Are long games appealing or intimadating?

[W8taminute]

They don't intimidate me, but if they're not done very well, they often start to bore me well before I finished.

I love finishing a great game that avoids grinding at the end.  I hate having to grind out the last 33% of a game's length just to claim a victory that is devoid of suspense or difficulty.

+1

[Yooper]

I'd have to agree with FarAway Sooner. If I'm going to sink time in a game it better be consistent. The beginning should have a great hook (Fallout 4), the middle should be engaging (not Fallout 4), and the end should make all the shit in the middle worthwhile. (Knights of the Old Republic).

Failure should be evident at a point early enough on so that it's pretty obvious that you've lost. My one foray into War in the East's Grand Campaign I was able to limp along for awhile not realizing that many many hours later I discovered I was totally screwed.

Witcher was fun in Act 1, but I hate it when all those filler missions just feel like filler. Sure it's a cool world to explore, but how many times do I really need to criss-cross it?

[Dammit Carl!]

For myself, long games are appealing up until I actually have to start putting time into them.

I'm flaky as hell and better suited for short bursts of gaming - due to actual limited time available and personality.

:(

[JasonPratt]

Both appealing and intimidating, like the Not-Impossible She.