/videogames/ - Vidya Game Lounge

Depends on the game. Even if you don't have a lot of time to play, putting that time into one game adds up and on a tight schedule you could still probably finish a long game quickly if you were still interested in it.

20 hours is good, anything less than 10 feels like a ripoff if the game isn't replayable or if it's going for a cinematic feel.

I mostly play JRPGs these days so I dunno if I can be a good judge of game length.

I'd say about 20-30 but as it has already been said it really depends on the game

Depends on the game and genre

Point and Click Adventure game: 8-12 hours
Visual novel style game: 15-30 hours.
Episodic game: 2-3 hours per episode, with at least 5 episodes.
JRPG: 15-30 hours, anything more usually feels like padding.
Action game/FPS: 8-12 hours
Any game with high replayability: at least 1 hour the first playthrough.

Depends. Story heavy games like Hotel Dusk would suffer if it had a much longer time because it would throw off the pacing and needlessly pad it out.

Something like an RPG needs to balance a tight main storyline that clocks 20-50 hours and have plenty of additional stuff for people who love that sort of thing. I'm three chapters into FFXII and I'm at forty hours but I got through Chrono Trigger with twenty-five (but FFXII has grinding to lengthen itself).

Hard to tell with something like a visual novel since you're often pushed to do multiple playthroughs and get all the endings.

I prefer longer games but something very short like Ico was fine by me because it suited that sort of game.

Also it depends if we're talking just gameplay or including cutscenes and what the cutscene-gameplay ratio is. I'm fine with a good five hour game but if it has five hours of cutscene then it's not good enough.

For me, it absolutely depends on the experience. If I feel like it was a amazing experience, I won't care that it was a 4 hours long experience. Though I don't pay my games $60.

Also, I've found that too many games (mainly AAA) try to make the game longer, and thus distil the experience, making me bored before I finish them.

I like games you can finish it one sitting. It lets you fit the whole experience in your head, promotes replay and experimentation, and discourages the dev from padding it out or making things too easy. There are so many RPGs with crazy party customization options, lots of viable builds and tactics, and so on, that theoretically promote replay, but very few people will bother to sink 20+ hours into such a game twice unless the gameplay is truly interesting like in a roguelike. Meanwhile, I've sunk hundreds of hours into FTL because it's the perfect length for daily replay (never timed myself but I think my average playthrough is somewhere between 3 and 5 hours) and has a lot of variety in potential builds.

>>576
I should have added that on the flip side, FTL's length is also great because it's just long enough for you to get invested in your build and really feel the consequences of your mistakes.

Also, sorry to be pedantic, but
>>567
>Also, I've found that too many games (mainly AAA) try to make the game longer, and thus distil the experience, making me bored before I finish them.
Definition of distil:
>To increase the concentration of, separate, or purify by or as if by distillation.
I think you meant something like "dilute."

>>567
This is the biggest problem with AAA games. They found a way to artificially inflate game length using methods that weren't as common during the sixth to early seventh generation of consoles. Now every game in every genre has some sort of asinine XP grind, things that used to come with the game have been cut off to either be unlockable or be DLC or both, and the emphasis on shallow open worlds means that you can go anywhere and do anything you want but only a few things are actually important to the game and the rest of it is a menial and pointless collectathon.

It's bad game design, and not reflective of the game's true length. At the end of the day it's not about how much time the game expects you to put in, but how much the player can expect to get out of that time.

I want a game that has Pokemon kinds of gameplay length, where if you beat the main objective within the game there still is hours of other objectives to go after.

>>567
>Though I don't pay my games $60.
Neither do I but price should depend on the length of the game. The Order is getting blasted at the moment for being five hours long (40~% being cutscenes) and it's full price. Big no. If a game was that length (and good) it should be cheaper otherwise it's a rip-off.

>>586
Usually depends on which generation it is, doesn't it? Gen 2 had two areas and then Gen 3 had nothing once you beat the champion, but it was still pretty long anyway (I'm assuming ORAS fixed that).

One thing people seem to forget about in certain games is higher difficulties (good ones at least, like in DMC and Platinum Games' where they change up the enemy placement).
A good Hard mode can double the length of a game if you are simply going for 100% completion, and can make the game more enjoyable to boot.

If you genuinely enjoy playing the game and want to keep playing even after the credits roll then why does the time spent reaching the end matter?

>>577
You're more than welcome to correct me anon. Thanks for the tip.

>>588
I completely agree on difficulty, I hate it when games like TES just make enemies have more health and strength thus causing the game to just have fluff and alienate players who wanted the AI itself to be good.

Usually, in the situation you mentioned, the time it takes to get to the end matters to me because there wasn't enough of it, especially if it were a game with little to no customization or good sidequests. In that situation, if I replay it I will just be bored as I've already done exactly that, and, if I don't, I will feel like I was a bit cheated in terms of money. I feel cheated on the money because that usually means the last few levels or parts or chapters of the game didn't do well enough at wrapping up the game and making it feel like a great end. It probably would have extended the game length if it did wrap it up well enough for me.

Usually, for a game to feel wrapped up properly to me, I have to feel like a master at it by the last 5-20 percent of the game, which mostly only varies for me based on length. By the very end, I should probably feel like I fought a boss that could only be beat by a master in that last section.

Video games should be Thick, Long, Hard and Uncut.

>>576
>my average playthrough is somewhere between 3 and 5 hours

I don't play often but I tend to have 1-1 1/2 hour runs, I can't imagine how spending 5 hours on a run is even possible

>>643
>Video games should be Thick, Long, Hard and Uncut

The majority of the modern gaming industry is dildos.

You must be in heaven, anon.

Right now I'm into short story driven games like Drakenguard or ZoE series. I have a lot less time than I used to so I hardly ever get to finish a game in one sitting.

I'd never pay full price for vidya though.