The ideal length of time for a video game is...?

[avatar! | 1,973]

How long should a game last? There's no one answer of course, I know it all depends on the "fun factor", but I'm trying to gauge what might be the "ideal" time... Even fun games become dull if they last too long, so what length of time do you think might just be right for you? Also, I'm NOT assuming you're being a completionist, but nor are you rushing to finish the game quickly. You certainly might stop to smell the roses, do side-quests, etc. Also, I am thinking single-player here, since of course online games with friends can last many many hours...

Edited October 5, 2020 by avatar!

[Kguillemette | 1,660]

Either 1-2 hours for quick plays or 30-50 for more grand in scale games. It can be less or more depending if it gets the job done or not.

[Reed Rothchild | 10,013]

Depends on the game, genre, modes of okay, etc 

An Elder Scrolls game doesn't need to be under 40 hours long and a beat em up doesn't need to be over 1-2

[Tulpa | 3,770]

Atari - 15 minutes, tops. Maybe 20 for Pitfall.

NES/SNES/Genesis - 30 minutes to an hour for most platfomers, shooters, or anything with continuous action. Adventure games can be longer with a password/battery save, as those games have natural lulls that you can exit and get back into later.

PC/5th+ gen RPGs and such - several hours or longer, as you can save and return to them. If it's topping 100+ hours, it better be a phenomenal game.

Game Boy - ideally 5-30 minutes, but some games can go longer if you're on a family trip or something.

Edited October 6, 2020 by Tulpa

[Foochie776 | 1,076]

Depends on the specific game I suppose. 
 

I can appreciate a quick 30 minute burst of a NES game but I also like the long haul. 

[twiztor | 930]

to play a game through to completion, 10-15 hours is my sweet spot. to 100% it should be much longer than that, for those that really enjoyed it and want to experience it all.

obviously not all games are created equal in this regard. SMB 1 =/= Final Fantasy 15 (or whatever number they're on)

[fcgamer | 5,058]

I disagree about Super Mario Bros 3, it's definitely a 2 - 4 hour job, and that's if you collect everything and explore the rooms fully.

That said, I generally prefer between 2 - 4 hours. I just don't have the time to sit playing like I used to. After a couple of hours, I've relaxed, and then can move onto something more productive.

[Jeevan | 9,255]

I haven't voted because my answer is.......As long as it keeps me entertained.  the game can be a short game, but if I don't like it, I ain't playing it through.  if it holds my attention, I can play for however long it takes.

[Aguy | 786]

I think the examples for each voting option prove that there are great games regardless of length. For me, arcade/platformers are 5-10, action/cinematic are 20-25, and RPGs I like 35-40. If they are that great, I'd rather play a 40 hour game twice than an 80 hour game once. 

[Andy_Bogomil | 881]

When you're already familiar with the games:

beat 'em up/platformer - 30-60 min. (ex/ Final Fight, Double Dragon, Ninja Gaiden 1-3)

action/adventure - 2-10 hrs. (ex. Resident Evil, Uncharted, Metroid)

rpg/open world - 10-40 hrs. (Final Fantasy, BoTW)

 

Rough guidelines but typically I'd lose interest in a beat 'em up/NES platformer if they're near an hour or longer (Mega Man games are a good limit for platformers) and an RPG that is longer than 40-50 hrs is typically filled with fluff or is simply just to much time to dedicate to a game for completion.

 

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Andy_Bogomil

[Estil | 1,293]

Well I for one very much appreciate games that give your money's worth!  Just be sure to back up your saves!

[Sumer | 221]

I like topping out at 20...though I will play specific games longer if I am really enjoying them.  I rushed through the first Red Dead Redemption just for the story, as I enjoyed that part of it.  But I tend not to go after the side quests, as my backlog of games is big enough that I just want to "beat" the story and move on.

[GPX | 1,435]

I think the answer is dependent on which genres, and the level of fun and replayability. 

My personal preference:

1. Games meant to be completed in one sitting (platformers, arcade shooters/fighting): 30 to 90 mins

2. Games meant to be completed over the course of multiple saves (eg. Castlevania, God of War): 5-15 hours.

3. RPG games: any amount of hours as long as it’s fun and the story is a worthwhile one. I guess similar situation to a film series, with the length being a secondary issue, just as long as the primary objective is an engrossing plot and engaging characters.

———————

The above response would be me if I was younger and had more spare time. The last RPG game I completed was Zelda Wind Waker, and now I’m steering well clear of any RPGs due to time constraints. 

[DefaultGen | 5,802]

Unless it’s like a 10/10 sprawling, varied, fun to explore Breath of the Wild type thing, 3 hours.

This goes double for narrative-based games. Extremely epic movies aren’t 25 hours long. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy extended edition played twice back to back isn’t 25 hours long. But TLOU2 thinks all of its 25 hours were necessary to tell its story.

Games are too long. They usually start too easy and have too much repetitive filler between the really good parts. I cannot imagine a 15 hour long game that wouldn’t be better if the worst half of it was cut out. But games are expensive and need to deliver that sweet busywork “value”.

[Tanooki | 5,189]

I put 15-20, but that's more of a middle ground.  Genre depending I'd be happy with something that's under 10 or upwards of 40.  At that high point (40)I'd never finish it in 99.9% of the cases and it would be a waste, and under that low point (under 7 hrs) I can't think of much that's worth any of the current asking price.

I don't buy a lot, but I have quite a few things and it's hard to get to them, so getting into something that drags out better be earth shattering fun to me or it'll just stop being played in time, hell it happens even to the good, so less IS more.

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,126]

I went with 1-2 hours. I prefer replay value over completion time.

 

[ZeldaFan042 | 1,197]

I think around 30 hours is a good target for most games I'm interested in(RPGs). I enjoy taking a couple weekends to explore a story and take my time to complete it. 30 hours is long enough where I don't feel like it's over too fast, but not so long where I feel it's dragging on forever.

[Reed Rothchild | 10,013]

5 hours ago, DefaultGen said:

Unless it’s like a 10/10 sprawling, varied, fun to explore Breath of the Wild type thing, 3 hours.

This goes double for narrative-based games. Extremely epic movies aren’t 25 hours long. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy extended edition played twice back to back isn’t 25 hours long. But TLOU2 thinks all of its 25 hours were necessary to tell its story.

Games are too long. They usually start too easy and have too much repetitive filler between the really good parts. I cannot imagine a 15 hour long game that wouldn’t be better if the worst half of it was cut out. But games are expensive and need to deliver that sweet busywork “value”.

Counterpoint:

TV shows and books are that long.

[TDIRunner | 2,965]

38 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Counterpoint:

TV shows and books are that long.

Recently, TV shows have been getting much shorter.  It's pretty much standard now for a TV show season to be 10 episodes when it used to be double that if not more.  There are exceptions of course, but most are getting shorter (and I'm ok with that).  

[Reed Rothchild | 10,013]

34 minutes ago, TDIRunner said:

Recently, TV shows have been getting much shorter.  It's pretty much standard now for a TV show season to be 10 episodes when it used to be double that if not more.  There are exceptions of course, but most are getting shorter (and I'm ok with that).  

So that begs the question: is a video game  equivalent to a whole series, a single season, or something in between?

 

[Estil | 1,293]

7 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Counterpoint:

TV shows and books are that long.

Particularly if you count movies/TV series and such that have a chronological timeline.  The Star Trek TV series from Next Gen onward come to mind.

[Estil | 1,293]

7 hours ago, TDIRunner said:

Recently, TV shows have been getting much shorter.  It's pretty much standard now for a TV show season to be 10 episodes when it used to be double that if not more.  There are exceptions of course, but most are getting shorter (and I'm ok with that).  

I thought only SP did that whole 10 episode thing.  I thought not too long ago it was a standard ~26 episodes a season, 13 for a half season if the show doesn't catch on.

FUN FACT: Notice how at the midway point in season 1 of 24 where Jack's wife/daughter are rescued and you see the helicopter look like it's kinda sorta heading off into the sunset?  That was done on purpose just in case 24 didn't catch on and had to end it after only half a season, so at least it could end somewhat properly.  I don't know if any other shows did that...

[TDIRunner | 2,965]

7 hours ago, Estil said:

I thought only SP did that whole 10 episode thing.  I thought not too long ago it was a standard ~26 episodes a season, 13 for a half season if the show doesn't catch on.

FUN FACT: Notice how at the midway point in season 1 of 24 where Jack's wife/daughter are rescued and you see the helicopter look like it's kinda sorta heading off into the sunset?  That was done on purpose just in case 24 didn't catch on and had to end it after only half a season, so at least it could end somewhat properly.  I don't know if any other shows did that...

When I said that I was ok with TV show seasons getting shorter, 24 was one of the series I specifically had in mind.  I absolutely loved the concept of 24, but the seasons ended up being too long and ultimately, most seasons had stuff tacked on in order to get to 24 episodes.  The last few full seasons were pretty bad about that.  I enjoyed the length of the last 12 episode season with Kiefer Sutherland.  I never got around to watching the 12 episode reboot.  

[phart010 | 1,804]

Longer than Mario 64, but much shorter than Mario Odyssey

[themisfit138 | 523]

I think 10-15 is a good middle ground. Even then some story games feel too long.

Let’s take Ghost of Tsushima for instance. By the middle of Act 2. I had already done every different type of mission there was to do. With at least an Act and a half left, and I was already 30 hours in. So, I called it quits. Because I knew there was another 10 or so hours of mainline story. That was not interesting enough for me to finish.    

As I get older I am enjoying the Mario games a lot more. Where I can play a level/star or two a day and be good. Those rereleases of SNES RPGs with save states make it alot easier for me to play nowadays.  Then I can play in hour chunks instead of having to grind a later level dungeon in one sitting.