| zeldaring said: 90S was the best in terms of nostalgia, and being blown away as a kid. in terms of gaming though it's much better now. Nintendo was really the only one that had games that can take 25-40 hours to complete, everything else of quality was short unless you like JRPG which i don't. something like elden ring or botw would give you more playtime then 80% of 16 bit games lol. |
But is length the same as quality? I would argue not. Modern Assassin's Creeds are far beyond 100 hours, but I usually stop playing after 20-30 hours, as that is the time it is fun to play. A game like 'A Short Hike' is only 1 or 2 hours long, but I think it is better than 80% of the 50+ hour games, it has what is needed and is impactful and doesn't overstay it's welcome. Games that are really engaging for all of 50, 70, 100 or more hours are actually pretty rare. So I wouldn't see the playtime (or content) as a mark of quality.
