Good.
Quality content is better to me than having a large quantity of content. I’d rather finish a game and think, “wow, that was solid” instead of “wow, when will this end”. Even if it’s endgame content; I don’t want it to feel like chores.
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
32 points (97.1% liked)
Games
31405 readers
1294 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Red dead 2 is significantly shorter of a playthrough than some RPGs. Much much shorter than Valhalla. But it's a significantly better game
Are they really describing Valhalla as a 100-hour game? I spent that long on Origins, and Valhalla has way more to it.
But overall a shorter AC game sounds great. I miss the days when even going for 100% took 45 hours instead of triple digits.
I tried to see everything there was to see in Valhalla. I had to stop. There were just other games to play.
Thing is the story didn’t stay compelling and fell off. The level barriers also felt super weird in a way that didn’t feel good. If they can make ass creed in in a similar way to ghost of Tsushima where every quest even side quests felt amazing, then I bet they’d really bring assassin’s creed back to the front of gaming
I've been playing off and on for a month or two and feel like I've barely scratched the surface. I tend to get distracted though and just go off and fuck around, finding things.
I don't give shit if it's 10 hours or 100 hours as long as the game is fun.
For me a 100hr game is almost never fun, outside of the few best games ever made.
Yeah, I feel that way about all entertainment. I don't want to be watching 8 hour movies, reading a book for six months, or sitting through 20 seasons of a TV show. There are so many entertainment options, it seems crazy to spend so much time on one thing.
I'm currently enjoying Witcher 3 but at the 80 hour mark I'm seriously considering finishing Hearts of Stone and then taking a break before tackling Blood and Wine.
Yep. The only games that really pull off being "long" well are the ones that let you do as much or as little as you really want.
Elder Scrolls is usually the go-to example. It's easy to be aimless in those worlds. There are main stories, usually not overly long, and a heaping pile of side content to do. But you get to play how you want. You're not railroaded. Unless you're a hardcore completionist, the games don't make you feel like you're missing anything by not doing every faction, every sidequest, etc. Eventually you just reach a good place to stop, but usually in the process you feel as though your character told a story.
Valhalla was just a chore. There was basically a single path from start to finish and that path took >100 hours to get there. I couldn't make it to the end. The result is that, even though I played over 50 hours, I feel like I never really played the game because it never ended up taking me anywhere. There were some places that I did want to go and explore because they seemed cool, or some quests that I wanted to keep going with, but I'd get walled by sudden level spikes, which just felt crappy. It just turned out to be a waste.
I don’t see why there is such a backlash on shorter games.
Personally I would love a dense 25-ish hour game experience
I don't think there's a backlash against shorter games. Ubisoft found a formula that has kept people playing their games for long periods of time, and if anything, there's a backlash against these long, collect-a-thons.
I do
What a time saver! Thanks Ubisoft!
Wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle isnt as meaningful of an experince as some thats maybe wide as a pond and deep as a pond. 100+ hours is useless if those hours are boring. Id rather they make shorter more meaningful experiences.
20-23 hours seems reasonable, I hope it's actually good.
It's kind of funny reading that article as it's basically saying longer games make for longer work hours from the perspective of a games journalist. Must be pretty annoying to get through some 60 hours of same-ish game just to get a review out.
Will it be 5 times cheaper?