It’s honestly got plenty, it’s just there are more broken alpha GaaS games (and 90% of them fail).

One of my favorite experiences this gen was Hellblade and I finished it within a single 24 hours. Bayonetta 1 on Switch I'm almost done with after just a dozen hours, and I'm loving it. Playing Far Cry 5 alongside that and petting Boomer at the end makes every firefight worth it.

God of War and Spider-Man both took like 50 hours, Horizon was almost 70 for me. They each exceeded my high expectations for them.

None of these games have similar gameplay or experience.

Diversity and options > Arbitrary "games should be [this]"

Give me a reason to play the game first. Then maybe I'll worry about crossing the 2 hour mark.

Ah, the seemingly simple but deceptively complex debate of quality vs quantity. I love it when I get a lot of value for my money, but if it came down to whether I had to choose quality or quantity, I would choose the former every time. There are a lot of great games out there that are only 10 hours in length or sometimes even shorter, and they're often not given a proper chance because many look at the length, scoff and skip it in favour of something else, myself included, but I'm thankful for the short but great games I've played over the years. For one thing I've finished a much higher percentage of the ones I've played.

I've played many games that are long, but even if they are great I tend to have difficulty finishing them because they have to engage me for that much longer. A handful succeed, and hats off to them. They often make my list of favourite games of all time, because engaging me for that long and successfully encouraging me to focus on that one game rather than the plethora of other games I could be playing is no easy feat.

Games of this nature also often have repetitive moments such as stories with lots of filler moments, excessive lvl grinding (which isn't as commonplace as it once was but is still a thing), travel between point A and point B, etc. Moreover, that repetition often pads out the game's length considerably. If I feel sufficiently rewarded for putting in the time to power through that repetition then I give a game props for that.

I think there's plenty of room for both long and short games in the current industry, especially with digital pricing varying from title to title. Full retail releases tend to have more fixed prices so that physical and digital versions can be priced comparably, so the quality vs quantity debate definitely resonates more with those titles, but there are a lot of smaller games, often indie developed, that cost considerably less so it's less of an issue when they're not as long as a full priced game. Even for full retail releases though, 10 hours of great content is alright with me if the alternative is 100 hours full of filler and padding. If a game can have both quality and quantity then that's the ideal combination, but quantity alone is just a waste of time for me.

Capcom has completely dominated so far this year with the RE2 remake and now DMC5 in the short single player game market. Both are top notch quality with amazing replay value.

I actually prefer shorter games. I don't have all day to be playing a video game. Most longer games aren't even actually longer they're just filled with meaningless fetch quests and "collectibles". I prefer quality over quantity.

uncharted 4 was too long in my opinion.

the days of ps1 final fantasy games are over, where 70+ hours are the bread and butter of the game, in other words the whole game

Couldn’t agree more not bothered by how the long the game lasts but the quality!!! DMC 5 is a prime example of quality. Not interested in silly 50 hour + games that I will never play again.