So Why Do We Care about Game Lengths?

Twinfinite writes: "Time is one of the most valuable resources we have. We hate to have our time wasted, and love it when the clocks go back in the fall, granting us another precious hour in our day. This is why game lengths are such an important consideration for gamers. For some people it’s a value proposition – is South Park: The Stick of Truth worth 60 bucks if it’s only 12 hours? Does that make Persona 4 the greatest single player game of all-time? For others, like myself, game lengths matter because of one simple fact – we got old."

[Relientk77]

It's a money thing for some people. That's one reason I really love RPGs, hours and hours of gameplay

[3-4-5]

Depends on Genre:

* For a 2D Mario game, It doesn't have to be a 50+ hour adventure. Those levels are fun to play over and over again and it's a game I can pick up and play whenever.

* For a long Story driven game that you want to sink time into, nobody wants to get really into something and have it end 8 hours later.

* Most game's being the length they currently are, is actually fine.

What is more of a problem, is what are you giving us with that time.

* 8 hours of one type of game is different than 8 hours of a different genre.

* If I could beat FFTactics or Fire Emblem in 5 hours, I'd be kind of pissed.

Some games I just want to be able to start from the beginning and beat the game within 4-10 hours in one playthrough.

N64 was great at having good 6-15 hour games you could beat in a day or 2.

With these types^ you don't get sick of them as fast, because the pacing is better.

EVERY single game is different and must be accessed individually, otherwise you are just lumping all games together and that is an insult to those Dev's who have gone above and beyond.

[Exies7]

For me, it's simply about having enough time for proper character development and emotional investment. 10-15 hours doesn't cut it for me.

[NukaCola]

Don't look at it like that. A game should only be as long as it takes to complete the reasoning for it's being. A title like Fallout needs 100 hours to develop. The Last of Us only needed 15, but in the end, both are unforgettably amazing masterpiece.

[Activemessiah]

Because NO ONE wants to shell out for a demo.

[xSHADOWx]

Oooohhhh, I see what you did there.;)

SHOTS FIRED! *pew pew*

:p

[Activemessiah]

XD

[cfc78]

Because you never want a great game to end.

[xSHADOWx]

If we're paying £49.99/$60 for a game we've been anticipating for a long time, we're expecting our monies' worth - we're expecting a fully fledged experience.

I'm sure it's a simple as that surely?

Guys? O.o

[DaleCooper]

20 hour games are perfect for me, if I get 20 hours out of a game I feel like it was money well spent. If I find out a game doesn't last that long, even a well reviewed one, I'll wait for a price drop.

[optimus]

I'm the same way, 20 hrs is about 2 weeks for me on a game provided i play it everyday. but if i don't then it could expand to about a month or more, i believe i spent about 2 months or so on red dead redemption and that was without doing all the side missions...whereas i spent 5 hrs on modern warfare 3 and i was done, i felt i was a bit ripped off cause it only took me 1 afternoon.

I don't like playing games that rely on multiplayer to get their value since i barely like to play online...and like the article says, us older gamers have other things to tend to than be able to dedicate hrs upon hrs on 1 game...

so in essence for me, it can't be too long and it can't be too short...15-20 hrs is about right in my ballpark where i could give a game a high score if it is/was fun to play overall.

[Number-Nine]

Would you want to watch a 1 hour movie in the theater?

[jazmac]

Seems obvious no?

People want a game that's going to last as it means it's going to be longer before they're going to have to search for another game and pay $$$.
Sure games length shouldn't be the only thing you focus on, but it is important that when you pay for a game that's it's actually going to take you longer than an afternoon to complete.

I'm concerned that games for a while now are showing a dangerous trend. First it was the concept of DLC (Mass effect, Dragon Age and many more), then comes along important parts of game play being locked off for either pre-order/special edition owners e.g. Metro Last Light and recently Elder Scrolls Online.

Now we have games being sold which essentially amounts to a demo and it ultimately costing you more to buy the whole experience over paying for the full game.

I'm just waiting for a game that is all there but is locked behind a pay wall, sounds like it would never happen but tons of shit I thought would never happen, have and continue to show up.

[Thefreeman012]

we want to feel we are getting our monies worth and that there is an overall story being told. No body wants a one trick gimmick that you just play for an hour.

[incendy35]

I don't care about length, as long as they tell the story well. The issue with Ground Zeroes isn't the length or the gameplay, but that it didn't really start or finish a story haha. I still loved it though!

[SilentNegotiator]

What the hell kind of a question is that?

[Hicken]

A very stupid one.

[Donnywho]

I am getting sick of short games. Dark Souls 2 and FFX kinda solved that problem at the moment though. Praise the Sun for that.