Why are RPGs too long?

[1998]

Larian, Pathfinder, and many other RPGs are lengthy, often excessively so. I don't think that many players enjoyed the endgame of these games, I certainly didn't. Elex 2 had copy-pasted trash mobs for the final ~10 hours. Why?

We have Wasteland 3, which is probably one of the least ambitious RPGs funded through Kickstarter. It lacks unnecessary content and is genuinely a great game. More recently SKALD also showed that an RPG does not need to be 60+ hours to be enjoyable.

Why do developers still prioritize playtime over quality/density?

[KnightoftheWind]

Ys VIII: Lacrimosa of Dana. The game starts fairly strong, but begins to significantly drag by the halfway point, and for a game that simplistic it wears out it's welcome.

[Finarfin]

I tend to notice that jrpgs are way too long. Recently wanted to play Octopath Traveler but seeing 80h is kinda dampening my desire to play it.

[Nemesis]

Why do developers still prioritize playtime over quality/density?

Hide all the advertised stuff at the 5- to 10-hour mark so refunding the game to Steam isn't possible.

[Magick]

I quite enjoyed FF7 being over 4 discs and a multi week experience.

The problem is when they "pad" them and the story isn't engaging enough.

[Vergil]

It's an easy marketing point to put on the back of the box. Your game can be the best 20 or so hours of someone's life but they aren't gonna pick it up because it doesn't have as much "content" as the game where you spend 80 hours smacking kobolds around inbetween 20 hours or so of fun.

[1998]

It's an easy marketing point to put on the back of the box. Your game can be the best 20 or so hours of someone's life but they aren't gonna pick it up because it doesn't have as much "content" as the game where you spend 80 hours smacking kobolds around inbetween 20 hours or so of fun.

Yes, but it was the same for 1.x million words or xxx sqm map, yet both of those marketing hooks went (mostly) away.

[wndrbr]

Long games feel more epic. Like you're on a journey or an adventure.

Gotta make you feel the character progression.

[rusty_shackleford]

Anything under 100 hours is a demo.

[1998]

Long games feel more epic. Like you're on a journey or an adventure.

Gotta make you feel the character progression.

Maybe I am just getting too old. Sure there was a time when I would have mostly agreed, but now, how many players would think less of BG3 if they had cut 20h off?

[Vergil]

It's an easy marketing point to put on the back of the box. Your game can be the best 20 or so hours of someone's life but they aren't gonna pick it up because it doesn't have as much "content" as the game where you spend 80 hours smacking kobolds around inbetween 20 hours or so of fun.

Yes, but it was the same for 1.x million words or xxx sqm map, yet both of those marketing hooks went (mostly) away.

Have they? Open world games went through a period of oversaturation but stuff like Starfield or the new GTA still boast about the size of their game worlds.

[1998]

It's an easy marketing point to put on the back of the box. Your game can be the best 20 or so hours of someone's life but they aren't gonna pick it up because it doesn't have as much "content" as the game where you spend 80 hours smacking kobolds around inbetween 20 hours or so of fun.

Yes, but it was the same for 1.x million words or xxx sqm map, yet both of those marketing hooks went (mostly) away.

Have they? Open world games went through a period of oversaturation but stuff like Starfield or the new GTA still boast about the size of their game worlds.

At least they are not putting it front and center in their marketing campaigns. Starfield maybe, but that isn't exactly an example of successful modern marketing campaigns.

[rusty_shackleford]

The only reason "open world" became popular is because Ubisoft created a step-by-step formula to pad out a game with an extra 30-40 hours of content with the least amount of effort possible. They weren't creating "open world" games in the style of say, Bethesda — the only Bethesda-like games that exist are FNV and KCD, both of which are immensely popular compared to the average ubislop-style game.

[Decline]

Why do developers still prioritize playtime over quality/density?

The corruption inherent in the system.

Can't have all these DEI hires on the street, employing them is mandatory to show evil white man their superiority.

But making computer games is still a ******** job.

So you get undesirables funneled into ******** jobs. What do they do? Do undesirable ********.

All these dungeons in WoW don't make themselves.

[Tweed]

It's not that games are too long, but not engaging.

[Decline]

It's not that games are too long, but not engaging.

Another logical consequence.

[1998]

The only reason "open world" became popular is because Ubisoft created a step-by-step formula to pad out a game with an extra 30-40 hours of content with the least amount of effort possible. They weren't creating "open world" games in the style of say, Bethesda — the only Bethesda-like games that exist are FNV and KCD, both of which are immensely popular compared to the average ubislop-style game.

And yet, generally, games become shorter and shorter. Some triple AAA games, selling for $60 or more, are barely 10 hours long, and nobody seems to care.

[rusty_shackleford]

It's not that games are too long, but not engaging.

Another logical consequence.

There are plenty of long games that kept me engaged for a significant period of time by being genuinely good.
e.g., I played ATOM(with all the free DLC) and did every piece of content I could find in the game, and immediately booted up Trudograd afterwards because I enjoyed it so much and wanted to continue. It was probably ~70-80 hours of ATOM.

[1998]

It's not that games are too long, but not engaging.

Another logical consequence.

There are plenty of long games that kept me engaged for a significant period of time by being genuinely good.
e.g., I played ATOM(with all the free DLC) and did every piece of content I could find in the game, and immediately booted up Trudograd afterwards because I enjoyed it so much and wanted to continue. It was probably ~70-80 hours of ATOM.

Trudograd > ATOM

[rusty_shackleford]

Another logical consequence.

There are plenty of long games that kept me engaged for a significant period of time by being genuinely good.
e.g., I played ATOM(with all the free DLC) and did every piece of content I could find in the game, and immediately booted up Trudograd afterwards because I enjoyed it so much and wanted to continue. It was probably ~70-80 hours of ATOM.

Trudograd > ATOM

Mostly, but the fight difficulty was much lower — uneven overall with some difficulty spikes, too. It also has a rushed ending, but I read they added a bunch of content to it so I should replay it sometime.
Both are very good tho.

[KnightoftheWind]

Games aren't deep enough to fill a 100 hr runtime, I don't care what sort of game it is. You can read the entire Dune saga in half that time, and experience a better story if that's what you are looking for. Developers need to stop viewing themselves as Hollywood directors.

[Tweed]

The only reason "open world" became popular is because Ubisoft created a step-by-step formula to pad out a game with an extra 30-40 hours of content with the least amount of effort possible. They weren't creating "open world" games in the style of say, Bethesda — the only Bethesda-like games that exist are FNV and KCD, both of which are immensely popular compared to the average ubislop-style game.

And I really enjoyed KCD and dreaded the inevitable conclusion the same way I dreaded the end of Archolos. When a game is great you want it to go on longer.

[ArcaneLurker]

I would have completed BG3 if it was actually playable and worth playing in Act 3.

[Segata]

Anything over 100 hours is work.

[J1M]

Larian, Pathfinder, and many other RPGs are lengthy, often excessively so. I don't think that many players enjoyed the endgame of these games, I certainly didn't. Elex 2 had copy-pasted trash mobs for the final ~10 hours. Why?

We have Wasteland 3, which is probably one of the least ambitious RPGs funded through Kickstarter. It lacks unnecessary content and is genuinely a great game. More recently SKALD also showed that an RPG does not need to be 60+ hours to be enjoyable.

Why do developers still prioritize playtime over quality/density?

They only feel too long due to uninspired encounter design and character systems.

[Decline]

There are plenty of long games that kept me engaged for a significant period of time by being genuinely good.

No, I mean the lack of engagement is a consequence of lack of quality, games feeling overly long is also a consequence of lack of quality.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

As far as console JRPGs are concerned (my understanding is that the PC-98 Legend of Heroes games were pretty big story wise), the bloat began with the PS1 and then especially the PS2. Prior to the disc, JRPGs were harshly limited by cartridge limitations, so the plots were very lean. FF6 was the most story heavy console JRPG up until that point, and had more content planned, but it simply could not be fit onto the disc so it was cut. With the adoption of the PS1 disc, it was easy for writers to place NPCs, script events, and add lots of new lines of dialogue. Hence the sharp increase in the amount of story going from SNES to PS1 JRPGs. And then as the years go on, you start getting the really repetitive writing as seen in modern JRPGs where characters have almost the exact same conversation they have had earlier. With the PS2 you start getting a lot of gameplay padding too. Lots of dungeons and backtracking through levels (Suikoden 3 being pretty ergregious) and lots of long winded fights. Or in the case of the Xenoblade games, lot of really mediocre padding like the sidequests.

I quite enjoyed FF7 being over 4 discs

While FF7 is bigger than SNES FFs, it isn't four discs because of the actual content, but because of the FMVs. I think FF9 is the only one where actual game content was cut (the four elemental shrines towards the end) because of a lack of space (having to compete with the prerendered cutscenes).

Games aren't deep enough to fill a 100 hr runtime, I don't care what sort of game it is. You can read the entire Dune saga in half that time, and experience a better story if that's what you are looking for. Developers need to stop viewing themselves as Hollywood directors.

I thought Trails of Cold Steel 1 and 2 were worth their 90 hour lengths. They feel more like high production value visual novels, so if you're into reading epic fantasy series then it's a lot more palatable.

[Magick]

Modern Games aren't deep enough to fill a 100 hr runtime, I don't care what sort of game it is. You can read the entire Dune saga in half that time, and experience a better story if that's what you are looking for. Developers need to stop viewing themselves as Hollywood directors.

Fix'd.

[Magick]

While FF7 is bigger than SNES FFs, it isn't four discs because of the actual content, but because of the FMVs. I think FF9 is the only one where actual game content was cut (the four elemental shrines towards the end) because of a lack of space (having to compete with the prerendered cutscenes).

True but I just meant compared to others. It is a fairly long game, with optional sidequests for even more content. I never once felt it was too long or overstayed it's welcome.
Big difference to modern games that are just all grind, ******** quests or other padding.

[Tweed]

For the record I clocked just over one hundred hours in KCD and didn't regret it.