So 20 hours for a game is short now...?

[Zarcon]

It really depends on the game.
RPGs tend to be 40+ hours, going into the 100s sometimes.
How much of that is spent actually playing?
How much time can be deducted running back and forth on a map?
How much time can be deducted from random encounters? Waiting for your turn?
How much time can be deducted from all the text you read?

The same applies to SRPGs like Fire Emblem and Advance Wars.
A lot of time is spent reading, waiting for turns, watching animations if you don't turn them off.

Meanwhile more action-y games tend to be much shorter.
Platformers, hack n' slash, FPS', etc.
These are all much shorter, but there are fewer gaps between times where you're actually playing.

Both types are fun, but calling a 20 hour action game short compared to a 100+ hour RPG is a silly comparison.

 

[nintendoom]

20hrs hell yeah it's too short, unless it has a really good multiplayer. I would like my games to be atleast 50hrs. I would never buy a game that has less than 20hrs of gameplay.

haven't you played pokemon yet??
It has 23 hrs (that's close to 20) of gameplay (it was written on the cover of pokemon Leafrgreen, don't know if the new PKMN games follows that), I can barely finish that game and collect all the pokemon for 4 months.

50 hours then, would mean almost a year for me to finish.

 

[Sterling]

I've sunk around 36 days into Runescape. 36 days in all the pokemon games combined (replays included). 10 hours into board games. Around 20 days into Oblivion, 20 days into New Vegas (I still haven't beaten the game). 50 days into Graal Online, plus some server time that is deleted. 6 days into Revelation: Lands of Kaldana. The rest takes up around 2 years of my life...

All those 20 hour games add up. As long as you had fun with it, you should have no regrets.

 

[Vulpes Abnocto]

When I think about disappointingly short games the one that comes to mind is Portal. (16 hours for me) This is the only thing I could possibly complain about regarding this game. If it had been about twice as long, I would have felt like it would be well-worth the current price that games are commanding ($50-60)

 

[BloodyFlame]

When I think about disappointingly short games the one that comes to mind is Portal. (16 hours for me) This is the only thing I could possibly complain about regarding this game. If it had been about twice as long, I would have felt like it would be well-worth the current price that games are commanding ($50-60)

Portal took me 5 hours. Did I miss that many secrets?

 

[Vulpes Abnocto]

Maybe not. It took me a little while to learn how to think with portals.

 

[Evo.lve]

When I put it into perspective, a week is 168 hours, an hour is 60 minutes, a minute is 60 seconds, etc.

1 hour is 3600 seconds, 20 hours is 72000 seconds, a week is 604800 seconds.

I've clocked about ~175 hours into my old Pokemon Sapphire. That's 630000 seconds - over a week - sunk into a single game. I've clocked similar times on other games. So yes, 20 hours is a bit short for me.

 

[Law]

I paid about $40 for Red Dead Redemption, my game time is something around 35 hours and I've got 100% completion. Whilst I wished it could have been a bit longer (maybe 2 or 3 more missions) it was definitely worth what I paid for it.

 

[Fellow]

20 hours is a decent amount.

 

[KingdomBlade]

Portal, Limbo and Braid were all criticized for the short length in relation to their price, but I personally thought the experience of the three were completely worth it, as they were all amazing games. I don't need a game to be long to be happy, I want it to be a good game. I actually had to go to my friend's house to play Limbo since I didn't have an XBOX 360 and he already bought it.

Games without a storyline such as The Sims or Minecraft are obviously an exception, as the game is only as long as the time the player is willing to invest in them.

 

[ZAFDeltaForce]

For handheld console RPGs, I'd say 15 - 20 hours is just right.

For consoles though, the sweet spot is about 25 - 30 hours

Anything longer then that will just wear me down

 

[ProtoKun7]

When I think about disappointingly short games the one that comes to mind is Portal. (16 hours for me) This is the only thing I could possibly complain about regarding this game. If it had been about twice as long, I would have felt like it would be well-worth the current price that games are commanding ($50-60)

I have a feeling I heard that Portal was closer to a tech demo (but still a game), or something like that, and I don't think it was expected to rate as highly as it did. Portal 2 will be longer, at least (and I hope my computer can run it; it looks fantastic).
Dunno if that first point quite came across in the way I'd liked, and there's always the possibility that I made some of it up.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

20 hours is actually pretty long.

2 days worth? Sure, if you play the game 10 hours a day, but if you do that, you're an idiot who actually does need to get outside.
20 - 40 hours = long.
50 and up = too long.

i agree the last game i played that was over 50 hours was star ocean 3. i completed the story and am at 150 hours but the side crap aint done and it was getting repetitive so i gave up on it i decided completed story was good enough for that otherwise i usually complete all side quests.

It's true. The longer a game is, the more tedious and repetitive it becomes.

It's like me and Kingdom Hearts. I love the games, but when the main story alone takes me around 25 hours to complete, I've had my fill. There's no way in hell I'm going back to grind my levels so I can eventually get the Ultima Weapons and fight Sephiroth. That's the only reason why I don't bother with him.

Anything more than 50 hours is simply waaay too long for my enjoyment. One of the reasons why I didn't complete Lost Odyssey. That game had an amazing story and battle system, but by the time I got a good chunk into the 4th disc, I was just burned out.

 

[Ikki]

Portal, Limbo and Braid were all criticized for the short length in relation to their price

Who complained about the price of Portal?
At first, it was bundled with 4 more games and now it's 10 bucks, it even was free for a while.

I don't see why anyone would complain.

 

[BobTheJoeBob]

20 hours should be the bare minimum for any game without a multiplayer feature.
A game with a good multiplayer feature should have about a 15 hour story minimum and the multiplayer should keep you busy for a while.
I don't like how the standards have dropped, a 20 hour game is not long by any means.
Of course there's always the price involved as well....

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Portal, Limbo and Braid were all criticized for the short length in relation to their price

Who complained about the price of Portal?
At first, it was bundled with 4 more games and now it's 10 bucks, it even was free for a while.

I don't see why anyone would complain.

This. Same goes for Limbo and Braid (which are like what, $10-$15?).

Usually it comes down to like hours per dollar for. CoD is like $60 and has like 5-6 hours of single player. That's $10-$12 per hour of gameplay, which is pretty shitty it seems. Sure, there's multiplayer, but they're completely skimping on singleplayer for it. On the other hand, Red Dead Redemption can be like 40 hours of single player for around $60 (which is like $1.50 dollars per hour). That's with around 100% completion, but then there's multiplayer and DLC (Undead Nightmare being pretty damn long).

EDIT: If you really want a game with good single player hours you should just get Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Elder Scrolls IV. I still see people playing Elder Scrolls frequently on my friend's list on the 360 and that game is like what, 5 years old? Easily 200 hours of single player in any of them and you can ESIV for around $20 ($.10 per hour), Fallout 3 with all it's DLC for around $30 ($.15 per hour), and New Vegas for like $40 ($.20 per hour).

 

[Depravo]

It depends on the type of game. 20 hours is OK for a fast-paced shooty/action type game but not for an RPG. I would consider any RPG that lasted me less than 50 hours to be a 'short' game.

 

[Daidude]

I don't really mind a long game (50+ hours) if it is actually really fun to play through and dosen't get boring halfway but if a game is fun at first then gets incredibly boring then I would much rather complete it as quick as I can and then I would probably not really touch it again. Otherwise long games are more worth your money. My pokemon Pearl has over 200 hours in it and so does my super smash bros brawl and I got monster hunter tri last week and haven't really been able to put it down and I still have loads more to go.

 

[deathking]

for me value for money is a game at minimum hours worth what you paid for it after taxes
say your making 10 bucks a hour after taxes and buy a 50 dollar game you need at least 5 hours playtime on the main game to make it worth it

 

[NamoNakamura]

20 hours is not short. Granted, its less than 24 hours, so it's less than a day's worth of gaming, but... only those who are totally lifeless would play a game for 20 hours straight.

20 hours is perfect for me. Hell, I don't mind if a game is less than that if the ride was good. I finished the first Layton game, clocking in at about 13 hours, and I still have Layton's Challenges to finish, so I'll probably clock in at 16 if I don't use a guide.

30-60 hours is too much. Around the 30 hour mark in most games I've played, by that point there's nothing really satisfying about the game any more. I seriously gave up on FFXIII halfway and just looked up a plot synopsis on the internet. And SURPRISE its not a good plot.

Of course, if its a game like Minecraft or something, yeah, you may clock in more than 60 hours. Mileage varies of course - I'm bored to death of the game, and I've only clocked in about 20 hours.