Insomniac Games: R&C is about 11 hours long without completing everything

Ratchet and Clank developer Insomniac Games clarifies game lenght on Twitter.

The story is too old to be commented.
PixelGateUk980d ago

Rachet and Clank was the original reason i bought a PS2, excited for more in 2016!

Abash980d ago

Damn at least 11 hours and only $40 as the asking price? This game is a definite must buy for PS4 owners, cant wait to get my copy!

Aloy-Boyfriend980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

Yep. I feel like I'm not giving Insomniac enough with this game. It looks so good and the lenght sounds just right... Just for $40 bucks. They are still considering the fact this is a remake and not a total original game unlike full priced remastered games.

Thank you Insomniac; Awesome devs as ever

benji101980d ago

Believe what you want but people on Neogaf have finished this game in 5 hours.

Aloy-Boyfriend980d ago

Yeah I choose to believe the developers until I get my hands on it. There're also early players who have reported longer playtime than just that.

xPhearR3dx980d ago

You also have to take into consideration that devs are wrong 90% of the time when it comes to their games length. Mostly because they all seem to completely underestimate the players.

I'm willing to bet that most players will get through the game within 8 hours if they're saying around 11. Which isn't bad considering it's only $40, but I never trust when a dev says their game is X length because it's almost never accurate.

Aloy-Boyfriend980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

CD project Red wasn't lying when they said Witcher3 takes more than 200 hrs to fully complete. That game took me like 3 months of playtime to get the plat. I would like PS4 to show the amount of hrs we put into games as I think I even put more than that with 2 playthoughts.

It takes longer for completionist and less for average gamers, over 11 hrs and 8 hrs respectively for this game. No way I'm leaving anything undone in this game. All looks so beautiful to explore.

This is a remake of the first game which takes like 10 hrs complete. With new Story, planets, arena(not previously in the first game) and side missions, how the hell can this game be shorter?

Btw I'm not surprise if xbots choose to believe Neogaf on this one. Not that they care about the PS4 for it to be untrue. Hopefully I'm mot wrong. I trust Insomniac

Majister-Ludi980d ago

It's funny you computer 40 dollars to 11 hours as a fair price. I wholeheartedly disagree. This game is all nostalgia. Won't have a real story that makes you want more. No Multi-player and not much replayability. Games have come along way since this franchise started and it hasn't changed enough for me. I'll pick it up on sale at some point but not worth 40 to me.

TwoForce980d ago

@Majister-Ludi so you saying that Ratchet and Clank should have multiplayer ? I'm sorry, but I'm getting tired of demanding MP. This game is focusing on SP, which i i'm very happy about it. Every Ratchet and Clank have new game plus, so there that.

magiciandude980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

11 hours would be awesome. I will play the game on my beautiful Destiny The Taken King white PS4, to find out for myself. ;)

It better be worth buying.

FITgamer980d ago

Can't wait either. Longer than i was expecting it will be.

Darkfist980d ago

@benji101 you believe that one guy who speed run the game, yet ignore the others who said 10 hours? lol okey

rezzah980d ago

Dont forget the amount of replay-ability R&C games provide.

lunatic0001980d ago

you can actually get it for much cheaper with amazon prime or best buy gamers club...most definitely worth every penny...can't wait

freshslicepizza979d ago

11 hours isn't too bad, tools of destruction was in the 15 hour area so this is a bit shorter but 10-12 hours is quite the norm nowadays. this is also priced cheaper.

bouzebbal979d ago

Let's support this so they release some more in the future.

Taero979d ago

Obligatory "$32 through Amazon Prime either preorder or within 2 weeks" comment.

Retroman979d ago

@ Abash

hope it dont take 11 hours to find 3 Ripe . you. a . new. one. gun haaaaaaaaa RYNO pieces.
then again im glad it is not 10 pieces as in T.O.D

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 979d ago
TwoForce980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

@benji101 and xPhearR3dx Remember QB was about 4 hours on Neogaf ? But the game is 8-10 hours long. So you have to listen to yourself than people on internet. Don't be a fool. Even my friend said that the Rachet and Clank is longer than 5 hours. We gamer are also a liar, not just developers. Who said 90 % about developers lie to the gamer, huh ? We Gamer can be a troll, liar or a fool.

xPhearR3dx980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

I'm not talking about listening to people on the internet. Never once did I even mention that. I even said it's probably more around 8 hours long. I'm talking about specifically developers commenting on how long their game is. I'm sure it did take them 11 hours to beat it. The devs are usually not that great at their own games. So anytime a developer says "Our game is X hours long" 9/10 (depending on length) you take away a few hours and that's how long it will actually take most people.


You'd be surprised how bad they are at their own games. Just because you can make a game and know everything about it, doesn't mean your good at it. I was a journalist for a few years and played at many events/preview events. 99% of the time when I played with the developers they were terrible.

Plus there's been many claims from devs prior to release that X content is this hard and took the dev team X time to beat it. Yet the community just plows through it like it's nothing. The Division is a perfect example. As much as I love their game, there's a VERY good chance the upcoming Incursions wont be as hard as they say they will be.

jb227980d ago


"The devs are usually not that great at their own games."

Wow. Really? Beyond the fact that their internal figures are typically based off an average of the entire studio & a bunch of QA testers, that's a really nonsensical generalization to make. Any data or even a single idea that would suggest that the people who actually create the games suck at playing them?

I'm with you on the idea that some devs inflate their length in order to ease the mind of gamers, but that is typically when a game is far from release & not nailed down. Not a lot of devs would give an estimate twice as long as the actual play time 2 days from release when they could easily be called out for it.

The reality of the situation is that gameplay time is relative & can skew wildly. Maybe the game can be sped through on easy in 5 hours for one player but for another than plays on higher difficulties and do at least a bit of exploring, they can get twice that length. Either way I'm fairly certain that game devs aren't garbage at playing their own games.

benji101980d ago

I dont think 5 hours is an accurate number but 11 hours is generous. If the game was that large the price would be inline with that.

I dont mind short games at all, but when a dev comes out and pulls a number out of the air about length then it is best to take it with a huge grain of salt.

jb227980d ago


I'll take your word for that being your experience, but there's gotta be some exceptions to that general rule as well I'd say. I don't disagree with the idea that devs inflate length at all because we have seen that on numerous occasions, but I've always attributed that as being 2-3 hours wiggle room that inflates length.

I do think that 8 hours sounds like a good median for a single playthrough possibly, but to me it's all down to how well the world is built and how fun the mechanics & story are. If everything is on point I like to explore every corner of the world & take my time with a game, so my playthrough may very well be closer to the top of the key figure personally, but mine won't necessarily represent the majority.

rainslacker980d ago


Exactly where do you get your information that the developers of the game aren't good at playing those games?

These are the guys who play every part of the game, know how to play it, and know where to go within that game, and have been playing the game for a couple years before it ever releases.

I was a game tester, and tested a game which most said would be about 12 hours online, took me about 9 hours to do a full run through without trying to do everything available. I'd imaging if I hadn't spent the prior 18 months learning every aspect of the game, my first play through probably would have been 12 hours or more.

You think developers pull these numbers out of their a**?

No, they know at the time the game is designed, before the first line of code is written, before the first object is modeled, how long they want to make their game, and they strive to make it that way.

I would say if Insomniac is saying it's around 11-12 hours long, the game is probably going to be 9-10 hours for someone who knows how to get through the game, and probably 11-12 for someone's first play through.

On another note, and not directly aimed towards you,

If the time bothers people so much, play the game on hard....that was the recommendation of the guy who said it only took him 5-6 hours to complete. Other more reputable sources have said they're 8 hours in, and it doesn't appear to be close to the end.

But hey, random forum dude is always more reliable than the devs and reputable sources.

blawren4979d ago

By the same token, if anyone here has designed a level on Super Mario Maker or perhaps little big planet, the designer knows where the secrets are what seems easy to them after multiple playthroughs, seems near impossible to a new player. I'd be willing to bet the the designers don't actually factor into the posted length of playtime,as it would never be accurate.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 979d ago
TwoForce980d ago

@xPhearR3dx I understand. But it up to us if the game is good or not.

xPhearR3dx980d ago

True, but length doesn't determine if a game is good or not. I beat Until Dawn in like 6 hours and that game was awesome. Beat Heavy Rain in about 7 and it was amazing. It's about the experience, not the length. I'm just saying don't trust developers when they say how long their game is.

starchild980d ago


I agree on all points. Well said.

IamTylerDurden1979d ago

Every reviewer is saying a normal single playthrough is 10-12 hrs. That's fantastic. If you play New game+ or go for the Platinum you're looking at 20+ hrs.

benji101980d ago

I fully completed all the main story elements of the witcher 3 in 50 hours. If people wanted to spend more time in that world with that combat system... I have a lot of respect for them.. because after 50 hours the game was getting pretty boring for me.

Aloy-Boyfriend980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

Yeah that was you!

Witcher 3 is a masterpiece and I enjoyed that game. Every sidequest had depth and theor own story. It was a fun game to explore. Worth every penny and time spent in it.

Same with this game. If you choose to not do anything other than all the main stuff then that is your choice. The value is there; take it or leave it

benji101980d ago


For me, after the bloody baron arch the whole game became boring. The characters were not interesting and the combat was far too easy to keep the game interesting. Novagrad is possibly the worst section of an rpg I have ever endured.

InTheZoneAC980d ago

Like Skyrim, I haven't played it in a while, but every time I do I enjoy it a bunch. And I feel like I put 50 hours into Witcher and that's just barely touching the story and a bunch of side missions.

At no point did I find anything boring in The Witcher 3.

A boring game to me would be Destiny, but only after spending several hundreds of hours into it, yes I have no desire to ever touch it again.

A boring game is Tales of Zestiria or any other lame, no content, empty rpg with terrible controls, terrible environment, etc.

To say Witcher is boring, I suggest you put down the controller and go watch Golf or read some books instead...

Wallstreet37980d ago

Benji i agree

The combat imo with its ballerina bs was just off and didn't allow me to enjoy the game. Yes it bored me to death too. After playing games like bloodborne and Souls most other rpgs just seem bland and Witcher 3 along with Dragon Age Inquisition was just boring

Hey we all have opinions but ive seen many not hailing TW3 as the godsend of rpgs like most make it out to be. Do i think many ppl enjoyed it? Im sure some did, i just didn't. Mind you i love Rpgs and spent more than 200 hours on each souls game.

Aloy-Boyfriend980d ago

I won't blame you for feeling like. When I made ir to skellige, I wanted the game it end already. The story is what kept me pushing forward. The gameplay became prerry stale later on
Still amazing game

Utalkin2me979d ago

I quit the game about 30+ hours in and i couldn't force myself to play anymore. Normally i can stay longer with a game if it is somewhat repetitive, but i just couldn't with Witcher 3.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 979d ago
garrettbobbyferguson979d ago

It's been seven years since we last had a Rachet and Clank game. I just wish it wasn't a remake of the original.

ShaunCameron979d ago

Actually, it's been 2.5 years since we last had an R&C game. Remember Into The Nexus?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 979d ago
TheGreatGamer980d ago

The nostalgia is strong, can't wait for this game!

Majin-vegeta980d ago


Cant wait almost time.

Aloy-Boyfriend980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

Ratchet and Clank game-lenght-concerned "gamers" are the worst thing to happen since Damn Daniel

TwoForce980d ago

I remember how people play the game for fun.

starchild980d ago

Well, to be fair there were plenty of people acting concerned about Quantum Break's length, but when I played it it ended up being a decent length. It took me close to ten hours.

I'm not worried about the length of Ratchet and Clank either.

jb227980d ago (Edited 980d ago )

How exactly is that "fair"? Are you saying that we should just accept trolling behavior because it's fair as a tit for tat thing?

So a handful of people on one platform does wrong then it's fair game for the next, so on and so forth, ad nauseum?

This is a bad trend on any side & it should be shut down. I'm fine with people sharing their experiences, but they should be clear about the nature of their methods in that particular playthrough. I haven't played either game yet, but I already saw with The Order that, maybe in theory a game can be beaten very fast, but that doesn't represent the average playthrough in the slightest, and anyone spreading those figures is absolutely in the wrong. If Remedy lost even a couple dozen sales from those statements, or if Insomniac loses sales based off of them, how exactly is that fair?

Aloy-Boyfriend980d ago

Yeah @Jb22. This is why the fanboy war will never end. The action of others justify the action of others and so on. Instead of one group trying to make the difference, they just wait for an oportinity and go for it even if they end up being hypocrites. It's nauseating

starchild980d ago

I think you guys misunderstood me. I'm not saying it's right for people to troll Ratchet and Clank based on any reports of short game length. Quite the opposite. I was just pointing out that there were similar reports for Quantum Break that didn't turn out to be true for me. Other reviewers also reported quite a bit longer game lenths. Those that want to downplay a game will always try to latch onto the shortest reported times, but we shouldn't take those reports as gospel. I agree that those who do that are in the wrong.

rainslacker980d ago (Edited 980d ago )


The guy that claimed 5-6 hours was upfront about his playthrough. He said he rushed it, and didn't try to do anything extra. he admitted it didn't include any of the post game, any of the challenges, any collection stuff, or anything other than rushing through the story on normal mode.

He also said he had a blast with it, and said everyone should play it, and that he was looking forward to going back and doing all those things which have been part of every R&C game.....

Funny how people leave out the full details when relaying their time concerns though.


I could see QB being as short as people say if they rush through the game, don't do any exploration or collectible stuff, and skip all the cinematic stuff. Maybe not 4 hours, but 5-6 easy. My first play through lasted longer than that though. Might go back and try it with different decisions after R&C, but also working on Tales of Xillia 2 atm, so could be a while.

IamTylerDurden1979d ago

I don't think many ppl are concerned about Ratchet and Clank's length.

A. Ratchet and Clank is reportadly a tad longet than Quantum Break (10-12hrs for R&C).

B. Ratchet and Clank is $20 less than Quantum Break.

C. Quantum Break has nothing to do with R&C, and quite honestly R&C appears to be a dramatically better game that is longer and less expensive. QB got more attention than it deserved. Ratchet and Clank honestly deserves more attention.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 979d ago
KwietStorm980d ago

That was like a month ago, so..?

PhoenixUp980d ago

That's the average length of a standard Ratchet & Clank game. I will most likely try my best to collect everything worth collecting and doing.