RaptorChrist on 30 May 2018
| RolStoppable said: A lot of long games have less replay value because of excessive padding that you won't want to go through again. The idea of the developers with such games is to cater to players who generally don't replay games, and the same group of players is the most likely to sell their games after they've been played through. Essentially, the games are either deliberately designed to drag on in parts to stretch the game's length or there was no incentive to cut parts that turned out to be no fun. Length in and of itself isn't bad, rather it's the development process that leads to results that hurt replayability. An analogy that works here are drugs. If you look at games like drugs, there are pure drugs and padded drugs that contain other substances to produce higher volume. The pure drugs triggers a bigger rush than the other kind, so they are much more desirable to be experienced again as even small doses can net significant results. To use Mega Man 2 as an example, it's only one hour long on replays, but it's a really great hour. As such, one may find themself replaying multiple short games rather than one long game, because the shorter games have a higher level of purity. Examples of longer games that are fun to replay are various Fire Emblem titles, because there's no grinding and instead you have constant progress, plus multiple viable strategies and different party compositions. In general though, the longer a game is, the higher is the probability of boring portions, hence why it's much easier for shorter games to achieve good replayability. |
Are you talking from experience, because that's the weirdest analogy I've ever heard. A dose of any drug with a higher purity is going to have a longer duration of action than one that is cut (padded).
