https://www.ign.com/articles/hellblade-2-developer-ninja-theory-says-its-fans-enjoy-shorter-games
The developer of Hellblade 2 has explained why it prefers making shorter games, insisting digital distribution has opened the door “to games of all shapes and sizes.”
Developer of a great short game thinks that people like short games. No we like great games.
But I especially like great short games. I don't want to spend 100+ hours just to complete a campaign with every other game.
Something more linear with cool set pieces you can be done with after 10 - 20 hours is nice. And, though I hate to toot Microsoft's horn, Game Pass is the ideal format for such games in my opinion.
I love great long games. I want to be sucked into the game and enjoy it for as long as possible.
That's valid. Such games should definitely exist. But too many games get unnecessary padding and slapped-on mechanics because "that's what the market wants", or what have you.
🙋♀️I like short games. Obviously I like great games but my hierarchy is great+short > short > great
Like, was Bramble: The Mountain King better than Elden Ring? Nah, but which one did I actually finish?
It depends. 6 hours of an amazing story that I know I'll replay? Sure. 6 hours of the same boring gameplay over and over? Meh.
Halo Infinites campaign was juuuuust fun enough to be okay with how short it was. My buddy and I got the map 100% in just about 8 hours. It was fun, but we were annoyed it was already over.
Sure if it's 15 bucks, a 6 hours game is fine. Else I could use that money to buy games that are much longer and cost the same and bring me the same enjoyment. I've played enough games to tell you that no game exists, that is so much better, to justify 70€ for a 6 hours game. Not even something like Portal.
Can we stop doing price per hour as a value metric. People get thousands of hours out of candy crush, doesn't mean it's worth $10,000
It's a great metric for games though.
Your time is limited and games are expensive.
Very few game experiences are worth that obscene an hourly cost. Look at something like Baulder's Gate 3 a game you can easily sink 400 hours into for $60. Elden Ring - 200 hours for $60. Helldivers 2 - 200 hours for $40
I've got limited time and limited money and games cost both. I'm not sacrificing enjoyment just by being cheap - I just know that I can get way better deals out there and paying so much for so little would leave a sour taste in my mouth.
Your time is limited and games are expensive.
It's an okay metric if your time isn't really limited and if you can easily sink 400 hours into a game then your time isn't really limited. For me 400 hours to 6-8 months of gaming. I don't even consider price per hour when buying games because price is not really a factor. The biggest factor is whether I'll have time to actually play it because my gaming hours are very limited. For me the metric is entertainment per hour because if I can get a few hours of gaming in I want those hours to be quality gaming. For me a game with 400 hours of gameplay but only 40 hours of quality gameplay is a waste of my gaming time. I would much rather take a 5 hour game that's 5 hours of quality entertainment than a 60 hour game that has 30 hours of entertainment.
It doesn't mean I don't buy long games, it just means when I do that's pretty much what I'll be playing for the next X months. Right now the majority of my gaming hours go into Helldivers and I literally could not find time for another long, let's say 60 hour, game. But I probably could squeeze in a 10 hour game. So $10/hour is absolutely worth it for me, if the entertainment is there. And price per hour is worthless to me because in most cases if the game is 100+ hours it's unlikely to be 100+ hours of quality entertainment.
Damn you're not worried about death? I don't have unlimited time.
But I have to heavily disagree with "in most cases if the game is 100+ hours it’s unlikely to be 100+ hours of quality entertainment."
Sounds like we have different tastes. Cause 200 hours in HD2 is 200 hours of entertainment: Why else would I keep playing?
I just don't think all hours of playtime are equal. I don't have an issue putting 80 hours into into helldivers because I consider those quality hours. I do have an issue putting 80 hours into Far Cry 6, because most of that is extremely boring. But if you consider everything in price per hour then those two things should be equals (assuming we have FC6 discounted to the same price as helldivers). But they aren't for me and I very much doubt they are for you.
Damn you're not worried about death?
Why should I? I'll be dead then.
You're right.
In 2021, Candy Crush raked in one 1.2 billion dollars.
Candy Crush is worth much much more than $10k.
As I’ve gotten older I’d much rather pay $10/hour for a good game than less for something I’m not actually going to enjoy.
A game you don't play but paid for is infinite cost per hour.
But if you're unable to enjoy games that cost less than $10/hr I feel like you're really missing out. Factorio is a game I got for $20 and enjoyed 660+ hours of gameplay.
More and more I've tossed away games(metaphorically) for being too long. With everything being an open world with RPG elements now... it just takes too long to get through these games these days...
I think it also depends on the demographic of the game. As a kid I had no issues dropping 4+ hours a day on a game. That doesn't work for adults. And being "stuck" on the same story for months can be frustrating, because other great games will be bound to come out in that time. BG3 is a good example. Great game. But I'm already eyeing my next games and after 50 hours I'm just about halfway through and some parts start to feel like a chore.