As anybody knows who reads my Week in Review pieces, I just finished Assassin's Creed Syndicate .

Yeah, that includes a restart because I wanted to savor the game after playing and reviewing the title, but the point is, this is the second week of April and that game came out in October.

I just have so little time for massive games. It's a good thing there weren't many titles I really wanted to play in 2015; I needed every spare minute to finally finish The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt , and I actually had time to go through the Hearts of Stone expansion (thankfully, 'cuz it was awesome). Thing is, I tend to wince every time I hear about a massive new open-world game that I'll definitely want to play. Not only are they really starting to bore me in some ways (has anyone noticed that these action/adventure open-world titles are starting to feel very similar?), but again, my time is limited.

That's why I'm really looking forward to the next few months. We get Ratchet & Clank this week, and Insomniac has estimated the length to be around 10-12 hours. I'm a trifle concerned about this because it means the game isn't as long as the original classic, right? Everybody I know says they remember putting 20 hours into the first R&C, easy. But anyway, 10-12 is fine. Then comes Uncharted 4: A Thief's End in May and that won't take more than 15 hours; these adventures are pretty consistent. Doom – launching three days later – supposedly takes around 13 hours , which is perfect for a shooter, in my estimation. And I don't care about the multiplayer.

After that, we've got Mirror's Edge: Catalyst , which I doubt will be longer than 20 hours (probably closer to the 12-15 mark, I bet), and frankly, I'm happy about all of this. There's finally a stretch of games I want to play and not one of them will take me months to complete. Plus, I've got the summer to play 'em all, as Deus Ex: Mankind Divided won't be ready until late August now . On top of which, there's no new Assassin's Creed this year , and no new GTA (and if Red Dead 2 is indeed real, it probably won't launch in 2016). I guess Horizon: Zero Dawn could be big but Guerrilla seems to be prepping a story-driven quasi-open-world adventure, so it probably won't be like 100 hours.

The only other really huge title I would've considered this year was Final Fantasy XV , but now that I'm convinced it's a big steaming pile of oxen poo, I don't have to think about it. This means I might actually feel caught up at the end of 2016. Yay!

Subscribe
Notify of
26 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rogueagent01
Rogueagent01
4 years ago

For me it has always depended on if "I" like the game enough. If i really enjoy a game there is no limit to how much time i'll put into a game regardless if there is that much to do or not. If i am not really into a game then i usually hope it is on the shorter side otherwise i just won't bother with finishing it.

I would still rather have longer games over shorter ones, simply because both have the potential to disappoint me on any number of things, but when a game is to short i somehow feel cheated.

HANZ64
HANZ64
4 years ago

Quality over quantity any day. (Ideally both, but let's not be spoilt…)

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
4 years ago

Looking forward to the smaller lengths over the next few games I get for sure. Lately it's been pretty much open world esque games. I need a good linear story!

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
4 years ago

That's one thing that makes all games as open world games bothersome. Being on point for 8-10 hours can be riveting and wonderful and you just don't see it much anymore. I'm looking forward to it for Uncharted and DOOM.

Bio
Bio
4 years ago

I've never held that games had to be any longer than necessary to tell their story, and that filler content sucks. Very few games turn me into a completionist.

I'm fine with five hour games if they don't feel unfinished, and I'm fine with 30 hour games that don't feel like they're dragging.

jimmyhandsome
jimmyhandsome
4 years ago

Yes I am. Last year it took me over 100 hours and multiple breaks inbetween to beat the Witcher 3. I love that game, but it's hard to keep track of what I was doing in the story inbetween the breaks. And Fallout 4 isn't even close to being completed. I've been too distracted with the Automatron DLC, and more comes out tomorrow to bother with the story.

I just beat Quantum Break over the weekend and it was very similar to a Netflix-style binge session. I needed that reminder about shorter games. Has me even more excited for Uncharted 4.

After that I can clear out my backlog and maybe finally beat Fallout…

gumbi
gumbi
4 years ago

Yes! Shorter games are where it's at.

My first daughter was born a few months after the PS3 launched and video gaming hasn't been the same since. Big long epic games just terrify me these days because I know I'll never finish them.

I need more games like Journey 🙂

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
4 years ago

Imo, sandbox style kind of games are big enough! And I wish the prices on games were $39.99 retail, just like the good ol' PS1 days.

duomaxwell007
duomaxwell007
4 years ago

nope the longer the game means the less often I have to go out and buy a new one which mean more money saved so Im ok with a 100+ hour longer game taking months to beat instead an an 8 hour uncharted i can do in 1-2 days

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
4 years ago

Agreed

slugga_status
slugga_status
4 years ago

I'd prefer a longer game over a short game. Sorry games end up making me mad once they're over

Hexen
Hexen
4 years ago

If the game is shit then I wanted to be as short as possible.I probably would have given Resident Evil 6 a 10/10 if it had been 15 minutes long, like after Leon drags Helena out of danger the credits start rolling.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
4 years ago

I feel ripped off when a game that costs $60 hit's me with an 8 hour campaign, but attempts to compensate with online modes I won't touch. I'd prefer to see longer games with an upcharge for the online component.

Bio
Bio
4 years ago

I&#39ve never held that games had to be any longer than necessary to tell their story, and that filler content sucks. Very few games turn me into a completionist.

I&#39m fine with five hour games if they don&#39t feel unfinished, and I&#39m fine with 30 hour games that don&#39t feel like they&#39re dragging.

duomaxwell007
duomaxwell007
5 months ago

nope the longer the game means the less often I have to go out and buy a new one which mean more money saved so Im ok with a 100+ hour longer game taking months to beat instead an an 8 hour uncharted i can do in 1-2 days

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
4 years ago

That&#39s one thing that makes all games as open world games bothersome. Being on point for 8-10 hours can be riveting and wonderful and you just don&#39t see it much anymore. I&#39m looking forward to it for Uncharted and DOOM.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
4 years ago

I feel ripped off when a game that costs $60 hit&#39s me with an 8 hour campaign, but attempts to compensate with online modes I won&#39t touch. I&#39d prefer to see longer games with an upcharge for the online component.

HANZ64
HANZ64
4 years ago

Quality over quantity any day. (Ideally both, but let&#39s not be spoilt…)

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
4 years ago

Agreed

jimmyhandsome
jimmyhandsome
4 years ago

Yes I am. Last year it took me over 100 hours and multiple breaks inbetween to beat the Witcher 3. I love that game, but it&#39s hard to keep track of what I was doing in the story inbetween the breaks. And Fallout 4 isn&#39t even close to being completed. I&#39ve been too distracted with the Automatron DLC, and more comes out tomorrow to bother with the story.

I just beat Quantum Break over the weekend and it was very similar to a Netflix-style binge session. I needed that reminder about shorter games. Has me even more excited for Uncharted 4.

After that I can clear out my backlog and maybe finally beat Fallout…

bigrailer19
bigrailer19
4 years ago

Looking forward to the smaller lengths over the next few games I get for sure. Lately it&#39s been pretty much open world esque games. I need a good linear story!

Hexen
Hexen
4 years ago

If the game is shit then I wanted to be as short as possible.I probably would have given Resident Evil 6 a 10/10 if it had been 15 minutes long, like after Leon drags Helena out of danger the credits start rolling.

gumbi
gumbi
4 years ago

Yes! Shorter games are where it&#39s at.

My first daughter was born a few months after the PS3 launched and video gaming hasn&#39t been the same since. Big long epic games just terrify me these days because I know I&#39ll never finish them.

I need more games like Journey 🙂

slugga_status
slugga_status
4 years ago

I&#39d prefer a longer game over a short game. Sorry games end up making me mad once they&#39re over

AcHiLLiA
AcHiLLiA
4 years ago

Imo, sandbox style kind of games are big enough! And I wish the prices on games were $39.99 retail, just like the good ol&#39 PS1 days.

Rogueagent01
Rogueagent01
4 years ago

For me it has always depended on if "I" like the game enough. If i really enjoy a game there is no limit to how much time i&#39ll put into a game regardless if there is that much to do or not. If i am not really into a game then i usually hope it is on the shorter side otherwise i just won&#39t bother with finishing it.

I would still rather have longer games over shorter ones, simply because both have the potential to disappoint me on any number of things, but when a game is to short i somehow feel cheated.