NightmareFarm Posted October 7, 2022 Share Posted October 7, 2022 (edited) I would say about 12-15 hours is the ideal length for most genres but about 35 hours is the ideal length for a JRPG. Edited October 7, 2022 by NightmareFarm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin11 Posted October 7, 2022 Share Posted October 7, 2022 It might be an ideal length to finish a game based on the developers evaluation. But when you're a slow gamer like me, it can take you forever to finish a particular one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demon_skeith Posted October 8, 2022 Share Posted October 8, 2022 15-25 is perfect for me, a little more or less. These 40+ hour games are fine but I'm losing the days I can play that long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empire Posted October 8, 2022 Share Posted October 8, 2022 Unlimited. I like the games that let you keep going after completing the main story. There is not a lot of them, but example can be Harvest Moon. It always make me loose my immersion after having to select new game + and having to replay the quests to use all the content I have already went through, just to have access to the whole map etc. They didn't just drop dead after finishing the main story, and folks around can always come up with another problem or simply the main character can just be around, take care of the land he owns, fish and interact with people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane99 Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 I think it depends on the game. Obviously the longer the better, or unlimited like Empire said above. I think as long as it has more than a 10hr story, it should be good enough for me. I look at games like GTA V, RDR2, Skyrim and a few others as having the appropriate length. As long as there is enough to keep me invested, I'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shagger Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Honestly, gamers need to stop boiling thier sense of appreciation for a game down to numbers. Obviously it's fair to expect a certain amount of content for them money, but what matters is the quality of that content, not how long it lasts. Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice is one of the very best games I've ever played, a masterpiece with lifelong impact and it clocks in at 6-8 hours max and the game has little to no replay value. That's still better than a similar type of game that's twice as long that's full of bullshit padding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane99 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 I think it also depends on the price. Because if I'm paying $60, sometimes now $70 for a brand new game, I would like to have a game that lasts me a while. As long as it's not super short. I don't mind a short 6-8 hour game, but idk if it's worth $60+ if there's nothing else to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin11 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 6 hours ago, Kane99 said: I think it also depends on the price. Because if I'm paying $60, sometimes now $70 for a brand new game, I would like to have a game that lasts me a while. As long as it's not super short. I don't mind a short 6-8 hour game, but idk if it's worth $60+ if there's nothing else to do. Are you talking about the number of hours you can spend totally in the game or the number of hours the game shouldn't exceed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyng Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 Quite simply: as long as it needs to be 😛 . If it works best as a 5-minute game, then it should be made as a 5-minute game. If it works best as a 50-hour game, then it should be made as a 50-hour game. But for a story-driven game, 20-30 hours is probably as long as it can be, without adding loads of filler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane99 Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 20 hours ago, Justin11 said: Are you talking about the number of hours you can spend totally in the game or the number of hours the game shouldn't exceed? More so the time you get out of the game versus how much you put into it. For me, I just want the game to have a decent enough story, gameplay, etc, but for it to last a fair deal of time before I call it quits. Like, if I was spending $70 for a game, I'd hope it doesn't have just a simple 4-6 hour story mode. If I'm paying high price for a game, it better have enough content for me to enjoy. I think the shorter the story, or game in general, it should be priced accordingly. Like Stray for example, that game came out priced at $30 if I'm not mistaken, and it was relatively short. Which is fair. If it was priced at $60-$70, idk if I would have agreed with that price point for the amount of game there is. Most short games tend to go for cheaper prices anyway, so I'm not too worried about it. Justin11 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin11 Posted October 12, 2022 Share Posted October 12, 2022 On 10/11/2022 at 7:07 PM, Kane99 said: More so the time you get out of the game versus how much you put into it. For me, I just want the game to have a decent enough story, gameplay, etc, but for it to last a fair deal of time before I call it quits. Like, if I was spending $70 for a game, I'd hope it doesn't have just a simple 4-6 hour story mode. If I'm paying high price for a game, it better have enough content for me to enjoy. I think the shorter the story, or game in general, it should be priced accordingly. Like Stray for example, that game came out priced at $30 if I'm not mistaken, and it was relatively short. Which is fair. If it was priced at $60-$70, idk if I would have agreed with that price point for the amount of game there is. Most short games tend to go for cheaper prices anyway, so I'm not too worried about it. That's correct with what you've said so far. I wouldn't consider spending much for a shorter game. I considered buying "Stray" when I first streamed the trailer, I'm not faraway from the game, my friend have it. If I need it I can go to his house and play the game there or better take it to play on my PS4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblessdude Posted October 13, 2022 Share Posted October 13, 2022 (edited) Game like project IGI takes one year for me to complete. Those were the times (during 2003 to 2008) we don't have internet connection. There were no walkthrough videos and I have to play the single mission multiple times to find out a way. My vote goes to 20 hours. Edited October 13, 2022 by joblessdude Forgot to add a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killamch89 Posted October 13, 2022 Share Posted October 13, 2022 All that matters to me is the experience - Honestly, I couldn't care less how long or short a game is as long as I'm enjoy myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowHammerYou Posted October 13, 2022 Share Posted October 13, 2022 Depends on the game's genre. Generally I prefer more action-focused games to take 6-15 hours to finish on first playthrough. For RPGs, Open-World games, and Action/RPGs, the story should take 20-50 hours to finish on first playthrough. Now when I say "finish", I'm talking about playing the game from beginning to end, not sidequesting, trying to 100% the game, DLC, or post-ending gameplay. That stuff's all well and good for people who want the option. What I have a real issue with is when just the main story or questline of a game takes over 50 hours to complete, such as with many of today's games. It's often due to deliberately terrible pacing where the devs force you into grinding hell in hopes that you'll pay real money to make things quicker. Not only is it a terrible business practice, it's also a direct attack on the player's well-being, and I really do think it should be illegal to make a game that takes an average player more than 50 hours to reach the ending of. When a game's that long, there's always room to cut filler out of it. If Peter Jackson was able to cut Frodo's journey to Mount Doom and back into roughly 9-12 hours of screentime (theatrical vs extended editions) in his take on the LOTR trilogy, there's no way in hell it should take Eivor 80-90 hours to conquer England in AC: Valhalla. As for the "dollar value per hour" argument, the hours only have value to me if there's something good happening in them. Hours spent riding horses between quest markers have no value to me. I can beat the Resident Evil 3 remake in less than 3 hours now that I know what I'm doing, but I get far more enjoyment out of a 3-hour playthrough of that game than I did during my 110-hour slog through Dark Souls 2. RE3R is very short, but is also one of my most replayed games, while DS2 is a very long game that I will never play again. Both games released at the same price, but if I had to buy them again at full price, I would only buy RE3R. Hell, I'd rather spend $60 on a copy of the movie Aliens than I would on DS2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akun Posted October 14, 2022 Share Posted October 14, 2022 (edited) I don't like short games. I don't hate them, but I usually find more value in longer RPGs that can last me for days, if not weeks. I want to go on a journey when I play an RPG, a journey that will leave me with a memorable experience like I've taken a vacation somewhere else. Usually, that kind of experience should lasts weeks. I think even with non-RPGs like simulation games, I'll say the same as well. I want a game to engage me for a long while, and simulation games in particular should keep me hooked on the simulation so that I could feel compelled to keep managing or building whatever it is that's being simulated. Replay value and stuff. Edited October 14, 2022 by Akun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
