SHORT GAMES VS LONGER GAMES

Short games. They tend to have more detail.

It depends on how short "Short" is, it depends on the content of the game, and other things as well. There haven't been many RPG Maker games where I really WANTED it to be longer. Some had just a fine length, some games went on for way too long, Some games were really short but I was satisfied with that. I guess i am not the type of player to play things for too long! My latest playthrough of a game is Legend of Mana for 13 hours (to completion of the game and most of the sidequests), and I am not one to ask for 60+ hours of content. The longer it is, the less likely I'll want to play through it. I have other things to do as well instead of focusing forever on just one game. This includes commercial games.

I think someone mentioned the "COLLECT 10 WOLF PELTS FOR ME" sidequest type of stuff. Especially if they have a low drop rate, this tends to be more of a chore rather than fun. Or boring dungeons added for the sake of it.

I generally like to be in the 2-5 hour range, but I am pretty bad at estimating my games times. In some respects I do not mind making things like sidequests, optional bosses and stuff and those add to game time for those who are really interested in that. I am against grinding and I do not like extensive backtracking. I want the player to enjoy the game, not forcing them to spend half an hour running around in a circle fighting so they can be strong enough to fight the boss so that the story can continue. I try not to add something that I do not enjoy myself.

But yeah, particularly when you are starting out, it is better to make shorter games to learn from rather than trying to start with an epic.

If I can't grind in a game, it makes me sad. What's worse in those kinds of games is when the battle system is amazing, but the game won't allow you to enjoy it as much as you want.

author=Ocean
I generally like to be in the 2-5 hour range, but I am pretty bad at estimating my games times.

2 hours is less than 2 dungeons in most games... In FF6 that would be when you escaped from Figaro Castle. I think 10-15 hours is about the lower limit on the game being long enough to actually introduce any sort of depth (not to mention long enough to make it worth learning how to play, if it does have any depth). And God, I live for depth in games. That's why I like RPGs and strategy games in the first place.

author=kentona
I get disappointed when I can't play as much as I wanted to when I come across a great battle system. (LoZ:OoT comes to mind)

They actually fixed this problem, though! They released a version of OoT with like five times as much combat. It's called Legend of Zelda: Master Quest. I have it on Gamecube.

No, the second to last was Pong. The real final battle was roll between the legs and mash attack.

I've been playing RPGs for around 20 years now. 8 hours is indeed the average commercial game unless you include RPGs, which is the whole topic here.

This gen..

Lost Odyssey
Infinite Undiscovery
Final Fantasy XIII
Disgaea 3
White Knight Chronicles
Blue Dragon
Dragon Age
Dragon Age II
3D Dot Game Heroes
Demon's Souls
The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Enchanted Arms
Fallout 3 and New Vegas
The Last Remnant
Nier
Resonance of Fate
Star Ocean: The Last Hope
Tales of Vesperia
Valkyria Chronicles

and countless handheld RPGs, and a good portion of console RPGs I missed are all way way longer than 8 hours.

Also, a game being good regardless of length is enough for me to want a sequel.

I've hated very, very few games. I've liked 95% of the RPG Maker games I've played too. I'm incredibly easy to please. My main requirement for an RPG is length.

too short, lacking in challenge, and too easy (would the challenge and easy be the same complaint?), thats mostly what i've thought of game for the past few years now because i can go through them in around a day tops. but seeing that i like RPGs i'd have to go with longer (sometimes that adds difficulty what with battles and sometimes fun with more length and entertaining content) here, otherwise i'm just more likely to play something from the nes to genesis/snes generations instead of newer games.

been gaming for over 15 years so that plays a part in my opinion too, seen games from nes up to the newest >.>

I'd say: there's nothing wrong with making a game short, but there should be some length to it, or you may end up making a game with as much content as John Cage's 4'33.

There's no straight answer to that.

I am, like many people, a lazy player. So I'm unlikely to bear long games. Only if they're really good.

I think games should only be long if they need to. That should happen either if you have a big story to tell, or if you have a style of gameplay that relies strongly on character evolution/numbers (and it better be good). I'm thinking FFT. It's a nice addictive battle system, but not the kind of system that would sustain itself with too much repetitiveness, so the game NEEDS to be long to be enjoyable. I found FFT frustratingly short.

But if your gameplay doesn't depend too much on that, and if your central story isn't that long, there's no point. Some people complain Dungeoneer is too short. I don't think it is... there would be no point adding dozens of extra victims, or many weird plot twists. I just played Leo and Leah, and even though it's not that long, it could be shorter. The game could deliver what it's set to deliver with less content. It's just a fresh example on my mind, many games are like that. It's not a huge sin, but something to be thought. I also felt The Longing Ribbon is excessively long. Eyes without a face is a very short game, but there's no reason it should be longer. Etc.