Is 40 Hours Enough Playtime Anymore?

"It was recently revealed in a Polish Magazine called CD-Action that the entirety of the Assassin’s Creed III game will be playable over 40 hours. This includes 20 hours of main plot and 20 hours of side quest, giving plenty for people to occupy themselves with. "

[Shadonic]

yes its more than enough especially if the story and gameplay are good

[GrahamGolden]

the assassins creeds games were always repetitive after the first 5 hours....so dunno during the middle if its gonna be fun.

all the others AC so far were repetitive good games but repetitive.

[GamingManiac]

Didn't bother me, not even in AC1...

[Kurt Russell]

Same, although repetitive I haven't tired of it yet... I just like stabbing up fools!

[darthv72]

who has gamed since pong. I welcome the longer games. I can remember buying a new game back on the snes or genesis and beating it the first day.

We still have those types of games but the ones that have an involving storyline are what I look for most.

[STONEY4]

AC1 was fine. It did have repetitive side missions, but you didn't need much to unlock the assassination, and the assassinations themselves are still my favorite in the series with the number of different ways you can approach them. AC2 was fine. All of the main story missions were varied enough, and simply plowing through the main story took a good 15-20 hours.

I hated Brotherhood for the sheer amount of play-time padding with running around buying properties, the comparatively poor dungeon/lair/platforming-side- mission design, more running around, sidequests repetitive on AC1's level (albeit with better mechanics, but there are 10 times more of them). The big "assassin brotherhood" system also just felt like another time sink.

Even apart from the time padding, the combat was made stupidly easy with the killstreak system along with calling in assassins. Ezio's story just felt like a way to stretch out the ending of AC2, and doesn't feel like it was necessary at all. The number of the actual story missions that aren't introductions to sidequests, variations to sidequests, or tutorials for a mechanic or a new weapon, is small.

It felt like they stretched a 6-8 hour game to 20+ hours. It baffles me how my total playtime is 24 hours in Brotherhood, without even completing all the sidequests, and it feels like more than half of that was unnecessary fluff and running around. In AC2, it's around 23, and that's with platinuming the game, and the majority of that was story.

[Blacktric]

Is this a joke? So as we move further and further into the new generation, we should expect a game, any game, to last at least more than 40 hours? He should also write something similar regarding movies too since it's been more than a century since the first movie's been made. We should now expect a movie to last at least 25 hours. Sometimes I wonder if these people can't think of anything better to write...

Also;

" Minecraft’s infinite playtime and GTA 4’s 30 hour main quest and 70 hour side quests."

Yep. This guy is high. Claiming that Minecraft has an infinite playtime while implying that most other games don't and him, personally, not being able to finish GTA IV with all of its side quests under 30 hours is nothing but a pathetic fabrication to support his own delusions.

[raWfodog]

Of course not every game needs to be that long but it would be nice if the AAA titles provided more than a 10-hour single-player campaign.

To tell the truth, many gamers' short attention spans won't last that long so, yeah, it could be a problem :)

[MostJadedGamer]

No he's talking about other games massive play times, and wishes AC3 could also provide the same amount of hours.

I also would like to get a 100 hours playtime out of AC3, but I doubt I get more then 50.

[sourav93]

Finishing GTA IV with all side quests in under 30 hours? You sure /you're/ not high?

[Blacktric]

@sourav93

I got the Liberty City Minute trophy (complete the main story mission in less than 30 hours) in my very first playthrough of the game (finished the game in less than 22 hours, watched all the cutscenes and rarely used a taxi) but I forgot to complete around 5-10 sidequests. And then about a year ago I started doing my platinum playthrough on PS3 again and this time completed all the sidequests (including the find 30 cars described via text message one and every single character encounter) in less than 29 hours, again, without skipping any cutscenes and barely using the taxi service AND using an online guide only once to check the location of one single car I couldn't find myself. That's all.

[Norrison]

Games that have last long are the best ones if they're not repetitive, I hate 6-10 hour linear shooters.

[MostJadedGamer]

I say no. I would like a 100 hours of playtime.

[TekoIie]

Well considering that theres a 40 hour SP, MP and achievement hunting I think I'm going to get something along the lines of 100+ hours out of this game (Halo 4's release is going to pull me away from it lol).

So based on all that I think this game's length is very good :)

[Convas]

How could a game the same length as the average work week not be "enough" any more?

With the amount of games that I want to get around to playing this generation, that's quite enough.

[wastedcells]

Yes

[LOGICWINS]

"Is 40 Hours Enough Playtime Anymore?"

In NYC(Times Square/Broadway), seeing a movie at night costs around $18 a ticket(around $20 if it's a 3D movie) for a 2-3 hour experience that can only be experienced ONCE.

For $60, YES, 40 hours of fun non-repetitive gameplay full of variety is enough playtime.

Yeah, Skyrim has hundreds of hours of gameplay, but the main narrative will NEVER be as tightly woven or well executed as an Assassin's Creed or GTA title.

[csreynolds]

This.

[Shok]

In a world of 3-hour FPS campaigns, yes.

[RivetCityGhoul]

thats a really stupid question

[-MD-]

Is 40 hours enough? Why is this even a question? Of course it is.

[pandehz]

There should be an alt+f4 button for articles like these

[Theo1130]

I'm just going to say it, 40 hours is way too long for a game.

[Hicken]

No, not really.
No, not at all.

We can tell you're not an rpg fan (JRPG or otherwise) if you think that. Personally, I want a few hundred hours of gameplay. I want it to feel like I may NEVER do everything possible, and yet I can still go and complete the game.

It's hard for me to feel I got my money's worth out of a game whose campaign I beat in one or two sittings.

[Theo1130]

Not every game's story is designed to be 40 hours long, or even the game play. Artificially extending the game just to say that the game is 40 hours long is the worst thing devs can do.

Also I don't have that much time to play a 40 hour game, I'd like the ability to finish a game in about 20 hours or less.

Sometimes more is less, the experience the developer delivers in that time can trump the experience of a 40 hour game that drags on. Portal is the perfect example of a game that makes all 4-5 hours of the game more memorable than most games.

[DaReapa]

"It's hard for me to feel I got my money's worth out of a game whose campaign I beat in one or two sittings."

Same here. As hungry as I've been to see uniqueness in games and as good of critical acclaim as I've been hearing about Dishonored, it's its short length that's kept me from actually getting the game. Just like you, I can't invest in something that can be completed in one mere sitting.

[vickers500]

"Portal is the perfect example of a game that makes all 4-5 hours of the game more memorable than most games."

Portal being memorable had absolutely nothing to do with the games length. Portal was memorable because it was unique and funny, though it was mostly remembered because it was funny.

Also, a game that is more memorable does not mean a game that is better. I remember Uncharted 2 and 3 quite well, but games like inFamous1/2, Skyrim, Borderlands1/2, Red Dead Redemption, AC2 etc. were all far better games (imo) than the Uncharted games.

"Also I don't have that much time to play a 40 hour game, I'd like the ability to finish a game in about 20 hours or less."

Then start playing shorter games. Obviously there's a large portion of gaming that just isn't for you if you can't finish a 40 hour game, but don't blame your lack of time on the game, that's your problem, not the devs. The developers don't (nor should they) take people's careers into account when deciding how long to make a game.

"Sometimes more is less, the experience the developer delivers in that time can trump the experience of a 40 hour"

VERY RARELY is that the case though. Longer games are better the vast majority of the time.

A game for me must be at the very least 15 hours for me to consider it to be great, and even at that point, it has to be a damned good game (like Bioshock). Don't get me wrong, I like games like Uncharted, but I've stopped buying them at launch, because at full price, they just aren't worth it to me anymore.

[phantomexe]

Amen to that.... i want long games not short. If you can beat it in one day you wasted 60 bucks. I still enjoy uncharted tho just i alwasy wish it was longer and no i don't count mutiplayer.

[jartoon]

A few hundred hours of gameplay??? Do you have NOTHING else to do besides play videogames? If a game cannot be completed in under 20 hours, it probably involves a lot of level-grinding, repetition, and mindlessness. A hamster wheel for people, essentially. You could experience 10 great, unique experiences in the time you claim to want to be wasting away on the same length-padded experience. You must be strong believer in reincarnation-- something that makes you value your time so little that you actually WANT to waste it.
Makes me a lil sad.

[Nerdmaster]

Yeah, I noticed that games that are more than 25 hours long start to lose my attention and I hardly ever finish them.

[phantomexe]

lol priceless

[WildArmed]

I agree, I think most of the previous AC games took me around 20-25 hours to play until completion. And it was a good experience, I rather not have a extremely repetitive 40 hours experience.. but maybe they'll surprise me.

Obviously haven't played the game yet.

[linkratos]

I agree. I loved the most recent Zelda, but the one thing I couldn't help but notice is they seemed to want to artificially extend the length of the game. I would rather have a 25 hour well-paced adventure than a 40 hour adventure with a lot of filler.

[STONEY4]

Deus Ex (the original) is probably the only 40 hour game that I didn't feel was padding time or dragging on at any point in the game.

It might actually be the longest FPS that I've ever played.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

49 hours compared to 6? Come on guy do the math.

[Blankman85]

40 hours is plenty for an open world non-rpg like Assassin's Creed. Heck even Mass Effect 3 was shorter and it was brilliant!
I hope AC 3 can unseat AC 2 in my personal Top 5 games of the generation list. AC 2 seats at number 4 behind ME 2/3, Red Dead Redemption and God of War 3. With Forza 3/4 coming at number 5.

[jartoon]

Mass Effect 3 was "brilliant"? Ill assume you accidentaly wrote "3" while meaning 2 or 1. But if not--- how the F was anything about Mass Effect 3 "brilliant"?

[STONEY4]

The game is brilliant. The ending is shit.

[KingOptimus-X]

Where do these articles that ask dumb questions come from. Of course 40 hours is enough especially if its open world.

[black911]

Gta used to be the my only single player purchase. But after GtA4 I 'll just rent games and buy sports (except madden)

[admiralvic]

What a stupid article. Sure 40 hours is enough, but how many times do these play times actually happen? Capcom said Biohazard 6 was 50 hours... did anyone spend even 20 on it? There are plenty of other examples, but in the end, I doubt this game will be 40. (probably 20)

[Xof]

Is it enough? Christ, did we suddenly travel back in time to 2003 when long games were the norm? Last time I checked, most of the idiot gamers wandering around N4G were still defending 8-hour games as perfectly adequate.

[jartoon]

Dude, you're really missing the point of entertainment if the number hours in a game determine its "adequacy"--- Do you feel the same way about movies? How is a repetitive 40hr experience better than a mind-blowing 4-8 hours?

Play Ico.

[Norrison]

You just don't know what games to buy, there's plenty 40+ hours games that aren't repetitive.
You're probably one of the casuals that only play 6-10 hour lame ass linear shooters.

[ElementX]

40 hours can be a bit much if you've unlocked most of the stuff and it's just getting repetitive.

[isarai]

LOL WTF?! are people even trying anymore with these articles?

[KwietStorm_BLM]

Asked the man who plays for 11 hours at a time.

[omarzy]

Depends on the game. For AC, it is fine. If an RPG is that short, then it better be 20 dollars.(only a handful of exceptions)

[Soldierone]

complaining about 40 hours? I can't remember an FPS that lasted longer than 6....

We are paying 60+ dollars for the game, I expect to be playing it longer than a day.....

[Tetsujin]

I remember when Gears of War first came out, and we (offline co op) the entire game under 3 hours, and the guy spent $60 on it.

CoD 4 I remember the hype around that, spent $60 to beat it in one day.

Killzone 2 (although fun) took about 13 hours to complete first play through.

Now something like Fallout 3/New Vegas, those I'd spend a minimum of 40+ hours and that's just leveling and side quests.

Borderlands 1/2 same thing; I'd spend more time hunting weapons than playing the game itself (of course the story can be completed in a short amount of time)

[Psycho_Mantis]

LOL! Of course it is dumbass! Really now, some of us have a life here. I can only game about a good maybe up to 5 hours a day and thats "IF" i can have the free time to do so since there always too much shit going on in life itself.

"Is 40 hours enough playtime anymore?"

Why dont you try to at least think what you just said, and pretend you never wrote about it, K?

[AIndoria]

Skyrim says hi.

[AIndoria]

Yes, no, it depends. Is the game really good? If so, I can handle more.

[csreynolds]

For people with lives to lead, definitely. For basement dwellers, perhaps not. Belonging to the former, I'd say yes. Certainly.

[Christopher]

Yup. Playtime equates only to how much time you spend away from games or not. People must always play the game in a short period of time, like a week or so.

/s

Seriously, it's all about whether or not the gameplay itself and its length are worth a specific price. I've played some great 2 hour games, but I only paid $1-3 for them. I wouldn't pay that for a $60 game.

But, I've played some 40-hour games that were well worth the $60 and some that I wish I had only paid $20 or less for.

[Faelan]

That's a dollar and a half per hour. That's pretty decent in my eyes if we are speaking about quality hours. If you play 1-2 hours a day, it'll take you about a month to go through it. You could go all out and finish it over a weekend, but that's just not healthy. Even if you take a week to finish it, that's like having a second job in terms of hours per week.

Sure, MMOs, sandbox, competitive multiplayer games etc. can easily beat that in terms of the dollars per hour ratio, which makes them great for those putting in a hardcore amount of hours, but they're often very repetitive or even grindy. Heck, I've tried my fair share of MMOs that felt like a second job after a while. Hardly quality entertainment when you reach that point IMHO.

[Braid]

> Ubisoft makes 15-20 hour AC games
> Everyone's contended with the length especially compared to short shooters
> Ubisoft doubles the game length as a bonus, even though there was no real demand
> Gamer suddenly asks "but iz it enufffz?"

Perfect gamer logic right there.

And the answer is, no, it's not enough. The game should take 40 years to beat, allowing you to age with Connor so that you can better symphatize with the character, creating the ultimate immersion in any game ever released. *sigh*

[N311V]

You made me laugh, thanks and bubbles.

[bloodybutcher]

hehe, true that. you should be able to lead a normal life, all the assassinations aside. getting up in the morning, brushing your teeth, taking a book when your character has "full bowel" meter and sitting on toilet for 20 minutes...

[leogets]

I remember back in the day of zx spectrum and c64 that games were very very hard to complete.

[ApolloTheBoss]

25 hours is enough. 40 hours is MORE THAN ENOUGH. In a good way of course.

[Npugz7]

Yes! Forty hours is perfect!

[Shnazzyone]

Yes, it's an unanimous yes. Anything over 12 hours of gameplay is going above and beyond these days. For AC 40 hours is well worth the 60 bucks.

[jjb1981]

It is if you play 8 days 5 hrs

[Eldyraen]

8 days 4 hours 59 minutes and 59 seconds though and we'll be open arms protesting about it. We want our money's worth.

[Ulf]

$60 for 40 hours of great entertainment.

You'd have to really have some serious sense of entitlement to not believe that was worth it.

How much do non-interactive SD movies cost again, at launch? $20? For a 2 hours of passive entertainment, or less? Most movies probably cost far less than AC3 did to make, as well.

[catch]

For me it really depends on the type of game.

For an action game 40 hours is more than enough and I would likely skip quite a few optional missions during my playthrough.

For an RPG where you put time into managing and leveling your characters you don't want it to be over too quickly but even then 40 hours isn't exactly a disappointing amount of time.

There are a lot of factors like story and pacing to take into consideration but when it comes down to it the quality of the experience is what sticks with you regardless of it being for 8 hours or 80.

[GraveLord]

I say its a little bit too much. There are so many good games coming out this holiday, it's impossible to play them all. I say keep these stories short and sweet. No need for the filler side quests and all that crap.

[Fixlarz]

Yes. If the game is good, anything above 10 hours or so is very good, the rest is just extra. There are way too many games that are good for the 8 or so hours and then, for example, have a stupid achievement/trophy for reaching max rank in multiplayer or doing some stupid "challenge mode" etc.

[ChipChipperson]

For f**ks sake, would you rather have the typical 6-8 hour long game with a weak story and a cliffhanger ending, no extras, no unlocks, and lack luster multiplayer that no one plays after 3 weeks? Way to give more ideas for companies to keep up the DLC nonsense.

[MasterD919]

Considering that most people will be exploring and doing things unrelated to that time consumption, therefore adding in more time to their play-throughs...yes, it is.

[admiralvic]

When a company give a "play time" or anyone really, they generally list how long it will take to do everything. It's not like the campaign / missions are 40, then you spend another 10 hours wondering around, it's more like you spend 30 on missions and 10 on exploration.

[MasterD919]

I respectfully disagree....Fallout 3 and New Vegas lasted in the hundreds of hours for me. Those weren't the actual number of hours from Bethesda or Obsidian either.

Same with Red Dead and GTA, Saints Row...any open world game essentially, which is what AC3 is. I realize I may be a minority here as most people don't explore or go around the worlds like I do, but still...I'll get probably 60-70 hours easily on this game. 40 hours is about the ME3 campaign, which is where I would agree with you- you can only do so much...but when there is an actual world to explore, it's a different story.

[TronEOL]

Seriously? This is easily the most ridiculous question in the world.

Depending on the game, anything between 4-40 hours is good. I'd easily take playing God of War 3's 4-5 hours campaign over certain other games in the same genre with longer story modes.

It all depends on how well it's done and how happy you feel after you've finished it. I loved Red Dead Redemption, Dragon Age: Origins & Mass Effect 2-3 and hated Final Fantasy XIII, GTA3, Fallout 3 and slightly didn't enjoy Dragon Age 2.

All long games, and some felt unnecessarily long.

Main focus should be making the game fun to play and having a key idea of where you want the game to go. How long it takes to finish is a product of development and how much honestly makes sense.

Just adding to the game to make it meet the unreasonable expectation of 30-40 hours is dumb and can only risk making a once amazing game into something mediocre.

Oh, and it's worth noting I'm not against longer games. It's just that not all games can do it. For a game like Assassin's Creed, 40 hours is more than enough. I'll be perfectly content with the main story at 20 hours (even then if the story is good enough, I'd be okay with 10 hours).

[Zefros]

I would rather want a game that has 20-40 hours with quality instead of 100 hours of booring side missions. But thats just me.

[Romudeth]

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssss ssssssss

[DivineAssault]

40 hours of actual gameplay is perfect for a console these days.. 10 or more story segments is good enough.. Games used to be 80hrs! but that day is dead so at the very least do 40 with optional side quests adding more.. handhelds should at least be 20hrs of gameplay.. All these cinematics fool ppl to think its a longer game than what it is.. 5-10 hour games are a f***ing rip off

[Miacosa]

Yes, 40hrs. for the full $60 price tag this is a reasonable ask anything that is single player focused and falls under 12-15ish hours pretty much gets relegated to a rental these days.

[BitbyDeath]

I'm still happy with 8 hour games so 40 is more than enough.

[ShaunCameron]

No. 40 hours is way too long for video games RPG's aside.

[birdykilla]

Name a game that isn't repetitive. I think the only thing that cures this is a good long storyline and great missions and side quests. Variety is the spice of life. Lets quit complaining about games being repetitive, when all of them have been.