How much time are you getting out of your games?

by Kevin Kelly { Sep 25th 2006 at 6:00PM }

Wired's Clive Thompson has a problem. Eidos promised 30 hours of gameplay in Tomb Raider: Legend, but he has played far longer than that, and has gotten nowhere near completion. It then gets relegated to his growing stack of unfinished games.

Gamers are aging and have more responsibility to work and to participate in family activities. As a result, those who can afford today's consoles have less time to play them.

With developers spending millions to bring you the newest next-gen gaming experience, how long should a game be?

Tags: Older gamers time mileage Wired, OlderGamersTimeMileageWired

Related From Joystiq

Deus Ex 3 PC exclusivity rumored, doubted, dismissed
10 days ago
WRUP: We game in peace. Always.
16 days ago
WRUP: 'Too many games, not enough time' edition
30 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Robotic House Plant @ Sep 25th 2006 6:09PM

This is highly subjective. You have to be interested in the game, and hopefully have the skill necessary to progress.

I've really enjoyed all the time I put into Dead Rising, and have played it over from the beginning many times.

There are other games, and I won't name any names, that I have just couldn't get into or just found frustrating and didn't play long at all. There was one game I found a little overwhelming and thought, I'll never get through this!

I don't mind short or epic games, as long as they're fun for me. If you present me a certain of freedom, it becomes all the better. It's hard to find a game that has the right balance for both the entry level and more advanced player.

PaleGringo @ Sep 25th 2006 6:10PM

I think that's a pretty open-ended question. A game should be "as long as possible" IMO, or open ended. Whatever. ShHould it have a "finishing point?" Perhaps, but that's not necessarily the finish line.

I think I clocked in at 165 Hours in TES-IV: Oblivion before I finished all the 360's achievements for it, but I still haven't gone back with different character types, finished every quest, or even played through all the new content. For me, that game is well worth the money I paid for it.

Another great game, different genre, was Call of Duty 2. I played through it on Veteran difficulty, and "finished" the SP part, but traded it back in before the MP fix was released, and now find myself wishing I hadn't.

Over time, though, I've been doing a LOT less buying and more renting. I play more games, but don't find myself getting stuck with large expenditures for things that would collect dust. It's thoughts like that one that make me concerned about this rumoured Sony DRM and stuff. Highly interesting time to be a gamer.

logikil @ Sep 25th 2006 6:10PM

I dont know that the question you are asking is something that is answerable because it can run the gamut. I'm one of these older gamers at 29 and with work and a girlfriend, i find it incredibly difficult to find time to game. This is partially why i have never really gotten anywhere in Oblivion. That being said, i still think gamers should make games that are anywhere from sub 1 hour (Geometry Wars unless you kick serious ass) to 30-40+hours for games like Enchant Arms or Oblivion. If you are like myself and crunched for time, even a game with a lot of gameplay built in is still potentially beatable if it really draws you in. (Something like Chronicles of Riddick never did let go until I finished it.) So frankly whatever the developer deems relevant to the experience so long as it makes sense.

FSK405K @ Sep 25th 2006 6:09PM

Other than Shadow of the Colossus, I haven't finished a single-player game in years. It's been all online multiplayer, which amounts to almost nothing per minute played, relative to the price of the game. How does that factor into this equation?

oldschoolgamr @ Sep 25th 2006 6:11PM

For the Diehards: Zelda TP or Metroid Prime 3
For the Casuals: Wii Sports

Either way the Nintendo Wii is the console of choice and even those with less cash can come and play...

True next gen at its best...

Subnet6 @ Sep 25th 2006 6:11PM

All this is subjective of course, but I personally feel that 15-30 hours is plenty. Less time for really action heavy games and more for puzzlers/RPG's.

Phil @ Sep 25th 2006 6:11PM

I totally fall into this catagory. I love playing games, but I rarely have time to finish them. Most times I'll get halfway through a game, then a new one comes out that I want, I buy that and I move on.

I love RPGs, but I have essentially written them out of my gaming life style. With that exception of the FF series, I can't see myself buying another RPG, especially something along the scale of Oblivion.

The DS has been something of a god send. Most of the games I own for it and fantastic pick up and plays. Would you believe I've spent more time with Cooking Mama in 10 minute bursts than I have with Okami?

I could rattle on and on, but for the busy gamer, 8 to 10 hours is the sweet spot.

NorCalSix @ Sep 25th 2006 6:11PM

Eidos never promised 30 hours of gameplay for Tomb Raider. It's a third person action game. I finished it easily in about 8 hours, and I was looking for the hidden rewards and playing around in Croft Manor.

I would suggest either the author's skills are lacking or he has a very loose grasp of the concept of time.

RobertP17 @ Sep 25th 2006 6:12PM

Wow. That's a good darned question. Truth is that I have many, many games that I just haven't had time to finish. In fact I have made it my quest to devote my free time to these games before I get another new one (just beat Golden Sun last week- that's how behind I am). I do tend to make my purchases based on how long they are inclusion to how fun. etc. they are. Some games like FF IV you just have to buy and play for the experience and other games like Polarium are good for pick up and playing. I think companies should produce a lttle of both, but yeah games are insanely long now and at 24 I have a lot less time.

Lex Darko @ Sep 25th 2006 6:12PM

30 hours or more is a must. 15 hour games that cost 50+ dollars just aren't worth the money. Alot of people have jobs, kids, and family, but still manage to get in the time and would it be fair to them and everyone else just because on segement of gamers can't find time to sit down and get in some gaming.

fritzilla @ Sep 25th 2006 7:02PM

EXACTLY!

I have been faced with this challenge for a long time. I know most people associate more game length with more value but in story based games it can be a bummer to spend extremely long periods of time to finish a game. This is even more annoying when that time is artificially extended by escalating the difficulty, incorporating cheap deaths, or duplicating portions of the game so that the game is longer (looking at you Halo!).

Now a game that sucks you in for hours and hours of multiplayer is ok by me. But when it comes to single player games, I don't mind a shorter encapsulated experience. 20 hours or less is ok by me.

Having said that I am loving Oblivion and have put in at least 20 hours without even starting the main story arc yet. Go figure.

fritzilla

Dan Pajor @ Sep 25th 2006 6:17PM

I disagree, I think 15-30 hours is ideal. Anything shorter doesn't leave much to make you remember playing it. Anything over 30 hours becomes too time consuming to those of us who go to work, go to school, or go outside.

Cyborg771 @ Sep 25th 2006 6:18PM

I can tell you this, I got over 6 years out of Majora's Mask, I finally beat it for the first time yesterday (I know how pathetic that is)

Kevout @ Sep 25th 2006 6:19PM

I buy about 10 games a week so my answer is 15 minutes per game

icelandman @ Sep 25th 2006 6:18PM

I've started school recently, and I've had to relegate my copy of Oblivion to a dark corner, because if I start to play I'll never have enough time to make progress that satisfies me... But I wouldn't want games to get shorter for that reason, I relished every second of beating Ratchet and Clank, and beating it for the second time in challange mode. But games aren't all designed in the segmented way that R&C is that allows me to play and balance my responsibilities.

The 30 hour game is a nice length, and extras are always great and 100+ hour games are fantastic, its the design and the way you need to play to progress that makes games troublesome when there is little play time.

Vikram @ Sep 27th 2006 12:18PM

Without even considering the type of gamer involved - I think game design and game length go hand in hand. As an analogy if a novel is written with really long and drawn out chapters, its easy to dog-ear and forget about. But if the chapters are well-written and
immersive it doesnt matter how long the chapter - you'll get through
the book.

The risk you run with an open ended game, is that
it gets shuffled away because of lack of interest if poorly designed. But if the gamegives you the facility for playing in meaningful segments, then it's worth playing all the way through

I, incidently, play all a variety of epic games in small bursts of half-an-hour a day. It
makes for better entertainment than T.V., and its nice, with a few games,to give yourself time to wallow in the suspense about finding out what happens to your character next. More dimensions are added when you have important decisions to make that impact the game as a whole.

Again, without digressing too much further - I
have to restate that game design and length are very much related and influential on the overall play experience. You just can't look at game length independantly.

Brian @ Sep 25th 2006 6:49PM

I can't play a game these days unless I can have a satisfying and productive 20min play session. So, really, I can play any game, as long as I can get somewhere in about 20min (next save point, next plot point, whatever). I love Dead Rising, but I can't get anywhere in 20min, so it sits on my shelf not being played.

kelekod @ Sep 25th 2006 6:25PM

Depends on the situation and type of game.

NES games are perfect pick up and play. Mario you can win in like 15 minutes, Contra, Zelda is closer to an hour probably.

I think we do need some more shorter games like the classics.

Sure final fantasy games are nice here and there, and also metriod/Zelda games take some 30-40 hours to play, but sometimes you wish it wasn't that long.

I wish there were more short-timed games to play. Brain age/big brain academy don't really count as games.

otakucode @ Sep 25th 2006 6:28PM

I put in 100 hours of playtime in Oblivion before I did the very first piece of the main quest. I put in 54 hours in Xenosaga 3. When I was playing those games, I did not watch TV, and I did not play anything else. They were my free time. It's all about priorities. I like my games to be long, involved, and have turn-based battles (Oblivions open-ended character development and flexible world trumped this, a very rare feat). I look for story when I play a game, usually. XBLA games might get an hour every few days, but the games I'll wait in line for and play with every spare moment are the ones I know I'm going to get a lot out of.

Pince @ Sep 25th 2006 6:33PM

I have a humongous stack of unfinished games. This is likely because of two things:
1) I collect some games without the intent to go straight home and play them right away
and 2)I play games (attempt to) to 100% completion and often reset purely because I didnt beat a section the way I wanted to.
For example, I have probably logged about as much time in RE4 as people who have beaten it twice. I am only about halfway through. Now, this game is a special case because as a refuse to let deaths go on my record, I end up making the game harder and harder for myself.
Also, I have an aversion to healing items. I know that sounds wierd, but I am one of those people that played through most FF games without even touching the item command. When I find games to have a an aspect that makes them too easy (such as the fact that items and magic generally duplicate eachother's effects so whats the point), I put such restrictions on myself. There are some games where this is just stupid (like BG:Dark Alliance, Xmen legends, etc) but the point is, I end up making every game a painstaking venture.
It comes to the point that if I am out of magic and low on health against a tough boss, I wont even think to use an item. I will just chastize myself, die or reset and do it again.
So...if I never finish my stack of games, that is my fault.

Currently, I need to finish RE4, then Killer 7, then ape escape 3, then megaman legends 2, then Phantom Brave (it goes on like this, hopping between genres, consoles, and generations)...so when you add new games into the mix, which I will, and in the high probability that I will get hooked on Civilization 4 for months at a time, beat FF7 again, or buy Heroes 5...well I guess I should be happy. Lots of gaming.

jason bergman @ Sep 25th 2006 6:27PM

You can't be serious.

All the time people are complaining that games are too short, and now he's complaining that they're too long??

I got 12 hours out of Tomb Raider Legend and I was totally satisfied.

Maybe he needs more practice.

Nate @ Sep 25th 2006 6:28PM

I think 10-15 hours is perfect for someone like myself (45 hour a week job, girlfriend, family, etc. etc.). Games that are 40+ are just too long, and end up becoming tedious after a while....especially when you can't dedicate time every day to the game. I played Oblivion for a while (about 30-35 hours) before I got kinda put off by it....it wasn't the game itself, but the fact that I couldn't play it for a month due to other stuff in my life, and when I went back, I just wasn't that interested....not too mention, I had forgotten where I left off in the story/quests, so I didn't really feel like playing.

I believe there have been only about 3 games that I have put extensive time into in the last 5-8 years....Halo, Halo 2 (over 300 hours with multiplayer included...but my girlfriend loves to play it too), and Star Wars: KOTOR (which I finished in about 35 hours and was greatly satisfying). Everything else I have come across has either gotten about a half hour of time, and I put it down never to play it again (I know when something isn't my style right away)....or I've gotten half way through expecting the game to grab me and it just never did, or I've just lost interest.

I think a 10 hour campaign with multiplayer added is perfect for the gamer who doesn't have hours every day to play. I think some form of multiplayer should be included in almost every game today....it gives the person like myself an opportunity to play in short bursts without having to get into the story and/or gameplay.

Alkaiser @ Sep 25th 2006 6:30PM

As long as the content stays fresh, it could go 100 hours and I wouldn't care.

But, I have to agree with NorCalSix.

Who the hell can't finish Tomb Raider: Legend in far more than 30 hours? I had a friend beat in under 8 while I was playing Civ IV on my PC.

Sounds like he needs to set it on Easy.

LordMinogue @ Sep 25th 2006 6:30PM

I dont buy single player games when they release anymore, unless they have enough gameplay to justify the price (1 hour/ dollar spent). So far Oblivion is the only game I've purchased for my Xbox (120 hours / $70), but i'm keeping a close eye on other games such as Prey and Gears of War.

I'm a big fan of trading games with friends. Recently I loaned my friend Halo 1 + 2 and Splinter Cell in exchange for Dead Rising (amazing game!!).

Multiplayer games must be purchased ASAP because the online audiance moves on quickly, so wait-and-see isnt a cure-all.

otakucode @ Sep 25th 2006 6:32PM

Heh, reading through these posts and wondering what game, over my entire gaming life, has used up the most of my time... #1 would have to be The Edge of Darkness, a MUD I played for 6 years (from the age of 12 to 18) pretty damn near nonstop. It's why I stay away from MMOs now. Well, that and none of them have ever captured the ability for a player to distinguish themselves from every other cookie-cutter character wearing the same equipment and doing the same things...

#2 would have to be Angband. I've played it on and off for at least 10 YEARS now, and I've never beaten it once. Getting the itch now thinking about it though...

dvnt @ Sep 25th 2006 6:33PM

I can't do epic RPG's (Enchated Arms of FF) or sandbox (actually, never could stand GTA) games anymore. They simply take too long to move the plot along to keep me interested or require menial tasks like "collect meaningless crap" to complete the game.

The past couple years I've become an action game junkie. Tomb Rader: Legend was a good length and made collecting portion optional. God of War was well-paced and kept me actively engaged the whole game. The same with Halo 2.

Ashley Allen @ Sep 25th 2006 6:41PM

I finish very few games. Either because I get bored or stuck and couldn't be bothered to search through an FAQ because I wasn't really that bothered to know how the rest of the game panned out.

Games I have recently finished are Halo (on all difficulties), Half-Life 2, Kameo, PGR 1-3, DoA and Lego Star Wars. I think I completed them for one reason above all. They are fun games. Sometimes I find myself playing games that just aren't fun and I know I'm never going to see the end. (See Oblivion)

Gerwurztraminer @ Sep 25th 2006 6:35PM

I enjoy RPGs but am now 25, working full time, getting married, etc so it just means that a potentially 100+ hour game (e.g. Dragon Quest VIII) will take me months to complete, whereas in high school that would've been weeks. Just because it's a long game doesn't mean I'm going to give it up.

Martin @ Sep 25th 2006 6:35PM

Clive needs to STFU! I dont want to be spending $20 for 3 hours of game play, im looking at you HL2 Episode 1. I think if a game makes it to the "will not finish" pile its due to the game becoming uninteresting or too repetitive.

Eggman @ Sep 25th 2006 6:38PM

I think games should be as long as neccessary for the storyline or whatever the point of the game is. Games that are artificially stretched with tedious tasks, mind bending puzzles, etc. are what frustrate the hell out of me.

I don't think all games have to clock over 20+ hours to be worthwhile. However there is a balancing line b/w content and the sticker price, usually $60. Personally, I don't buy games for that price (too expensive for most anything) and have been renting most of my games for the 360 (online rental services ftw).

Personally, I like my games short and to the point. I don't have that much time a day (like an hour or two, if that) to play games so I like being able to have a sense of accomplishment in w/e game I spend my time on and being able to finish it as soon as possible so i can move on to something else.

Jay @ Sep 25th 2006 6:39PM

The amount of time a game takes definitely matters to me more than it did. I just finished Baten Kaitos, and it took about 52 hours ... I could have down with about 12 hours less. I'm happy with action/survival horror games that last 8-15 hours. RPGs would be best around 30, imho. Oblivion is a great game because you can do the main quest in relatively short order, yet continue playing in the game world long after.

Ninegauger @ Sep 25th 2006 6:43PM

I don't think there is an ideal time... I mean certainly a range starting at 8 and going to 80 (For one play through). The real key is replayability. I played Oblivion to completion once but I've fooled around more than anything... and over the years I probably put more time than that in games like the Genesis Sonic games (Each one) and Chrono Trigger through sheer replaying even though they're very linear.

The best way for most games (Action games) is a 10 or so hour really solid game with difficulty levels AND appropriate rewards for the difficulty. I never would've played through Dante Must Die in Devil May Cry if not for the reward but someone who only beat it once still got an excellent action game while allowing a devotee to get more out of it.

RPGs should probably extend their play time with exploration a la Oblivion, Dragon Quest VIII or even Legend of Zelda because that's a lot of the draw of those type of games that really isn't as encouraged in action games.

But in the end there's no formula. Great games are great games for a different reason.

LordMinogue @ Sep 25th 2006 6:43PM

To all the gamers with a growing stack of unfinished gmaes:

Why don't you beat the game you're playing before buying a new one? With games $50+, you really cant afford NOT to beat a game.

Lesson I learned form my N64:
If you buy a game, beat it (a third of my games were unbeaten when I traded it in)

Lesson I learned from my XBOX:
Demo a game before you buy it (only one game was unbeaten when I sold it to a friend, but half of the games were never touched after completion)

Lesson I'm learning form my 360:
Wait for price drops on new, short games, Pick up used classic games for dirt cheep instead

And yes, I shop at my local B@M, I owe it to them after they gave me HalfLife 2 and Splinter Cell Chaos Theory for free (they didn't ring them up, I wondered why my total bill was half what it should have been)

Tony @ Sep 25th 2006 6:46PM

TR:L took me like five hours on hard, for god's sakes. What is this man doing?

ill trooper @ Sep 25th 2006 7:52PM

The super utopian answer is "as long as the game is offering you something interesting and fun, and keeps you from thinking about how much time you're spending on it."

I get annoyed when it becomes apparent that the developer has 'looped' some things to extend the playtime artificially with repetition - I'm thinking of Halo2, with the long underwater halls and rooms that were essentially the same thing as the long underwater halls and rooms I had just run through. When the levels are indiscernable and the enemies are a steady stream of the same thing, it's going on too long for me.

I would like games to be around 6-9 hours... I'm older now, and I don't feel that $60 needs to equal 60 hours... I just don't have the time to keep playing day after day, but if I can have a fun 4-5 nights out of a single player game, I'm happy.

My vote: More 'quality,' less 'hours of play'

Sam @ Sep 25th 2006 6:48PM

15-30 is pretty good. Of course it depends on the type of game. I beat Tomb Raider: Legend in under 11 hours, and i felt it was plenty. I don't play too many RPGS but i would expect more than this. I loved God of War and Resident Evil 4, but it would be a bit much if either of those even attempted to go towrds 30 hours.

Linkman2004 @ Sep 25th 2006 6:58PM

As many before me have said, alot of this depends on certain factors.

For me, 20-30 hours is about how long I want the main mission to be, but I also want a good ammount of replay value and unlockable content.

The Zelda games are a perfect example of this. While the main game isn't much longer than 20-30 hours, the ammount of things to do and explore is amazing.

But there are games that are also the opposite, Final Fantasy games being some of them. 'Cause I hate it when I make it through, say, Final Fantasy VI. Sure, the game is amazingly fun, but once you've made it to the end, there really isn't anything left to do.

So in the end, I want at least 60 hours of play, two thirds of that being extras.

But on the topic of game completion, I generally finish games. Sometimes I'll shelve a game without completing it, but then I'll take it back down again a few months later and complete it. Kind of like... Rogue Leader... AW, MAN! How I wish that disk still worked. :'(

Andrew Yoon @ Sep 25th 2006 7:00PM

At $50, we expect our games to be lengthy. However, I find that many games ARE too long, turning into boring, repetitive fetch quests after a while. Like a good book or movie, sometimes short and sweet can be great (long epics are great too! As long as there isn't too much filler).

Personally, I'd rather have shorter games at smaller prices. That's what Valve is theoretically doing with the Half Life episodes, and I approve.

Bones3D @ Sep 25th 2006 7:00PM

This is exactly the type of market Nintendo will probably be targeting with the Wii. Simple titles anyone can pick up and play at any random moment and enjoy simply from the experience, rather than completing a pre-determined series of tasks over several hours/days/weeks.

Robert Jung @ Sep 25th 2006 7:01PM

I like the approach Nintendo is taking recently with their NDS games, which let you finish them fairly quickly if you want, or go back for more. New Super Mario Bros. took me about 20 hours in bits-and-pieces to do, but I still go back to try to get extra gold coins and unlock world 7. And I've gotten five of the nine endings in Starfox Command so far, but can eke out enough time every night to slowly make my way to the other four. In either case, however, I can stop if I don't have the time to play further, but won't feel like I'm missing something for not toughing it out.

Huzzah!! @ Sep 25th 2006 7:02PM

100 hours.

*COUGHzeldaCOUGH*

FSK405K @ Sep 25th 2006 7:03PM

My housemate uses my GCN and copy of RE4 to play 3-5 days per week. He's beaten it at least 40 times, has every weapon, knows every enemy, can run through it completely in about 8 hours (he said it took 50 the first time), and most important, DOES NOT PLAY CONSOLE GAMES. He's a NWN guy who because of its polish simply can't get enough of RE4.

I, myself, when not playing CoD2 or CSS or Urban Terror online am usually playing Guitar Hero or some classic games like Dragon Warrior 4.

DmFkillA @ Sep 25th 2006 10:20PM

For psp, I log around a lengthy 2 days/game (obviously excluding MH:F and others)...so maybe about 20 hrs on a weekend. And honestly, that sucks. psp games should be normal (longer) games with sweet random mini games and lots of continued playability after you "beat" the game. Not necessarily replayability, but you should be able to randomly for example buy a house or otherwise "live" out random aspects of some character's life--all sorts of AC or Harvest Moon type stupid things like go fishing and design your own clothes......with characters like goku or LONESTAR or your fav rpg character. Its perfect for a portable system. common write it. get to it.

striderhayasa @ Sep 26th 2006 12:56PM

Personally, my work schedule and daily activity is such were I sold my current gen consoles and wholeheartedly support the portables. i just don't have time to sit in front of a televison for hours on end like I used to.

PSWii360 Fanbot @ Sep 25th 2006 7:11PM

Being a teacher, I am very limited in the amount of time I have to play. However, I have this weird tendancy to keep buying games even though I have a stack of 30+ unbeaten games. I walk into a used game store and just can't pass up those quality titles at less than $20. I have a long line of games that I haven't even begun to play but I find myself playing through Wind Waker a second time.

Evan @ Sep 25th 2006 7:12PM

It's discouraging when a game is too long. I know I'll never have the time to finish it, so what's the point?

For me, 15~20 hours ideal for a game released in the winter, and 10~12 hours for a game released in the summer (more stuff to do in the summer).

Vercin @ Sep 25th 2006 7:11PM

I'm on the fence like a lot of people seem to be. It depends on the genre and the game's online modes, at least as far as I'm concerned. If I can spend 20 hours with a game I really like without ever getting bored, I can justify a $60 purchase. With RPGs, I tend to feel cheated, like most people, if the game isn't 40+ hours. Oblivion earned my $50 (bought it for PC before I got a 360).

But there are many factors to consider when establishing a personal standard for the value of games. Personally, at $60, a 10-hour action game could be worth the price if it has a fun and worth-while online component. Half-Life 2 was a beautiful game and I probably would have bought it anyway, but the online Deathmatch in addition to CounterStrike: Source added so many hours to that purchase for me.

But, like everyone is saying, it depends on so many different factors. Games like Saints Row (GTA) or Oblivion, where you could power through the main story within a few sittings if you set your mind to it really tend to add a lot of value in the large, explorable game world.

I think there is a middle ground in most of these games besides traditional RPGs and adventure games which will and should always be longer than other games. Because like Saints Row or Oblivion, a lot of games have the potential to be casual-gamer-friendly or busy-gamer-friendly if the main story can be completed in a relatively short amount of time while still offering a feast of other activities for people who have time to spend in the game world.

Since I swore off MMOs a month or so ago, I've beaten more one-player games than I'd finished in the previous 4 years. And it feels good. But man am I glad I rented the Prince of Persia games instead of buying them. Like I said, I'm on the fence.