• AperiOperimentum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    811 months ago

    Good.

    Quality content is better to me than having a large quantity of content. I’d rather finish a game and think, “wow, that was solid” instead of “wow, when will this end”. Even if it’s endgame content; I don’t want it to feel like chores.

    • Scrubbles
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      Red dead 2 is significantly shorter of a playthrough than some RPGs. Much much shorter than Valhalla. But it’s a significantly better game

      • @Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Yep. The only games that really pull off being “long” well are the ones that let you do as much or as little as you really want.

        Elder Scrolls is usually the go-to example. It’s easy to be aimless in those worlds. There are main stories, usually not overly long, and a heaping pile of side content to do. But you get to play how you want. You’re not railroaded. Unless you’re a hardcore completionist, the games don’t make you feel like you’re missing anything by not doing every faction, every sidequest, etc. Eventually you just reach a good place to stop, but usually in the process you feel as though your character told a story.

        Valhalla was just a chore. There was basically a single path from start to finish and that path took >100 hours to get there. I couldn’t make it to the end. The result is that, even though I played over 50 hours, I feel like I never really played the game because it never ended up taking me anywhere. There were some places that I did want to go and explore because they seemed cool, or some quests that I wanted to keep going with, but I’d get walled by sudden level spikes, which just felt crappy. It just turned out to be a waste.

    • @Strangle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      011 months ago

      I don’t see why there is such a backlash on shorter games.

      Personally I would love a dense 25-ish hour game experience

  • @Odo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 months ago

    Are they really describing Valhalla as a 100-hour game? I spent that long on Origins, and Valhalla has way more to it.

    But overall a shorter AC game sounds great. I miss the days when even going for 100% took 45 hours instead of triple digits.

      • @TurnItOff_OnAgain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        I’ve been playing off and on for a month or two and feel like I’ve barely scratched the surface. I tend to get distracted though and just go off and fuck around, finding things.

        • @Boiglenoight@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          011 months ago

          That’s the way to play. Trying to grind the game and do everything…it’s a lot. Best to either just plow through the singleplayer main story if you want to move on or play a little at a time over the course of 10 years.