PDA

View Full Version : Length of games



jp
10-26-2007, 02:41 PM
We may have all already had this discussion, I don't know. If so, eh, we can have it again. :p

At any rate, I was reading on GN earlier today about the director of Capcom or whatever talking about Okami on the Wii. I've been thinking about snagging it when it comes out, it never appealed to me mind you, but then again, its the Wii, and there's really nothing else to play, so might as well ya know (when it comes out mind)? But then I read something that made me stop and go, "Ehhh..."

It went something like this:
"40-60 hours of gameplay"

40-60 hours? What? Isn't this some 3D action game or something? Why the hell is it 40-60 hours? I can't even imagine playing a game that isn't an RPG for 40-60 hours.

But regardless, my question is this: When is a game too long and when is a game too short for most of you? Me, I tend to stick to shmups anyways so I get my 45 minute-1 hour fix here and there, but for next-gen games it really depends on the genre. I know a lot of people complain about Halo 3 being too short, but if you played it on Heroic by yourself it was a good 8-10 hour game. And for me, that seems to be the magical for "action" games I guess. Let me play through the game in 10-20 hours and go about my way. For RPGs, I think 60-70 hours might be good, but even then its a bit excessive, because at that point they just start to drag. Blue Dragon was perfect for me, because it was around 50 or 60 hours to complete, but I do a lot of power-leveling so that was cool. And it has replay with New Game+ and higher difficulties, which is where I think a game's "play time" SHOULD COME FROM! If you make a game good enough, I'll play it again, especially if extras are thrown in. But don't try to make me throw in 100 hours or something into one play through, because more than likely I'm going to get bored halfway through (because there's only so much you can do in most games) and just quit playing. This is what pretty much happened to me with every post-A Link to the Past Zelda game. I mean, unless its something I just pick and play from time to time (i.e. Radiant Silvergun), I don't want to have to sit there for an excessive amount of time playing the same game, because of other shit that is coming out, and I want to play that too.

I know a lot of people complained about Bioshock being too short (go fig). I think its what? 14 hours? Maybe 18? To me thats perfect. I can play through it in a week and be done. Great. Orange Box is probably going to clock in around 20 hours for me (Half-Life 2 took me 10 hours, Episode One took me 3 or so, Portal took me 3, I imagine Episode Two will take 3 or so). And thats cool, Orange Box has been a fun ride and I feel that everything in it was appropriately paced (except for that damn hover craft on the river bit in HL2, that sucked). Or take Halo 3, its 8 hours, but holy shit, how many hours will be spent in multiplayer?

So basically, I think action games are best off around 10-20 hours, RPG's magic number for me would be 40-60 hours, and action adventure titles (Zelda, Kameo, etc.) work in the 20-30 hour time span. And extras do nothing but make me want to put in more time! But at least if there aren't any extras or the extras are weak, I got to see the plot unfold, and didn't get bored and move on. :nod:

Frogacuda
10-26-2007, 04:35 PM
When someone says a game is "X" amount of hours long, it generally means half that. I read a review of Tales of Destiny that said it was 70 hours long. It took me 23.

Also Okami isn't an action game, it's a Zelda clone. Those generally push 20-30 hours.

Hunter
10-26-2007, 04:35 PM
I think a game should never offer me less than ten hours. That includes total time played. At least, if it's full price. A lower priced game can be shorter, but if you're gonna charge me $60, I want 10 hours of fun, minimum.

For RPG's there a slight exception, I expect a barebones minimum of 20Hrs, but I really would like them to be about 40. 50+ hours begins to push it. Although, if its VERY good, I don't mind. I have plenty of hours logged on Oblivion and PSU.

XBLA titles, I'm fine if I can get 2-3 hours out of them, as long as they're not too expensive.

Frogacuda
10-26-2007, 04:42 PM
I think a game should never offer me less than ten hours. That includes total time played. At least, if it's full price. A lower priced game can be shorter, but if you're gonna charge me $60, I want 10 hours of fun, minimum.
What about Rez, Sin and Punishment, Space Channel 5-2, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Radiant Silvergun... all of these were under 2 hours.

I don't care how long a game is, as long as it's the right length for that game. If a game doesn't drag, and it's all killer, I'll play it over and over. Doesn't matter if it's 30 minutes or 30 hours.

Specineff
10-26-2007, 05:21 PM
Okami's length comes from the cutscenes. The unskippable intro takes 20 minutes, I kid you not.

Wildcat
10-26-2007, 05:33 PM
lol That's true, Okami did have a long intro. Fun game, though, although they did pad its length with some repetitive boss repeating...

Anyway, it really varies with me. I like long games when I really get into them, and I also love games that don't take too long either, like in the case of fighters or arcade classics. So it really does depend on the enjoyment of the gameplay to determine if I'll like it or not. Some games feel too short (Beyond Good & Evil, which I adored, for example) or, like Okami, could have been trimmed a bit, but all and all if I get pleasure out of it, I don't really mind the time it takes.

DarthArcturus
10-26-2007, 06:15 PM
the shorter the better for me usually. Hard to find time to beat long games, although under 10 hours for a game I spent 60 bucks is a bit of a rip off IMO if there is no lasting appeal. Also a lot of games put in some boring repeated type things you have to do to drag the length more. I HATE THAT.

Hunter
10-26-2007, 07:05 PM
What about Rez, Sin and Punishment, Space Channel 5-2, Panzer Dragoon Orta, Radiant Silvergun... all of these were under 2 hours.

I don't care how long a game is, as long as it's the right length for that game. If a game doesn't drag, and it's all killer, I'll play it over and over. Doesn't matter if it's 30 minutes or 30 hours.


Note that I specified; "that includes total time played". Meaning, if it has replay value, that counts towards the total.

NeoZeedeater
10-26-2007, 07:24 PM
Okami's length comes from the cutscenes. The unskippable intro takes 20 minutes, I kid you not.
Okami's the perfect example of filler text to make a longer game which is not cool. I enjoyed the game but it could have been so much better with a few changes.

It took me well over 30 hours to beat and I avoided sidequests. I also never died in the game aside from in the puzzle minigames. It was so frickin' easy. It's like they designed it for people that have never played a game before but have the longest attention span in the world.

ngt
10-26-2007, 08:48 PM
IMO, if a game is short (less than 10 hours), it needs to have replay value. co-op mode or some other reason to come back.

Bruhaha69
10-26-2007, 08:49 PM
Note that I specified; "that includes total time played". Meaning, if it has replay value, that counts towards the total.

I had no problem putting 30 hours into both Otogi's. Short games, tons of shit to unlock, replay and enjoy.

I don't demand any length of game, to be honest. If I find myself getting bored, it's either too long or horribly paced. If I find myself having a good time and then find out I just finished, it's too short and I wanted more.

Bioshock and Halo 3 are similar in that both are FPS'. Bioshock was a bit longer, but I felt both had pretty close to perfect length for what we had to play with. If I said that I needed my FPS to be 12 hours, I would have been let down by both. If the developer is good enough that they make a 100 hour game 100 hours of enjoyment, than the length is perfect. If they can do the same thing in an hour on a short action game, that's cool with me too.

On the "reviewer said the game is x hours long" note, I don't think I have ever seen one of those statements end up being accurate. They just about ALWAYS mark the games way longer than they are.