“The longer the game is, the less likely people are to finish it”: Fallout creator Tim Cain says “I’d normally rather finish six 20 hours games than one behemoth.”
“The longer the game is, the less likely people are to finish it”: Fallout creator Tim Cain says “I’d normally rather finish six 20 hours games than one behemoth.”
46 Comments
People don’t want to slog through 100 hours of mediocre gameplay? What a revolutionary concept.
Edit: There is a difference between a mandatory 100 hours of main story and a 10-30 hour main story with 70+ hours of optional side content.
Personally agree.
The old expression of leaving them wanting more should apply to gaming imo.
There are some games where the length is justified, but often because the player wants to spend more time exploring, learning or messing with systems.
The best games can be plowed through in 20 hours but often take 80 because you spend so much time fucking around having fun.
Yeah but if I’m gonna pay $60-80 for a game I’d rather it be longer. I’m not paying $70 for a 20 hour game.
I disagree. I can’t afford six 80 euro games.
Skill issue, I’d rather spend 80 hours playing a great game than be disappointed at how short a good game that could have been great is.
Looking at you, cyberpunk.
If the game is good I would gladly play/finish a longer game, it all depends on the game.
I would rather finish a 150 hours BG3, The Witcher 3, CP2077, KCD2… Than 10 games at the same price with 5 hours of cutscenes and 10 hours of gameplay, like TLOU any time.
Really depends on the game. There are games that ‘ve put hundereds of hours into and loved every single one.
Not wrong, the older I get the more attractive shorter games are. I’ve slowly begun losing interest in games that I can’t drop and pick up again, as my free time is limited.
Hard disagree. Persona, final fantasy, hell MMOs in general. People love long games. They just have to be long and GOOD. That’s what the fallout devs can’t do.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Short games feel lackluster and usually sacrifice story telling. I play games to go on grand adventures and immerse oneself in it. 20 hours is too short for most narratives to take off and have all the proper parts of a story. But thats me.
I remember a developer from CDPR was saying that their metrics showed a ton of people played through a heavy chunk of Witcher 3 but never actually finished the game which shifted how they approached CP 2077. I’m in that same boat and the only 100+ hour games that stuck with me are Elden Ring and BG3.
People will finish long games if they are good. Example: according to Steam data, about 38% of players have finished Elden Ring. That is an incredibly high number.
Well. I think there’s room for both. RPGs in particular can be a lot better when given time to breathe.
side glancing my thousand hours baldur gate 3 run. No endgame, no multiplayer, no live service. No problem. And i’m still progressing with my pure no modifcation playthrough.
How about both? I want long, short, and moderate length games.
The better the game is, the more likely I am to finish it regardless of how much time it takes.
I get his point. The game has to be a banger if I want to put 100 hours into it.
But in a world where 6 20hr games cost 70(or 80) dollars each, one 70USD behemoth doesn’t seem so bad.
That’s crazy and all but I’m not paying $70 for a 15-20 hr game.
Why can’t we have a decent main story of reasonable length and then lots of optional side content that isn’t just collecting.
Fallout was amazing, Starfield was absolute trash and was short. Was also short on development, legitimately no reason to go to non story planets
Hard disagree. The issue is most long games are just 20 hour games stretched to 80 with bullshit
I agree. I’d rather be left wanting more after a game that was great all the way through than a great game that overstays its welcome so long that I become resentful and bored of it by the end.
To me it’s like a movie – you want a running time that makes sense. You could take a great movie and stretch it out over 10-12 hours and ruin it, just like you can ruin a game that is a great 30 hour play by stretching the concept thin to hit 120 hours.
There are more games than I will EVER be able to play. I have more money than I do time as a middle-aged adult. I’d rather every game I do play be an amazing but possibly short experience versus a game that tries to soul-suck up every hour of my free time for months.
Damn the comments kinda show why he’s saying that. People always wanna take the metric of “I want to get the most out of my buck” and slog through mediocre filler content (like CP2077 or Witcher 3’s long list of side content) instead of actually engaging with shorter games. I get it, you don’t want to pay full price for 4 games, but also… me personally I never buy games full price. Never understood why people do that besides hype.
I think this really depends on the game, price etc. If its entertaining, not repetitive and just a generally good game, why wouldnt I play it?
I agree. I’d rather play a shorter, amazing game than a longer average one. If it’s amazing then I’ll play again more than once and have the same amount of fun. I’d rather that than some huge 100 hour average game. Quality > quantity for me.
It’s never about the length. It’s just the quality of the adventure along the way.
I’m not a fan of bloat per se but particularly with RPGs you need a good length for it to feel like a proper journey!!
It’s not the length. Most of these crazy long games hit a serious plateau in engaging content and devolve into repetitive missions and dungeons. That’s about where I check out in them. If a game stays engaging, I’ll keep playing regardless of length!
20 hours isn’t enough for a game depending on the gameplay loop. If you took a game that had the RPG mechanics of a souls game, a top down rpg like divinity or BG, or even games like mass effect, and boiled it down to 20 hours… That game would be a mess in my opinion.
Now for a game like doom? Go on ahead because the gameplay style won’t last you much longer enjoyment wise. I doubt anybody who appreciates long form narratives would agree though. There’s room for both types of game and they both should be content rich and maintain quality throughout (most recent ubisoft games fail at this for example). If you can’t maintain the quality then definitely shorten the game.
I don’t like how there’s a loud voice that says “I don’t have the time for 80 hour RPGs” but… Who is forcing you to complete this in a week? I’d rather one amazing 100 hour game instead of buying 5 games with now inflated prices. I’ll be happily taking my time and chipping away at content I enjoy with a story I can sink deeper into.
Or, and hear me out, if the game is great people will keep playing it
I like a healthy compromise where the main story is done in 16-20 hours but there’s 100 hours of additional content you can do.
If the game is fun I never really cared about finishing it. GTAV is the only one I ever played to completion
It depends. If that behemoth is Elden Ring or Persona 4 Golden I have no issues finishing it many times.
[deleted]
No thanks, I’d rather finish one 120 hours game than six 20 hours game.
Cool story bro. False, but cool story.
I have no interest in paying $60-$80 for a game that I can’t sink at least 100 hours into. I don’t care if I don’t finish it — I’m paying for the pastime, for the immersion, not to have a 20-hour experience like I’m reading a book or watching a limited TV series.
Some people like quantity over quality. You do you. It’s your time.
This is kind of misleading because there are games that I’ve put hundreds of hours into and never finished but also cherished every minute of it. BG3, Factorio Space Age, and Satisfactory are prime examples.
just finished tw3 and i enjoyed my 150 hrs gameplay
they just lazy and want an excuse to make shorter game lol
Speak for yourself, I love behemoths
Dumbest quote I have read in years and we get dumb tweets daily from a certain someone. So wrong is this quote for gamers that this man should resign.
Me about to replay Persona 3 after dumping 90 hours into it just two months ago: speak for yourself bub.
Ehh, that’s his opinion. I like the games that take hundreds of hours & ones that I can immerse myself in.
He can enjoy his 20 hour sprints, I’ll take my 120 hour marathons.
I’d rather put 120 hours into one game than 20 into 6. That’s just me though.