How much time are you getting out of your games?

30-40 hrs for a RPG, 8-12 hrs for action, FPS or racing game, 12-16 hrs for an adventure game and 45-50 hrs for an epic RPG (e.g Final Fantasy.)

30 hour episodes. Like Kingdom Hearts, without the 3 year long development cycle >_>

my bare minimum to have gotten my money's worth is 15 hours, it pays for itself after i've played through it multiple times over the next year or so...

For some games that only covers "Beat 1P Mode once"

For others (see: Sonic Riders) in 15 hrs i had EVERYTHING cleaned out, but that's the way the cookie crumbles

Any game that lasts me longer i consider ideal, but that's what us action/platformer junkies get

Perhaps he'd prefer the package read:
30 hours of gameplay, unless you really suck at this sort of thing, in which case it could be damn near infinite!

depends on the genre, but I like 10-15 hours for an action/adventure/platformer, anywhere from 25-100 for an RPG (depends on how much I like it) but hopefully around 50, and then FOREVER for games like Guitar Hero and Mario Kart and stuff.

I agree though, that most games these days are a little long. I'm trying to finish Oblivion, (I'm 35 hours in and I've done maybe a fourth of what I want to do) Okami is sitting here begging to be played (and I've heard it's about 30 hours...), and FFXII and Guitar Hero II are going to own my soul when they come out in a month and a half. AGGGHHHHH, not enough time.

10 hours. Probably less. I'd rather have a polished experience that leaves me wanting more than a good game that stretches thin for 40 hours. And besides, if the game is good enough, I'll end up playing it multiple times. I don't have enough time for giant games anymore. It's just not practical, and I wish company's would focus more on quality rather than quantity.

The longer the better. (Looks at his stack of over 30 unfinished games)

I'm in high-school, so that should be worth mentioning. Its not a problem with just responsibility, its attention span. The good ones are too short, and the moderate ones are too long. The original Call of Duty on the second hardest settings took me 10 hours, counting every distraction.

On a side note: I LOVE used games.

i'm still trying to find the time to finish ninja gaiden. I loved that game, but I started playing it twice, both times only getting about 3 or 4 levels in, and I just couldn't dedicate myself to it anymore.

I have NG Black now (yup, I bought the new version even though I never finished the original) so I still hope to get to it.

on the other hand, I found myself without a job for the month after Oblivion was released, and I lived my life in Tamriel for that month

Games have gotten too long as a whole. How about a game with 4-10 hours of enjoyable gameplay for $20? Until games become cheaper and shorter, they will NEVER go mainstream.

Wha? Would he rather beat it in 2 hours? Then he'd complain that it was too short. Must be a slow news day at wired.

30 HOURS FOR TOMB RAIDER: LEGEND? I want what that guyd is smoking. I borrowed that game, and I consider myself a slow gamer compared to others and beat it over a weekend. No more than ten hours it took. And that included finding tons of stuff in Craft Manor. Maybe he's talking about completing all the time trials, but this was not a good example for a game that lasted too long.

I think the most important aspect of any game is it's replay value. The 360 launch had some of the best rentals I've ever played like Condemned, Kameo, and Gun. They were all really fun while they lasted, but why should I spend $60 plus tax on something I can finish in a couple of hours. The only thing worth $60 for such a short amount of time is a hooker.

Then again I've had Oblivion for the whole summer, and haven't touched it. I've wanted to make sure I finished every other game I had before I started it, because I knew it would take up so much time to get through it.

I thought I was in a Catch 22: If a game ended too soon I felt like I wasting money and I didn't need it anymore, if a game lasted too long I wouldn't want to start it for fear of not having the opportunity to beat it. Then I picked up Star Fox Command for DS. The game didn't last that long at all. But then I noticed all the alternate story paths the game provided after completion.

This is how a game should be. If you care about the events in the story you shouldn't have to subject yourself to months of playing to figure out the ending. But if you're spending $60 compared to $10 for a movie ticket or $20 for a book, a one time experience is not good enough. Whether you're a casual gamer who plays Madden all year or a hardcore gamer who wants to get all the heart pieces in Zelda, we can all agree that the best games are the ones that are quick to get into but not so quick to be traded back in.

A real video game can be played forever. An ordinary game that lasts less than 15 hours isn't even worth the $50.

@30
If I buy a game new, that is, for 50$ or more, it is because I was really looking forward to the game and consider it worth it to buy it right away. In such a case, I go straight home and play it nonstop until it is finished.

However, the last time I did this with a game was Civ 4...and technically you cant reall beat a game like that. The last time I truly bought a game that new was when the original kingdom hearts came out years and years ago and i was so enamored with it. I played it for hours upon hours every day until I beat it with all the puppies and shit.

A lot of my game buying now is games that are a couple years old and are down to about 20$. Some of them I bought ust because they were really cheap and I had always wanted them. I make it my business to have a very well-rounded game library, but, in the process of doing so, I have a tough time sitting down and beating a game that quickly.

Sadly, I have not found games like that which I like so much that I just sit down and play them until they are done more recently.

So, for many of us, it is really our own faults and is a product of the way in which we game. For others of us, it is sometimes irresistable to pcik up that cheap game you always wanted, even if you know its just gonna become another game to beat that you dont have time to.


PS: correction, I still beat some games in a couple very long sittings, just not as often; acceptions to the rule are shorter but hopelessly addicting games like Katamari or Shadow of the Collosus

Well, there's a couple of things I want to say. I have about 10 GC games I haven't played yet, but I don't regret it because they're all really great games and none of them are really that long. I don't like long and tedious games that add filler just to make them long. If a game is long, but fun, that's fantastic. But when a game stops being a game and becomes a chore, that's where I draw the line. I have plenty of time to play long games if I want to but I really don't like playing games like RPGs. They just are so exhausting, and boil down to a lot of menus and a lot of things you only find out if you go online.

Another problem is the perception that you must play EVERY GAME RIGHT NOW as if, in ten years, they won't exist anymore, or that they won't have been rereleased, or a new version will not have come out. That's why I sold my old GBA: I had a backlog of games I wanted to get, but the DS had newer entries or versions in those same series.

I really think the point here is, is that games ARE getting too long. Wind Waker, for example, isn't that long, but I'll be damned if it isn't fun as hell. The key is being able to play a game in either short bursts OR in long spans. Zelda very easily lends itself to that, as does games like Mario and Katamari Damacy and Shadow of the Colossus. It divides the game into levels, basically, even if you don't realize it, just like all the games of yesteryear. God of War is another example of a game that is awesome but never tedious or long.

Kingdom Hearts? I'm sorry, but I just couldn't get into it. WAY too tedious. And PRESS X FOREVER LOLZ

I would like my games to be atleast 15 hours long. Long enough where you can't beat them in a long sitting.

Also thanks to Achievements (and later down the road entitlements) I think single player portions of games are getting more of a look. I replayed COD2 on vetern partially because of that.

Wow, that sounded weird, let me try again.

If a game is short but has high replayability, that's pretty much the best combination you can get. Games that allow you to either pick it up and play for a few minutes OR sit down for a long time are really ideal. Like I tried to say before, levels are a big part of it. I don't know why game makers use a level structure more often, or at least try to subliminally divide the game into sections or chapters or acts like all the old NES game did.

Like I said, I have a LOT of time to play games, but I really can't get into tedious ones.

Ha hah! That guys is teh suxxorS! I beat Tomb rayder on hard in 10 MINUTES with both my hands tied bheind my bakc!!!

Seriously, I myself usually spend far longer on a game than the official run-time developers give me.

Why? A multitude of factors.

If you're talking about a truly gorgeous looking game with open environments and a convicing world, you could spend hours just checking out the scenery (Oblivion).

Also, yes... If you have 10 hours to sit down and blast through a game, sure - I imagine you could get through it in one shot. But for those of us who only get a few scant hours a week to play, it can take half an hour just to refamiliarize yourself with the control scheme.

Another point (and one that applies particularly to Tomb Raider andd other puzzle/adventure games) is that if a level takes you an inordinate amount of time, it's not usually because you're stuck on a particular enemy or puzzle, but because you simply missed one key item or passed by a secret passage a dozen times without seeing it. (I used to enjoy playing games with my little brother watching, because he had a knack for picking out small objects I might have missed.)

On my second playthrough of Shadow of the Colossus, I spent almost 2 hours just trying to FIND one of the Colossi, because following the path directed by the sword led me into a valley and insisted that the beast was either underground, or inside a mountain.

Gretings;

When I buy a game, I want to be entertained for at least 30 hours. When you consider that I don't play online, this means that I expect to have a narrative that will last for this length of time. I am willing to make some exception for single player games of epic quality (RE4, God of War), but my bread and butter are RPG's. I was quite annoyed when Fable only laster 15 hours.

perhaps the ideal length of a game should be determined using the same criteria as a good book. Make it as long as it needs to be not a sentence more not a sentence less. Don't leave anything out of the game but don't ramble on. Gamers are smart, they will drop a game as soon as they feel like the experience is begining to smell like filler. I have better things to do then repeat the predictable.

Personally, I honestly think that I enjoy the anticipation of a new game much more than playing it. I like hearing about a game I might be interested in, then following the previews, screenshots and trailers until the release date.

Oh, it gets better! Phuck a pre-order....half the fun is driving around town trying to find a store that actually has it in stock! Once I get home with my prize, 8 times out of ten, I neatly shelf it with the other hundred factory sealed games that I own, then lather/rinse/repeat.

Horrible I know!.....but I find it very exciting and theraputic for some reason. I guess I might be more of a game collector than a player nowadays (don't get me wrong....I did finish Resident Evil 4 and Viewtiful Joe, among others), but hey, I'm happy! 8)

I have real problems finding the time to finish games over 15 hours long anymore. It's been a long time since high school when I dropped 60 hours into Final Fantasies without even blinking.

what the heck is clive thompson doing in Tomb Raider: Legend that he hasn't beaten the game in 30 hours?!? i played it through twice and it probably totaled 15-20 hours.. that's got to be a mistake!

the reason i played it through twice is specifically because when i beat the game the first time, i felt i did not get my money's worth (and i bought the game used for about 15 dollars).. i think 20 hours is a great length for a game and although some would say more is better, it really also depends on the quality of the game. Half Life 2, for example, is about 15-20 hours, but after completing it i felt i had completely gotten my money's worth simply because of the quality of the experience.

morrowind took me a year of on-and-off playing to beat, and oblivion is stacking up to take at least that long; i'm 80+ hours in and nowhere near beating it...somewhere around 44% on XBL Achievements.

and that's the way i like it.

#38, 100 hour's of zelda you say,
How about 140 hours of FINAL FANTASY TACTICS
Now that is a real life taker

So there's a bunch of different estimates given here: 5-10, 30+, etc., mostly depending on either the genre or the player's lifestyle. Why not have it both ways? A game like Star Fox Command, I hear, or most Star Wars games, allows you to play through pretty quickly (on easy) and complete it relatively quickly. But if you want to collect all the challenge points or whatever your game has, then yes, that will take quite a bit longer. I don't think it could be too difficult to add something like this to most games. Oblivion does it. And yes, the chapterization of Colossus and God of War makes playing a little each day after work easier, too.

I can't beat anything anymore, I don't have the will to do it. If more than a little effort is required, I get a bad feeling and quit; I really don't want to have to play over and over to improve at playing games, I just want games to be easier so I can get my instant gratification at winning. Basically, I like games where losing isn't really an option, and grind is non-existant.

I haven't beaten a single Xbox 360 game since I bought the system. The most fun I've had is playing my nephew's copy of "Lego Star Wars II" for the GameCube. It's easy enough to run through the levels, but there's plenty of incentive to go back and find stuff, and it doesn't take hours to accomplish any single task. That's the type of game I find myself getting into nowadays. Sure, "Dead Rising" is fun, but I haven't gotten anywhere in it. I played "Morrowind", but I didn't get very far. I tried to play too perfectly and ended up doing nothing.

As I get older, I find my skills lacking, or maybe I just can't keep up, and really I couldn't care less. I play games for the enjoyment of it, not to frustrate myself by dying on some long quest and having to start all over. Simple is better. Or perhaps it's subtle that's better. In any case, I look forward to Will Wright's "Spore".

This time factor swings wildly. I clocked 211 hours in San Andreas just because it's a blast, but got pissed at Kingdom Hearts 2 because it didn't seem to ever end once you got into the "final" battle. After having put in 42 hours to get to the end, I was so offended that I didn't even waste my time w/ the rest of the ending. They kept drawing it out!

The best way to go is a good +20 hours and a bevy of replay value. I'm hunting white tailed lizards now in Shadow of the Colossus I beat the game twice, but I keep coming back. Maybe I get a kick from flogging the horse, who knows.

Are there any single player games (excluding Civ etc) that really last 40 hours? Almost all of them are just twenty hour games with dull fetch quests, backtracking and copy-and-pasted levels tacked on the end, IME.

I easily clocked in 100 hours on FFX, first playthrough. In the period of a week. Yes, I was bored.

I find 10-15 is a good # actually. I have almost 100 games and I've finished most (probably 70) and many others are *Near* completion. I played Windwaker for close to 40 hours before saying screw it and just finishing it.

My big thing is the DS's ability to "sleep". I love it. If I'm playing a little Megaman or Advance Wars or whatever, I can put it to sleep instantly, and get back into the game instantly. LOVE IT.

For straight up single player, I want about 30-50 hours. I would rather have 30 hours than 200 hours, assuming the amount of work and money that went into each game is equal.

I got over 200 hours on Pokemon Emerald, and I'm still playing it!


Gotta Catch'em all!

I think the answer is Spore...

A game around 20 hours seems like the top end for me. I'll obviously go longer, but it becomes more about wishing they'd end.

If a game can be beaten in 12 hours or less, I could've spent my $50 on an all-day movie theater rampage and gotten more entertainment time for my money. Considering how rediculously expensive movie tickets are these days, that's kind of pathetic.

You wanna talk about time-sinks...
I put over 330 hours into Final Fantasy Tactics Advance for the GBA. (Didn't hurt that I was on Tour for 6 months during that stretch.) I think it definitely fits into that play it for short OR long bursts category. I played through the entire game twice and leveled *every* character up evenly...and that's like 20-25 characters all above level 30(?...now I can't remember). But the game has infinite replay value because you can design your team anyway you want even if you are facing all the same "missions".

Anyway...I think it's already been said but a game shouldn't have a time limit just because it is this type or that type of game. It's about creating an fun and engaging experience for as long as necessary. I love to finish games (and do most of the time) and usually do so quickly because I rent so many of them to avoid the $60 shelf spacer that I'll never play again.

I honestly thought Tomb Raider was fun and wished it could've been a little longer (I unlocked everything and got all the achievements). However, there are some games that I do avoid because I don't feel motivated to start the game since I know once I start I'll want to beat it.

I'm also tired of shooters now (avoided Prey for this reason) because so many of them do feel a bit "cookie-cutter" even if independently they would be fun had I not just played Halo, Halo 2, Quake 4, Call of Duty 2, G.R.A.W., etc. in the past year.

That's the double edged sword of finding a game style or mechanic that I like. I tend to overdose on it and then get sick of it. That's why I'm looking forward to something totally and bizarrely different than Call of Duty 2...such as Viva Pinata...which will hopefully have a lot of variety within its open-endedness.

#7. I think he said it best. As a married gamer with a baby 8-10 hours is perfect for a game. And if it is replayable even better. He's also spot on with the DS and its pick up and play games. I've played more True Swing Golf and Brain Training when I should be devoting some time to finally finishing Indigo Prophecy but I just can't find the time to.

ahh lunarduality, you speak words of wisdom. I too have sunk more than 100 hours into FFTactics. What a spectacular game. That and Advance Wars DS. Together they make the DS worth while (FFT is a GBA Cart). That and all the metoids for GBA, Castlevanias. They all have great replay value.

But thats the trick isn't it. People talk of GTA, Oblivion, Metroid, Zelda and FFTactics, etc. These are all fairly "open" and exploritory games. This allows for you to spend the time how you want. Games like God Of War are more linear, but the great gameplay allows for high replay value.

I think its hard to compare open games to those that try to tell a cohesive story (although the best ones do both, see Okami)

Unless it's a sandbox-type game like Grand Theft Auto or Elder Scrolls: Oblivion (over 60 hours each for me), I usually prefer games on the 10-15 hour side.

But on the other hand, I rarely play new games. So if I pay $10 to $20 for a 10-20 hour game, I'm happy. If I was paying $50, I probably wouldn't be. I couldn't see playing a Tomb Raider-style game for 30+ hours because that type of gameplay would probably wear out its welcome before you could finish the game.

I think RPGs should be as long as possible while staying interesting. Baten Kaitos and Tales of Symphonia were great games, and although it took me FOREVER to beat them (college, gf, work, etc..), I loved every minute of them.

I think that RPGs should all have a 'journal' or 'progress' feature like ToS did. That way if you have to take a few weeks off from it, you can read back and figure out what you were doing. RPGs to me are like a movie.. if you leave it and can't remember what happened, you have totally lost the emotional factor of the game.

As far as non-RPG, also.. as long as possible. sandbox games can be fun. I like the Tony Hawk series. Pikmin 2 is also great. I am also a big fan of the wartime games... the plots generally suck.. or are non-existant, but since they are mostly all campaign based, you can pick em up from where you left off really easily.

I agree that some gaming is a lot harder when you have more responsibilities, but the developers should take that in to consideration, not by making games shorter, but by making them more memorable and interesting.

I don't think games should be insanely challenging, unless they have different difficulty modes. For instance, I know i'm lame, but MP2:Echoes... I quit playing it, there is one boss that is too hard.. and no matter how many times I try I can't beat him. I prefer MP1 because, although it had it's difficult parts, it wasn't unnecessarily difficult.

Anyway, that was kind of off topic, but back to the topic... I'm a 'poor college kid', so I can't buy games all the time. I want a game to be long enough to keep me busy for at least a month or two... That's 30-60 hours... or more.. considering I only get to play about an hour a day, maybe 2 hours a day on weekends.