What's your ideal length for a game?

[Zanku]

What do you think the perfect length of time is needed to beat certain genres of games? I'm talking mostly Action games like God of War, and RPG's like KOTOR. Feel free to reply about other types of games, but I'm going to focus on those two because those are pretty much the only type of games I play.

I've noticed that usually, most action games are 10-12 hours. Does this actually satisfy people? Maybe I'm a nerd, but I would love it if games like God of War were 20-25 hours in length. I think that any game like this should at least be 15 hours long. Take the game Fable for example. This was an action rpg similar to Zelda. Great game, but the problem was it was barely 8-10 hours long, WITH side-quests. I loved this game, and it is truly incredible. However, the length killed it for me.


As for RPG's, I think a 20 hour RPG is completely unacceptable. I think any RPG should log in at least 40+ hours. I love games like oblivion where you can clock in 50+ hours and still not be done. Perhaps it sounds weird, but I was damn proud of my Nord BattleMage after spending 50-60 hours in the game just shaping his abilities. To me, it means something more when you've spent that long a time on a game. You really get to know your character and care, you get to care about your party members, you get plenty of opportunity to advance the plot. Nothing bugs me more than a short RPG because these games are simply meant to be long. I can do every sidequest in the game and *still* beat Kotor in 17-18 hours. Kotor 2 is a bit longer, but not by much. Look at that in reference to how long it takes to simply beat the first disc of FF7.

Maybe this is a rant, and maybe most people dont like long action games, or RPG's you can sink your teeth into and clock in 50+ hours. I was just curious as to how others felt the ideal length of certain types of games should be.

[The Fury]

Playing FF12 at the moment, I'm at 50 hours and the end is not yet in sight as far as I can see.

But i think the real thing to look for is repeating the game, no matter how short the actual game is, if you want to play again, whether just because it was fun or there's much more to do that you missed then the game is surely a good one.

I've spent countless hours repeating FF7, 8, 9, 10, and even X-2. KH1 and 2 have each had 2 play throughs. Most times all these games take 25+ hours....man i waste a lot of time. Add my hours playing Tekken games and well, you've got an unhealth proportion of my life.

[StoneGold]

There's no answer. There are good games, and there are not good games. What's the speed run record these days on Super Mario Bros?

[Xero Kaiser]

It depends. I want to be as long as it can be without feeling like it's dragging. If they can hit that point in 20 hours, awesome. If they hit that point in 10 hours, that's fine too. I'm more concerned with how good the game is than how long it is. Donkey Kong Country 64 taught me the horrors of needless padding

[BlairH]

The ideal length for a story driven FPS is around 10 hours. I find most of them end far too early.

RPGs...who knows. "Long enough" is probably the best answer

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

This thread's title is awesome when it's on the main board - 'What's your ideal length for...'.

[Sanagi]

I don't care how long it is if it has replay value.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The old length doesn't matter if it can go a few times theory, eh?

[Young Avenger]

I don't care how long it is if it has replay value.

What he said

[DrewTheXenocide]

The only time I felt cheated by a game's length was the first "Zone of the Enders." It was total BS. (Adding tags juuuust incase.) You fight your way through for like, two hours, and then you get a call that shit is going down, and you think to yourself, "Now onto the meat of the show!" and.... that's it.

Other than that, any modern day RPG shouldn't last less than 24 hours.

[Kevin M.]

To me the lenght depends on the type of game. Some games were made to be very long, and some were meant no to last more then a couple of hours.

[Headhunter]

Depends on the game, it's largely subjective. I like action/shooter game in the 15-20 hour range for singleplayer campaigns, while something like a puzzle or sports game should have nearly infinite replayability.

[Gargus]

TIme length is a touchy subject.

Metal gear solid is about 6-8 hours for me with watching cut scenes. Perfect for the game.

Final fantasy 3 (snes american one) was about 46 hours for me and was perfect.

Other than that its what suits each game varies on the game. Personally a rpg I would rather have a short one thats good, than a long one with a bunch of pointless filler in it. So what if a rpg takes 1000 hours to finish? If its boring as hell it doesnt matter if its 1000 hours or 1 hour.

I mean I saw star wars KOTOR mentioned. Yeah it wasnt to bad in length, it could have been shortened by a hour or so. Was some pointless stuff in it. But part 2 was to damn long with a crap load of pointless boring stuff. Like reading all the holocubes left by dead scientists quarters in the first area, 95% of them didnt mean a thing and did not add to the story. 2 was loaded with busy work, why I never finished it.

So just because its long doesnt make it good. Just go ahead and try to read atlas shrugged by an rand.

[K.O.V.G]

The lenght does not matter to its weather the game is good at all, but I usually like games the triologies and games that are challenging and not too easy.

[Mike Pothier]

Pretty much depends on the game. It all depends on how fresh the developer keeps the gameplay going. Useless padding only bores the gamer and he/she loses interest before the game ends.

Wind Waker was shorter and had less dungeons then Twilight Princess, yet it felt longer to me because it was obvious they were running out of ideas quickly. The whole Waterworld theme was interesting, but it didn't really pan out too well. The Triforce hunt was made it obvious they were padding the game for time.

Twilight Princess, on the other hand, felt fresh from beginning to end.