Funny, this thought came up as I was making my protein shake for the morning. I typically have my shakes blended the night prior, but my shake from last night came out a bit awful (I had experimented with Caraway seeds…). So this morning, instead of getting all the varieties of blueberries and raspberries and whatnot, I simply grabbed a banana, 3/4 cup of greek plain yogurt, some oat milk and oats, and blended. And would you believe it, it’s the best protein shake I’ve made to date.

Then my thoughts moved over to video games, and all the sudden, I was reminded of so many times where a game promises a million things and does so much right (e.g. Expedition 33, TLoU:Part II, DKBananza)… and I end up preferring the game that asks very little and can be beaten in a single sitting (e.g. Mario v Donkey Kong (GBA), MarioKart DS, DKCountry Returns).

What about you? Do you believe games can be better when aiming to do less?

Oh, and to add: If you do believe that less is more, then would you be willing to pay the same price (if not more) for a game which really triumphs at doing one thing exceptionally one versus a game that promises and delivers to the point of becoming overwhelming?

I dont care much either way. A good game is a good game, wether it has a large scope or a narrow one. Baldurs Gate 3 and Elden Ring are both amazing games, and theyre huge and ambitious. Hades and Ori are also amazing games and they are much more smaller and more focused. Both formulas work well, its just a matter of whats poured into them.

Alien(1979) is fantastic, but Aliens (1986)? Also fantastic.

I'm a minimalist myself, but my favourite genres of game are sandbox providing the player with a plentitude of opportunities to explore, play around, and build things. Emergent storytelling and emergent gameplay. Games like Dwarf Fortress, SimCity, Animal Crossing, Crusader Kings, Victoria, and modern Zelda. I also love big expansive open world games with an exploration focus primarily off any kind of critical path, and tons to do in them like Xenoblade Chronicles X, the aforementioned modern Zelda, and Witcher 3. Games you can get lost in and find your own path.

I do play a ton of concept indie games though, I often have 2 or 3 of those on the go alongside a larger game. And I will often take breaks from the bigger games and jump into another (for example, I've been bouncing between Witcher 3, Cyberpunk, Tears of the Kingdom, and Xenoblade Chronicles X all year. But I've probably also done a good 15 to 20 smaller games, most of which I caught on sale for extremely cheap prices and are the sort you can play from anywhere between 2 to 25 hours.

A good to amazing game is just that no matter the length. Short games can be awesome, and stuff like Persona can be some of the best experiences out there.
I suppose I would rather have a main quest of a game in the broad range of 4-16 hours over a main quest that's 25 hours or more. Especially because a lot of games have side content that means the whole package is 40 or more hours of content.

Well, I'll just put it this way and go bigger picture.

When I had to go to a video store to rent a movie, I enjoyed the movie more when I did watch it. When I had to buy physical albums in order to hear a record, I enjoyed the record more. When physical media was the only way to play a game, and I had to go out, stand in line at midnight to get it, I enjoyed the game more. And when I was poor, when I was within days of being homeless, that twenty-five-cent copy of Die Hard on VHS I found at the Goodwill was like finding the holy grail. I thoroughly cherished it.

The idea that more is better has always been false, and will always be false. Yes, you need some place to sleep, some food to eat etc. But after the basics, the less you have, the more you'll enjoy the things you do get.

Both types of games have their use cases in my library.

When I don't want to get too deep in the weeds with my games, I fire up an Arcade Archives game or a fighting game.

When I play a game like No Man's Sky or Breath of the Wild, I can get carried away for hours.

I will say, the shorter a game is, the more likely I am to replay it. Gigantic games that take 40+ hours just to beat aren't exactly games I'm just going to play over and over because of the massive time investment. But I can easily crank up a Mario or Mega Man or Halo game and beat the game in short order, anywhere from one to eight hours depending on the exact game. I played Elden Ring and loved my time with it, but I haven't replayed it once. Meanwhile, I've probably put dozens if not hundreds of hours into some of my favorite older games simply because of how often I've replayed them (I've probably put over 2000 hours just into Halo CE over the past 25 years, assuming one playthrough each month on average, which is probably close to the truth). That's why I completely disagree with the notion that a game's value should be determined by a "Price divided by length of a single playthrough" formula, because it doesn't take into account replay value.

Disagree, content quality define what is too much or too little, not the length by itself.