Poll: How long do you expect a game to last (hours)?

[Terramax]

Hi there,

Unless a game is seriously good (gripping story, perfect game mechanics) I'll rarely keep my attention to a game for longer than about 10 hours.

I'm a great believer in short but sweet, but many imply that they prefer games for being epic in length.

My question is, how long do you expect a game to last before you complete it or get bored of?

If it's an RPG, RTS or FPS, I'm refering to how long the initial campaign should last.

If it's a sports or driving, simulation or arcade style, are things different?

Online games like MMORPGs are not included as part of this poll, as those are essentially built for you to play possibly for a matter of years, unless you can explain an online game that's otherwise(?)

 

[EvilEngineNumberNine]

I'm assuming that's in hours.

Ten to twenty hours is about the perfect length for an average game for me, though if it's an RPG or RTS I'll expect to play for at least 40+ before I'm finished. When it comes to racing games it's hard to judge. I can beat Dirt in under ten hours but for Forza and Gran Tourismo the game really never ends. You just keep grabbing up cars and tuning them and it becomes more of a hobby in itself then a game to beat.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I'd have to say 10-20 for games in general but it changes depending on the games. I wouldn't want to play any FPS for over 10 hours because it would just get boring and repeat itself and I wouldn't want to play and RPG for under 20 hours because thats way to quick.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I'd have to say 10-20 for games in general but it changes depending on the games. I wouldn't want to play any FPS for over 10 hours because it would just get boring and repeat itself and I wouldn't want to play and RPG for under 20 hours because thats way to quick.

 

[Hey Joe]

It really depends on the genre of the game. RPG's I expect to last quite a while. RTS I expect to last for years given a good skirmish engine, FPS on the other hand I expect to be short and full of adrenaline.

 

[Exposed Lie]

10-20 hours gets my vote for RPGs etc. its around long enough that you don't feel you have wasted your money and should have rented it but its also short enough to not outstay its welcome!

 

[CyberAkuma]

Depends entirely on the price obviously...
If it's full retail price (50-60 bucks) I expect 10-20 hours minimum, but I'd prefer more.

 

[Gansasalite]

I'd say 10-20 for most Games is a good length.

RPG's, however, can go for as long as they want, as long as they keep it quality all the way through.

Length isn't the main seeling point for me though. COD 4 was, what, 7-8 hours tops, but i loved every momment of it. Bioshock went for 16 and it just started to Drag from Ryan on-wards. Length is useless if the game compares less favourably to Hitler in Locust form.

 

[ScottyGEE]

RPG:20+
FPS:10+*
RTSoesn't matter

*denotes that if there is decent multiplayer, then the singleplayer shortness can be redeemed...Some multiplayer features suck more than their singleplayer counterparts however...

But really the only scenario where I care about length is RPGs...And that is where I was disappointed with Mass Effect. With Kotor 1 & 2 aswell as Jade Empire, first playthroughs were well over 20 hours...I think kotor 1 was 36 hours (yeah, i suck ). Yet Mass effect took me 16 hours on my first playthrough. Either I've gotten better at RPG's, or the game was a lot shorter than normal. That is just disappointing to me.

 

[Divinegon]

Anything with substantial RPG elements, I expect it to hold for about 100+. It happened with FF 12, Disgaea, Pokemon and Persona 3.

Other kinds of games, depending on what it is. If it's a 2-D shooter, then a couple of hours but I want good replay capability. Other's I don't mind if they last 10 hours as long as long as there aren't dull moment. But 20-30 hours would be nice.

But I have a hard time judging a game by length. Always judged by how much fun I got from the time spent instead.

 

[Exposed Lie]

I think that FPS's are a difficult one to judge. As Gansasalite pointed out, as long as the action keeps you entertained then there is nothing wrong with having a game cut short(ish) as with COD 4 which i thought was brilliant.

The obvious FPS game that contradicts this rule is Halo 3. Although the gun battles were good enough to hold my attention, the length just put the game to shame. I mean, if me and one of my friends (both of us fairly competent FPS players) can spend around 5 hours playing on hard whilst getting nicely hammered to the point where we can barely see and STILL get 80% of the way through the game then either our skill improves when pissed (which would encourage me to drink a hell of alot more) or the game is just too short. And the multiplayer xbox live experience means nothing to me as i don't have it and cant get it for another 6 months minimum.

Anyway, I'm ranting so i'll stop the Halo 3 hate speech and get to the point. A FPS game can succeed with having just a few hours game play BUT it needs to hold your attention for ever second of the game like it were trying to strangle a puppy with a titanium windpipe and give you a certain sense of satisfaction for completing the game when its all over (something else halo lacked)

 

[Kermi]

But really the only scenario where I care about length is RPGs...And that is where I was disappointed with Mass Effect. With Kotor 1 & 2 aswell as Jade Empire, first playthroughs were well over 20 hours...I think kotor 1 was 36 hours (yeah, i suck ). Yet Mass effect took me 16 hours on my first playthrough. Either I've gotten better at RPG's, or the game was a lot shorter than normal. That is just disappointing to me.

I can't help but feel that if you finished Mass Effect in 16 hours you missed out on the majority of the content. A brief scan of your gamercard confirms this, as I see you don't have the completionist achievement, nor did you unlock Renegade/Paragon, which is rather easier.
Perhaps you're not a fan of unnecessary sidequesting, and that's fine. But there was certainly content there to be played through, for the interested player.

 

[propertyofcobra]

The base campaign of a FPS should last at least 20 hours.
The base campaign of a RTS should last closer to 35-40.
The base campaign of a RPG should last at least 50-60 hours.

Nowadays though, you're lucky if your FPS lasts you eight hours, but people think it's "excused" because of multiplayer. (Like multiplayer hasn't existed since freaking Doom!)

 

[MacCarth]

I'd like my games to last at LEAST 20 hours. That way I can feel like I'm getting value out of my 60 USD purchase.

 

[REDPill357]

It doesn't even depend on genre for me. It depends on the game. I was perfectly fine with Portal being completed after only 3 hours. The loose ends were tied up, and it gradually wound down.

Call of Duty 4, though, was way too abrupt. There could have been a lot more content, but they decided to go with a campaign that lasted me 5-1/2 hours.

Again, it depends on the game, and on the price. After I told my dad that I finished CoD4, he said, "You finished it. 45 dollars, and you finished it." Portal, on the other hand, was about $15. The main factors are story and repetitiveness.

 

[The Irrelevant Gamer]

I'd rather have quality than quantity. Does anyone have a minimum amount of pages they expect when they read a book? I kinda doubt it. It should be long enough to entertain, but not overstay its welcome, and that length is going to vary with each game.

Portal was short, but fantastic.

Final Fantasy VII took a while to complete, but I enjoyed every minute of it.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

The obvious FPS game that contradicts this rule is Halo 3. Although the gun battles were good enough to hold my attention, the length just put the game to shame. I mean, if me and one of my friends (both of us fairly competent FPS players) can spend around 5 hours playing on hard whilst getting nicely hammered to the point where we can barely see and STILL get 80% of the way through the game then either our skill improves when pissed (which would encourage me to drink a hell of alot more) or the game is just too short.

If you're playing 4-player co-op, it'll be too easy at merely "heroic/hard". You need to rack it up to "legendary" for it to be a challenge. Playing it solo on "heroic" for my first run-through took me about 16 hours, though admittedly I'm a completist and I did get lost for an hour and a bit on the big Flood level. (To balance that, I didn't go exploring for skulls/terminals until my second playthrough.) Playing "heroic" with 4 players took vastly less time; I haven't done a full run-through that way, but levels that took me an hour to play solo were taking twenty minutes with a party of four. Legendary will bump that back up a bit. (As will some of the skulls, like Mythic and Thunderstorm. And turning on Iron (any player's death leads to the whole party reverting back to the last checkpoint) will make you a LOT more cautious...)

As to how long a game should be, well, that very much depends upon the game. I wouldn't want each playthrough of Bejewelled to last more than an hour, for instance, nor would I want an RPG with 10 hours of plot to play out over 100 hours.

-- Steve

 

[Terramax]

I guess I should get in on the action as I created this thread.

Obviously RPGs appear to be the difference here, but when you play, say, 50hrs of RPG or more, do you really think you're getting your monies worth by spending 2/3 of that time simply grinding or finding ways to earn cash?

'It depends on the replay value' is another valid point. Although it was too far back to remember, the first time I completed Silent Hill 3 it must've been about 3-5 hours, but by god have I played it over and over again (and it still makes me jump and tense up).

The question is, say a game can be completed in 5 hours but despite all the reasons given to you to play again you decide not to straight away, do you feel you've gotten your monies worth for the regular RRP?

In terms of how much you've spent on a game, the RRP here in the UK is £35-40.

A new film in the cinema is an average of £6, or a new released DVD approx £12-15.

Now a film lasts 1.5 hours. So if a game lasts 5 hours, that's just over 3X a film, so 3 cinema films = £18, or 3 new DVDs = £36-45.

I tend to buy a game for £20 new, so I think 5 hours is a perfect amount of time.

What do you guys think about this concept related to the countries you're in?

 

[DownOnTheUpside]

Call of Duty 4, though, was way too abrupt. There could have been a lot more content, but they decided to go with a campaign that lasted me 5-1/2 hours.

I almost took COD4 back because it was soooo short(I beat it in a day)... I don't care how nice the graphics were or how gripping the storyline was.. It should have been longer. But the thing that saved it just enough for me not to take it back was the multiplayer. And that got boring after two weeks.

An FPS shouldn't last longer than 30 hours... It'll start getting repetitive and boring.
An RTS shouldn't last longer than 30 hours either... Just would get boring to me.
But I don't know about an RPG....