Support NeoGAF

[Wolf Akela]

It's not really the case for me.

The problem is that once I entered adulthood, I felt that I had less time for games because there are other things I could be doing instead. I could be studying to further my career, I could study some other interest, or do anything else productive.

Living on your own can also cut free time. I do all the household chores now. I occasionally spend time cooking proper food for dinner and lunch.

Been playing XII and I was so thankful for the fast forward button.

I still play a lot of time intensive games, but I often end up never finishing them. I have around 50-70 hours each on XV, TW3, Persona 5, etc. I want to play Horizon. I want to play Nioh. I want to play Bloodborne.

 

[TheRazielim]

Modern AAA games are timesinks for stupid and insulting reasons, but I don't play games to get some small escapism fix from reality. I like thinking and challenging myself when playing games, and invest myself in the world. So when instead of thinking "Oh, I have 20 mins to play something, what should I play", I am more like "I want to play this game now". The former just treats games as meaningless distractions and I'd rather spend that 20 mins doing something else instead.

However, the problem with timesinks in modern age is that they are long for wrong reasons, and the awful "value per dollar' and length = quality mentality that so many gamers have adopted have resulted in games that indeed, don't really need to be such time sinks after all.

 

[120v]

as a working adult i enjoy "timesinks" more than pick up n play thirty minute session stuff

gaming for me is a therapeutic thing. i like to have games i can just sit down with for a few hours and forget whatever's going on. downside however is this squeezes out time for like 5-10 other games i'd like to play

 

[Breaking Normal]

I've never understood the argument of not having enough time to play games. There are 168 hours in a week. I work 50 hours/week and sleep for about 50 hours/week. That means there are 68 hours left in the week to literally do anything else. I'm also studying part time and have a girlfriend. There's plenty of time to enjoy your hobbies, you just gotta be good at managing your time.

 

[cordy]

They're perfect if you only get a good amount a games a year. I've got a 9-5 so I can do that, work on some side activities and then crack out idk 2 hours a night and be good.

 

[Harmondale]

Adult with kids job study very limited time

Ps vita has been awesome

For ps4 I own hop in and out games:
SFV
NFS
DIRT
NHL

and....

MGSV. Holy shit did that game not respect my time, at all. Could have been a GOAT

A RPG would feel like a second job for me. Wish I could get into games like TW3

 

[clarknova156]

There is no such thing as a "time sink game" just people who can't manage their time or exert self control. I held a job , raided in WoW 3 times a week and had a GF for years during it. We broke up for other reasons in case any smart ass remarks come up.

Same goes for a back log. A back log is simply lack of self control. It effects many of us but that's what it is.

 

[redcrayon]

Parenthood affected my hobbies more than various jobs over 20 years ever did. Now I mainly play on portables as it's easy to immediately get back where I stopped last time due to decent sleep modes, and so I chip away at RPGs on my commute or in bed after everyone else is asleep. Even then, even portable RPGs often seem to have a huge amount of bloat bulking them out to 50+ hours. I rarely watch TV, films or play games on the TV at home.

 

[WallChicken]

At first I scoffed at the idea of a 4 hour game, but now that adulthood and all that comes with it has come a'knockin, I've come to appreciate then a lot more.

Sitting down and playing 'The Vanishing of Ethan Carter' front to back in an evening was oddly refreshing considering the onslaught of 100 hour games we've been getting this gen.

Great game, btw

 

[ChimpBottle]

I don't think the argument was ever for "people with jobs" was it? Otherwise, that applies to a large majority of gamers.

It was for people who don't have a lot of time. Not to take away from the stress factor of being a librarian, but do you work more than 40 hours a week? I think it's more understandable when you have someone working full time and going to school full-time or whatever, then when they go home they want to play something more mindless. Or maybe they know this is the only time for a while they'll be able to play so it wouldn't do much good to invest in a new larger game knowing they will become detached from it as they go periods of time without playing.

Granted, I can agree for myself, even in my busiest times I can still get into larger games, but I think it does become a bit harder.

 

[Sizzel]

For me , it boils down to a simple concept, I have limited time and I want to feel like I can get a full experience, this is going to be a poorly outlined example, but it is all I can think of. If I play a fighting game, a CCG, a FPS, an indie etc,, I feel like I can get a good % done in say an hour or so. For an RPG like witcher 3, I might not feel like I got much done at at all. Ripping off ten matches or a couple stages feels substantial. In a RPG or like most recently BotW, I often felt like I accomplished nothing of substance in the small time I had to play. A few 1-2 hour sessions over days would go by before I accomplished something that "felt" rewarding, I was , of course, building towards a goal and making progress, but the satisfaction came in intervals. With small games, I generally get a great degree of satisfaction per session because I make more progress. A fighting game etc I spend an hour and I get say 10 whole experiences vs making small progress toward a big goal. Hence I hate open world and filler games generally. When I could burn 5-10 hours at will on gaming I loved them and hated short games.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

Ok few issues with OP

Its not people with jobs. Its people with limited free time. Job, wife, kid... What ever it is that amounts to limited free time. You can play what you like with a job if you play from when you get in till bed time lol. I get about 10-15 hours free time (as in just me) a week and split that over games, tv and movies so i can play longer games (30-50 hours long) if thats all i use my free time for over 2-3 weeks lol.

The games you mention are not what people mean by long time sync games. Think stuff like persona and witcher. 30-100 hour story based games. These are tough to put time into because they are based around a narrative and to keep that fresh in your mind often means playing it consistently and in large chunks of time in each session.

I have no issue putting a lot of time in certain games. Take SFV. have about 350+ hours in it because i have played it since launch and just play it for an hour at a time. Easy to start and easy to drop. Same with games like diablo 3.

 

[MugiwaraCole]

Adult with kids job study very limited time

Ps vita has been awesome

For ps4 I own hop in and out games:
SFV
NFS
DIRT
NHL

and....

MGSV. Holy shit did that game not respect my time, at all. Could have been a GOAT

A RPG would feel like a second job for me. Wish I could get into games like TW3

I'm completely unable to wrap my mind around something you're having fun doing feeling like a second job.

It's like if a Harry Potter book was 1,000 pages instead of 400. So long as it's still well-written, who cares? It doesn't become a chore to read because there are more pages.

 

[Synth]

I'm completely unable to wrap my mind around something you're having fun doing feeling like a second job.

It's like if a Harry Potter book was 1,000 pages instead of 400. So long as it's still well-written, who cares? It doesn't become a chore to read because there are more pages.

It doesn't have to "feel like a job" in a way that suggests it isn't fun. But it can feel like a job in the way that you may feel it requires you to actually sanction off a regular and consistent window of time in order to slowly gnaw at it if you want to ever have a chance of seeing it to its resolution.

If you read Harry Potter at say 50 pages a night, it'll take you 8 days. But you'll now probably want these 8 reading sessions to occur within a reasonably short timeframe from one another in order for the content of the previous sessions to not fade from memory too much. So you likely wouldn't read these 50 pages once every two weeks. Whatever commitment you'd make towards finishing the book would be more than doubled were it to be a 1000 page book instead.

In order to make time for completing longer experiences over a larger number of play-session, you will need to continue to prioritise them over over experiences you may otherwise have started over the coming weeks. The main reason I didn't finish Horizon Zero Dawn, despite the fact that I was enjoying the game is simple, I found the PSVR in stock, and then started to play Rez,,, and then Thumper... and then Driveclub VR... and then Bound... and then RIGS... and so on. The longer any game lasts to more things you'll have to willing choose not to play in its place in order to finish it, and some of them may not even have been part of your consideration at the time you started.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Ok few issues with OP

Its not people with jobs. Its people with limited free time. Job, wife, kid... What ever it is that amounts to limited free time. You can play what you like with a job if you play from when you get in till bed time lol. I get about 10-15 hours free time (as in just me) a week and split that over games, tv and movies so i can play longer games (30-50 hours long) if thats all i use my free time for over 2-3 weeks lol.

The games you mention are not what people mean by long time sync games. Think stuff like persona and witcher. 30-100 hour story based games. These are tough to put time into because they are based around a narrative and to keep that fresh in your mind often means playing it consistently and in large chunks of time in each session.

I have no issue putting a lot of time in certain games. Take SFV. have about 350+ hours in it because i have played it since launch and just play it for an hour at a time. Easy to start and easy to drop. Same with games like diablo 3.

I based the OP on a thread I saw a few months ago. In some ways you could alter it.

And I disagree even on the narrative reasoning. If a game is good or engaging, or something you enjoy, you'll remember the details even if you stop. Hell, I watch shows that come out a week and have a tendency to bring up details from old episodes.

 

[LiK]

I've never understood the argument of not having enough time to play games. There are 168 hours in a week. I work 50 hours/week and sleep for about 50 hours/week. That means there are 68 hours left in the week to literally do anything else. I'm also studying part time and have a girlfriend. There's plenty of time to enjoy your hobbies, you just gotta be good at managing your time.

Indeed, you make time for them. Sometimes I see people say they binged on tv shows or went out to watch a movie. Games are no different. Games with time sink are just like big books you spend time picking at until you're done or satisfied.

 

[Chocolate & Vanilla]

It's not work that's the problem, it's work, plus wife, plus kids, plus kids clubs, plus keeping kids clean, plus keeping kids alive (turns out young children completely lack self sufficiency. Who knew?), plus DIY, plus a million other never-ending priority tasks.

I'm now 7 months into FF15 with no end in sight.

 

[Synth]

I based the OP on a thread I saw a few months ago. In some ways you could alter it.

And I disagree even on the narrative reasoning. If a game is good or engaging, or something you enjoy, you'll remember the details even if you stop. Hell, I watch shows that come out a week and have a tendency to bring up details from old episodes.

It depends a lot on how it is written, and how much impact later revelations have on earlier elements of the game.

Take the first Bioshock (or Infinite for that matter). In the short term, you are likely to remember many of the key events that are happening... but if the game just ended at Fort Frolic (or if you took a very long break from playing it there), the experience as a whole would likely be regarded as very forgettable. However, the moment the main reveal occurs, it adds weight to many of the things that proceeded it, and they are now important events in the game that you'll probably be able to recall even years later.

I thought the moment to moment gameplay in Bioshock Infinite was terrible, however when I think back on the game as a whole, I'm glad that I played it through, because the reveals that occurred near the end of the game and later into Burial at Sea were some of the most memorable I've experienced in a game. I've as a result recommended other people to play it for those reasons. If I had any thought that someone may not finish playing the game however, then I wouldn't even think to advise them to start. The game more than a sums of its parts, and the parts you would experience without committing the time to complete it aren't worth the time.

There are plenty of games (and TV shows, and movies) where this is the case. They're not all consistent experience where the first episode is as meaningful in isolation as the entire first season. However, going in blind, you're essentially taking more of a gamble with your time the the overall experience will be worth it, in comparison to hedging your bets with multiple shorter experiences.

 

[Rncewind]

Blizzards Wow team disagrees with you

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

I based the OP on a thread I saw a few months ago. In some ways you could alter it.

And I disagree even on the narrative reasoning. If a game is good or engaging, or something you enjoy, you'll remember the details even if you stop. Hell, I watch shows that come out a week and have a tendency to bring up details from old episodes.

Film / book narrative is almost always not told in the same way as game narrative. I will use the witcher 3 as an example. To actually see a worth while amount of story in one session you need to really play for 2-3 hours at a time. Thats because so much game stuff has to happen in between. Tv and books are not like that. So its easier to tell a story in chunks you only see once a week. Even then people would prefer more often which is why box set binging exists. If i treated witcher 3 like tv and played in 1 hour chunks once or twice a week it would take me all year to complete and would have got about an 8 hour books worth of story. And then i would have forgotten so much that i doubt it would have made sense.

As another example i will use persona 5 and my current situation. I get my free time and i decide if i want to watch a tv show, watch a movie or play a game. A tv show lasts 30-50 mins. I could watch 2-3 in one sitting if i wanted. Or i could watch 1 episode then maybe play an hour of a game like SFV or overwatch. Or i could watch a film. Or i could play persona 5. Which is 90 hours long, each new story line takes like 12 hours. 4 hours of this is basically reading text and making choices. Then its 4 hours of dungeon crawling. Then another 4 hours of after story and then repeat. So when i sit down to play it i have to be in the mood for that specific part of the game for the next several hours despite maybe me not wanting to. And if i want to follow the whole thing consistently i have to play it often.

My current status with this game is i got past the first dungeon and havnt touched it since.

The issue is with story based long ass games. It takes forever to tell a fully fleshed out story in game format because they have to fit all the game in there somewhere. Any game with basically no story (think diablo, fighting games, fps online shooters) you can easily put hundreds of hours in over time because there is nothing really to remember. Just fire it up and play.

People may have the same issue with games like assassins creed where there are just tons of things to collect. But this I feel is more just a mix of bad game design and people forcing them to play stuff due to their own completionist issues. If a game actually feels like work because you are trying to collect everything then you need to learn to not play those games lol.

 

[shintoki]

The argument that how a person does not have time for a long game has always been nonsensical. Simply because there is no difference between spending 50 hours in one game versus 50 hours in 7 games. It's up to the user.

 

[Wulfram]

Some "time-sink" games I think are well suited to short dips. Skyrim is a series of short stories, I'd rather scatter that over weeks and months than a more focused narrative game.

 

[epicnemesis]

It's not the job it's the job/wife/kid combo. Keeping all 3 in balance leaves little time for games. I think I play maybe 5 hours a week, 90% of which is dota. Although I would like to game more I'm not willing to do it at the expense of the other 3. What we need are longer days.

 

[Synth]

The argument that how a person does not have time for a long game has always been nonsensical. Simply because there is no difference between spending 50 hours in one game versus 50 hours in 7 games. It's up to the user.

It isn't though, because those 7 games aren't reliant on you finishing all of them for a complete experience.

To make an extreme example... If you drop dead after the next 40 hours of gameplay. In the case of the shorter games, you will have experienced 5 games fully. In the case of the 50hr game, you will have had one incomplete experience, where the most impactful and meaningful part of the game may not have been seen at all.

I get the idea that if you really really want to play something, you can make time for it... but the argument that there's no difference between a longer game and multiple shorter games is nonsense.

 

[dead souls]

IIt's like if a Harry Potter book was 1,000 pages instead of 400. So long as it's still well-written, who cares? It doesn't become a chore to read because there are more pages.

I care and yes it does become a chore. Fantasy bloat is why I basically don't read fantasy novels anymore. Why read some 800 page monstrosity when I could read 2-3 other novels with that time?

 

[justjustin]

It isn't though, because those 7 games aren't reliant on you finishing all of them for a complete experience.

Good point, and one I used to disagree with before I got a busy work schedule. There are certain long games that I can play over a span of a month or two, like I did with Breath of the Wild, but it was designed in a way to support that. And I like Final Fantasy XII enough that I don't mind replaying the remaster for a month or two. But for the most part I need variety in life, and in art. It's just more refreshing. So I will mostly go for games that don't leave me hanging, or drag out for weeks or months.

It's like watching 30 minutes of a movie across four days versus an episode of a TV show every day. The passage of time matters, along with how the art is presented. I can't put my brain and emotions on pause to make it "feel" like I watched a 2 hour movie in one sitting. Certain movies it's possible, and some not. Same with certain games. But now I have to make more of a choice.

 

[Keinning]

I get the idea that if you really really want to play something, you can make time for it... but the argument that there's no difference between a longer game and multiple shorter games is nonsense.

It's less "you can make time for it" and more "you have time for it, you just don't want to"

So while its perfectly fine if you don't want to commit yourself to witcher 3 and spend 80 hours playing 40 different games, when you use an argument like "no one has time for 80 hours timesinks anymore" you're being dense. You had the time, you used the time on something else, maybe you never wanted to play a huge game in the first place (which is fine), but you could if you wanted to (and many want to) so to say they have no place in the schedule of someone with a job, kids and relationship is wrong and needlessly pedantic (like you have a better & more responsible life because you bought and played 20 smaller games instead of using the same amount of time in just one)

 

[MTC100]

If a game is good enough, you find time to play it somehow.

I second that.

 

[SmokedMeat]

You can absolutely play those massive time sinks regardless of how much free time you have to spend on gaming. The challenging part is staying interested in the same game week after week, when newer titles are catching your eye.

 

[Hammerlord]

Even with my current commitments, I do still find time to play longer games. They just take a lot longer timeframe to complete.

That said, I appreciate shorter or more segmented games a lot more now than I did when I was younger. I've recently found stardew valley, shovel knight, and doing seasons in Diablo 3 a really fun way to spend short bursts of time.

 

[DESTROYA]

Maybe for you OP but I guess it all depends on the job, I have my own business and work about 80 hours a week and it's really hard to squeeze any gaming in between.

 

[Mathieran]

I'm married, have kids and a full time job and I can still play just about any kind of game I want still, except MMOs, which I don't think I have the patience for anymore these days. The only thing I need is frequent saves.

I managed to do Bloodborne when it came out even, just had to make use of rest mode. I don't do much online gaming either but that could be manageable I think.

A lot of games work great though, just do some side content when you don't have much time, most games have something that can be enjoyed with sub half hour sessions. Some games can take a long time to complete though. It took me like 3 or 4 months to beat The Witcher 3.

 

[Coxy100]

Disagree with the OP myself. I'm also a Librarian by the way (Acquisitions)

With my job, wife and daughter... I tend to stay away from the bigger games or else I will only play 1-2 games a year. Fallout 4 took me 6 months for example.

If you don't have a partner / kids maybe that's different yes but I can't remember those days

 

[Synth]

It's less "you can make time for it" and more "you have time for it, you just don't want to"

So while its perfectly fine if you don't want to commit yourself to witcher 3 and spend 80 hours playing 40 different games, when you use an argument like "no one has time for 80 hours timesinks anymore" you're being dense. You had the time, you used the time on something else, maybe you never wanted to play a huge game in the first place (which is fine), but you could if you wanted to (and many want to) so to say they have no place in the schedule of someone with a job, kids and relationship is wrong and needlessly pedantic (like you have a better & more responsible life because you bought and played 20 smaller games instead of using the same amount of time in just one)

Obviously if someone tries to argue "no one" has time for these games, then they're demonstrably full of shit, and it's not even worth bringing up.

It isn't simply a case of not wanting to play longer games though. I used to play longer games all the time, and have many very fond memories of doing so. However even if you want to play The Witcher 3, that may not actually be enough. You need to want to play it more than all the other games you may want to play that are competing for that same time. Again, it's like talking money. Someone doesn't only decide not to buy something because they don't really want it. You double the money (or in this case time) that someone has, and they will likely jump right in, rather than double up on the smaller options... but if it's going to have to replace everything else in order to play it... that's a different matter entirely.

And it's not even necessarily about spending that same time across multiple different games. You can play another single game for the same (or longer) timeframe, and it still not be the same proposition. For example, I've played thousands of hours of Quake III Arena over the years... does that mean it'd be the same propect if back in 1999 there had been an awesome looking RPG released (let's say Shenmue) but it was somehow common knowledge that you'll need 3000 hours to finish it? No, because when I started playing Q3A I had no idea I would spend that much time playing it, and honestly there was zero requirement for me to do so in order to enjoy fully it. Any day that I played it could have been the last time I'd ever play it, and that would not have diminished my overall experience at all. Stopping a 3000hr RPG (if one existed) after 100hrs would mean you didn't really see shit in the grand scheme of things.

Hell, to a lesser extent this applies not only to single games or movie, but also those that are designed for you to then experience the sequel to get the full picture. 17 years later, I still don't feel that I've had a complete experience with Shenmue, because the story was never completed. It's similar to when a TV show gets abruptly cancelled... the experience lacks closure, and in many cases people wouldn't have so readily opted in, with the knowledge that this would be the case.

I second that.

What the fuck? How?

 

[Monocle]

Yep, I'm on my second playthrough of The Witcher 2 right now, prepping for The Witcher 3. Nothing's changed since I had way more free time. Long games are just as fun stretched across a month as they were when I could blast through in a week.

 

[Chuck Norris]

My problem is not that I don't have time for games, it's more that I might not play a game for a week or two depending on workload, socialising and other commitments. I find it hard to find the motivation to get back to a big epic RPG or open world game, remember what I was doing, what had happened in the story to that point etc and usually battle through a lot of filler content that is just padding out the length in the limited time I have for the game. It also makes these weaknesses stand out in games a lot more now, and I'd much rather a focused concise project than a bloated one

But I also do spend a lot of time on mindless games like Rocket League. It's just that I can't accomodate the big games as much anymore. I still love me a story focused 10-15 hour game that I can crack out in a weekend

 

[Phoenix RISING]

I don't get how you started the thread on time-sink games but immediately start talking about fighting/action games?

You can definitely play these games, but it's 10x harder with a busy life seeing them through to the end.

I'm playing FFXII atm and loving it, but I'm worried I'll never see the end in between a 50 hour working week, spending time with my girlfriend, keeping the house in order, socialising and other hobbies such as music.

Agreed. I don't understand the transition.

Also, my bad OP. I was one of those jerks who would check out a book for a whole year because reasons.

 

[TheRazielim]

I care and yes it does become a chore. Fantasy bloat is why I basically don't read fantasy novels anymore. Why read some 800 page monstrosity when I could read 2-3 other novels with that time?

I personally dislike Harry Potter series, but I really don't understand this mentality. You can read 2-3 novels with that time, but what does that give you? If the long novel is gripping and has excellent writing, why does it matter that you sacrificed 2-3 other novels for it?

Same with games. Variety is indeed spice of life, but this pressure of having to experience everything out there and worrying about not seeing everything the game has to offer is insane.

 

[The Lamp]

So I'm gonna sweep this idea that apparently when you have a job, you somehow can't play "deep" or "long" games. Screw that.

I'm a librarian. Now before you say anything, no, librarians have it hard especially in the academic setting. You truly haven't faced the fury of a holier-than-thou graduate thinking he is above rules for his precious dissertation. Or those incapable of following basic rules. And such and such.

So after an intense mental stretching and an hour's worth of commute, what do I do? Play the shit out of the likes of Bayonetta, Vanquish, fighting games, etc. It actually eases my tension for the day, and actually gives me a fulfilled enjoyment. Yeah I might not be able to finish a level because of the short time between relaxation, sleep, and work (until weekends/breaks), but that's a different problem altogether and mostly relies on time management.

And even before, back when I studied, I played very long RPGs with an hour or two's worth of gameplay, with said games reaching 200 hours plus.

My point is I disagree on the views of "I don't have time to play this game because it's long" or "it's hard". It feels like even if you have the time in the world, you wouldn't enjoy it to begin with because regardless of how long the game is or how hard it is, its essence should give you satisfaction and joy from playing on the game's merits. Like if you play the game for the sake of "completing" it, then it's more like you're checking a checklist of "oh I played a game" rather than, well, playing the game.

It's hard to explain in some ways but maybe some posters could get me.

For me it's not just time, for me it's moreso the fact that my job is way more intellectually draining than what you described. I'm a research engineer, I create technologies no one has ever done. Days filled with ideas, equations, meetings, budgets, experiments, long hours, is mentally exhausting to the point that getting home to try to remember an RPG system, or what the fuck a given combo was, or what the last meaningful side quest I did was, is a level of mental taxation I don't afford after 6pm on any weekday. So I have shied away from those games, unless they're like BotW where they allow me to play in bite sizes and remind me exactly of what's important, the controls, and the quests. This is why I could never finish W101. The controls were cumbersome to remember and wield if you didn't play in long, taxing stretches.

 

[Wesley-Sigma]

After working 60 hour work weeks, I just don't have energy.

 

[MTC100]

What the fuck? How?

Well I took a few days off from work for playing my Switch in April. As you could tell I didn't sleep all that much, about 5 hours, other than that I played the game all day long and only took breaks for eating, I actually took my Switch with me into the bath tub and had a play session in there too

That's not the norm though, only Ocarina of Time and Deus Ex had that effect on me in the past, I didn't think I'd play a game again that would occupy me like that but it happened

 

[Tenrius]

I don't get how you started the thread on time-sink games but immediately start talking about fighting/action games?

You can definitely play these games, but it's 10x harder with a busy life seeing them through to the end.

I'm playing FFXII atm and loving it, but I'm worried I'll never see the end in between a 50 hour working week, spending time with my girlfriend, keeping the house in order, socialising and other hobbies such as music.

It actually took me six years to finish FFXII (but a majority of the time was in the first and last years, of course)

 

[Synth]

Well I took a few days off from work for playing my Switch in April. As you could tell I didn't sleep all that much, about 5 hours, other than that I played the game all day long and only took breaks for eating, I actually took my Switch with me into the bath tub and had a play session in there too

That's not the norm though, only Ocarina of Time and Deus Ex had that effect on me in the past, I didn't think I'd play a game again that would occupy me like that but it happened

Heh ok. I took a week off work for Virtue's Last Reward after realising how stuck on the game I was gonna be after 999. I've only had a single day in my life playing a game for over 14 hours though (Phantasy Star Online). I don't think I've ever loved a game enough to manage it for 4 days back to back, lol.

 

[Sola Scriptura]

I think the argument often boils down to forgoing other games due to time-sink games. Yes, with my work schedule, and even with having a family, I could finish Breath of the Wild, albeit slowly. But the problem is that with a game that large, dedicating that much time to it means that I probably will never play some other major releases.

It really becomes a balancing act between what you desire to play the most and other titles that you just may never get to.

 

[brawly]

Did I miss it or is there no mention of family, special other or other hobbies?

 

[irrotational]

Maybe for you OP but I guess it all depends on the job, I have my own business and work about 80 hours a week and it's really hard to squeeze any gaming in between.

No offense to the Op, but I really can't imagine librarians have it that hard. I'm sure dealing with the public is difficult, but the above is one example of a much harder "job" in general.

Police, ambulance, medics, armed forces etc etc, I'd guess teaching is also harder. In the private sector there are also a ton of well paid but very hard work jobs (some bankers, lawyers, accountants etc etc).

I'd probably put it in the easiest third of jobs maybe?

 

[Boss Doggie]

No offense to the Op, but I really can't imagine librarians have it that hard. I'm sure dealing with the public is difficult, but the above is one example of a much harder "job" in general.

Police, ambulance, medics, armed forces etc etc, I'd guess teaching is also harder. In the private sector there are also a ton of well paid but very hard work jobs (some bankers, lawyers, accountants etc etc).

I'd probably put it in the easiest third of jobs maybe?

yeah you don't know the behind the scenes of libraries, especially academic ones

 

[alexbull_uk]

I work full time and I agree that it's possible to play longer time-sink games, but then the problem is that you feel like you're missing out on trying other things.

No offense to the Op, but I really can't imagine librarians have it that hard. I'm sure dealing with the public is difficult, but the above is one example of a much harder "job" in general.

Police, ambulance, medics, armed forces etc etc, I'd guess teaching is also harder. In the private sector there are also a ton of well paid but very hard work jobs (some bankers, lawyers, accountants etc etc).

I'd probably put it in the easiest third of jobs maybe?

That's a pretty bold statement. If you've never done the job you probably shouldn't be making assumptions like that...

 

[MTC100]

Heh ok. I took a week off work for Virtue's Last Reward after realising how stuck on the game I was gonna be after 999. I've only had a single day in my life playing a game for over 14 hours though (Phantasy Star Online). I don't think I've ever loved a game enough to manage it for 4 days back to back, lol.

I generally like to binge everything. I've watched the last season of Game of Thrones in one go for example and I plan on doing that with the current one as well. If I like a game I play it for hours straight, VLR is also a game I've binged too, I think I've finished it within two days or something.

 

[hohoXD123]

I don't get it OP, you said you used to play 200 hour games when studying, now when you have a job you listed games which can be completed in like 10 hours and fighting games...so what have you proven exactly? It's not like I disagree with the title either, I know plenty of doctors who play long RPGs, frequently watch movies/longer TV shows, just the other day one of my doctor mates finished Nioh and he also plays Skyrim, so it's definitely possible if you make time to unwind even if you aren't going to be doing many 5 hour gaming sessions like before.