I applaud this move IF the 20-30 hours is indeed quality content. (to be determined) Most of us have to be selective of how many massive open world games we can take on in our adult lives. I had a good 30-40 hours in Odyssey and still felt overwhelmed that I had so much left to do. I always meant to go back to it, especially after the PS5 patch, but just never found the time. I never got more than 5 hours into Valhalla bc I felt that nagging inside to go back and finish Odyssey... but even more bc I hadn't finished Origin either. The last one I finished was Black Flag. I enjoy them, besides some annoying Ubisoft tropes and filler... but the pile of backlog was just getting too damn big. I welcome a shorter game, and knowing going into it that it is shorter, I may feel more compelled to play completely through it b4 finishing the others. IF it is good.
Playing Odyssey now (Gold Edition). The game is so enjoyable that I actually like the bloated content, even if I'm technically doing the same thing over and over again. 😄
Agreed, playing it now on PS5 opposite God of War and the open world and draw distance is too good. Plus, pirates! Upgrading everything in this game is my new digital obsession
Being an adult has nothing to do with needing to finish a game in a day. It is called having personal preferences. Adults just take longer to finish longer games because of stuff they need to do. You feeling overwhelmed is a personal thing.
If you can juggle many open world games at once, then great and congrats to you for having a lot of free-time. Most people with full-time jobs and families simply cannot finish many open worlds, considering the time investment. Nowhere did I say that we don't play open world games at all. You having a lot of time on your hands sounds like a personal thing as well. I'm not knocking you, I've been there, but we're obviously in different places in our lives.
Yesterday I played Wrath of the Righteous for 30 minutes and felt like I was playing a game that I enjoyed. If I have 30 minutes to play a 500 hr. game or a 15 hr. game, I am still playing a game that I chose to play because I like spending what free time I have playing that game. I can also read a page a day from a long book and not feel the need to complain about book lengths because I'm an adult. It's odd and It's completely a personal choice. Liking long games is not a necessary result of having a specific amount of free time.
@Anast You're still missing the point of my original comment. I 100% agree that you can still find 30 mins or 1 hour here and there and enjoy a few games..
But at that rate you will never have time to play and finish everything you want. It just doesn't add up. Which is the exact reason why 6 years later, I still haven't gone back and finished Assassins Creed Origins. I was enjoying the 10 or so hours that I played of it, but I had to prioritize other games because of a limited amount of time in my life. I often end up crossing my gaming time with time spent with my kids. Example, I'm currently playing lots of Snowrunner bc my youngest really, really loves trucks. I've been playing Sackboy Adventures w my older daughter bc that's what she enjoys. That severely limits any additional time I have to play other games. Sure, you could be a negligent parent, ignore your kids and prioritize yourself. But like I said, many of us do have limitations as adults to having any spare time at all. (for some people it's not kids, maybe other obligations.) I find it here and there, but I'll never finish every game that I want. Which is the point of my original comment, that I gladly welcome a shorter Assassins Creed game, as it will allow more of the backlog of games to be played.
@Anast I think this is where the failure of communication came. You perhaps skimmed over my original comment, and didn't acknowledge some key words in the post. "Most of us have to be SELECTIVE OF HOW MANY massive open world games we can take on in our adult lives."
This wasn't a comment about the ability to play Open World games as an adult. It was a comment about "HOW MANY" you can play, and the need to be selective, as far as being able to finish them.
You sort of started a side conversation that had nothing to do with my original post. If it was because of skim reading, I understand.
I play a game for a year or more. That is how I finish them. So it adds up to me. I don't need to finish a game a month. I have no desire for that. I like long full experiences and I am not so much into pithy entertainment. It is a personal preference despite my responsibilities. My responsibilities dictate the time I can spend on doing things I like, they do not dictate what I like.
For instance, I wish I could skateboard 10 hours a day, but other things need to get done. Skateboarding is a skill with a high and slow learning curve, but I enjoy it even if I can only skate about 5 hours a week, barring injury. At the same time my responsibilities, do not tell me that I hate skateboarding or I do not have the time for it at all because I can't skate 10 hours a day. This reasoning is strange to me.
I agree. I like to play games to completion as i play for story really, but if a game is way too long, it’ll probably get put in the back burner as i play and replay shorter games. I felt Far Cry 6 was so bloated that it took me a year to finish it, and that’s without doing the extra things like races or hunting.
I guess I am in the minority of folks who really enjoyed the last 3 Assassins Creed titles. I am not opposed to this new game being more akin to the original titles in respect of scope as I always enjoyed those games too, but I do find myself frustrated by 'journalists' trying to tell gamers what they did and didn't like.
Each of the modern AC titles sold more than the last so obviously, most people really enjoyed their time with the titles if they went on to buy the next, but the way 'journalists' tell it, we are all sick to death of these big experiences; well I for one enjoyed them.
Hmmm idk. To me a great length for an action adventure and AC games more specifically is around 8-15hrs. If the game can keep me entertained and isn't too filled with fluff like the rpg AC games, then I can see this being good. But hey, more value for the money I suppose. What made the old AC games so great was that they were just story after story and quite entertaining at that... without the necessity for grinding levels and gear.
The last good AC was origins, playing it for another time on PS5 🔥🔥I got bored of odyssey and won't bother with Valhalla, I'm glad they are at least attempting going to the roots it seems we will see
I applaud this move IF the 20-30 hours is indeed quality content. (to be determined) Most of us have to be selective of how many massive open world games we can take on in our adult lives. I had a good 30-40 hours in Odyssey and still felt overwhelmed that I had so much left to do. I always meant to go back to it, especially after the PS5 patch, but just never found the time. I never got more than 5 hours into Valhalla bc I felt that nagging inside to go back and finish Odyssey... but even more bc I hadn't finished Origin either. The last one I finished was Black Flag. I enjoy them, besides some annoying Ubisoft tropes and filler... but the pile of backlog was just getting too damn big. I welcome a shorter game, and knowing going into it that it is shorter, I may feel more compelled to play completely through it b4 finishing the others. IF it is good.
Perfect length for me. Just in time to finish before Spider Man 2 comes out a week later
"Perfect completion time" indeed. Super excited for this now. Valhalla took me MONTHS to beat. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I guess I am in the minority of folks who really enjoyed the last 3 Assassins Creed titles. I am not opposed to this new game being more akin to the original titles in respect of scope as I always enjoyed those games too, but I do find myself frustrated by 'journalists' trying to tell gamers what they did and didn't like.
Each of the modern AC titles sold more than the last so obviously, most people really enjoyed their time with the titles if they went on to buy the next, but the way 'journalists' tell it, we are all sick to death of these big experiences; well I for one enjoyed them.
Hmmm idk. To me a great length for an action adventure and AC games more specifically is around 8-15hrs. If the game can keep me entertained and isn't too filled with fluff like the rpg AC games, then I can see this being good. But hey, more value for the money I suppose.
What made the old AC games so great was that they were just story after story and quite entertaining at that... without the necessity for grinding levels and gear.