Games are too long

[Dr Unne]

I feel like the sweet spot for video games is between 10 and 20 hours. That's where I start getting sick of looking at a game and want it to be over so I can move on to another one. Yet it seems that a lot of games that I want to play are taking 50 or 100 hours to complete, which is insane. Who has that much time to burn?

(By the way: http://www.howlongtobeat.com/, a website that does nothing but tell you how to long a game takes to beat. Very useful.)

I used to like to be a completionist in RPGs. I'd play FF4 or whatever and I'd get every treasure chest, I'd get the best equipment for everyone. I might miss some of the stupid randomly-dropped summons or whatever, but I could get very close to 100%ing the game.

Now I pick up Tales of Whateveria and there's no smurfing way. I'd spend the rest of my life looking for everything. I could sit down with a detailed walkthrough and it'd still probably take me 200 hours to fully complete a Tales game. By the time I was halfway done, the next Tales would already be sitting on shelves.

I just finished the story mission of Borderlands 2. I don't know how long it took me to beat that game, probably 50 hours? I was ready for this game to be over sometime around 20 hours ago. Around level 20 I stopped doing side-missions and tried to rush the storyline and it still took me forever. There are dozens of sidequests I never did. There's DLC. There's newgame+, and another newgame+ after that. I'm at level 30 and the cap is apparently 70-something? Too much.

A while ago I picked up the new Tomb Raider. I was sailing along, reached a point in the plot where it looked like things might be starting to wrap up, so I checked a walkthrough to see how close I was to the end. Turns out I was only 1/4th or 1/3rd of the way through the game. Blarfhg.

Maybe if games weren't 100 hours of repetition and padding and level-grinding and procedurally-generated content, they wouldn't cost $60 each. That'd be nice. This is a big reason I like a lot of indie games. $10 or $15 for a game, and 15 hours later you've experienced everything the game has to offer.

In this thread, complain about games that are too long. Or tell me I'm wrong.

[Bolivar]

Well that's only one subset of games - I play a lot of multiplayer only titles where I'm not just chasing an ending for something I lost interest in.

I see your point about indies. Lately I've been playing FFI origins and it vies for play time against Indies on my Vita, a fight it loses more often than not. I see why I often give up on FFI playthroughs, as that repetitive experience just isn't worth the time sink. Especially not against a shorter indie game that will continue to surprise me with its mechanics all the way through its 10-20 hour experience.

[Sephiroth]

Tomb Raider is 3 hours long. And in your first playthrough probably like a bit more than 10, so during a normal unexperienced walkthrough. Not very long.

My latest long session was Star Ocean with almost 600 hours. And it was fun. I am already missing it.

[Karifean]

I dunno, lately I've been playing games that take upwards of 50 hours to complete and I still feel up for more. Although of course this is heavily reliant on the game; if it's repetitive and gets stale, it's a whole different story. But that wasn't the case for me.

In the end, it boils down to just how much you enjoy the game, and for how long you will continue to do so. I wouldn't say 50+ hour games are inherently "too long". And then again... I do have that kind of time to burn ^^

[Pumpkin]

I enjoy games that take between 30 and 80 hours I'd say

[Dat Matt]

It varies on your attention span and how much you like the game.

TF2? I've got over 700 hours clock and I haven't played it since 2011. Probably the same with league of legends. Reason? They are based around Multiplayer and are as engaging as you like them to be. Same thing goes for games like Madden, Call of Duty etc. These games can draw several hundred hours of gameplay as they designed to play in short bursts whenever you want it.

RPGs are slightly different as they are not designed for short bursts. I'm not going to throw on Xenoblade Chronicles or Tales of Xillia on for 20 minutes. I'll throw them on for 2-3 hours at a time, get lost in the story/gameplay and want to continue to find out more and progress with the story/world i've chosen to invest in (or not in the case of some things like Paper Mario 3DS).

I usually end up spending the same sort of time on games in the same sort of period. I played Mario Kart 8 for 25 hours in it's first 10 days and basically finished it with the exception of one part. Honestly, I had enough fun with it that I wanted to play more but I reached a point where there was no objective so it fell to "Grind out coins to get the Gold Glider" or play online. With my current setting, I have no interest in either of these objectives which is why I don't play online multiplayer games anymore. I set out for a goal and stick with it until it's done. RPGs games usually have a goal which is why I can invest so much time into them. It's also why I don't mind playing them for 100+ hours so long as I can stay interested in them.




The joke is I have a lot of time for games. Long RPG games don't bother me that much.

[Dr Unne]

Multiplayer games are different. There are probably multiplayer games I've put many hundreds of hours into. The experience of playing with other people keeps those interesting. After a while it becomes less about the game and more about the people, or about the competition, or the meta-game.

I'm talking about games that tell a story or have an end. Those are the ones I don't want to spend 100 hours on. For one thing, quitting halfway and leaving the story hanging feels crappy.

I see your point about indies. Lately I've been playing FFI origins and it vies for play time against Indies on my Vita, a fight it loses more often than not. I see why I often give up on FFI playthroughs, as that repetitive experience just isn't worth the time sink. Especially not against a shorter indie game that will continue to surprise me with its mechanics all the way through its 10-20 hour experience.

FF1 is guilty of requiring a lot of pointless grinding. The PSP version lets you save/reload anywhere at any time, and adjusts the level scaling and shop prices and whatnot to make the game flow better. It's much more bearable.

[Ayen]

I never pay attention to how long a game is to play. If it's enjoyable then I keep playing it. If not then I don't. Simple as that.

[escobert]

If I don't get hundreds of hours out of a game it's a waste of money imo.

[Depression Moon]

It depends on the genre for me. Puzzle games and shooters I find should be shorter. When I played Okami I was surprised how long it was after defeating the second major boss, but it was still enjoyable so I stayed with it.

[Del Murder]

I agree with you Unne. I feel like a common benchmark of a 'good game' these days is how many hours of content it has, and each sequel attempts to outdo the previous version in terms of shear volume of content. I'd prefer a shorter, focused, polished experience than something with countless busywork required to upgrade your character or get a full picture of the story. The Last of Us was a great example of a game that had a good amount of length (about 15 hours) but also allowed room for players to explore and play how they wish.

[Ayen]

The Last of Us was a great example of a game that had a good amount of length (about 15 hours) but also allowed room for players to explore and play how they wish.

The game certainly feels like it's been fifteen hours when you play it. Smurfing runners, smurfing clicks, smurfing survivors...

[Sephiroth]

The Last of Us was a great example of a game that had a good amount of length (about 15 hours) but also allowed room for players to explore and play how they wish.

The game certainly feels like it's been fifteen hours when you play it. Smurfing runners, smurfing clicks, smurfing survivors...

Felt shorter when I did Survivor mode, where you really need to get rid of those guys but yes, the first time was pretty normal. Like a normal Silent Hill run. 10-15 hours are normal for those games.

[Sephex]

My rule of thumb is that a game can be any length it wants as long as there isn't obvious padding to it. Or at least make most or all of the padding optional. That way people who only care about the main portion of a game can have their fun, and people who crave more can have their fill.

[Pike]

For a story based game I'd say that 20 to 30 hours is reasonable. The original Deus Ex took like 60 (granted, I restarted halfway through...) and as much as I adore that game it was really too long.

That said, I do not play many story based games. I play an awful lot of strategy games, and I want hundreds of hours out of those! (And I usually get hundreds of hours out of them, too. Which is fantastic.)