By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Star Ocean 5 is a less than 20 hour jrpg MORE proof, Amazon japan users complaining

DivinePaladin said:
Wasn't Chrono Trigger essentially 20 hours?

If you wanted it to be and on that topic, so was Chrono Cross, another excellent game.



Around the Network
Xxain said:
Aeolus451 said:

What about the other star ocean games? 40 hours or more of gameplay is the standard length of gameplay in a rpg. If anything the standard is getting longer for most rpgs. It just means there's that much more content to play through versus there being less. 

Typical western gamer mindset - MOOOAR = BETTAR!

This idea of  "standardization" is exactly what I was talking about. Grandia 2 is one of my favorite RPGS and it can be beaten in 20-25 hours. It is very linear with no sidequest, post game content or anything like that. Does not make it any less enjoyable to any other rpgs from that or or current. Somebody said it up above, but im tired of "forever games"... 60 hours main story!!..Ugh. 20 hour main story, plus all the typical tri-Ace side stuff and I am absolutely fine with that.

Forever games? You have a weird sense of time. I can understand that some of us just don't have the time or patience to play a normal length rpg but don't act like shorter is better. Everyone basically has less content to play and then the game is over that much quicker.  

Let's say you take out the base building, side quests and put a level cap on character levels in Fallout 4. The game will a lot shorter because it has less content.

For the witcher 3, if we took out monster hunting and the side quests. It's alot shorter game because it would have less content. 

Not in this reality or in any other, does shorter = better with video games. 



Xxain said:
think-man said:

star Ocean 3 took me ages! Star Ocean 4 i got too bored and quit after about 15 hours

SO3 took everybody ages if you were going for everything. I think games like SO3, FF12, and DQ8 had alittle too much content. 

i disagree, i was still enjoying all three of those games after over 100 hours on each.



OneKartVita said:
SE are no fools and they made a good call. SO4 did big damage to the series. They were smart to make it shorter and cheaper. Keeps the series viable. Good decision.

^ this is my take on it as well.

They either rushed it abit, and tried to get it short and sweet, or they went with a smaller budget that ment they didnt want to make the scope of the game too big, so they cut back abit.

 

Not sure if its smart or not... Id rather this isnt a show case of more to come in the future.

I kinda want RPGs to have longer gameplay times, pref. over 50hours.



Leshain said:
20 hours eh? that's disturbing. I recall spending well over 400+ hours on Star Ocean Till The End of Time on the PS2. Somewhere around 100+ hours on SO4. And like 300+ hours on Resonance of Fate, another Tri-Ace IP.

Seraphic!

Welcome back.



Around the Network

A JRPG under 80 hours is not worth playing.



Aeolus451 said:
Xxain said:

Typical western gamer mindset - MOOOAR = BETTAR!

This idea of  "standardization" is exactly what I was talking about. Grandia 2 is one of my favorite RPGS and it can be beaten in 20-25 hours. It is very linear with no sidequest, post game content or anything like that. Does not make it any less enjoyable to any other rpgs from that or or current. Somebody said it up above, but im tired of "forever games"... 60 hours main story!!..Ugh. 20 hour main story, plus all the typical tri-Ace side stuff and I am absolutely fine with that.

Forever games? You have a weird sense of time. I can understand that some of us just don't have the time or patience to play a normal length rpg but don't act like shorter is better. Everyone basically has less content to play and then the game is over that much quicker.  

Let's say you take out the base building, side quests and put a level cap on character levels in Fallout 4. The game will a lot shorter because it has less content.

For the witcher 3, if we took out monster hunting and the side quests. It's alot shorter game because it would have less content. 

Not in this reality or in any other, does shorter = better with video games. 

Im not saying Shorter is better either, though that could be argued. Just that being short should not automatically be detriment to a any game based off some supposed standard vs what the actual games delivers in that 20 hours.  



Lost Odyssey is an JRPG that takes around 25-30 hours to complete, if you go for the main story and occasionally toward certain sidequests, but not as your priority. It is still one of the best JRPGs I've played so far, so I don't really have a problem with such games having relatively short (as we're acustomed to) gameplay time.



Xxain said:
DivinePaladin said:
Wasn't Chrono Trigger essentially 20 hours?

If you wanted it to be and on that topic, so was Chrono Cross, another excellent game.

Pretty much my point, yeah. Length isn't everything in JRPGs, especially not in today's market. 



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

If the pacing is good and there is optional content to extend it by an additional 10 hours or so then thats great.