Pat's editorial - I Don't Have The Patience For This! (Anymore)

[GrimReality]

I'm surprised no one has wanted to chat about this. Go read it if you haven't yet:
http://www.rpgfan.com/news/2010/516.html
I can relate to a lot of what he talks about. I even mention it in my latest game journal entry, although it’s more in regards to ALL games, not just rpgs.
I am one of those “older” gamers(35 is old, right?) that has a wife, a kid, a house, and all the(time sucking) stuff that comes along with such things.  I still enjoy gaming immensely, but have found myself playing rpgs less and less, due to the overall time commitment.  I only partially agree with his comments on gaming sessions.  It’s true that I need a game that I can play in small chunks, and still feel like I accomplished something. I’m currently playing Other M, and it is actually pretty good about this.  I also know that the game is only supposed to last around 10 hours, which means I’ll get the “I beat a game” feeling a hell of a lot sooner than if I were playing a 35 hour(on the low end) rpg.
This is probably why I have all but abandoned rpgs. They just take too damn long to play through.  It’s the #1 reason why I have not invested much time in FFXIII. It’s supposed to be a 60+ hour game. You have any idea how LONG it would take me to play through such a monster?  If I were able to squeeze in an hour 3 nights a week, it would take me 20 weeks! That’s 5 friggin’ months. I can play 5-6 10 hour action/adventure games in that same time frame.
There are always exceptions. I loved ME2 and played that as often as possible, resulting in a 45 hour game being beaten +/- 2 months.  That’s still a long time compared to all sorts of gamers who seem to have the time to beat new games in a matter of days.
“Skip to the END!”
If more developers could just squeeze the rpg experience down into a more “reasonable” time requirement, I might be more willing to give their games a try. What is reasonable? For me, it is 20-30hours. There's no reason a good narrative can't be told in such a time frame. All sorts of games in other genres are doing it just fine. For now, though, A lot of rpgs will get a pass based solely on the amount of time required to beat it. Sad, but true.

[JurassicPrinny]

I understand the sentiment completely. I am, however, exceptionally patient.

I think I'm up to about ten games now that I play on a regular basis (regular enough to not trade in anyway). I haven't finished anything since April (White Knight Chronicles), and while I could probably finish one before the end of the year if I played just one, I have a terrible habit of sitting down each night and spending ten minutes deciding what to play.

So as long as I don't add anything new to the pile I'm putting in a 2 hour session on each game per fortnight. I'd estimate an average of 60 hours left per game (I just restarted most of them), so that's 60 weeks just to finish my current collection, which will probably grow by around one title every two months (Trinity Universe, Recettear and Atelier Rorona are on my list).

I'm happy to play shorter RPGs, but then I might end up in the horrible situation of having nothing to play while waiting for new releases. I'm not sure I could be patient about that.

[Dincrest]

I say if an RPG is going to be in the 10-20 hour ballpark, it should have some replay value.  When I'm paying good money for a game, I want it to last a while, and RPGs are good in that regard.  Granted, some RPGs like Last Rebellion feel very cumbersome and long despite being 15-16 hours long whereas any given Persona title feels fresh well after the 50 hour mark where I'm saying, "zuh?!?!?!  I played this for 50 hours already?!?!?!  It only feels like 50 minutes!" 

With visual novels being Choose Your Own Adventure type games, I finish one playthrough in 10 hours then restart to try a different path.  Being able to fast forward previously seen scenes helps. 

I think because it's not cumbersomely long and has loads of replay value and New Game + is why Chrono Trigger is held in such high regard.  Sure a game like Star Ocean 2 has replay value, but it's long, cumbersome, and does not have New Game + so you're basically starting from scratch every time. 

[Kevadu]

I am definitely in the 'RPGs are too long' boat.  I look at my backlog and all the games I plan I purchasing and realize the backlog is only going to get bigger...actually playing through an RPG a second time seems like a pipe dream (which can make games with multiple kind of annoying, actually).

Still, I love my RPGs.  Action games might have the virtue of being more finishable (is that a word...) and there are certainly a few action titles that I have enjoyed, but for the most part I really can't get into them the same way I do with RPGs.  It's more the style of play than anything.  Even when I was a kid I wasn't much of a twitch gamer and that's even more true now.  I like a slower paced, thoughtful experience like you find in turn-based games, though of course even in RPGs turn-based has become the exception instead of the rule.

I would love it if more RPGs could be beaten in 20-30 hours.  Let's face it, there's a lot of filler in most of these games.  There was a time--when I was younger, poorer, and had a lot more free time--that I considered a higher estimated play time for a game to be an automatic virtue, but these days I realize how trivial it is to make games longer (just throw a few more enemies at the player, etc) and how little this actually adds to the experience.  I wish RPGs would keep the same amount of core content and just lose the filler and grind.

[Kstar]

Yeah, I guess for me it's a double edged sword - what I love about RPGs is that there is so much packed into one game that I really feel like I get my money's worth.  At the same, it really allows me to get attached to characters and completely into a game - I know I'm a nerd :-).  Although, every so often I do enjoy those games that I can beat in 10 - 15 hours, I actually think that's why I started playing a lot of graphic adventures - it's nice to be able to beat a game in a short amount of time and move on to the next one.  I used to have a rule that I couldn't move on to/buy a new game until I beat the next one and if I really followed that I would have a lot more money, haha.  I actually found that I have less time for RPGs since I branched out into other genres. I think sometimes it helps to play other genres while playing RPGs, so you don't get too burnt out on one game, but yes time does make that quite difficult.  I get frustrated because I'm not able to stay up nearly as late as I was able to game when I was younger...boy do I feel like I'm getting old, haha.

[sandiny0ursh0es]

Yeah, I'm playing Tales of Vesperia right now, past the 20 hour mark, and I was disappointed to find out that it takes maybe 40 to 60 hours to beat it. Sadly the first thing I thought of upon finding this out is "Fuck what have I gotten myself into?! Shoulda picked a shorter RPG to play..."

I'm over long RPGs, which is a huge reason why I haven't gone through the time-sink that is Persona 3 and 4. Just knowing that it lasts 80-100 hours is a turn-off. And I know I'm missing out, too. So lame!

[TurnBasedDude]

And that is why I start to love handhelds, but it depends on the situation from person to person plus preference. In my case, I travel by subway 2 hours back and fourth almost every day, plus lunch break and various other means that enable me to pack in handheld time, and by the time I get home during evening time, half the time I just get tired out or during other things rather than console gaming, and I dunno exactly why, but I can't find myself easily engaged to playing much console games compared to how many hours I clocked in during handhelds still, and it's a matter of preference there. I like to game on the go, and not picky for HD nor a bigger screen, and since I am able to have the time to play them, even in bite-sized chunks, I wind up still wanting lasting RPG experiences, but in the handheld front whereas I want relatively shorter games in the console front. I feel that is the way to go for games wanting to be longer, and am one of those guys who is actually FINE with major series installments being on a handheld such as probably being the only guy who is ok with VC2 being on it (*readies flame shield*) To each their own of course on that matter. I can still game a bunch, but my preference lies elsewhere nowadays.

[Ramza]

subway/train/flight commuters are at a HUGE advantage for game time w/ handhelds. I'm mad jealous of that aspect of "urban / corporate" life.

Thanks everyone for the input.

YS: THE OATH IN FELGHANA for PSP should satisfy many of us with limited time. It's like 8-10 hours and awesome every step of the way.

[MindCandy]

Ah, but here's the rub:

If you guys are anything like me, I'm not just an avid gamer, I'm an avid reader, and I expect the same quality tales from the books I read as the games I play. This does put games at a supreme disadvantage. A 30 hour read is pure story element, while a 30 hour RPG must sacrifice in order to present a game. While descriptions in in any video format are presented instantly, saving time, I don't feel that can compare with extra dialogue, character develpoment, and insight that a book format can supply in full.

What do you think? Can an RPG with the same limitations required to make it more easily digestable still present a quality story? is the sacrifice worth it? What about breaking things into episodes? Say, 3, 20 hour downloadable chunks at 20 bucks a pop instead od a single, massive 60 hour game?

[Kevadu]

I don't buy that argument.  It doesn't seriously take you 30 hours to read a book, does it?  Besides, with a game you can present things with more than just text, which is often more economical timewise.  It's easier to look at a picture than to describe it.

Switching gears, I would probably play handheld games during my commute if I didn't commute on a bicycle ;)

[Sagacious-T]

RPGs have always been half game, half story to me. I fall in love with the worlds and character as much as I do the combat and character building systems. I'd still like my games to be long, but it depends on the context. It feels fantastic to play a 60+ hour game and when you finish it, you feel like you've finished a chapter of your goddamn life.

On the other hand, a 30 hour RPG like Mass Effect 2 is a fantastic 30 hours, AND there is replay value on top of that.

The person who said "Heh Call of Duty" is kind of an idiot. Remember these high quality mass market FPS games are similar to what would be a really high budget action movie at the theaters. They appeal to the lowest common denominator first, and they sell damn good. It's no surprise that they bend the gravity of game design towards those player's favor.

As long as my RPGs still have a soul though, I am happy.

[GrimReality]

I say if an RPG is going to be in the 10-20 hour ballpark, it should have some replay value.  When I'm paying good money for a game, I want it to last a while, and RPGs are good in that regard.  Granted, some RPGs like Last Rebellion feel very cumbersome and long despite being 15-16 hours long whereas any given Persona title feels fresh well after the 50 hour mark where I'm saying, "zuh?!?!?!  I played this for 50 hours already?!?!?!  It only feels like 50 minutes!" 

You people and your replay value. I barely have time to play a game once, let alone replay it! Replay value means nothing to me.

Still, I love my RPGs.  Action games might have the virtue of being more finishable (is that a word...) and there are certainly a few action titles that I have enjoyed, but for the most part I really can't get into them the same way I do with RPGs.  It's more the style of play than anything.  Even when I was a kid I wasn't much of a twitch gamer and that's even more true now.  I like a slower paced, thoughtful experience like you find in turn-based games, though of course even in RPGs turn-based has become the exception instead of the rule.

I still love rpgs, too. In no way am I a twitch gamer. All these action games that I play nowadays, I have to play on easy mode or GTFO. I like the quick thrill I get from playing GoW or Gears or Bayonetta. But I also miss playing long, epic rpgs. It's almost like a chapter of my life ended, and I had to either turn the page, or close the book entirely.

Yeah, I'm playing Tales of Vesperia right now, past the 20 hour mark, and I was disappointed to find out that it takes maybe 40 to 60 hours to beat it. Sadly the first thing I thought of upon finding this out is "Fuck what have I gotten myself into?! Shoulda picked a shorter RPG to play..."

Same here. I started playing it, then read about how long it is. I stopped shortly thereafter.

subway/train/flight commuters are at a HUGE advantage for game time w/ handhelds. I'm mad jealous of that aspect of "urban / corporate" life.

Thanks everyone for the input.

YS: THE OATH IN FELGHANA for PSP should satisfy many of us with limited time. It's like 8-10 hours and awesome every step of the way.

I want these damn Ys games so bad, but can't get myself to buy a psp. I have a DS and never use it. I simply prefer the console experience over the handheld. Plus, it hurts my neck to play the damn thing. Like you, Pat, I'm kinda jealous of those who can play a handheld outside of the home.

Ah, but here's the rub:

If you guys are anything like me, I'm not just an avid gamer, I'm an avid reader, and I expect the same quality tales from the books I read as the games I play. This does put games at a supreme disadvantage. A 30 hour read is pure story element, while a 30 hour RPG must sacrifice in order to present a game. While descriptions in in any video format are presented instantly, saving time, I don't feel that can compare with extra dialogue, character develpoment, and insight that a book format can supply in full.

What do you think? Can an RPG with the same limitations required to make it more easily digestable still present a quality story? is the sacrifice worth it? What about breaking things into episodes? Say, 3, 20 hour downloadable chunks at 20 bucks a pop instead od a single, massive 60 hour game?

Huh? This is an odd argument. Books and games are too different. Still, it DOES take me forever to get through a single book. Just like for gaming, my time for reading is limited. A half hour a day means an average book can take me a month or two to get through.

[MindCandy]

 It's easier to find a bookmark than a save point when you need one.

Oh, I didn't mean to make it sound like I could finish an entire book in 30 hrs, just that 30 hours of reading has more story content than a game does. It's probably not a fair comparison, but it gets me thinking, I mean I have no trouble reading a book, but even with portable consoles, quick saves, and the ability to suspend a game, I still find it much easier to find time to read a book than play an RPG.

I think it's a pacing thing. It's never 5 min of story, 5 min of gameplay, it's more like 5 min of story to an hour or more of gameplay.  If we're honest as well, nobody likes to leave a game in the middle of a dungeon, they'd rather finish whatever task they are working on before taking a break.

[Sagacious-T]

Pfft, you think RPGs are long? Try reading the unabridged version of Romance of the Three Kingdoms or 1001 Arabian Nights.

Bitches.

[Kevadu]

I did try to read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, actually.  It was kind of painful.  The problem isn't really the length, though, as I don't think it's really any longer than something like the Lord of the Rings trilogy and I had no trouble finishing that.  The problem with Romance of the Three Kingdoms is the writing style and all the constant name-dropping.  The entire book consists of passages like:

"So-and-so's army met such-and-such's army at someplace.  So-and-so challenged such-and-such and exchanged n blows, after which so-and-so was victorious.  Then so-and-so continued on to someotherplace."

Imagine repeating that over and over for 1500 pages and you have a pretty good idea of what the book is like...