The length of a game is extremely important to me. When I was a kid, I wanted everything to be +40 hours. Nowadays, if a game takes +20, I avoid it. Do not have that kind of time anymore. If a title is short, even if it’s a bit ruddy, I might give it a shot. If it’s a AAA title, which pack dozens of hours of gameplay plus paid DLC, I steer clear. Would love to play Marvel’s Spider-Man. Only have time to watch the edited playthroughs on RUclips.
A few years ago, a game has to be looooong for my money. But now, I like both, the small, fun and quick tight games like Ziggurat or the Touryst to play between epics like Elex or Anno
OK, releasing a game you speed through during a time most of the world has a ton of extra time on their hands may not have been the best timing. 😉😂 Sorry, couldn't resist. But anyways, in answer to your question, depends on the type of game. Much like movies, some work better longer, others are good shorter. Just however long it takes you to tell the story is as long as it should be.
QOTD: I like games that are somewhat short in length and not too long, mostly because it makes going for the completionist reward encouraging to me. Games that take too long to complete its main story however, could put me off from replaying them altogether.
Glad to know about this now. It looks (and sounds!) like something I'd enjoy quite a bit. There seem to be a decent amount of more "bite-sized" first person productions coming from indie devs these days that are all pleasant surprises - Immortal Redneck, Slime Rancher, City of Brass, etc. - but they are almost all designed to around roguelike progression or gameplay loops focused on grinding. It's nice to see a game in this space that just wants to deliver a nice, succinct adventure. Definitely gonna have to try to get to this one. QOTD: It's definitely gotten more important over time. Now that I buy more games (versus than we had as kids back in the day), I definitely am more intrigued by games with shorter lengths. I still buy plenty of RPGs, mind. But I'm also well-aware that I'll only be able to finish, at best, 3-5 of them a year, and I hate that. So shorter games that are finishable are definitely things I look out for now. Really try and balance out 70-hour RPGs with 8-hour action games or fighters with good decent modes these days. And of course, screw online-only "games as service" designed to run via seasons - there are literally _thousands_ of games out there to check out and the last thing anyone should want is to be married to a single, never-ending, title for a long time. That shit just feels real pointless.
QotD: [game length] is always important to me. The shorter the better, but depends on the game type. Arcade&casual: better have replayability 3+ hrs RPGs/story-based: I look for 3-35 hours I don't have as much time nowadays so if a game is more than 35 hours I won't get it unless it looks really compelling (story-wise/characters) and/or really fun.
Finding items, puzzle-solving, crafting and exploration aren't themes--they're objectives. Thematic elements are things like: love and loss; overcoming adversity; struggling past one's perceived limitations; et al. Mask of Mists looks like it might be fun for a few hours, and the price seems right. I may give it a try.
game looks freaking good and interesting, always nice to watch your reviews and learn on how to do them too >.> QOTD: depends to me on money, enjoyment and lenght (performance on my pc too but its more on my fault :c) Played both siralim 1 and 3 for above 200h together asnd they cost me like 16 dolars , BoI:rebirth too
I usually prefer games that are between 15 to 40 hours. Longer than that and I find myself starting to think about other games in my queue. Shorter than that, and I'm left wanting a bit more...
This looks pretty great, hopefully it comes to consoles down the line. My potato likely can't handle this. QOTD; To me it is basically about the replay value. And by replay, I don't mean extra modes and the like, but multiple ways of solving things. And by solving I mean everything from environmental puzzles and dialogue choices to a great variety in weapons and/or attacks. If the game has some or all of that, I don't mind the game being short, as I'd happily play through it multiple times. That's why I ever buy Call of Duty titles from the bargain bins. I only go for the campaigns - which are fun and cinematic romps, but offer virtually no variety described above. They're play-once kind of deals and I really wouldn't want to pay 60 EUR for 5 hours of gameplay. There ARE games I'd consider well worthy of 10+ EUR / hour, but COD ain't it.
Looks pretty cool. 3D dot game heroes could be beaten in a few hours too. QOTD, really depends on the game.I've played Monster hunter world for 1300+ hours and not tired of it. Then you have Dragon Quest 7 (PS1) which was a loong RPG but had a lot of fetch stuff that padded it out and got monotonous.
I always wondered why the game seemed so twitchy, not any dropped frames but appeared as though there was when playing. I thought my pc was turning into a potato.
To be honest i rather play smaller games with last impact i only dedicate 100+ hours to Zelda or Dragon Quests or a franchise who is already stablished and already a favorite of mine. Anything else i give it 1-2 hours and move on usually before finishing it. Hope this game comes to the switch.
It would shock me if Mask of Mists didn't come to Switch. The developer's two other games found their way to Switch shortly after hitting PC, so it's just a matter of time.
How important is the length of a game? That depends on the price. A more expensive game should have more bang for my buck, if not in length then in something else meaningful.
I think the idea of praising a game's length is to say how much content is available for the price. If a lot of that content is grindy filler, then the review should have the tone that the game is "bloated" or "too long". Your review here describes this game as short and shallow. To pay $15 for this when you could pay $60 for persona seems like a bad investment. Only comparing price to length isn't even enough as that doesn't compare the quality of the adventure. Having characters, story, and engaging gameplay is more important to me. Also, when people say they don't have time to play a 60 hour game, what does that mean? Do they think they will die before then? Games, like books or tv shows are meant to be experienced over many days or months. I think there is also a bias for reviews (myself included) to favor short games because it means making reviews is quicker and easier. Length doesn't matter, lol, but how long you will be entertained. The game could be 100 hours, but if it is only fun for 3 hours, it's bad.
The length of a game is extremely important to me. When I was a kid, I wanted everything to be +40 hours. Nowadays, if a game takes +20, I avoid it. Do not have that kind of time anymore. If a title is short, even if it’s a bit ruddy, I might give it a shot. If it’s a AAA title, which pack dozens of hours of gameplay plus paid DLC, I steer clear. Would love to play Marvel’s Spider-Man. Only have time to watch the edited playthroughs on RUclips.
A few years ago, a game has to be looooong for my money.
But now, I like both, the small, fun and quick tight games like Ziggurat or the Touryst to play between epics like Elex or Anno
OK, releasing a game you speed through during a time most of the world has a ton of extra time on their hands may not have been the best timing. 😉😂 Sorry, couldn't resist. But anyways, in answer to your question, depends on the type of game. Much like movies, some work better longer, others are good shorter. Just however long it takes you to tell the story is as long as it should be.
QOTD: I like games that are somewhat short in length and not too long, mostly because it makes going for the completionist reward encouraging to me. Games that take too long to complete its main story however, could put me off from replaying them altogether.
Glad to know about this now. It looks (and sounds!) like something I'd enjoy quite a bit. There seem to be a decent amount of more "bite-sized" first person productions coming from indie devs these days that are all pleasant surprises - Immortal Redneck, Slime Rancher, City of Brass, etc. - but they are almost all designed to around roguelike progression or gameplay loops focused on grinding. It's nice to see a game in this space that just wants to deliver a nice, succinct adventure. Definitely gonna have to try to get to this one.
QOTD: It's definitely gotten more important over time. Now that I buy more games (versus than we had as kids back in the day), I definitely am more intrigued by games with shorter lengths. I still buy plenty of RPGs, mind. But I'm also well-aware that I'll only be able to finish, at best, 3-5 of them a year, and I hate that. So shorter games that are finishable are definitely things I look out for now. Really try and balance out 70-hour RPGs with 8-hour action games or fighters with good decent modes these days.
And of course, screw online-only "games as service" designed to run via seasons - there are literally _thousands_ of games out there to check out and the last thing anyone should want is to be married to a single, never-ending, title for a long time. That shit just feels real pointless.
QotD: [game length] is always important to me. The shorter the better, but depends on the game type.
Arcade&casual: better have replayability 3+ hrs
RPGs/story-based: I look for 3-35 hours
I don't have as much time nowadays so if a game is more than 35 hours I won't get it unless it looks really compelling (story-wise/characters) and/or really fun.
what kind of rpgs are u playing that are 3 hours long lol
Finding items, puzzle-solving, crafting and exploration aren't themes--they're objectives. Thematic elements are things like: love and loss; overcoming adversity; struggling past one's perceived limitations; et al. Mask of Mists looks like it might be fun for a few hours, and the price seems right. I may give it a try.
Okay.
QOTD it really depends on the type of game. I would hate a 50 hour platformer, but welcome the same length rpg.
game looks freaking good and interesting, always nice to watch your reviews and learn on how to do them too >.>
QOTD: depends to me on money, enjoyment and lenght (performance on my pc too but its more on my fault :c)
Played both siralim 1 and 3 for above 200h together asnd they cost me like 16 dolars , BoI:rebirth too
I usually prefer games that are between 15 to 40 hours. Longer than that and I find myself starting to think about other games in my queue. Shorter than that, and I'm left wanting a bit more...
This looks pretty great, hopefully it comes to consoles down the line. My potato likely can't handle this.
QOTD; To me it is basically about the replay value. And by replay, I don't mean extra modes and the like, but multiple ways of solving things. And by solving I mean everything from environmental puzzles and dialogue choices to a great variety in weapons and/or attacks. If the game has some or all of that, I don't mind the game being short, as I'd happily play through it multiple times.
That's why I ever buy Call of Duty titles from the bargain bins. I only go for the campaigns - which are fun and cinematic romps, but offer virtually no variety described above. They're play-once kind of deals and I really wouldn't want to pay 60 EUR for 5 hours of gameplay. There ARE games I'd consider well worthy of 10+ EUR / hour, but COD ain't it.
Coming to Switch/Xbox etc next week!
Looks pretty cool. 3D dot game heroes could be beaten in a few hours too.
QOTD, really depends on the game.I've played Monster hunter world for 1300+ hours and not tired of it. Then you have Dragon Quest 7 (PS1) which was a loong RPG but had a lot of fetch stuff that padded it out and got monotonous.
I always wondered why the game seemed so twitchy, not any dropped frames but appeared as though there was when playing. I thought my pc was turning into a potato.
Great review. 👍
To be honest i rather play smaller games with last impact i only dedicate 100+ hours to Zelda or Dragon Quests or a franchise who is already stablished and already a favorite of mine. Anything else i give it 1-2 hours and move on usually before finishing it. Hope this game comes to the switch.
It would shock me if Mask of Mists didn't come to Switch. The developer's two other games found their way to Switch shortly after hitting PC, so it's just a matter of time.
How important is the length of a game? That depends on the price. A more expensive game should have more bang for my buck, if not in length then in something else meaningful.
I think the idea of praising a game's length is to say how much content is available for the price. If a lot of that content is grindy filler, then the review should have the tone that the game is "bloated" or "too long". Your review here describes this game as short and shallow. To pay $15 for this when you could pay $60 for persona seems like a bad investment. Only comparing price to length isn't even enough as that doesn't compare the quality of the adventure. Having characters, story, and engaging gameplay is more important to me.
Also, when people say they don't have time to play a 60 hour game, what does that mean? Do they think they will die before then? Games, like books or tv shows are meant to be experienced over many days or months. I think there is also a bias for reviews (myself included) to favor short games because it means making reviews is quicker and easier. Length doesn't matter, lol, but how long you will be entertained. The game could be 100 hours, but if it is only fun for 3 hours, it's bad.
Look...It's no the size that matters...just because a game is 10 hours long does not mean it's enjoyable...I'm LOOKING AT YOU THE LAST OF US II!!!!
Why does the narrator sound like the scientist from the Simpson’s in this video ?
Imagine if you knew how to play video games properly lmao
If only a master gamer like you had shown me the way.