# How long should a game be?



## The Groke (Aug 28, 2009)

Before you feel you have got your money's worth?

I know there are some out there who feel cheated if they get change from 20 hours in a game and would prefer everything to be a 40 hour+ epic.

There are those who just don't have the time or the inclination to play anything more that takes 10 hours to get through.

Me?

I like the game to be the exact length it needs to be to relay the experience or story to me in a complete fashion.

I got 100 hours our of Oblivion and nearly that much out of Fallout 3 and the add-ons.

Portal took me about 5 hours and it was probably one of the best 5 hours I spent on a single game.

The GTA series are generally always too long for me - I tire around the 20 hour mark as the game stops offering anything new.

Batman: Arkham Asylum was a perfect 9-10 hour romp - just right for the game IMO.

What say you?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 28, 2009)

how long is a piece of string?

Tetris should last 10 minutes
Halo should last 10 hours
Final Fantasy should last 60 hours
Sim City should last forever

etc.


----------



## The Groke (Aug 28, 2009)

Well quite Mr Crispy - hence the leading question and poll option.

This thread is really a direct response to a comment by Awesome Wells who suggested (before playing it) that Batman only lasting 9 hours was outrageous and by default, made the game a rip-off.

My stance was that, having completed the thing, it was the perfect length for the experience.


----------



## kained&able (Aug 28, 2009)

dpends doesn't it.

platformers and 3rd persony fighting games 10 hours is about right maybe.

Rpg and sandbox games need to be going for at least 60 hours really.

Fighting/wrestling games 1 player plot type stuff possibly 5 hours or less.


champ manager for ever and ever and ever.


dave


----------



## debaser (Aug 28, 2009)

as long as possible for me please, whatever genre!
Even portal, near perfect as it is, was a little short for me.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 28, 2009)

yep all depends on the game, the only thing worse than a great game ending early is a game ruining itself with shitty padding out.

In truth though a great game like a great meal should always leave you feeling like you could have more.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Aug 28, 2009)

It'll take me longer than the average gamer to complete almost any game, assuming I actually do complete it.

I usually feel like I've gotten my money's worth out of most games I've bought because I play them so slowly but there's still a couple of shelves full of unfinished titles in my living room.


----------



## g force (Aug 28, 2009)

Crispy said:


> how long is a piece of string?
> 
> Tetris should last 10 minutes
> Halo should last 10 hours
> ...



Exactly...the F1 games for Sony last as long as you want them to...a full season, a single GP, a scaled GP etc. So you can dip in and out when you like or get totally immeresed.

Final Fantasy should be much longer with a story line that develops as you go along, it's not a real play for 20 minutes game...apart from levelling up of course 

It's all about the type of game and what works for that.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 28, 2009)

I'm having a hard time finding anything to match up to GTA IV and Mass Effect at the moment (I'm really, really not feeling the Fallout 3 or Oblivion love, not one bit).

GTA IV was probably about the right length, and I like that the game doesn't end when you finish the main story (although I gave up at that point, being so bereft at the fate of poor Niko, so went on to TLATD, which I don't like as much. Sigh.). 

Mass Effect, on the other hand, while being the single most wonderful game I've ever had the privilege to play, was too short imo. There were plenty of side missions, but not enough of a main story. Only 5 main missions, when you count them up (Eden Prime, which is over before you really know what's going on; Feros; Liara T'Soni; Matriarch Benezia (although this mission was pretty lengthy and seemed to split into several mini-missions in the missions list as you went along); Vermire - the Citidel followed on so I kinda count it as the same mission). I put off playing the main missions because I didn't want the game to end, so hopped from small world to small world completing the side assignments pretty quickly. I guess I wish ME was a little more sandboxy, but conversely I understand the format worked brilliantly to tell the awesome story so well. If I see a good thing I suppose I just want more of it, is all.


----------



## The Groke (Aug 28, 2009)

Vintage Paw said:


> Mass Effect, on the other hand, while being the single most wonderful game I've ever had the privilege to play,




So we were right then!

I am sad that you didn't come back on the thread to give us props for recommending it to you.



No.2 comes out in about 4 months. It will remember choices you made in the first one too, so keep your save games.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 28, 2009)

The Groke said:


> So we were right then!
> 
> I am sad that you didn't come back on the thread to give us props for recommending it to you.
> 
> ...



See the other thread dude  My friend suggested it, I bought it, probably just after I started the other thread, I can't remember. Anyway, I've been too busy playing it to see people recommending it on here


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 28, 2009)

Crispy said:


> how long is a piece of string?



Twice it's length from the centre.


----------



## bmd (Aug 28, 2009)

Who was it who said "Doing nothing is very hard to do, you never know when you're finished?" I kind of feel like that about open ended games. I like games that I can finish, doesn't matter how long they are really. That might explain why I just followed the main quest to the end in Oblivion and Fallout 3 and rarely deviated. 

I don't mind puzzle games like Tetris but I preferred Puzzle Quest because it had a way to know you'd finished it.

I quite like RTS's but usually just do the story and then lose interest. So for me it's not how long they are but that they have a beginning, middle and an end.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 28, 2009)

I prefer open ended games I think, I love just making my own way through the gaming universe. It's also the reason I prefer multiplayer games over single player, the gaming experience changes everytime you play...


----------



## army_of_one (Aug 28, 2009)

I think a lot of the greatest games came from great stories. Stories that were fully realized, fleshed out and with proper plot/character development. Games should last as long as the story needs to be told. As long as I'm satisfied at the end of the story it doesn't matter how long or short it was.

Sandbox is okay, but I find that I spend too long away from the story that drew me in, in the first place. 

Don't do platformers. 

And puzzlers can be sooooooo addictive. I try to stay away, but keep getting sucked into those as well. (Bejeweled is the devil!!!) Always want more levels to those. On and on and on and on and.....


----------



## Athos (Aug 28, 2009)

I don't have time for video games; I'm a grown man.


----------



## kained&able (Aug 28, 2009)

Bob Marley's Dad said:


> . That might explain why I just followed the main quest to the end in  Fallout 3 and rarely deviated.




thats just crazy.


dave


----------



## Coffee (Aug 28, 2009)

Athos said:


> I don't have time for video games; I'm a grown man.



They are a fantastic way of killing time at any age!

Ive lost a couple of days before today, playing the tomb raider games (ps1) and have been glad to do so. Though i tend to go for games that are played online these days like call of duty. (ps3) so lenth of game play has become less important to me. Still like at least 10 hours. Has anyone bought the recent tomb raider games? They went a bit shit on the ps2 in my opinion, was wondering if they had improved of late? X


----------



## The Groke (Aug 28, 2009)

Athos said:


> I don't have time for video games; I'm a grown man.




Go on then - I'll bite:

What?


----------



## ajk (Aug 28, 2009)

Athos said:


> I don't have time for video games; I'm a grown man.



Fuck off from the internet and saw a plank of wood in half in your shed, then.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Aug 28, 2009)

Basically the above at Athos...


----------



## Silva (Aug 29, 2009)

I'm not overly concerned on how long a game is - it's how much you can advance in a sitting that usually makes or breaks a game to me.

I loved The Warriors because of it. Levels last about 10 minutes, including cutscenes. Metal Gear Solid 2, on the other hand, had cutscenes so long in some of the sittings more time was spent watching them than actually playing. That's why I 100%d The Warriors (around 30 hours), and only cleared MGS2 (14, I think). 

I'm currently playing killer7, which stands a bit on the middle ground. while it has only a few cutscenes (and not too long), you can't save whenever you please. I'm still enjoying it, but let's see how long does it take for me to start getting pissed with it.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 29, 2009)

Difficulty level is much more important than length.

Old games often badly misjudged this.  Does anyone remember an Amiga game called - argh I've forgotten the name, it's at the tip of my tongue, it was something like Excalibur (but not actually King Arthur based), you walked along with a sword and people came out of bushes and fired arrows at you and it was IMPOSSIBLE.  We never got past the first screen.

Turrican was really really long, for a shootemup platform game where you couldn't save your game in particular, but you always got a fair bit further with every game, and it was so lovely to play that it really really didn't matter, indeed once I had completed Turrican I went back to it many times to see how many extra lives I could accrue in the process of completing it or to beat my old score.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 29, 2009)

Ah that's the bugger!  Ivanhoe!

Bastard of a game


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Aug 29, 2009)

My resolution for the new year will be to make a post on computer games without discussing Amiga games or, even, mentioning Turrican.


----------



## newme (Aug 29, 2009)

Silva said:


> I loved The Warriors because of it. Levels last about 10 minutes, including cutscenes. Metal Gear Solid 2, on the other hand, had cutscenes so long in some of the sittings more time was spent watching them than actually playing.



I have absolutely no patience for cut scenes, especially long ones, have gone through games with little idea of the storyline after the first few as I refused to sit there watching it all. If I wanted to watch a movie Id have put one on.


----------



## Silva (Aug 30, 2009)

I have fallen asleep twice during MGS2's long arsed cutscenes. Not only they are long, they're also very, very boring.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2009)

ArmA 2 is my favourite at the moment, because it's basically sandbox. I've had weeks of play out of it, and mostly just one multiplayer map played in single player. The whole series - especially the campaign of Operation Flashpoint - are easily the best value games I've ever had.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Aug 30, 2009)

Well,i had several voting options available to me and could not make a quick decision and when i do that in a shooter i get killed (usually don't even see the shot !) and on FIFA i lose the ball.
I never have been able to understand how a game can be described as,
 "20 hours long", when it takes me weeks to get through Gears 1 
Some games you want to last for ages like FIFA or GTA IV.
Going back to Gears 1 , i played that firstly on casual level and then again on hardcore , and yes i killed RAAM on hardcore ! 
And that was more than enough !

I think a mixture is good,it's nice when you complete a game but i also want something that i can play again eg FIFA ,F1, or play your own way over time like GTA IV.

There seems to be a recent push to put the price of games up,in a difficult time for the games industry,quality and *quantity* should match any increase.I hope we don't return to the days of £70 crappy cartridge games from Nintendo.
I think some simple equations work for this Thread.
Time sent playing (hrs) / cost(£).
If it's less than 30p per hour, who cares !


----------



## The Groke (Aug 30, 2009)

mauvais said:


> ArmA 2 is my favourite at the moment, because it's basically sandbox. I've had weeks of play out of it, and mostly just one multiplayer map played in single player. The whole series - especially the campaign of Operation Flashpoint - are easily the best value games I've ever had.



ENEMY! MAN!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 30, 2009)

The Groke said:


> ENEMY! MAN!


UNKNOWN! VEHICLE! FAR!


----------



## fogbat (Aug 30, 2009)

Coffee said:


> They are a fantastic way of killing time at any age!
> 
> Ive lost a couple of days before today, playing the tomb raider games (ps1) and have been glad to do so. Though i tend to go for games that are played online these days like call of duty. (ps3) so lenth of game play has become less important to me. Still like at least 10 hours. Has anyone bought the recent tomb raider games? They went a bit shit on the ps2 in my opinion, was wondering if they had improved of late? X



I've played Tomb Raider Underworld on the XBox 360.

Only paid a fiver for it, which is good as it's really not worth any more 

Terrible design, which leave you frequently jogging in mid air because your player model has caught on some tiny, invisible bit of scenery.

Annoying controls.

Awful camera.

Big levels with next to no guidance about where to go - without a walkthrough I'd have thrown the disc out of the window by the second level.


Avoid like the plague.


----------



## bmd (Aug 30, 2009)

kained&able said:


> thats just crazy.
> 
> 
> dave



Yeah but I _am_ crazy. 

The more I think about it the more I realise that that really is my gaming preference. I play multiplayer games but they all have a beginning, middle and an end, like Counterstrike or Left4Dead. I would hate something like Eve Online or just MMORPGs generally.

I loved Turrican as well, upsidedownwalrus, it was ridiculously long but so good that I never got bored of it. James Pond was a bit like that in that there were about a million really long levels. I loved that as well.


----------



## starfish (Aug 31, 2009)

Used to just play sports & fighting games with mates so the length of the game was unimportant. Then i played FFVII .
So the longer the game the better, unless, like The Wanderers you can go back & redo levels & get things you missed first time round.


----------

