Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
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.
Biggest surprise for length was Dragon Quest VII, the PSX version. Started playing it close to release, dropped it several times and finally finished it years later.
I'd played multiple games in the series before and I think the longest one topped out at 40 hours, so I really was not expecting a 100+ hour marathon like that was (although the very, very long prologue should probably have served as a warning).
Duck Detective. Charming game, but quite short.
Astlibra: Revision
I'd put a conservative minimum first playtime at 60 hours... For slower, completionist, players? 80-100 hours.
If that first playthrough is on the impossible setting?... I don't wanna think about it. Lmao
XCom2 the content just DOES NOT END.
And MGS Peacewalker. How they cramed so much stuff unto the tiny PSP disk is beyond me. The list of unlockables is insane.
Ist too bad Xcom games are so focused on time limits. I know it meant to add to the tension but its just frustrating to me to non-stop rush everything.
Fallout 4. The amount of world exploration and itty bitty stuffs almost makes me lost myself in exploration, even though the story can be really short depending how you progress the content. On my first playthrough, I clocked at ~90hrs of play time and only just passed the 1/4 of story progression just because I sucked in sidequest and exploration.
Never thought I enjoyed the base building and assisting settlements aspects, Bethesda did great job on Visual storytelling speaking as Interplay/Obsidian Fallout fan.
Another case is STALKER Anomaly mod which can gives you theoritical endless playtime as long as you creative to build your own CYOA Stalker story. Though I don't recommend Anomaly if you're looking for the STALKER lore (as they're fan project) and should be treated as post-vanilla playthrough.
Hollow Knight.
Surely this is the end of the map..... Ok but now Suuuuuurely this is the end of the map.... OK NOW SUUUURELY.....
I love it when a game is about exploring and half of the content is optional.
13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim
I knew it was a jrpg from the beginning, but the way the stories unfolded and piled up had me confused. There was a new question every chapter and it just bwcqme bigge and bigger. Awesome game
Okami. Every time I finished an area, I thought I was nearing the end of the game. And every time, I was presented with a new, even larger area.
Even if you notice that your brush techniques an inventory screens don't look complete, it really does feel like the end. Then when they do look complete and you're sure you've finally finished it, there's one more region and some upgrades.
Beyond The Edge of Owlsgarde. No spoilers, but despite playing it for plenty of hours (don't have an exact count), I felt it was short. Pretty cool enough of a modern point and click adventure game, though.
Nier Automata actually kinda pissed me off the first time I played it. Thought I was finished with the game and was confused by the ending, turns out that was just ending A. Gotta play again for B, and then C, and can't forget D and E for the full picture.
Had to take a break from the game but I went back for the rest of the endings and they're worth it. Also they cut out a lot of the side quests and grinding after ending A. Getting that first ending is actually like 50% or 60% finished. But yeah, at first I was getting flashbacks to the PS2 games that tell you the true ending can only be seen by playing again on the newly unlocked 'Very Hard' difficulty
Celeste. I was not expecting the core and farewell
The Talos Principle. After a short bit in the game, you go to a hub area that goes to other areas like the one you just came from. Eventually, you find out that there is another hub area above this which leads to other hub areas. I didn't remember if there is another layer on top of that, but either way, once I hit that second hub layer, I remember realizing that the entire game was multiple times larger than I had thought, and I had no way to know if it would expand again when I made it to the next area.
The Talos Principle was such a great game! I think I'll play it again before buying part 2
Drakenguard 3, Nier.
The only time I was really caught off guard by a game like that was Darksiders II. I went into the final area expecting a gauntlet of challenges, beat the first big boss enemy in there... And final cutscene and credits. That guy was the final boss. Made me literally put down the controller and say "That was it?" I've always known long games were going to be long going in to them.
Yakuza games a completionists dream/nightmare
Universal Paperclip, was expexting day, weeks or more of gameplay and there were 4-5 hours of good gameplay. It was perfect.
It’s a surprisingly good game even it’s just a clicker game based on HTML forms.
Nethack.
The first few dozen times I played it, it felt like it took forever to get anywhere. The most recent time I played, it felt quick and easy to get to the bottom. (I got stuck on something, though, and haven't been able to continue past the valley of the dead.)
I remember being surprised by Lufia 2 rise of the sinistrals. It was my first RPG other than a Zelda type game as a kid.
BG3 has a lot of length. (☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞
It Takes Two. I thought the game would be over about four times, but then it kept adding even more mechanics and got HARD. I thought it would be super casual, did not expect that much length and depth to it (ignoring the cheesy story 😅)
It was a really fun game. It took months to finish it, in small chunks, trying to fit in time here and there with my kid. I'm glad we finished though.
This. There's just so much game in that game.
Elden Ring. Even after finishing the final boss there was so many areas I’ve not been to. And all those areas are unique - some with unique enemy types. It’s the game that dares to hide a secret area behind a secret area.
from the people who brought us illusory double walls of the Great Hollow and Ash Lake, go figure
Developers are demonstrably not getting more efficient with their content. More content means more assets, and that's why development timelines have only gotten longer over the years.
Yeah, games take time to make. It's good that they have more content now. Do you not remember how short campaigns used to be?
I do, and I miss it. I'm far more likely to feel these days like they made too much game to its own detriment than to make it a length that felt better for the game's pacing. Baldur's Gate 3 was phenomenal from start to finish, but games frequently come in at a third of its length and feel like they were longer than they should have been. Lots of games transitioned to open world that used to be linear, and the open world is little more than a menu that makes it take longer to select your mission, because you have to travel there. They create checklists of busy work to keep you playing worse content between the moments that you actually want to do, like the side missions that litter modern Assassin's Creed games with progression gates. I didn't know how good we had it when we got FPS campaigns between 8 and 12 hours in the years following Half-Life 1, because they've been so rare since Titanfall 2 came out 8 years ago. Games being longer now is not solving a problem that I had, and I'd argue it's often creating problems.
Maybe you prefer your games longer, and good on you if you do, but it's most definitely not due to developers getting more efficient with their content. For one reason or another, because you're demanding it as the customer or because modern asset pipelines make it make the most fiscal sense, they're just spending more time making the content.
You can still get short games, you just won't find them from AAA developers anymore because publishers want big games with bigger profits. Titanfall 2 was a great campaign even if short, but Halo 5 was the last short game we had and people threw a shit storm (rightly, it wasn't near the quality of TF2 and had other issues).
If you want short games, the indie space has you covered. Always small games out there releasing.
And game devs have certainly not become inefficient, it's just the standards of quality are higher. People still want more complex, better looking games. And I don't mean just graphics; unique art styles are all the rage. Games like Balatro and Cruelty Squad prove graphics aren't everything as long as you keep a cohesive style and have good gameplay to back it up.
Personally though I avoid small games. I've had my fill of them growing up, I'd rather play big games with open worlds and all that jazz. I want to be invested in these worlds not play and forget.
I agree that AAA developers are the ones typically not making short games, and I agree that I am well-covered by indies. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. FPS games are about the only genre I feel like I used to be well-served in that indies haven't quite picked up yet, so I can't really just "go elsewhere" these days to scratch that itch (but games like Mouse: P.I. for Hire may be the start). But I was really just arguing against the efficiency part. I don't think they've become less efficient at making content, but they've seemingly stayed exactly as efficient and just spent much longer doing it. I don't find that a big open world makes a game any more memorable, especially when it exhibits the negative trends of filler and bloat I mentioned already.