How long do you want games these days to last???

[rkotm]

Edit-title should be "how long do you want games these days to last???"
the former sounded kinda sexual lol.
\Excluding the ever long rpg genre, how long would you like your genre's game to be? To me, no matter how good a game is, i'd like to it to end so i can get on with my life and accomplish other things and beat other games. Are games getting longer? This day and age, a 15+ hour game is typical, minus cutscenes. I'd rather it be 8 hours or so, make it replayable and to the point, and NO BEGINNING TUTORIALS. If i want to know how to play the game, i'd like to have an option in the main menu for this. It would help with the surprise and mystery instead of things being spelled out all the time like a color in the lines experience. Off topic for a second, a real next gen rant. Wario Land Shake It is just ripe for a 6 hour jam through so i can get on with my life. Hows about you?

Action:6-7 hours preferrably
Adventure:10 hours
Sports:lol
Beat em up:4 hours + multiple paths
Shmups:dont play em..
rpg:30 hours or less PLEASE

[WCP]

Edit-title should be "how long do you want games these days to last???"
the former sounded kinda sexual lol.
\Excluding the ever long rpg genre, how long would you like your genre's game to be? To me, no matter how good a game is, i'd like to it to end so i can get on with my life and accomplish other things and beat other games. Are games getting longer? This day and age, a 15+ hour game is typical, minus cutscenes. I'd rather it be 8 hours or so, make it replayable and to the point, and NO BEGINNING TUTORIALS. If i want to know how to play the game, i'd like to have an option in the main menu for this. It would help with the surprise and mystery instead of things being spelled out all the time like a color in the lines experience. Off topic for a second, a real next gen rant. Wario Land Shake It is just ripe for a 6 hour jam through so i can get on with my life. Hows about you?

Action:6-7 hours preferrably
Adventure:10 hours
Sports:lol
Beat em up:4 hours + multiple paths
Shmups:dont play em..
rpg:30 hours or less PLEASE

I remember back in ye good ole' days, people loved it if the games were as long as possible, but as I get older, and my "free" time becomes less and less free, I think the Less is More approach is better. I hate games that make you backtrack thru a bunch of levels to artificially lengthen a game. There is no need for that imo.

On one hand, I haven't bought Limbo because of the length. If it was 5 bucks, I'd probably buy it, but not for anymore than that, consider it's like 3 or 4 hours long. Portal was cool, but it came with all those other games on Orange Box, so it wasn't an issue. I think about 7 to 11 hours is the sweet spot. 7 hours in a really good game can be kinda short, and 11 hours in a middling game can be too long, but I think the happy medium is somewhere in there.

As for games like Fallout, well, that's another story entirely. I'm currently playing Fallout 3, and personally, I'd just like to pack up and move to the wasteland and take up residence there. So, it can be as long as it wants to be, as far as I'm concerned. Still, I bet a very low number of people played Fallout 3 for it's 70+ hours worth of gameplay. Same thing with games like GTA IV, and needing to play FF13 for 20 something hours before it starts to get decent... Or in Red Dead Redemption when the Mexico parts dragged on far too long.


For me, 7 to 11 hours for most single player campaigns, and 25 to 45 hours for RPG's. This way, more people will actually get to finish the game and maybe developers can give the game world twice as much detail if the game is half as short as normal. Just make sure there is another amazing open world game for me to play when I get finished

[jammajup]

I play mainly FPS and limit myself to a few hours each play as i am quite good and can beat them in 7-12 days if i wanted,its a strange world when i limit my play so i do not complete a game too soon,it was never like that gaming pre millenium its almost as if now days so much is spend on graphics and effects they sacrifice playing area and game size.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

FPS, 7-9 hours i think is ideal, any more than that and i begin to lose interest as it becomes repetitive at this point (resistance 1), 7-9 hours is the sweet spot (kz2, cod)


any shorter than 7 hours and i feel like i got jerked out of 60 dollars (homefront, modern warfare 2)

[Aussie2B]

Doesn't really matter, as long as I find it used every second of its time well and that I got my money's worth.

I often look for short games, though, because I don't want every playing experience to be a big commitment. 10-15 hours is enough for me to consider a game "short", but I definitely don't mean that in a disparaging way and will happily play a game even shorter yet. With RPGs, I think 20-25 hours is a good amount. I have played many RPGs that could reasonably keep my attention up to that point, but when I hit 20 or 25, they started to get repetitive and tedious. It takes a great game to keep it up past that, and it's a shame that RPGs that aren't good enough for that length would actually be better games if they had trimmed the fat and paced it better. When I think of RPGs with the best, most exciting pacing, many are in that 20-25 sweet spot, like Chrono Trigger and Super Mario RPG.

[Robocop2]

Not to sound vague but as long as it takes to properly tell me whatever story its trying to. Too many games these days are either cut short in a poor attempt to set up for a sequel or so chock full of filler that it becomes rather boring. I realize that its a common feeling that if its too short its not worth the money it cost but remember 20 years ago games cost more and were much shorter than they are today. Sure one could argue the replayability aspect isn't as high as it used to be but that's a different topic for a different 20 page thread.

[Rickstilwell1]

I hate games that make you backtrack thru a bunch of levels to artificially lengthen a game. There is no need for that imo.

This is what annoys me so much about Wario Land 3. It seems like that is what the whole game is about. Playing every level in the game 4 times each in some weird random order that also makes you have to walk through the map screens countless times. It's enough to drive one nuts! The gameplay is fun, but its just such a weird flow setup.

[Leo_A]

I like them to conclude just as the fun is starting to wear out. I don't have a set number for when that happens. It's different for every game.

I play mainly FPS and limit myself to a few hours each play as i am quite good and can beat them in 7-12 days if i wanted.

What first person shooters are you playing that even come close to approaching the number you've just implied? Assuming just two hours per play for what you described as "a few hours", that's going to be nearly 25 hours for a single player campaign if it takes 12 sessions to play through it.

I'm lucky to get 6-7 hours out of the average fps campaign these days. Usually upwards of 15 is about the best I can hope for (Half-Life 2 comes to mind as taking me right around that much time to finish the first time through).

[Julio III]

I like short games

This year I've mainly been playing shmups. The drawn out ones are 20mins and the better ones are just 10mins. Of course, I end up playing them for hours and hours. Can do the same with a good racing or rhythm game also. Play the same 5 mins of gameplay over and over. Someone earlier mentioned Dodonpachi Daifukkatsu ver1.5. I think it is too long. The last level is pretty much as long as the first 4 combined.

I'm not a fan of long games in general and am often scared to start them. For an action or adventure game I want about 6-8 hours. Anything more is what I call a long game. Any game I've spent 10 hours on is a big commitment. Its like I spent 15 hours on Fallout 3 but am only just on the beginning but thats far longer than I'll play most games. I recently booted up Yakuza 3 to see how far I was since I now have Yakuza 4. I thought I had spent ages on it but it was only 6 hours.

For a platformer I want 3 hours MAX. Someone mentioned not getting Limbo because it was too short. Well, its kinda too long for me. I'll probably never complete it. I want a game I can finish in one evening. With Limbo I played it loads one evening, and realised I was only about halfway through it. Didn't go back to it for months until the other night where I played half an hour and then stopped. Not much intention of going back to it.

Basically, I am a fan of short games that you repeat over and over and over. With long games you tend to repeat the same gameplay elements over and over and over anyway, but less enjoyable then mastering a good game.

[c0ldb33r]

I don't really care as long as the game's good. I hate it when stuff is added just to make a game longer (I'm looking at you, FF X and your cloister of trials!)

Actually, if I had my way games would be cheaper and a lot shorter. I don't have the time to beat most games that I play. If something was just a few hours, then I'd have a fighting chance.

[Richter Belmount]

More than 5-8 hours , who really spends 60 dollars for a game to just end in a weekends time?

[SpaceHarrier]

I'd rather a game be too short rather than too long. I could put down an average time by genre but for me it's really a game-to-game basis.

I could have stood for even more content in Super Mario Galaxy 2, for example. Just that good. However, I'm about 15 hours into Dragon Quest 8 and I already think it is gonna run wayyy too long. Metroid: Other M (yes, I realize most dislike it, but I enjoyed it) took me about 10 hours, and 2 hours were cut scenes, and I think that game was just right in length. But Devil May Cry 3 took me 30 hours and I thought that was perfect too.

Basically, I consider a game worth the money based on 2 conditions: if it is an ARCADE style game (like Street Fighter, or Raiden Trad) then I divide the money spent on purchase by the total credits I would have poured into the arcade based on replays/continues. I don't obsessively keep playcounts, it's more like a general guess kind of thing. I figure I have put at least 150 credits into Raiden Project so far, and that game was a quarter in my arcade. I paid $30 for Raiden Project, so I'm good.

Second, is total purchase price divided by hours of enjoyment. If I get $2 per hour of entertainment out of it, then it was worth it. Metroid: Other M might have only taken me 10 hours to beat, but I spent at least 12 more hours replaying through segments, so I almost achieved my arbitrary $2 per hour rule.

sorry for the novel

[crazyjackcsa]

I don't really understand this preference for short games. "Yes, please give me less content for full price!"

Give me a good long game, 30 hour adventure, 50 hour RPG, hell, I'd like to see a 20 hour FPS or Rail shooter.

I think it's a shitty developer that can't keep me interested for a long period of time.

Different locations, different challenges, engrossing story. 7 hours? I'm just getting warmed up!

[c0ldb33r]

I don't really understand this preference for short games. "Yes, please give me less content for full price!"

I guess it depends how much time you have for gaming. I don't have any more than (maybe) a few hours per week. If you give me a 50 hour game, I'll never be able to finish it. Something 10-20 hours is almost too much. Short and sweet, that's what I like.

[joshnickerson]

[Aussie2B]

However, I'm about 15 hours into Dragon Quest 8 and I already think it is gonna run wayyy too long.

If you're already finding it dragging, I'd honestly recommend abandoning it now seeing as you've barely scratched the surface. I'm a self-admitted slowpoke in RPGs, but my fiance, who goes through them briskly, spent around 100 hours on that game (and that's without even doing the post-game bonus stuff). He really enjoyed the game the whole game through, but I imagine it would be a miserable experience to complete the game for someone who's not.

[Shingetter]

I like long games, but like everyone else, I'm busy. So what is critical to me is being able to save at any point. I hate it when I have to "get to a save point".

[rkotm]

I like long games, but like everyone else, I'm busy. So what is critical to me is being able to save at any point. I hate it when I have to "get to a save point".

This too. I have shit to do, man. Im getting older, (mid 20s) and the time to play games better be worth it or decent length. Games in the old days was a few hours or 5 minutes, it didnt have to be epic all the time..just because we have the tech now to extend and make things grander doesnt mean we have to have these kinds of games all the time (which of course isnt all games nowadays)

@joshnickerson except at the end of that comic i wouldn't have come back, i'd redo the final panel shot of the comic with the game on the shelf with spider webs and dust.

[Zama]

RPGs should last at least 40-50 hours