Games that are too short

[coaliscool42]

Xeodrifter, sigh.

[Mace121]

At 6/29/16 11:28 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Xeodrifter, sigh.

Outrun. You can beat the game around 5 minutes for one ending, and around a half-hour to see them all.

[ninjamuffin99]

Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist is about 10-15 mins long and its a pretty good experience.

It's a free game by the crew who made the Stanley Parable and its available on steam

Its pretty funny

[Jercurpac]

Brutal Legend - The game is pretty much unfinished and you're rushed into an ending. There are three factions of enemies you're fighting against and the story is clearly set up that, after you beat the second faction you take your home back from the demonic army, but instead the leader of the demons just pops up out of nowhere and you fight him, disappointing to say the least.

[NeonSpider]

Marble Madness is the shortest game I know of. It's a great game (Well, the NES version is a great game anyway. Versions on most other systems suck). It's just you're over and done with the game in about three minutes (if you're any good at it). I guess if you want a real challenge you can try for a no death run.

Take the NES Marble Madness, remove the freezing glitches, remove the random time bonus wands that would appear for no reason whatsoever (because honestly that's not skill but just pure luck), and at least double or triple the size of the game and it would be improved a lot.

At 7/1/16 10:31 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: you'd be hard pressed to find a game in all of existence that's long enough to be satisfying while simultaneously maintaining a sense of progression and a lack of fake difficulty.

I disagree, although it depends what you consider "fake difficulty". I believe you are most likely lumping legitimate difficulty in that category merely because it happens to be skills you aren't good at. The only reason I say this is because you say there are *no* games of sufficient length and genuine difficulty, and that is false. There are many.

Let's first define what "fake difficulty" is though. If it requires a skill it's *not* fake difficulty. Fake difficulty would be stages which aren't possible to clear the first time through because of cheap tricks, which are easily cleared once you know the tricks, or else games which are hard but in a more luck-based rather than skill-based way. If you know what it is you must do but the thing you must do just happens to be a skill-based, that's not fake difficulty -- that's the real deal.

until you've reached years of gameplay and the story finally draws to a close.

Nah. Story isn't important at all. Pass. In the words of Bart Simpson from I believe one of the Halloween episodes "Less chat. More splat."

but really, they all are too short. every last game that was ever made is too short.

Not true at all. There are games that are far too long, which take weeks and even years of play to get anywhere. It is a common problem for games to include very grindy aspects to artificially inflate game length, especially nowadays.

The ideal playtime for a game is one to two hours. You should be able to pick up the game, if sufficiently-skilled at it, and beat it within that timeframe or else it drags on too long.

Try playing games that must be cleared in one sitting, and no emulation save-stating to get around that, and if you lose, start the entire game over from the start, no save-stating cheating that. You will probably agree one or two hours playthrough for a complete master of such a game is quite reasonable, and if it takes a master much longer than that, then multiply by like 50 how long it'll take most people, if they even get anywhere in the game at all, which most likely they won't if it's hard enough.

Good games don't actually take that long to beat. But it does require that you actually are good at them. Games which take a long time to beat even if you're good at them aren't well-designed. They likely have a grind aspect to them. Grind isn't skill. The ideal game is either skill-exclusive or it can optionally use a small amount of, but not rely on, luck. Story is completely optional.

Also they need to bring back really mazey games, *and NO minimaps!* Part of the challenge or difficulty is supposed to be disorientation and confusion and trying to mentally map it all out as you go and relying on your own memory. Don't take shortcuts.

[Jercurpac]

At 7/1/16 12:16 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 7/1/16 11:45 AM, Jercurpac wrote: Brutal Legend - The game is pretty much unfinished and you're rushed into an ending. There are three factions of enemies you're fighting against and the story is clearly set up that, after you beat the second faction you take your home back from the demonic army, but instead the leader of the demons just pops up out of nowhere and you fight him, disappointing to say the least.

Pretty big game with a lot of content around to find in the open world. The story also lasted quite a while to feel short.

Regardless it was obvious that they planned a longer story with a third act to it and they ended it in an abrupt and unsatisfying way. Also, despite being having a large overworld there were only three filler activities to do over and over.

I liked the game, but there was almost certainly a very significant amount of content that was cut and replaced with filler because it had been in developmental hell for a while. To me that's worse than a game that feels like a complete experience that leaves you wanting more.

[ClockworkCopper]

Most games are entirely too short for me. If I spent $60 on a game and don't get at least 100 hours I feel ripped off.

[SlivvySaturn]

'Another World' it's a great little puzzle platformer from like the 90's. Hard as hell, but pretty enjoyable- too bad it can be beat in a single sitting if you know what you're doing.

[sharpnova]

At 6/29/16 11:28 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Xeodrifter, sigh.

Is it even worth the time it does take to beat though?

[sharpnova]

At 7/2/16 12:58 AM, SlivvySaturn wrote: 'Another World' it's a great little puzzle platformer from like the 90's. Hard as hell, but pretty enjoyable- too bad it can be beat in a single sitting if you know what you're doing.

But it is a good length if you don't know what you're doing which is what matters.

[NeonSpider]

At 7/2/16 06:25 PM, kanef wrote:

At 7/1/16 01:17 PM, NeonSpider wrote: good games are not long

okami is having a word with you man

Good games are skill tests, not "play the game forever" tests, that's all I'm trying to say.

If you know what you're doing and have absolutely mastered a game there's no reason it should take like a week or a month to get through the thing.

And yes the ideal playtime for a game (provided perfect mastery) is 1 to 2 hours. 3 hours is pushing it. Any more than that and they really need to rethink things because there's probably excessive grind somewhere in the game.

[ClockworkCopper]

At 7/2/16 06:13 PM, Anarkat wrote:

At 7/1/16 08:33 PM, Valjylmyr wrote: Most games are entirely too short for me. If I spent $60 on a game and don't get at least 100 hours I feel ripped off.

try witcher 3. it's definitely the longest open world game i've played ever.

I did. Over 300 hours and I still didn't explore everything. I definitely got my money's worth from it.

[LazyDesert]

The first gears of war.

[ClockworkCopper]

At 7/2/16 09:48 PM, Anarkat wrote:

At 7/2/16 08:24 PM, Valjylmyr wrote: I did. Over 300 hours and I still didn't explore everything. I definitely got my money's worth from it.

if you like pain and suffering, which is technically long hour gameplay, dark souls is really good for it.

Tried that, couldn't stand it. Demon's Souls and Bloodborne are great though.

[poopmcfarts]

Without trying to beat everything 100%, I would say every Crash game ever and nearly every non spinoff Mario game.

[Big-Boss]

Fisherman's Bait 2. It would've been awesome if there were more locations in World Monster Fishing.