Support NeoGAF

[Minsc]

A lot of this seems to have to do with whether a person is capable of enjoying a game in more than a couple sittings, or if they prefer to get everything out of the game from 2-3 bursts.

Still, there hasn't been one person here who has ever said Portal was too long, so there must be a minimum someplace, that is universal.

I completely avoid games that end in under 10 hours with no replay value.

 

[Ledsen]

A lot of this seems to have to do with whether a person is capable of enjoying a game in more than a couple sittings, or if they prefer to get everything out of the game from 2-3 bursts.

Still, there hasn't been one person here who has ever said Portal was too long, so there must be a minimum someplace, that is universal.

I completely avoid games that end in under 10 hours with no replay value.

I don't remember which thread it was in, but yes there has.

 

[djtiesto]

35 hours is the perfect length for RPGs, IMO.

 

[tabsina]

i think the thread was answered pretty sufficiently in the first or second reply.. my response would be 'when it stops being fun'

 

[Zzoram]

10-15 hours for a first/third person shooter, 15-20 for action/adventure, 30-60 for RPG (depending on how fun, I hate RPGs that force grinding to extend play time, Baldur's Gate 2 is a great example of an RPG that is long because it has an excess of quests/story/character development, with no grinding required).

 

[Ranger X]

The thing is that "the longer the better" is not a true statement.

Most games can't keep up their lenght with good stuff, without getting boring. Many games should be shorter and would have been better.
Another thing with long game, especially RPGs of traditional type, the lenght is preventing them from being accessible to more people and this is dooming the genre. Now instead of shortening their games and marketing them to more people, they make it longer and longer in order to please to ever decreasing hardcore gamers they can still steal some money from.

 

[Zzoram]

A lot of this seems to have to do with whether a person is capable of enjoying a game in more than a couple sittings, or if they prefer to get everything out of the game from 2-3 bursts.

Still, there hasn't been one person here who has ever said Portal was too long, so there must be a minimum someplace, that is universal.

I completely avoid games that end in under 10 hours with no replay value.

Portal was just long enough. Any longer and it might have grown tedious.

 

[lyre]

As soon as it gets boring.

First reply. Good show sir. Hats off.

 

[Kintaro]

Topic was answered in the second post.

To the OP: Buy less games, play in shorter bursts. Just because you grow up and out of the games you used to play, yet continue your same buying habits, doesn't mean gaming needs to cater to your life. It doesn't, nor should it. Insulting the games you might have had "time to play" doesn't help your case either. Especially when millions of people who have had lives continue to love and finish such games.

 

[JayDubya]

The only games that are capable of being too long are not good games.

I like to get my money's worth out of a product, yeah.

Especially now in this insane new portable games cost $40 new games cost $60 era.

 

[ChunderMan]

I personally feel anything more than 20 hours is asking too much. But, what do you think?

I agree whole heartedly. Until recently, I wondered why I stop playing many games, even really good ones. I then went and looked at play times for many of the games I'd stopped playing; almost every single one was somewhere in the 20-25 hour range of playtime. It doesn't matter how good the game is... I just lose interest.

 

[bycha]

12-15 for anything action.

Buy less.

 

[The_Shamess]

Should gamers like myself just try and focus on fewer, more critically-praised games?...

yes, don't buy the game cause it got a good review on ign, I don't understand why you would buy a game knowing that you clearly have others to play first. I buy games when i am looking for something new to play.

 

[Phatcorns]

Fucking 68 hours for Dragon Quest 8, JUST FOR THE MAIN STORY!

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

It is of my opinion that if you do not have enough time to play games anymore you should:

A) Make time. Multi-task. Stop watching TV. Manage your time better.

B) Buy and play less games. It's not a race. I've owned Twilight Princess over a year and I still haven't beaten it. I don't care. It doesn't bother me. I'll beat it when I feel like beating it, not because everybody else has beaten it. You don't even have to focus on higher quality, just stop and smell the roses. Don't beat a game just so you can move on to the next quicker.

- Stop gaming altogether. Maybe you're getting too old to be playing games? It's obvious your job and your life are taking precedent over games, why not just cut the cord completely rather than let it dangle by a thread?

I love long games. When it takes me more time than usual to complete a game I am delighted, especially if that game is still really fun as an aside to it's extended length. It bugs the hell out of me whenever I see somebody say "I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR GAMES ANYMORE, I WISH THEY WERE SHORTER." because that is the opposite of what I want.

People actually complain now when they see an RPG say on the back of the box "70 hour quest!".

To me, that's like saying you'd rather read a magazine than a good novel. There's room enough in this world for both; but you never see magazine enthusiasts saying "I don't read books because they take too long to finish".

 

[DeejayKnight]

As soon as it gets boring. Time may vary.

Basically. That's exactly what I came in to say. :lol

 

[krzy123]

Right now I have about 80 hrs in Oblivion and may be 20 in The Witcher ... lets see if i finish either (though i must say the The Witcher is all kinds of awesome)

 

[steve]

I've been gaming for twenty years. I don't have all the time in the world anymore.

I'm not proud, but ashamed to have a "back log" of games I haven't beaten, played, or even opened from the shrink wrap.

It makes me sad that I can't give the proper dedication to something like a Dragon Quest or Lost Odyssey.

Wii is not my savior, but it could be. Any of these systems could, if only developers could embrace shorter game experiences.

Taking out your own personal tastes and current position in life, what do you think is a good length for a modern game made for gamers like me? I personally feel anything more than 20 hours is asking too much. But, what do you think?

Should gamers like myself just try and focus on fewer, more critically-praised games?

The vast resources developers have these days should be used for refining a shorter, but more high-quality game experience.

10 hours is the magic number for me.

 

[Like the hat?]

ive gotten to the point that i dont feel driven to finish games anymore if i get bored. back in my nes/snes/ps1 days i would force my way through games even if i got bored of them. i decided recently that i dont care if i finish an RPG i start or anything. If I get bored of it, thats it. Like Final Fantasy 12. I got about 30 hours in and decided I had gotten my moneys worth of entertainment. any longer and it would have felt like a chore.

i've noticed myself enjoying games a lot more since I started feeling this way.

 

[Miniboss1232]

As soon as it gets boring. Time may vary.

Pretty much. Although, there is a greater propensity for games to be boring the longer they get. I was in love with Okami in the beginning. But by the time the game had me going to yet another scary "final" boss, I was done with it. I had seen everything I felt I needed to see.

I like games like Portal, Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, Super Metroid, and Ratchet 2. They give you a very tight game experience, without a lot of filler, and they keep the variety level high. But when developers have to create content for 40 to 60 hours of gameplay, they start reusing ideas, or creating filler content that's just there to pad out the game length. It becomes a grind, and I'm always aware of when I'm being forced to grind.

If publishers would call for shorter, cheaper games, you wouldn't have the backlash of these people who seem to have tons of time on their hands to play all of these games (because of the high cost of games), and you'd be giving the guys who actually have to work for a living a chance to experience more new ideas completely instead of having to stop halfway through. And hey, the developers would probably be happier that they're not having to put more filler content in to fill up some arbitrary time limit.

It is of my opinion that if you do not have enough time to play games anymore you should:

A) Make time. Multi-task. Stop watching TV. Manage your time better.

B) Buy and play less games. It's not a race. I've owned Twilight Princess over a year and I still haven't beaten it. I don't care. It doesn't bother me. I'll beat it when I feel like beating it, not because everybody else has beaten it. You don't even have to focus on higher quality, just stop and smell the roses. Don't beat a game just so you can move on to the next quicker.

- Stop gaming altogether. Maybe you're getting too old to be playing games? It's obvious your job and your life are taking precedent over games, why not just cut the cord completely rather than let it dangle by a thread?

I love long games. When it takes me more time than usual to complete a game I am delighted, especially if that game is still really fun as an aside to it's extended length. It bugs the hell out of me whenever I see somebody say "I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR GAMES ANYMORE, I WISH THEY WERE SHORTER." because that is the opposite of what I want.

People actually complain now when they see an RPG say on the back of the box "70 hour quest!".

To me, that's like saying you'd rather read a magazine than a good novel. There's room enough in this world for both; but you never see magazine enthusiasts saying "I don't read books because they take too long to finish".

Yeah, of course this is the answer. Instead of spending time with your family, you should FORCE games into your life.

Hey, you know what, maybe, just maybe, people like to play games as entertainment. And if those games start becoming a chore, why continue playing them? Personally, I play games for new experiences, and so once the newness of a game wears off and it starts giving me filler content, why should I finish that game? The developers aren't giving me the best content, so why should I give my time to finish that game?

As you said, it's not a race. So why do I have to finish it?

And yeah, I don't read books because they take too long to finish.

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Yeah, of course this is the answer. Instead of spending time with your family, you should FORCE games into your life.

I'm having a hard time telling if your post is serious and you're failing hard at reading comprehension or if you're being sarcastic.

Never once did I say force games in to your life. Never once did I say to force yourself to play a bad game that's overstayed it's welcome. But if there's a good game out there with a long shelf life, it should not be chastised for having too much stuff to do - but I've seen it.

And it makes me cry out in pain and sorrow.

 

[Wraith]

Obviously there are exceptions(Planescape and Baldur's Gate come to mind), but typically:

Action(FPS games, DMC type games, etc.): 15-20.
Adventure(Okami, Zelda, etc.): 20-35.
RPGs: 35-45.

Any more than this for the CORE part of the game is just too much for me. For extra content, add in as much as you want - Just don't make me play it.

 

[Azuran]

As soon as it gets boring. Time may vary.

Wow, the perfect response was only the second post in this topic.

 

[dsmoke1986]

I think Uncharted was the perfect length for a game...RPG's are way too long for me...I like the OP do not have endless amounts of time to devote to a game, and rarely if ever finish games until the end, but buy a ton of them...I have an affinity for sports game because you can play in short bursts and pick up where you left off, focusing on developing your skills...FPS's are like this in a way, however I cannot bring myself to finish any one player campaign's anymore, they are so f'n boring, and serve more as a tutorial on how to get better for multiplayer...

 

[avaya]

anything less than 20hrs is unacceptable.

 

[Fuzzery]

Persona 3

 

[A Human Becoming]

Depends on the genre. Shooters should be around 10 hours long. Action/Adventure around 20. RPGs 50.

They can be longer then that, but I consider those to be the appropriate length.

 

[Yoshichan]

Too long = Okami long.

Ticked that game at frikkin 80 hours...

 

[Fuzzery]

Too long = Okami long.

Ticked that game at frikkin 80 hours...

Did you go for total completion? 40 hours for me, some parts were a tad bit tedious

 

[Xater]

Too long for me is when the SP takes longer than 40 hours.

 

[tahrikmili]

3 runs of baldur's gate 2 was not long enoug, six hours of oblivion were too long.

I went there.

 

[Yoshichan]

Did you go for total completion? 40 hours for me, some parts were a tad bit tedious

Yeah :/

 

[Miniboss1232]

I'm having a hard time telling if your post is serious and you're failing hard at reading comprehension or if you're being sarcastic.

Never once did I say force games in to your life. Never once did I say to force yourself to play a bad game that's overstayed it's welcome. But if there's a good game out there with a long shelf life, it should not be chastised for having too much stuff to do - but I've seen it.

And it makes me cry out in pain and sorrow.

The problem is that sometimes, good games with long shelf lives just don't have that much to do in them, or at least not that much different or interesting things.

I think you're being just as myopic on this though. Those of us who want shorter, tighter experiences are just wanting more of them. As it stands now, there aren't that many. Portal was a breath of fresh air, and fairly low risk for Valve. We need more of those types of games. But should we still have our 300 hour grindfests? Sure! There's room for all of it.

But you can't just go around saying that just because people don't like longer games, they should quit gaming. I could just as easily say that you should quit gaming because clearly your appetite has become so unquenchable that you're never going to be satisfied with the length of a game.

edit:
Also, I obtained 242 stars in Super Mario Galaxy, and completed Twilight Princess. However, I couldn't force myself to finish Okami, which is probably shorter than Twilight Princess.

What I'm trying to say is that, if you've got the content, do it. However, many developers start out with a set time in mind, and when they can't fill this imaginary quota, they go off and try to fill it with annoying filler that no one really wants to play, and they didn't want to put in the game anyways.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

20 hours is pretty much max I want a game to be.
12 hours is good.
8 hours is great.
Less than that is probably too short.

yea, i concur. 20 hours the game better be fookin good. like okami or re4. 12 hours is the sweet spot imo.

like mario galaxy? god, i cant take much more...

 

[BlazeHedgehog]

Too long = Okami long.

Ticked that game at frikkin 80 hours...

Too long for me is when the SP takes longer than 40 hours.

But if it's still fun, what does it matter? You're going to be playing games regardless of whether it's this game or that game. You're going to be having fun regardless. Why should a game be bad if it's "too long"?

 

[Miniboss1232]

But if it's still fun, what does it matter? You're going to be playing games regardless of whether it's this game or that game. You're going to be having fun regardless. Why should a game be bad if it's "too long"?

It may be fun at first. But sometimes, a game just runs out of steam. Okami most definitely fell victim to this problem. Perhaps better pacing could have helped it. But near the end, a previously enjoyable game started to feel like a chore.

like mario galaxy? god, i cant take much more...

Heh, I could've used more of Galaxy, personally. But still, I'd rather be left wanting more, than falling asleep during the last few hours of gameplay.

 

[Vinci]

My favorite answer to this would be that I like games I can finish somewhere between 10 to 20 hours, due to my limited game time. However, I like games that give you the option of beating them in that time but provide the opportunity to play for much longer should you so decide to. Disgaea doesn't require that you play it 400 hours but you certainly could if you wanted to, for example; you can beat Mario Galaxy without getting all the stars.

 

[Ledsen]

But if it's still fun, what does it matter? You're going to be playing games regardless of whether it's this game or that game. You're going to be having fun regardless. Why should a game be bad if it's "too long"?

Because I want to try different games.

 

[No Means Nomad]

When it feels like you've been playing for too long, the game is too long. Otherwise it's all good, from Oblivion to Portal.

 

[GhaleonQ]

There's no limit. I could read a 3,000 page Dostoevskii novel or listen to a 4-hour Bach organ piece, if it was good enough.

 

[Chris Michael]

As soon as it gets boring. Time may vary.

Pretty much. If it's a really fantastic game then it's ok if it lasts for 70+ hours. I played TP for that long and I ended up beating it - because it was just that good.

Often times I get bored though, if the game is too long.

 

[Brashnir]

Most games are too long. I hate when games pad out their length with pointless unfun filler and backtracking. Mass Effect's main quest is great, and the length is fine. The sidequests are all just boring generic filler.

I can't honestly remember the last game I played that I felt was too short. The ending of Gears of War was a bit abrupt, I guess, but I think that was due to story pacing and the final boss coming out of nowhere more than the actual length of the game.

A solid half of the games or more that I play are longer than they need to be, however. Assassin's Creed has about 3 hours of actual game stretched out to 15 hours, as an example. The entire last 2 hours of Uncharted could have been removed to make it a better game. The Cortana level in Halo 3 is twice as long as it should be. Every single area of Phantom Hourglass takes 2-3x as long as it should. (at least for the first half of the game. I can't be bothered to finish it.)

Replay value is also inversely proportional to game length. There's no way in hell I'd ever bother to replay Blue Dragon, but I've played through Halo 3's campaign 4 or 5 times, Dead Rising a couple times, etc.

This is why online multiplayer games and sports games are so popular. They're short and replayable. Would anybody buy Madden if each game took 13 hours to complete?

 

[Rolf NB]

i think the thread was answered pretty sufficiently in the first or second reply.. my response would be 'when it stops being fun'

That's a very poor response though because it begs the question when it stops being fun. It contributes nothing to the solution of the question.