Damnit, Does Any Game Really Need To Offer 400 Hours?
I understand the "bang for your buck" concept. I really do.
I also love to see games that offer so much entertainment for the solo player. Because open-world games are basically dominating the industry, and those are the types of games that typically have lengthy campaigns, it's a nice benefit for those who don't care about online play.
But at some point, we just reach ridiculous levels, don't we? We know how huge games like The Elder Scrolls and Grand Theft Auto are; if you want to see and do everything, you'll have to invest well over a hundred hours. In the case of this year's The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, developer CD Projekt Red said it would take over 200 hours and they probably weren't far off. Now, Bethesda is claiming the upcoming Fallout 4 might take over 400 hours for the completionists.
Granted, it's in large part due to the extensive crafting system we'll find in the game, but when one of the game's designers says he's "still finding stuff I haven't seen" after all that time, one has to wonder: How long is too long? Yes, there is such a thing. Of course, the campaign in Fallout 4 certainly won't take 400 hours but those campaigns are starting to require more time, too.
The worst part is that this particular game comes out during the fall, when there are typically tons of other titles one might want to play. On top of which, the proliferation of stupidly huge games makes it harder for anyone with a life to finish them. I believe there is a sweet spot concerning length in all games; for open-world adventures, the number is higher, of course, but it doesn't have to be astronomically huge.
Anyone else feel this way?
Related Game(s): Fallout 4
8/1/2015 10:33:12 AM Ben Dutka