Poll: How long should a game be?

[Durxom]

With the recent talk about MW2 (I don't have a system that can run it, but I don't really make a big deal out of wanting it either), there was a lot of talk about its length, having only a 5 hour play time to it's campaign, while adding online modes to try and expand beyond that. Is that too short? Is a good online play experience really enough of a reason for a short single player experience??

Now this is just my opinion, but i think that on average, a game should be able 15-30 hours long, usually give a good solid week or more of play, but as I mostly play RPGS, a 50+ hour gameplay time is a must, I enjoy the RPG experience, and I enjoy getting as much of it as I can. I don't want to spend $60+ on a game that won't last a weekend. But I guess that is fine with me because since my favourite and used systems of choice atm are my Wii, PS2, and DS, with most game coming to a total of $40 or lower.

So how exactly does everyone else feel about this?

 

[squid5580]

It doesn't matter how long it is. What matters is how long it lasts.

 

[Littlee300]

Mod games last a long time and usually don't get old. Been playing Frozen Throne for multiple years and still not old of it (maybe just a tad though) and I get tired of video games in a heart beat.

 

[Vuljatar]

No game should ever take less than 12 hours to finish (on your first playthrough, not a speedrun or anything).

 

[Bilbo536]

It doesn't matter how long it is. What matters is how long it lasts.

*Insert dirty joke here.*

OT: I prefer longer games because I feel it allows more time for characterization, deeper plot involvement, etc. And also if it's a fun game, I'd naturally want to spend more time playing it.

 

[Socius]

I like long games
RPGs like Fallout, Oblivion and Final Fantasy
And Sandboxes like GTA or Prototype

 

[Dommius]

I feel the same as you OP. Game are cerainly getting shorter nowadays. Develelopers are spending more time and money on the visuals. Which is always a nice thing but not entirely needed. Now, to get more to the point. The main campaign for Modern Warfare 2 is mindnumbingly short, but can be extended somewhat. You have the spec ops which are fun if you have a buddy to play with. Also there is the more standard forms of multiplayer which you mentioned. Which is obviously where Infinty Ward spent most of their time. The level progression and earning gear and everything is pretty much the real focus of the game. So when I look at MW2 I think of it like Team Fortress 2. No single player (yes, i know there is one for MW2 but its easily ignored) But a great online experience and thats what the price tag justifies.

HOWEVER I would like to see more single player gametime. If the devs feel the need to put a single player campaign into a game at least make long and engaging not like a tacky last minute addition *coughUT3cough* So for me 5-7 Hours is too short for ANY shooter, multiplayer or no. Of course, its all merely opinion.

But in closing, not all hope is lost. Take Dragon Age: Origins for example. Solid gameplay, fun characters (Shale, its all about Shale) and an incredible length and replay value.

 

[Julianking93]

Unless its the one of the best games ever, it shouldn't be any less than 15 hours. I honestly can't think of a game I'd consider 9-10/10 worthy that isn't at least 15 hours.

 

[The Rascal King]

It's not about the length, it's all about the flow....of gameplay.

 

[War Penguin]

I think 30 to 50 hours is reasonable. This is something I have experienced. Let's say the game is easy or short and you beat it within a day. You now have this game that you have beaten and you don't really know what to do with it now. Sure you can play it again but you know what's coming which sort of ruins the fun. You also got multiplayer but if you don't have that then you'll have a game that there doesn't seem to have a point playing. You could have easily rented it and not waste so much money. If it's takes more than a day then you can have more time to play a nice, long game and not a short one and you get your money's worth.

 

[Durxom]

the game. So when I look at MW2 I think of it like Team Fortress 2. No single player (yes, i know there is one for MW2 but its easily ignored) But a great online experience and thats what the price tag justifies.

The problem with that is, for the price of the online for MW2, you are paying (for where I am) about $64.99, while TF2 is a meesly $9.99.

While, the online might be good, and it might increase the game time, it don't think it is worthy of a 64 dollar purchase. While I am not a big online fan myself, I do own TF2, and I would rather play 9.99 than 64.99 for a solid online experience.

But I can also agree with what some of the other people are saying as well, with it doesn't matter how long it is, as long as the gameplay is solid. I got PoP:The Two Thrones for X-mas a few years back, and beat it the same day, and then beat it again and again for the rest of the week, just because it was such a fun experience.(I still go back to the PoP trilogy from time to time)

 

[HolidayBrick]

I play a lot of JRPGs and I don't like competitive multiplayer. JRPGs (almost always 50+ hours) are dirt cheap right about now ($9-$20 on Xbox 360) so when a game comes out with a 3-5 hour single player campaign, I really can't feel justified in paying full price for it, regardless of the supposed "quality" of the experience.

 

[Caligulove]

It depends on the game, obviously.

But considering that you have nearly the same amount (or just as much) of money put into games as major movies coming out these days... I would expect something of decent length of around 10+ hours or so.

Because I am paying for entertainment that's longer than a movie and is also replayable while still being interactive. Plus, multiplayer changes that replayability considerably. So I do think I am getting a good amount of content these days

 

[Flos]

Well, let's look at it like how you would look at another form of entertainment - film.

You pay around ten dollars for a ticket, right? Well, that ten dollars goes to about two hours of entertainment. You pay sixty dollars for a game, so the least it should be is twelve hours, ten dollars per hour.

People say, "Bah! It's not about length, but epicness and gameplay!" No, no. It's about length, because video games aren't movies, and you can't possibly tell a good story in six hours without it having a cheap ending (Hi, Modern Warfare 2!).

 

[niglett]

i dont want a game that i can finish in one siting. that was the only flaw with portal in my opinion and i still wish it would have lasted longer.

 

[Thaius]

I think a game should be as long as its story takes it. A 50+ hour game isn't that great if it has a bunch of filler and artificial lengthening in it: they have to tell their story, and stop when the story's done.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Hell the game could be thirty minutes long as long as its fun. Why do people care so much about length anyways? If its fun, why should it matter?