rather than one long, three-act campaign, games should be split into three one-act campaigns. This system would have several advantages:

1. Players who became bored by the story or encounters in one campaign, but still enjoyed the core gameplay, could switch to another.
2. Players could experiment with a different class or build without having to replay all the same content.
3. Character development could be tighter and more focused because the gap between level 1 and level maximum would not be so long.

If this post is tl;dr, I will happily split it into three smaller posts which can be read in any order.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Good games don't feel long.

 

[The Great ThunThun*]

RPGs are too long
RPGs are too short
RPGs have too many choices and consequences
RPGs have too few choices and consequences
RPGs have too many tactics
RPGs have no tactics
RPGs have too much action
RPGs don't have too much action
RPGs are too text heavy
RPGs aren't too text heavy

There I made this month's worth of thread titles for newfags. Enjoy.

 

[Lord_Potato]

Some rpgs are too long (when they lack the content or interesting gameplay to fill those 60 hours),some you just don't want to end, and you search every location, complete every sidequest and explore every plot to lengthen the experience.

Then, the are short, good rpgs like Fallout 1, with lots of replay value. We are speaking about 20 hours for a single campaign. Or in the case of Age of Decadence, more like 8-10 hours.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

have you considered dextroamphetamine?

 

[Chunkyman]

Some rpgs are too long (when they lack the content or interesting gameplay to fill those 60 hours),some you just don't want to end, and you search every location, complete every sidequest and explore every plot to lengthen the experience.

This is accurate. If the content is fufilling or you're otherwise engaged in reaching a particular goal or achievement so that you can complete something currently out of your level, you don't feel like you're wasting your time or that the game is artificially stretched out. Compare something like New Vegas where both exploration and completing random quests pushes you towards your own goals and advancing in the game to something like Skyrim where almost every area you explore is generic and every quest you do is fetch quest filler. You might spend an equal amount of time in both games doing a completionist run, but NV wouldn't be "too long" whereas Skyrim would be a chore.

 

[KateMicucci]

have you considered dextroamphetamine?

No. Do you think I should? I have so much trouble concentrating on my video games that I've started reading books, taking walks in the park and even talking to girls.

This is accurate. If the content is fufilling or you're otherwise engaged in reaching a particular goal or achievement so that you can complete something currently out of your level, you don't feel like you're wasting your time or that the game is artificially stretched out. Compare something like New Vegas where both exploration and completing random quests pushes you towards your own goals and advancing in the game to something like Skyrim where almost every area you explore is generic and every quest you do is fetch quest filler. You might spend an equal amount of time in both games doing a completionist run, but NV wouldn't be "too long" whereas Skyrim would be a chore.

Those are open world games. Players can always go someplace else and see new content, even with a new character, until they've seen everything. Neither suffers the same problems as the long linear games Bioware, Obsidian, Larian, etc. make.

 

[Wunderbar]

RPGs are too long
RPGs are too short
RPGs have too many choices and consequences
RPGs have too few choices and consequences
RPGs have too many tactics
RPGs have no tactics
RPGs have too much action
RPGs don't have too much action
RPGs are too text heavy
RPGs aren't too text heavy.

but what is an RPG?

 

[Grauken]

but what is an RPG?

but what is an action RPG?
aren't these old games really terrible and people only play them out of nostalgia?
I'm not really are graphics fag, but don't these old games have really terrible graphics?
how can you play Fallout, it's terribly outdated?
how can you play Baldur's Gate, it's terribly outdated?
how can you play ...

 

[Grauken]

...
Many RTS games used to include separate single-player campaigns for each faction that could be completed in any order. Such a system would be preferable for RPGs. Rather than one long, three-act campaign, games should be split into three one-act campaigns. This system would have several advantages...

My recommendation, switch to playing RTS games, then you won't have to suffer through long RPGs

Or just stop playing shitty RPGs, if it feels too long, then the game is clearly not good

 

[Grauken]

If I enjoy a game and it's over when I though it had potential for a lot hours more, it's definitely too short and that's something I would categorize as a major flaw

But it depends on genre, whether it's a commercial or a freeware game, and other considerations. Some short games feel just the right length at only a few hours, some long games could benefit from some cutting. That said, my list of good and great RPGs mainly contains long games, so for me, RPGs usually work best at longer lengths

 

[Jenkem]

play roguelikes then

 

[J_C]

Even if a long RPG is good and enjoyable, I also prefer medium length RPGs. For one, I like finishing games and I don't know if I have time to finish a game that long. Second, there are so many good games out there, I'd rather play 3 good 30 hours RPG than one which is 100 hours long. Nothing personal against long RPGs, it's just a time factor for me.

 

[Bladeract]

 

[Reinhardt]

If rpg can't even provide 60 hours of entertainment it's shit.

 

[Mikeal]

First of all statement that "Harry Potter" is longer to read than "LOTR" is bullshit.
Second so what that some games are long? You don't have to play them 24/7. In longer games I often make breaks when I found that I'm bit tired of game and return to playing after 3/4 weeks of doing something else.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Second so what that some games are long? You don't have to play them 24/7.

don't be a filthy casual

 

[KyivAfter12am]

Unfortunately I do not have the time to finish long (50+ hours) games at the moment, because of the family situation. But I would hate to see this kind of games disappearing, there's something quite satisfying in finishing a 100 hour epic. One improvement I would love to see is some way to quickly get up to speed if you return to a game after a few weeks of not playing. Essentially, a summary of current quests. Witcher 3 tried to do it with a few lines about the progress of the main quest while the game is loading. But it wasn't really enough, not with the number of side quests that game had.

 

[Reinhardt]

Make notes.

 

[JarlFrank]

60 hours is a very long time for one video game. For comparison, it would take about 60 hours to read the entire Harry Potter series and only 26 hours to read LOTR. Most players are not going to complete a 60-hour game before they either get bored, or the game mechanics collapse under their own bloat.

Despite all the advertising claims of "60 hours of gametime!!!" I usually get through these games in 20, maximum 30 hours. And I don't even rush through the games. I do sidequests, even try to be completionist, and yet I never reach a playtime of 60 hours in games that promise to have a playtime of that length. Games are always much, much shorter than advertised in my experience.

 

[KyivAfter12am]

Make notes.

That's what I'm doing, but really it should be a thing of the past, just like having to draw your own maps. Could be fun occasionally, but I'd hate to do this for all RPGs I'm playing.

 

[Invictus]

It all depends on the game
There are perfectly fine 15-20 hour games like Fallout or Planescape Torment or much bigger games like the Elder Scrolls or Witcher 3 that their main quest could last the same 15-20 hours but the side content could last you hundreds more... in the end it all depends on how much are you enjoying the game itself to do the side and optional stuff or just go for the main quests, although modern games have proven there is a certain risk of players getting caught up on all the side stuff and burning out on the game before finishing, but then again that is a reflection on the game itself
It is that super special feeling of just loosing yourself in the gameworld for hours, where you wanted to check out that cave or hand in that quest and all of a sudden you might hear the birds chirping and you spent the whole night playing, or you got your ass handed to you by some Boss and you spend your workday daydreaming strategies... that is what is counts not how many hours you played but how you enjoyed the time you played it
Having recently found New Vegas I honestly had forgotten that feeling probably since playing Age of Decandence and Dungeon Rats a couple of years ago

 

[laclongquan]

Fallout New Vegas should be the type of I dont want it to end~

 

[Jokzore]

Recently, I feel like there's a lot of people on this forum who aren't actually into RPGs.

Are you sure you like the genre? Or are you forcing yourself to play them so you can boast you have a refined taste in entertainment. I understand this is quite common with music.

 

[JarlFrank]

RPGs are high culture now, like Shakespeare.

People used to play them for fun, now they do it in order to appear cultured.