Awesome topic, but I'm going to edit the shoddy title real quick, no offense.


Here's what I wrote as a comment:

I think this only really applies to a very very narrow and indecisive portion of gamers: the phone people. While it is true that gamers are losing patience, it's not the fact that storylines are too long, but these plots are just not written to captivate the attention of the fast-paced society of now. That's the game's fault for not catching up and serrving the same long-winded plots of old.

For instance, I played The First Templar recently, which is well over two hours, and the sad fact is that my review stated that it was a rare game where the plot was actually enthralling front to back. Just make something consistently appealing really.

Also, Bastion has completely jumped the shark on this one, by providing consistent and constant storyline narration that forces you to stay in the game, because it would be like ending an episode of your favorite show halfway through otherwise.

To developers everywhere: Don't lazy out on your conclusions; work your way to cater to your audience in new and novel ways. I'm just saying, the alternative of 3 hour games might upset a load of gamers.

Additionally to that comment, I'd like to add that I also played Portal and finished that in about 8 hours and I felt it had the perfect length, while gamers were outraged of the short span. I feel a story should only last as long as it stays fresh, after that, you'll lose a lot of audience. Portal 2 served up just enough pieces of the puzzle in a consistent rate to keep it engaging until the 8 hour point, I really felt there was no need to go on after that. That story was done, period.

My apologies if this is a wall text, but the main line as always is consistency.

I agree with Daavpuke's comments. I believe games can be too long but the fault lies with the storytelling and gameplay, not the gamer fatigue. A perfect example is Red Dead Redemption and LA Noire. Red Dead had me engaged and wanting to play nothing else from start to finish. I loved the story and, even when doing side stuff, it was fun. LA Noire had interesting bits to the story but the gameplay was repetetive and the middle was just plain boring. This isn't because I got gamer fatigue, it's just that I got really bored with a repetetive game that went nowhere. 

The argument that this is similar to games of old is right however older games only lasted an hour or two so the story suited. Games like the Sierra "Quest" games lasted longer but this was never a problem as they had an engaging story and interesting gameplay to keep us interested.

IMO gamers don't want shorter games, they just want a better gaming experience. Unfortunately the commercial side of gaming is really going strong at the moment so many series deteriorate into a cycle of producing a big blockbuster, earning tons of bucks and then doing it all again next year until the franchise is dead. Guitar Hero and Call of Duty are the obvious examples but one closer to my hear is Assassin's Creed. I loved AC1, thought AC2 did the impossible job of upping the ante but felt Brotherhood was a cash in. I'm not even that excited for the new one released this year TBH. I'll be interested to see what happens to Desmond but I couldn't give a rats about Ezio. Brotherhood at least added a unique multiplayer but what's Revelations gonna do...sorry, I'm digressing into a Creed specific comment. I'll shutup now

The short answer is "No actually the opposite is true" On average we seem to be getting less and less game for our initial outlay of cash than say 5 years ago. I agree with all the comments suggesting gamer fatigue is more to lack of captivating gameplay and/or story line rather than length. If I'm enjoying a game I'll play it for as many hours as it takes and if it comes in under 10 hours ( for a full priced game ) I feel somewhat cheated!

Much as I am a supporter of DLC to extend the life and playability of a game I think there is an element of "give them a skeleton game and we will release the meat in a month as DLC" - perhaps exagerating slightly but.......

Games should be longer. Fallout: New Vegas was a brilliant representation of this because it could be really short and it could be one of the longest games on console and since there are so many interesting quests that it could keep you hooked for a while.
But, I also think games that make you feel like you are not accomplishing anything or are repetitious in gameplay should be short and to the point, because there seams to be no point to the game at all untill you nearly reach the ending and that seams to be why gamers are losing patience.

i agree Daavpuke, i think that a quality story plot and good game play mechanics can justify a long game. if you don't have both in place than people will get board. Good example COD series, great game play but no real story so the campaign can be completed in 5-7 hours and i really don't want it any longer than that or i would lose interest, this is of course Multilayer aside. another good example the elder scrolls Oblivion Great Game play and great Story, i played that game for over 300 hours until i started to lose interest. There are exceptions to the rule but this it works in most cases.

I guess it really comes down to what kinda game that your playing as well. i think shooters should have a 7-10 hour story plot i think a RPG should have 25+ hours Action/adventure 10-15 hours. each has a a rough time that it should be around as long as the game is good. if teh game is bad i don't car if its 100 hours or 1 hour i don't want to play it anyway.