How long should a single player game take to beat?

[IBNobody]

Back in my college and high school days, I used to have a ton of extra time I could devote to playing games. I'd relish the 50+ hours spent on an RPG. There were times I'd skip school or cut classes just to go home and game.

But now as a working professional with a wife and family, I can barely squeeze in play time. I can't play an RPG and expect to finish it. I find myself playing shorter games instead like SMG or RE4 on the Wii.

Square once commented that they believe the ideal game length was 20 hours. I'm starting to agree with them. Shorter games can be beaten quicker. You have less of a chance to tire of the game. Since the duration is shorter, the plots have to be compressed and streamlined. (There's less filler.)

What does everyone else think? Do you like a short gaming experience, or do you demand that your games give you hour upon hour of play?

 

[Ace Gunman]

I'm in the camp that think video games should be longer. When an RPG is 40 - 60 hours I relish that play time. I just think if it's a good game, the longer the better. I often hear people complain that if a game is too long it cuts into their schoolwork, career, etc. What I have to say to them: So what? It doesn't matter how long a game is, if it's a 50 hour game and you only have 2 hours to spare before work, then play for two hours and then stop, save, and head to work. Don't blame the game's length for your own inability to control how long you play. That's like blaming ice cream when you eat too much, it's not ice cream's fault you have no self control.

 

[Spikey]

I really think the longer a game is, the better. But to better fit my busy schedule, games with episodes/chapters/levels/ect, are better for me. This way I have a part in the game that feels fit for a stopping point for me to better pick up later.

 

[Hitto]

My opinion is, one dollar/euro = one hour of fun. If it gets beyond, great game. If it gets below, then it had better be a fucking funtastic game that I'll never forget.

 

[Lukeage]

It really depends on the game. A 40 hour game with 5 hours of genuine gameplay and storyline obviously tires well before you finish it.

This is no different to asking how long a book or a movie should be. There really isn't an answer and depends on many factors.

 

[xcalibur]

a nice long rpg is good but i just dont like it when you acidentally miss a piece of dialogue which indicates where you should go next...

i say that you should have at least 20 of solid gameplay for anything other than an rpg

 

[raulpica]

It really depends on the game. There are games that you would never want to finish, and there are games that get boring after a while and that you'll probably never finish because are too long

I think that 20+ is a good choice.

 

[IBNobody]

I definitely am obsessed with finishing games. That's what hurts my ability to play games of epic length. I can't put more than 30 hours (2 weeks) into a game without losing interest.

 

[mthrnite]

I like a nice short game for the most part. If it's really short though, I want some extras as incentive to play it again, or a difficulty level that I can increase. I don't finish many games, and find the artificially extended games to be frustrating. All that said, if a game is tons of fun, I like it to be long. Half-Life could go on forever and I wouldn't mind, but mostly, I'd like to get around to an ending at some point.

Portal was a shining example of a short game that was just perfect in length. It wasn't very long, but told a great story, and I have plenty of incentive to keep going back to it.

So 20 hours or less is good for me, with exceptions from time to time.

edit: @Ace... it IS TOO the ice cream's fault!!!

 

[Mars]

Usually I enjoy lengthy games. However, on the DS I prefer short games. Since I have so
many games on my DS, I lose interest quickly. Usually the only games I complete are short ones.

 

[Ace Gunman]

I like a nice short game for the most part. If it's really short though, I want some extras as incentive to play it again, or a difficulty level that I can increase. I don't finish many games, and find the artificially extended games to be frustrating. All that said, if a game is tons of fun, I like it to be long. Half-Life could go on forever and I wouldn't mind, but mostly, I'd like to get around to an ending at some point.

Portal was a shining example of a short game that was just perfect in length. It wasn't very long, but told a great story, and I have plenty of incentive to keep going back to it.

So 20 hours or less is good for me, with exceptions from time to time.


Well it really does depend on the game. I mean I don't think I'd ever want to play a 40+ hour side scrolling beat'em-up game, or a racing games that was extended by making each track 2 hours to complete.

As for Half-Life, with number 2 you really don't need to worry about it ending. They seem intent on releasing expansion after expansion. Which for all the H-L2 fans out there is good news.

edit: @Ace... it IS TOO the ice cream's fault!!!

All of societies problems? I blame ice cream!

 

[RayorDragonFall]

I think that around 40 is the best. Games that take more than 60 hours are tedious and games under 20 are just too short. I was disappointed about RE4 but I still like the game because of all the extras, which actually make it longer than the 20 hours I spent initially.

 

[silverspoon]

.

 

[Pigwooly]

I went with 10-20 and the only other option I considered was 5-10. I like a difficult, hardcore game experience so I wouldn't call myself a casual gamer, but I also have a job, a family, and more important hobbies (various types of art creation). If a game is more than 20 hours that just means I either have to decide if I'm going to never beat it or if it's the only game I will play in the next couple months.

I hate how many games I haven't had time to beat. It's so unsatisfying to see them all sitting there. Back in the days of the NES, games were short, sweet, and hard as hell. Nowadays they are long drawn out and stupidly easy. This is a bad, bad trend in my opinion which is why I LOVE Contra 4.

I'd rather play for an hour, lose, and have to try again some other time than play for an hour and with little effort progress through 1/100 of an overly long game that forgot that movies and books do stories one thousand times better than a game ever could. Most games now just take a huge devotion of time to beat, not any skill whatsoever.

I understand that that people want more for their money, but it ends up being less for me if I'm never going to have the time to finish it. It's like if all novels were 10,000 pages and you new you'd never really be able to finish most of the ones you started. It'd be frustrating and unsatisfying.

When I was in elementary school and highschool, I used to love RPGs. But nowadays I won't go anywhere near them. They're not very fun to play if you're not in it for the long haul and I just don't have that kind of time to waste.

I pretty much agree with everything mthrnite said.

 

[xcalibur]

I think that around 40 is the best. Games that take more than 60 hours are tedious and games under 20 are just too short. I was disappointed about RE4 but I still like the game because of all the extras, which actually make it longer than the 20 hours I spent initially.

i completely agree with you there
the main story line had me coming back more than any other game and ive put in so many hours on the extras too
i strongly advise everyone who finishes RE4 to replay it with the infinite launcher

 

[Veho]

When I was in elementary school and highschool, I used to love RPGs. But nowadays I won't go anywhere near them. They're not very fun to play if you're not in it for the long haul and I just don't have that kind of time to waste.

Seconded. Either I'll play them for hours and put everything else on hold (bad idea), or I'll play an hour each day, and never see the end of it, and simply give up somewhere along the line. I want to play a game for a long time, but I also need the appearance of getting somewhere. That's why I like the episode system that seems to be in lately. I get to play a game start to finish before I give up (or get so swamped in work that I forget what the game was about in between gaming sessions), but I also get a long lifespan in a game.

RTS games are perfect that way. Short missions, but with all the sides and all the expansion packs and all the multiplayer, they can last you years. Plus, after a long time away from them, you can just pick up where you left off.

With RPGs... My free time is scattered too irregularly across the month now, and longer games are like light drugs, if you don't play them at regular intervals, you lose the buzz, and the craving fades, and I just don't feel like playing anymore. If I put down a game midway, and don't play it for a longer period, I won't feel like continuing, or trying to figure out where I left off or what I was about to do, or get back into the groove. I may start it over again, from the beginning... but then I'll just be forced to make a longish pause somewhere along the way, and there we go again

 

[kellyan95]

It's all about what type of game - minimum of 20 for an RPG, I played KOTOR and Oblivion for 70

For an FPS, its 7 pitiful hours if done right - like CoD4

 

[cenotaph]

It's not so much about length for me as how much it interests me throughout, because in most cases less is more. The Final Fantasy games all average 40-50 hours, but could easily have been cut down to 20 (and have come off as more consistent and altogether more interesting) by removing pointless elements like the repetitious and monotone grind that is neither rewarding nor difficult and/or interesting.

 

[Psyfira]

I came into this thread guns blazing to vote for longer, but after reading everyone's posts I really don't know anymore. I like games with clear levels or obvious places to put it down on handhelds, but to be honest I don't normally pay any attention to the length of the whole game. I'm one of those people who'll happily stick with a good game until the end. I know how much time I have in a day to play, as long as I can put it down then it makes no difference to me how many weeks it goes on for. If it's a good game the more the better

I don't mind the length of RPG's, I play for the story. I often forget what's happened and have to read up on the plot but I don't mind. Random encounters when you're in the middle of doing something really wind me up though, especially when they're too frequent (*cough*FFX*cough*).

I'm gonna poll 20-30, I actually mean 20-40 but the missing range means it's impossible to vote 35 so that'll do.

 

[lagman]

I'm not even sure it really matters to me. The 8-10 hours that Beyond Good and Evil lasted were some of my best invested hours ever. The Megaman Battle Network games on the GBA are much longer but they are not better.