RPG's: Are they too long?

[Rayfer]

I made this comment in a thread a while back and got torn apart...many RPG's are too long.  This has come back to me now playing vanilla Kingdoms of Amalur, got it for $4.99 during the Spring Steam sale.  I have 35 hours into it and I am just now approaching the halfway point.  RPG's that take 70-100 hours to finish are too long....I know this is just my subjective opinion but with all the sale priced games available these days  (and some of them are quite good) the lure to stop playing Kingdoms before finishing is tugging at my brain. I can hear Divinity: Original Sin calling out to me...buy me, buy me. And yet I suspect Divinity is another 100+ hour game I'll never finish. Do I suffer A.D.D. and not know it? I need a game therapist.

[Shelldrake]

Funny you should mention this as these days a selling point for me is a game that I can finish in 20-30 hours!

[Wolfe1759]

For RPGs the longer the better - as long as they remain interesting enough so that you want to continue playing.

[tgb]

Doesn't matter to me, since I never finish them anyway.  I have gaming ADD, and it's the rare game that can hold my interest for 20 hours, let alone 50-100.  That's why I prefer strategy titles, where a single game or scenario can be completed in a few hours.

[Nefaro]

For RPGs the longer the better - as long as they remain interesting enough so that you want to continue playing.

Agreed.

I'd rather not reach the end, if I'm enjoying it.  The more, the better.

[FarAway Sooner]

For me, it's more about the quality of the story than the length of the story.  I also think that the character development along the way can make the side quests every bit as interesting (sometimes moreso) than the main quest.

Long stories without a compelling

Game length can be defined by the length of the story (let's call it "x", and the amount of grinding between different points when you advance the stories (let's call it "y").  The total game play hours are a function of x * y.  I attach a lot of premium to the quality of the stories, but for me, the game play ends when the quality of the story-telling gets outweighed by the boredom of the grinding.

Star Wars: The Old Republic is a great example.  Best and most diverse in-game storytelling I've run across in a LONG time.  I just got tired of the grinding, so stopped playing after 40-60 hours.

[BanzaiCat]

When I'm getting near the end, I actually lose steam because I'm getting near the end, if that makes any sense.

Once I know something's going to end, if it's not terribly super-immersive (and there's rare examples of such games out there), I tend to peel off and go jump into something else.

It's funny that Rayfer mentions Kingdoms. I actually enjoyed playing that title. I've probably spent as many hours as he playing it and still haven't uncovered half the map and have a dozen plus quests to still address. I haven't uninstalled it and probably won't, but that particular game is worrisome. I think, the longer a game is, and the more I play it, the less I want it to be over with. Especially after investing 80 or so hours of my time into it. If I play something that long, I want to be able to keep going with it (such as with Civ V, where I have 532 hours, though I know I'm a lightweight in that regard around here).

Granted that's no RPG (Civ V), at least not in the traditional sense, and technically RPGs seem to have to have an arc to them that indicates a Big Battle with the Final Boss, so it has to end sometime. Until they do the sequel, anyway.

[Rayfer]

When I'm getting near the end, I actually lose steam because I'm getting near the end, if that makes any sense.

Once I know something's going to end, if it's not terribly super-immersive (and there's rare examples of such games out there), I tend to peel off and go jump into something else.

It's funny that Rayfer mentions Kingdoms. I actually enjoyed playing that title. I've probably spent as many hours as he playing it and still haven't uncovered half the map and have a dozen plus quests to still address. I haven't uninstalled it and probably won't, but that particular game is worrisome. I think, the longer a game is, and the more I play it, the less I want it to be over with. Especially after investing 80 or so hours of my time into it. If I play something that long, I want to be able to keep going with it (such as with Civ V, where I have 532 hours, though I know I'm a lightweight in that regard around here).

Granted that's no RPG (Civ V), at least not in the traditional sense, and technically RPGs seem to have to have an arc to them that indicates a Big Battle with the Final Boss, so it has to end sometime. Until they do the sequel, anyway.

bc....Like you, I am enjoying Kingdoms. I haven't quit on it yet. I like the way someone else in this thread put it....how much of grind is there to finish a questsand move the story along? Kingdoms has some of that grind feel to it. But it's a fun game.

[BanzaiCat]

Indeed it is. You can just play side quests and not touch the main quest. I've only done it out of a feeling of obligation.

[Bletchley_Geek]

Well, ADD or not, the OP makes an interesting point.

Bioware was the first (?) that saw how to monetize this FOMO syndrome: making base games to play through in 30 hours or less (basically, strip the narrative to the barest, so people don't get distracted/feel bad about missing out stuff), and then expand them with sometimes very bland, filler DLC. The few diversions you find in those "RPGs" are usually utterly uninteresting (many of the Mass Effect side-quests were very boring, to be honest). Bethesda games monetize this FOMO thing in a different way - the world is usually pretty big, but outside of the main quest it kind of feels like NPCs have been churned out with a cheap script that tweaks randomly a few aspects of a basic template (like their faces) - and then release DLC which is basically an elaborate form of TF2 hats.

You're lucky this isn't RPGCodex, you would have got tossed at your very ugly words, mate. People get very sensitive about this, because it is perceived that the EA-Bioware model kind of elbowed out "old school" RPGs, where "old school" usually means that the player is allowed sometimes quite long meanders from the main storyline, doing stuff (either questing or just mere exploring). And that perception is further fueled by the understandable lack of interest of EA (or Zenimax) in you spending 60 hours on a 70$ game, they want you to spend those 60 hours in two different games, each selling at 70$ :)

My advice is that there's nothing bad in missing out parts of an RPG - it's the perfect excuse to get back to it at a later date. And you can put it away for a while, and also get back to it when your heart desires. I can do this with books as well. Try with my advice, and let's the value for money RPGs to march on!

[airboy]

I've completed more RPGs than most.  I've been playing RPGs since the late 1970s (on paper and then on computer).

RPGs have several interactive length issues.
1] How interesting is the main story? - Fallout 1
2] How interesting are the side quests? - some in Skyrim & the like are great.
3] How interesting is the world? - Morrowind, Vampire - Bloodlines, Freedom Force 1.
4] How interesting are the characters? - Minsc & Boo in Baldurs Gate, Jagged Alliance 1 & 2, and Freedom Force were the best.
5] How well does the game scale as you increase in power/levels? - Probably the hardest to pull off.

I can give very good and bad examples of all. 

Probably the weakest parts of RPGs is how well they scale - this is just enormously hard to do right.  Interesting and challenging from the first to the end?  But poor main story or boring world can hurt.

Some worlds are interesting, but how the game scales and the sheer complexity/weirdness of the main quest can make it bad.  Arcanum is a great example of an inexplicable main quest, horrible scaling, but an interesting world.  Morrowind's main quest was almost impossible to understand.

Another big factor in RPGs is the ability for user generated content.

Most of the main characters are just boring, boring & boring.

You are certainly right that there are some fabulous RPGs out there that are inexpensive.  The Bioware stuff is cheap from www.gog.com  You can get the Spiderweb software games very inexpensively.  But you can also get absolutely awesome wargames, adventure games, and strategy games very inexpensively.

To each his own.  With the internet you can acquire so many great games so inexpensively that you can find almost any type of game that appeals to your taste.  We should count our blessings.

[Nefaro]

You're lucky this isn't RPGCodex, you would have got tossed at your very ugly words, mate. People get very sensitive about this, because it is perceived that the EA-Bioware model kind of elbowed out "old school" RPGs, where "old school" usually means that the player is allowed sometimes quite long meanders from the main storyline, doing stuff (either questing or just mere exploring). And that perception is further fueled by the understandable lack of interest of EA (or Zenimax) in you spending 60 hours on a 70$ game, they want you to spend those 60 hours in two different games, each selling at 70$ :)

Well... to be fair the thread title is heresy.  :P

[Toonces]

I have to respectfully disagree with the OP.

Especially with single storyline, single playthrough-type games, the longer the better.  Using Skyrim as an example, I have just over 200 hours invested in two complete playthroughs.  That's pretty good for an $80 or so game (including DLCs). 

Having said that, there is not a whole lot of incentive to continue playing it over and over.  I will, I'm going to, just to see some of the side content I've missed.  But the Civil War questline, for example, holds no more surprises for me. 

I contrast that with something like Falcon 4 in which I've probably to 1,000 hours of gameplay.  It's endlessly replayable.  So to that end, no, I don't think RPGs are "too long."  It's not the destination, it's the journey that counts.

[MetalDog]

I don't play RPG's on the computer, unless, it's a rare game.  Neverwinter Nights was like that.  I didn't finish it, but that's because I think my son's baby momma took it and sold it in a yard sale.  Temple of Elemental Evil was another one I liked that I didn't finish.  That's because I had a wrong class mix in my party.  Needed a higher level thief or something.  Then I sent the game to my son, at the urging of his mother, thinking I would get it back.  Didn't happen.

Anyways, reading through this thread, it struck me, why not make a base game and adventure, let's call it D&D and sell it for full price.  Then, make seperate modules for it.  Seperate stories, self contained, that carry your character forward, until a campaign is complete.  Then, start the next adventure.  Like, for example, a story arc that takes you through Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters and then Immortals.  How cool would that be?

Unless, of course, someone has already thought of that.  In which case, boy do I feel stupid 

[Martok]

Especially with single storyline, single playthrough-type games, the longer the better. 

I concur, with one caveat/proviso:  That the length is not due to "filler" material. 

Longer campaigns are pointless if the extra hours mostly consist of grinding and/or boring side-quests.  Better a shorter campaign, but with a good storyline and characters, than a long campaign that simply drags on. 


All else being equal, though, I do still prefer a long campaign that's done well.