Who here beats games too fast?

[Zera]

I seem to have this problem. They said Twilight Princess has about 40 hours of play but I beaten it in 20. Whenever they have a set number of hours to a game, I seem to beat it in half. This dosent mean the games are bad.(Twilight Princess was epic) Anyone else have this sort of problem?

 

[Dragonmaw]

Stop trying to brag.

 

[OblivionRising [deprecated]]

I don't beat games fast in the same way you do. The only way I beat games fast is if I play for many hours a day. So I beat games in a very small amount of days, rather than the actual time limit like you.

You get what I'm sayin'?

 

[Pyrrian]

It really depends on the game. I tend to be a completist, which makes me pretty slow. However, some games (usually action games) I'll run through to get a feel for them because I know I'll play it again. Halo 3 and Crackdown are more recent examples of that. I blazed through both of those pretty quickly, but then I went back to being a completist (collecting skulls and such in Halo 3, or finding orbs in Crackdown).

 

[Andy Chalk]

I don't replay games (at least not for several years after my first run-through) so I tend to be slow when I play. I'm also incredibly anal about sidequests and discovering every little thing I can about pretty much everything I play. If anything, I don't complete games fast enough - but on the other hand, I sure do get my money's worth out of them.

 

[Zera]

Stop trying to brag.

I figured someone would say that. Im not bragging.

 

[Hengst2404]

I definitely don't replay games, but a finding it takes longer and longer for me to beat games anymore. There are certainly exceptions, as Heavenly Sword took me about 4 hours to complete and I did beat Bioshock the first week that I owned it. Still, a 10-12 hour game may take me a few weeks to beat and I am not sure if my attention span just isn't long enough anymore or if there are simply too many games out there to play now a days.

 

[Russ Pitts]

I have to admit, my eyes insist the title of this thread says something it doesn't actually say. Too much late night TV I guess.

Anyway, I do not suffer from this problem. I do find that games are getting a lot shorter these days, but I often take longer than most, perhaps out of some miserly desire to squeeze every last penny of enjoyment out of them.

 

[Alex Karls]

I play through games to get as much content as possible and see every sidequest, and even still I end up beating games much more quickly than advertised.

 

[DarkKaz]

I'm usually slowly playing through at least five games on several consoles and PC at a given time (I'm not super hardcore amazing gamer, I just buy a lot more games than I have time to play through) and when I'm going to "seriously" play through a new game I like to be in the right mood to get the best experience I can out of it. I think my "total hours" to play through Bioshock was about average, but it took me a week or two to get through it because I only played through one area, always in its entirety, per night.

If I have some reason to play through a game quickly, it's no problem, but overall I beat games pretty slowly.

 

[Hengst2404]

The only games which tend to really take me longer are RPGs. It took me 63 or so hours to beat FF12 and this was with every party member at level 53 and only doing a handful of hunts. Having said that, I am only a completionist when it comes to Platforming games. I remember finishing Voodoo Vince for the XBOX with every single item collected, some which literally took me 50 tries to get/find, only to discover it made no difference with the plot of the game.

When I completed Metroid Prime a few weeks back, I only got the middle ending, not the best ending. Fortunately, as I did with Bioshock, I went to Youtube and got the alternate endings. There isnt enough time for me to play through some games in order to see multiple endings. Unless its Kotor where you actually have enough content to justify 2 play-throughs.

 

[Mr. Bubbles]

You can beat a game too fast? Wow. I never knew that.

 

[Goofonian]

They said Twilight Princess has about 40 hours of play but I beaten it in 20.

Are you the sort of person that would finish Oblivion in 10 hours, because thats all it takes to get through the main quest?

I tend to find games take me longer than "advertised" to get through, but then again I only get to play games for a couple hours a week, so every time I get back into a game that could be finished (as opposed to guitar hero or a sports sim) I have a mini-learning curve where I have to try and remember how to play and what I was doing. I find this generally adds quite a significant amount of play time to the majority of games.

 

[krysalist]

I don't beat games because I've learned they press charges.

 

[sms_117b]

Some games I'll beat in no time at all and others will take hours or hours spread over months, I beat Heavenly Sword in 3 sittings (well the story), over the course of 2 weeks or maybe one, not sure about the hours, where as I've taken absolutely hours and many sittings and months over Oblivion trying to find every last little thing before I hit the last quest on the story, going a wee bit old school, but FF7 i completed in 19 hours and 230 something hours, just depends really how much you want out of the game and how good the main story is at sucking you in against your own will power...In short yes i do.....first time around

 

[Hengst2404]

I finished Oblivion in about 45 hours or so and that certainly wasn't a completionist playthrough. I simply got fed up with the game and rushed to finish the main quest. I did enjoy the Guild Quests and a few of the side quests/expansions from XBOX Live, but ultimately everything came down to entering a cave or a dungeon, running around, finding an item and leaving. I also didn't like the leveling of the enemies, it just ceased to be fun for me after a while.

I am hoping with Fallout 3 they change this. I still can't decide if I think that shorter game lengths of 10-12 hours is a good thing or not. I suppose 10-12 hours means I am far more likely to finish the game and really the only casualty is likely the storyline of the game.

 

[boony]

For me, it depends how engaging the game is. If it draws me in, I take my time and explore every facet, storyline, quest, and battle in the game. If it has good action, or a good battle system, but never really breaks down the fourth wall, I'll blaze through it and consider it a fun diversion.

 

[Anarchemitis]

I usually beat a game in the amount of time that the game says I will. Except I beat Portal in 45 minutes, and cheated heavily because some parts my computer isn't good enough to render beyond 10fps.

 

[Dakan Kurano]

I definitely think games are lacking in the length category. With the price of development, many games are trying to artificially lengthen their content with silly puzzles, or just going through the same levels but in a "Dark" or "Backwards" style. I think this aspect of a video game is actually quite creative in most instances (SOTN, A Link to the past), but its just something that has lost all of its novelty because its the "go-to" method of lengthening a game. I never really have the issues of beating a game too quickly because I'm the explorer type who likes to find everything his first time through. Thats not to say that even though I do cover almost every facet of the game, the games still seem rather short. so, to conclude: no, we're not beating games quickly, the games are just shorter than advertised (if you even listen to that filth anymore.)