What is the best length a single player campaign should be?

Not including online multiplayer and extra modes... what do you think is the best - for you - length a single player campaign should be, i.e. for an action/adventure, sport games, first person shooters etc ***NOT INCLUDING ROLE PLAYING GAMES (RPG)*** without it being to long and boring?

Games like Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted, Modern Warfare etc

I finished Black Ops in under 7 hours. Personally i think its rather short, but i can't imagine playing a COD single player campaign for over 15+ hours.

What do you think?

15+ hours

12 - 14 hours

9 - 11 hours

6 - 8 hours

3 - 5 hours

Like your example it does depend on the game your playing, but I'd say about 9-11 hours would be decent for most games.

If it's a bad game I want it to be short. If it's a good game I want it to be longer, no matter what genre it is.

RPG - 40+

Shooter - 8+

Action/Adventure/Other - 12+

Sandbox - 20+

I don't really mind short games... I'm not a fan of FPS games so when I do play them I like to be able to beat them in 6/7 hours, which I did with MW2. Zelda type adventure games would ideally last me around 15-20 hours, although Twilight Princess took me something like 85 hours to complete (don't ask). I'm not a big RPG fan but the RPGs I have liked generally take around 20-30 hours if you just play the story, but provide well over 100 hours of enjoyable gameplay

In a perfect world, 15 hours would be great. But 10 hours is good enough with the way things are right now.

Because that can easily add 5+ hours with DLC. Anything less than 8 hours without multiplayer (or bad multiplayer that won't last) isn't worth it, IMO.

But like all things, it depends on the game.

RPG 40+

FPS 6-10 (the thing is alot of FPSes can get tedious on max difficulty if they take over 10 hrs to complete)

TPS 8-12

Action/Adventure 15+

Sandbox 30+

It depends on the game of course, but a good action game can usually go up to at least 15 hours without getting boring. Some of the best can go past 40. AfterI beat Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, I started the story again immediately after, and spent a lot of time in the mission mode before I finally put the game down for a while. So idealy, I think they could have made the campaign about 40 hours and it would have been a tad better.

RPG - 40+

Shooter - 8+

Action/Adventure/Other - 12+

Sandbox - 20+

brickdoctor

I agree with all of these except for the Sandbox one, they should be more like 10-14 hours, because most of them tend to be filled with a lot of repetitive missions/quests after a while.

twenty hours - Half-Life, No One Lives Forever, Soldier of Fortune, Chaser, Far Cry, etc.

For a shooter, ideally 20 hours long, each one packed with epicness, surprises and new gameplay elements.

for 60$ 15+

I don't really consider time an important factor in my enjoyment of any particular game. Long or short the experience is what my focus is on.Archangel3371

i agree 100% that's why i don't count life value towards my final overall game score.

Action/FPS - 15+

Action/Adventure - 25+

RPG - 40+

If they are shorter, that usually means that the game design is not strong enough to remain interesting beyond the 5-hour mark. However, I am not inherently opposed to short games if they are priced accordingly.

In my opinion, FPS Games like Call of Duty should have around 10 - 15 hours, and Action/Adventure games should have at least 20-25 hours of gameplay.

40+ hours (for full completion). 100 hours is a little too much and the game gets repetitive.

Yeah, after that I start going 'gee, it sure is boring around here.'

40+ hours (for full completion). 100 hours is a little too much and the game gets repetitive.

nameless12345

I agree. It depends on the type of game. Also i think that no matter how long a campaign is, certain techniques should be implemented as to different endings, different choices throughout the game which instantly makes it worthwhile to play again. I think Bioshock is a good example. There are several choices within the game that affect the ending and then there are several different endings. So its length might be 8-10 hours but teh different in-game aspects makes it possible for 2 or 3 playthroughs.

If a game costs £39.99+ it had better last a long time.

Whatever length allows it to be enjoyable, and not tedious. It can also heavily vary depending on genre.

As long as I can find a game fun the first time through, then I am happy. If there is replay value, I am even happier. If I become addicted to it... then I am unhappy. :3

Whatever works best for the game.

As long as the developers creativity can make it interesting.

Action/FPS - 15+

Action/Adventure - 25+

RPG - 40+

If they are shorter, that usually means that the game design is not strong enough to remain interesting beyond the 5-hour mark. However, I am not inherently opposed to short games if they are priced accordingly.

UpInFlames

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Action/FPS - 15+

Action/Adventure - 25+

RPG - 40+

If they are shorter, that usually means that the game design is not strong enough to remain interesting beyond the 5-hour mark. However, I am not inherently opposed to short games if they are priced accordingly.

Allicrombie

I disagree, unless it is consistently good, both visually and as a gaming experience, a game this length would become tedious for me.

the game with the best length is infamous

25hours on good

25 hours on evil

25 hours on mixed

all games should have a 70+ story

unless it is a sports , fighting,racer and shooters

I think gta has a decent single player length

The longer the better in any game.

If it's a bad game I want it to be short. If it's a good game I want it to be longer, no matter what genre it is.

ubpoker123

The campaign time depends on the game genre and difficulty. If its a really addictive and cool game that gamers are sure to get hooked on (such as an RPG), campaign length should be anywhere between 40-100+ hours. But if its just a regular action/adventure, shooter, sport, musicetc, game, it should probably be around 10-20 hours for a campaignwith a regulardifficulty.

i personally think that for a full priced game...20+ dependin on how the story flows. if its shorter, it should cost less...but of course...single player only is what im talkin about...mp makes a difference

I find messuring the game lentgh by time is very strange. A movie does not not change no matter how many times you watch it (pausing not included). For a Game it depend on what you do in the game. So It I move slower in the game then it would be longer for me than someone that speed through it.

In my opinion, FPS Games like Call of Duty should have around 10 - 15 hours, and Action/Adventure games should have at least 20-25 hours of gameplay.

Obliabo

10-15 is way too long for a shooter, that's tripling the game time. COD games have easily some of the best FPS campaigns because there is so much variety, it would just be repetition after that.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Action/FPS - 15+

Action/Adventure - 25+

RPG - 40+

If they are shorter, that usually means that the game design is not strong enough to remain interesting beyond the 5-hour mark. However, I am not inherently opposed to short games if they are priced accordingly.

Allicrombie

I'd like to see one example of a good game that lasts 200+ hours that doesn't get filled with hours of grinding and repetition.

the game with the best length is infamous

25hours on good

25 hours on evil

25 hours on mixed

all games should have a 70+ story

unless it is a sports , fighting,racer and shooters

I think gta has a decent single player length

annoyingdevil

LOL 25 hours to beat infamous? More like 8 hours for the main story and 4-5 more ifyou do side missions.

But then again, some people are just bad at games and take longer. For example I heard of many people on the Bayonetta gamefaqs forums saying that Bayonetta took the 20+ hours on their first playthrough. I beat the game 3 times (Normal, Hard, and Infinite Climax) in 24 hours.

Its about the quality of the time, not the quantity. I would much rather play an amazing game for a short amount of time then a crappy game for a long time. If a game manages to be great AND long, well thats all the better.

Its about the quality of the time, not the quantity. I would much rather play an amazing game for a short amount of time then a crappy game for a long time. If a game manages to be great AND long, well thats all the better.

chaosflare44

sometimes it gets preety ridiculess though like vanquish is a 4-5 hour game with no multiplayer or even unlockable guns,,, thats preety god damn unforgivable

for 60$ 15+

TheGrudge13

THIS. I'm paying $60 so I don't care what genre it is. It better be long and it better not suck.

I'm talking to you LucasArts.

The game itself will tell you when it is long enough.

The game itself will tell you when it is long enough.

wiouds

In a perfect world where companies aren't trying to screw over their customers I guess that would be true.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

The game itself will tell you when it is long enough.

anthonycg

In a perfect world where companies aren't trying to screw over their customers I guess that would be true.

[/QUOTE

You don't understand what he means. If your playing a game, and your getting bored of it because its getting repeitive, then its overstayed its welcome and is too long. If you beat a game feeling like there should have been more to it, it should've been longer.

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Action/FPS - 15+

Action/Adventure - 25+

RPG - 40+

If they are shorter, that usually means that the game design is not strong enough to remain interesting beyond the 5-hour mark. However, I am not inherently opposed to short games if they are priced accordingly.

Allicrombie

sometimes it gets preety ridiculess though like vanquish is a 4-5 hour game with no multiplayer or even unlockable guns,,, thats preety god damn unforgivable

fl4tlined