More or Less?

[kabuki]

Originally posted by 88mph
You should play Vanguard Bandits.

That game is the perfect length, and it has branching paths.

Oh yeah... and its fucking incredible.

I think my housemate might own that... hrmmm...

[cka]

I'm in the middleground. I enjoy games that take time to beat, but I don't want my game to last, say, > 1 month. GTA3 is a good example of this -- it's long, but it's always full of stuff to do so it doesn't seem long. I sincierly hope Vice City turns out this way too.

I also don't mind games that take ten minutes to beat, such as Capcom vs. SNK 2 and Tekken 4.

[Frogacuda]

I like a game with some focus. To my experience, most overly expanisive games don't have much direction. I like dpth and having alot of meat to get into, even more than I can fully explor, but I don't like directionless meandering.

[Kidnemo]

Originally posted by 88mph
It really depends on the Genre.

Boo Yah.

[Cheebs]

I will not buy games that take a long time. I'm OK if the game offers extra ways to play after you win once. That way, I can win and feel a sense of compleation with the game, then choose to continue if I feel like it. Dragon Force on the SS was a good example of this. You could start over and over with different generals if you chose. But as for games that take 40-60 hours to make it through the first time.... Pass. It could be a terrific game, but it's not getting a look from me. I don't have that kind of time in the first place, and even if I did I'd rather spend it on several games.

If you ask me, the simplest games deal with the length issue better than anything else. A game of DDR takes less than 10 minutes to play, and then you're done. Game over, that's as far as you can take it. So start back up again. It's fun the second time. It's fun the 500th time.

[Tracer]

I like games that will last me forever (or near enough to). Morrowind was one (easily 500+ hours), Empire Earth.. I played one game of that for 26 hours straight. Quake 3 Arena didn't offer a lot to uncover but I played it for years and I started playing again recently. I like a middle ground. With shooters (of all kinds) they need to be as short or as long an experience as you want them to be, allowing you to jump on and play and get off it just as quickly. With RPG's I like then openeded so I can do whatever I want and I'll know that there's always more than one way to skin the perverbial cat.

Also, Amped and Halo have/are lasted/lasting a long time.

Racing games can be both ways.

ºTracer

[Tsubaki]

Originally posted by Zerodash
As for RPGs- I wish they aimed more for the 10-15 hour mark rather than the 40+ some of them aim for. I am sick of spending most of my game time leveling up...

Methinks you're just playing the wrong RPGs.

[Lordmrw]

It depends on the genre. Certain games seem to focus on you improving your skill through repeated playthroughs; which usually means the game is short. I like that. At the same time, I like long games that are involved and have focus.

[Clash!]

I like video games.

[MechDeus]

Originally posted by dog$
Instance; how cool would it be if Dracula X PS/SS just offered to "reset" the castle every time you got 200% and doubled (or 4x or whatever) the strength of all the enemies each time you finished the percentage completion, tallying a total % all the way? Some people would probably be still playing it..

*raises hand* Guilty as charged.

I tend to enjoy games simple in concept that allow continuous improvement through learning and practice. Fighting games, FPS', Cosmic Smash, that sort of thing. Beautifully deep in its simplicity.