Something I never get when reviewers talk about the length of a game.

The game is always so short to them. I'm not a bad gamer or anything yet it takes me usually double or even triple the time to beat a game that it does for most reviewers when they talk about the length of a game. I never rush a game, but it's not like I run around in circles either. I don't know, what about you guys?

The MW2 spec ops always had an "estimated time" for each mission.I almost always spent 5-10 times more than that estimation was.I never rushed , i always cleared out all areas before moving on.I like to take things in a slow pace.Hell , i played Far Cry 2 over a 200+ hours and still haven't quiet finished the game.If i like the game and if its possible , i will most likely spend 100+ hours on same game without ever starting a new one.

I find I'm on par with most reviewers for games. It all depends on how I play them though as well. For example, AC2 took me less than the estimated time to 100% however I played all weekend from get home on Friday thru to Sunday night when I got the last feather or codec page or whatever it was... I guess this is also true for the type of game as I finished Dante's Inferno pretty quickly as well.

Then there are other games where I only get to play 15-20 minutes here and there and they take me a lot longer to finish.

When you read a review and people talk about the length ofgame it's always safest to assume that the time taken is the most direct/fastest route from start to finish. What they should say is that the game takes approximately 8-15 hours to complete but has replay value that will last you another X days/weeks/months.

EDIT : Oh yeah. I've played a few games purely for a review and do find I speed thru them. However I rarely put a time on it when reviewing so...

I take my time with games, why bother rushing through games?

The reviewers job is to give the time it takes generally to finish the game.

UC2 ~ 8-12 hours; some people finish it in 5-6 hours, some in 15+. It took me 11.5 hours. That's quite fitting for me since I have alot of gaming experience, I learn quickly while I am generally taking it slow in games.

In most cases, I find myself in the upper part of the interval. So if it takes me 30 hours to complete a game and if somebody asks, I'll say that this game is around 25 hours long but it took me 30 hours.

Apparently, I'm a pretty slow gamer. I'm 13:30 hours into Final Fantasy XIII and am still in chapter 5. I have friends that are in chapter 7 and have only played 10 hours or so.

I know that, for me, when a review says 8 hours, it'll take me at least 10.

this is definitely the case for me as well. i remember reading how short certain games were like bioshock 2 and i spent easily 3 times as long to beat it as they described. it's not just that i don't rush but on games like that i explore every area and loot everything i can. especially in bioshock 1/2 because there are tons of areas that you don't have to explore and you're never directed to explore but why not see what's there? that's what games are all about in my opinion. i always wondered how they calculated the times for games like MW2 and GOW2 where you die a lot, does that factor in to how long the campaign is? because if you never died in those games they would be incredibly short, but you die a lot in those games so it takes awhile to beat.

I Think I Have The Same Views As The Reviewers. I Really Just Never Think That A Game Is Long Enough Because I Hate When It's Over And Always Wish It Went On Longer. Like Uncharted 2 For Example, It Took Me 3 Hours To Beat. I Also Tend To Rush Through Games Because I Just Want To See The Ending Then Buy Another Game. XD

As For The Reviewers, Professional Or Not, They All Have High Standards. I'd Rather Read The User Reviews Rather Than The Professional's Because They Can Say A Game Is Horrible When It Isn't Even That Bad And Tend To Not Judge The Actual Game, But Whether If It's A Game Genre They Enjoy Or Not.

The MW2 spec ops always had an "estimated time" for each mission.I almost always spent 5-10 times more than that estimation was.I never rushed , i always cleared out all areas before moving on.I like to take things in a slow pace.Hell , i played Far Cry 2 over a 200+ hours and still haven't quiet finished the game.If i like the game and if its possible , i will most likely spend 100+ hours on same game without ever starting a new one.

BattleforAzerot

I don't know, most of the time I get the estimated play time. Except sometimes I like to stop and smell the flowers along the way, but in very linear games, I never stray too far. I'm the kind of guy who beat MW2 in 5 or 6 hours but Uncharted 2 in 15 hours, almost half of that being me looking for hidden treasures or just looking at the pretty scenery. Fallout 3 and Oblivion were even worse. I don't even do the quests in those games, I just wander around, discovering new places :P

I don't think I have every played a game that I thought was too short. I guess reviewers rush through a lot of games to get them finished and reviewed.

The game is always so short to them. I'm not a bad gamer or anything yet it takes me usually double or even triple the time to beat a game that it does for most reviewers when they talk about the length of a game. I never rush a game, but it's not like I run around in circles either. I don't know, what about you guys?

paradigm68

Two things to note: 1. Reviewers play games for a living. They come to work, play video games and then go home and play even more. On an average day they probably do twice the gaming of a normal person who's in school or has a job. All of that builds up and makes them insanely good at games. 2. Reviewers usually have a list of games that they have to review so it leads them to try and speed run games as much as possible so that they can scratch that title of the list and move on to the next one.Senor_Kami

If that true then why does every clip on every game site of the staff playing the games in question do they always suck?No joking i seen so many clips of people playing games (FPS the most guilty genre)were the guy playing is just terrible,taking ages to line up shots followed by missing with half the clip,getting stuck on bits of scenary and just dying in stupid ways.

If that true then why does every clip on every game site of the staff playing the games in question do they always suck?No joking i seen so many clips of people playing games (FPS the most guilty genre)were the guy playing is just terrible,taking ages to line up shots followed by missing with half the clip,getting stuck on bits of scenary and just dying in stupid ways.YoJim8obaJoe

[QUOTE="YoJim8obaJoe"]If that true then why does every clip on every game site of the staff playing the games in question do they always suck?No joking i seen so many clips of people playing games (FPS the most guilty genre)were the guy playing is just terrible,taking ages to line up shots followed by missing with half the clip,getting stuck on bits of scenary and just dying in stupid ways.muthsera666

Yes it's so relative to ones skills, one example would be the first time you play a game you don't know anything about it hence you spend more time, but the reviewers are supposed to be profesional and its their job to make a review on the clock therefore, besides they obviously have been playing much more games than any of us, but they are accurate in some of their reviews.