What is the longest story line game you have ever played?

[Shortie]

When it comes to video games and story related games, it can vary on how long you play the game for before you end up finishing the game. Some games can only be a few hours long whereas others could take a lot longer to complete at least one story play through.

What is the longest story line game that you have ever played? Did you find the game kept you interested or did you struggle to get through the story due to the length?

[Kane99]

Hmm, not sure. Maybe Skyrim or Red Dead Redemption 2. But I'm probably forgetting about an even longer game. But I feel like Skyrim is the one game I played with nearly endless amount of stuff to do. 

[Shagger]

Unmodified, the longest game I've played would probably be Kingdoms of Amalur. Completing the main storyline and DLC expansions can easily take 200 hours. It's a great game, but by god have you got to be committed.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Shagger

[Kyng]

Probably Skyrim... I have almost 150 hours on the game (across three different playthroughs), and I've never finished the main storyline. I keep getting distracted by the side quests!

[Tonberry]

In recent years it's probably Assassin's Creed: Valhalla or Dragon Quest 11. I'm not done with either but I remember clocking in on something like 80 hours in Valhalla and I'm probably only a bit over halfway. It's a big game with a lot of distractions though, but even then the story mode is insanely long.

1 hour ago, Shagger said:

Unmodified, the longest game I've played would probably be Kingdoms of Amalur. Completing the main storyline and DLC expansions can easily take 200 hours. It's a great game, but by god have you got to be committed.

I heard about that game. It supposedly plays alot like a singleplayer MMO, right? In that it's got quests and leveling typical for that subgenre and stuff. Always wanted to try it out for myself, since it sounds like something I'd enjoy to play through during a whole summer or something.

[Shagger]

1 hour ago, Tonberry said:

I heard about that game. It supposedly plays alot like a singleplayer MMO, right? In that it's got quests and leveling typical for that subgenre and stuff. Always wanted to try it out for myself, since it sounds like something I'd enjoy to play through during a whole summer or something.

 

Now that I think about it, describing it as a single player MMO does kind of work. The large map is divided into zones with own thier set level for the enemies and rewards that don't change whatever level the player is, but dungeons level with player. It's well balanced in that you do find worth in "completing" an area, but you're forced to grind either. You can focus on quests and side quests and be whare you need to be. I did review the remaster Kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Reckoning on PC a while back, so feel free to check that out to learn a little more about the game, but as I stage in the review it launched in a terrible state on PC and even when I tried it again on console (PS4) it still had issues. I'd like to think enough time has passed for the issues to be resolved by now, so hopefully all is well.

[Crazycrab]

8 hours ago, Tonberry said:

In recent years it's probably Assassin's Creed: Valhalla or Dragon Quest 11. I'm not done with either but I remember clocking in on something like 80 hours in Valhalla and I'm probably only a bit over halfway. It's a big game with a lot of distractions though, but even then the story mode is insanely long.

I heard about that game. It supposedly plays alot like a singleplayer MMO, right? In that it's got quests and leveling typical for that subgenre and stuff. Always wanted to try it out for myself, since it sounds like something I'd enjoy to play through during a whole summer or something.

 

 

6 hours ago, Shagger said:

Now that I think about it, describing it as a single player MMO does kind of work. The large map is divided into zones with own thier set level for the enemies and rewards that don't change whatever level the player is, but dungeons level with player. It's well balanced in that you do find worth in "completing" an area, but you're forced to grind either. You can focus on quests and side quests and be whare you need to be. I did review the remaster Kingdoms of Amalur: Re-Reckoning on PC a while back, so feel free to check that out to learn a little more about the game, but as I stage in the review it launched in a terrible state on PC and even when I tried it again on console (PS4) it still had issues. I'd like to think enough time has passed for the issues to be resolved by now, so hopefully all is well.

 

The definition of a single player game is by itself painfully obvious.  It's a game that one plays by one's self!  It's an attribute that is completely irrespective genre or gameplay design.  So to have "MMO" as a describer to Kingdoms of Amalur is frankly, fucking absurd. There are also so many types of games that people can play alone or together on and offline.

 

You know what though, I'm probably going to get some backlash for saying that Kingdoms of Amalur isn't a "single player MMO" because it's design is like that of an MMO with the whole "that's how it plays" excuse.  So for anyone that's tempted... your wrong.  There are so many games, single player and multiplayer, online and offline that share most of or at least some that game's design components.  Final Fantasy XII, Dragons Dogma, World of Warcraft, Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn/Forbibben West, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy XIV and most of the recent Assassins Creed games are all single player and multiplayer experiences that share similar levelling and/or gameplay mechanics.  That is is just a handful of dozens if not hundreds more.

 

 

I mean fuck, I just did an image search on "3rd person RPG" and this is one of the top results, like top 5:

 

 

I legitimately knew nothing about this image upon my initial discovery of it but it looks very similar to Kingdoms of Amalur:

 

 

 

The game is Dungeons of Edera if your curious but my point is that Kingdoms of Amour shares a lot in common with a lot of other games both single player and multiplayer. So to say it's an "single player MMO" is applying one of the few attributes that it unquestionably isn't and that's annoying.  I realise it's a relatively minor complaint but I see it way to much and it often leads to confusion.  Don't apply the term "multiplayer" or "MMO" as a describtor when the game isn't.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Crazycrab

[Tonberry]

4 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

 

 

 

The definition of a single player game is by itself painfully obvious.  It's a game that one plays by one's self!  It's an attribute that is completely irrespective genre or gameplay design.  So to have "MMO" as a describer to Kingdoms of Amalur is frankly, fucking absurd. There are also so many types of games that people can play alone or together on and offline.

 

You know what though, I'm probably going to get some backlash for saying that Kingdoms of Amalur isn't a "single player MMO" because it's design is like that of an MMO with the whole "that's how it plays" excuse.  So for anyone that's tempted... your wrong.  There are so many games, single player and multiplayer, online and offline that share most of or at least some that game's design components.  Final Fantasy XII, Dragons Dogma, World of Warcraft, Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn/Forbibben West, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy XIV and most of the recent Assassins Creed games are all single player and multiplayer experiences that share similar levelling and/or gameplay mechanics.  That is is just a handful of dozens if not hundreds more.

 

 

I mean fuck, I just did an image search on "3rd person RPG" and this is one of the top results, like top 5:

 

 

I legitimately knew nothing about this image upon my initial discovery of it but it looks very similar to Kingdoms of Amalur:

 

 

 

The game is Dungeons of Edera if your curious but my point is that Kingdoms of Amour shares a lot in common with a lot of other games both single player and multiplayer. So to say it's an "single player MMO" is applying one of the few attributes that it unquestionably isn't and that's annoying.  I realise it's a relatively minor complaint but I see it way to much and it often leads to confusion.  Don't apply the term "multiplayer" or "MMO" as a describtor when the game isn't.

Fair enough, but it's a relatively common way to refer to games with "fetch quests" and grindy number-based progression. Most people refer to games as "Singleplayer MMOs" in a derogatory way though since people who don't play MMOs tend to call out the skinnerbox-aspects harder, but I don't mind it. I think it's a perfectly fine description for a very small subset of games with a very particular design structure. Extra interesting with Amalur as there are some speculation and datamined files that might suggest that the game was originally supposed to be an actual MMO, but that two projects on the same studio got mashed together to create the final game.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with having different perspectives either :)

[Syntax]

Singleplayer MMO: Skyrim

Multiplayer MMO: RuneScape

[Reality vs Adventure]

It's hard for me to judge how long stories really are in open worlds because I spend hundreds of hours on those which aren't always the story. So, the timing of the story gets lost unlike story driven games. Witcher 3 for example is a really big game, and yes the story is long, but how long is it really compared to other games? I played most of the side quests and explored every bit of the map. So games like that I don't see how an estimate can even be accurate on story length unless you did a quick story driven play through. Which I would never do in an open world unless I've finished the game once and play it again real fast. So for me, this is a hard question to answer. As far as story driven games, TLOU 2 was pretty long and I love that approach. Days Gone also seems like the story was long, but then again after a several hundred hours of gameplay, was it really that long? I looked it up and Days Gone is 30-35 hours and TLOU 2 is 25-30 hours. So, slap me silly, Days Gone is a longer story. See? I think most of what we play it's hard to really interpret the time of the actual story. That is the point I'm making. Witcher 3 is about 50 hours of story. So I guess that would be my longest game. But I've spent 850 hours playing AC Odyssey including DLC, and still not done. So slap me silly again. 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Reality vs Adventure

[Shagger]

10 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

 

 

 

The definition of a single player game is by itself painfully obvious.  It's a game that one plays by one's self!  It's an attribute that is completely irrespective genre or gameplay design.  So to have "MMO" as a describer to Kingdoms of Amalur is frankly, fucking absurd. There are also so many types of games that people can play alone or together on and offline.

 

You know what though, I'm probably going to get some backlash for saying that Kingdoms of Amalur isn't a "single player MMO" because it's design is like that of an MMO with the whole "that's how it plays" excuse.  So for anyone that's tempted... your wrong.  There are so many games, single player and multiplayer, online and offline that share most of or at least some that game's design components.  Final Fantasy XII, Dragons Dogma, World of Warcraft, Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Dawn/Forbibben West, Dark Souls, Final Fantasy XIV and most of the recent Assassins Creed games are all single player and multiplayer experiences that share similar levelling and/or gameplay mechanics.  That is is just a handful of dozens if not hundreds more.

 

 

I mean fuck, I just did an image search on "3rd person RPG" and this is one of the top results, like top 5:

 

 

I legitimately knew nothing about this image upon my initial discovery of it but it looks very similar to Kingdoms of Amalur:

 

 

 

The game is Dungeons of Edera if your curious but my point is that Kingdoms of Amour shares a lot in common with a lot of other games both single player and multiplayer. So to say it's an "single player MMO" is applying one of the few attributes that it unquestionably isn't and that's annoying.  I realise it's a relatively minor complaint but I see it way to much and it often leads to confusion.  Don't apply the term "multiplayer" or "MMO" as a describtor when the game isn't.

 

You're right, Kingdoms of Amalur is not a single player MMO (Mass Multiplayer Online). Such a thing can't even exist as the two terms completely contradict each other. It's like saying this room is cold hot. I was simply falling into the idea that describing the game as a single player MMO as an easy and helpful way to describe how this fantasy RPG is structured and nothing more.

[Empire]

120 hrs for both Skyrim and Witcher 3. Witcher 3 was worth it, Skyrim was not in terms of story. Still have to play the DLC for Witcher 3 though. ANother great game with very good story was wolfenstein the new order the game has two storys to pick that ended to be 13 hours each.

[killamch89]

I'd say it's Witcher 3 for me and with the two DLCs, you have quite a bit of content to cover but it's totally worth it.

[Kane99]

53 minutes ago, killamch89 said:

I'd say it's Witcher 3 for me and with the two DLCs, you have quite a bit of content to cover but it's totally worth it.

I played only a small portion of it, but I realized this game was going to be packed to the brim with content. I got overwhelmed by the amount of menus and things you had to do, that I gave up. I may revisit it one of these days, but I really need to be devoted to actually learning it, because I need the patience first. 

[aerodynamik]

For me it would be Far Cry 4 I think. I thought It was never gonna end, lol. I'm not much of a story guy.