What is your perfect length for singleplayer games?

Hello friends,

In this thread we talk about gaming length, how long or short games we prefer, and vice versa. so friends, How long you think games should be?

when i see the news about RDR2 being 60 hours and see how much people hype due to length. it inspired me to talk about this topic.

In my honest opinion, my perfect length would be just 10-15 hour long. history shows majority of best games has this kind of length.

theres many open world games with over 50 hours of gameplay or RPG with having 200 hours of gameplay. but imo if game is waay too long. the chances are it become boring fast. lot of people think money is not worth if game is not 100 hour long but money worth on quality rather than quantity.

I also hate tack on 5 hour SP games with little effort made. so i believe my ideal games should not be more than 15 hour long. or maximum 20 hours.

so my friends, how much longer games you prefer? lets discuss

200 hours

If a game has only 60 hours of appeal then its not a complete game as far as I am concerned

which I understand why companies dont want to make 200+ hour video games but it is my preference

game completetion is not based on length.

max payne 1 being 6 hour is more intense than most of 200 hour RPGs.

MGS5 on other hand is incomplete despite being lengthy.

10 hours.

Anything more is an affront to my backlog and has nothing but contempt for my time.

MGS V is not incomplete. It was just a lie created by angry MGS fanboys to put the blame on Konami.

sorry but I am now more confused then before. I dont understand what you are saying, can you phrase it differently?

and your OP doesn't talk about 'completion' vs 'length' and I honestly dont know what you mean as a difference.

If you create a single player game, cut out all of the cutscenes and it still feels like it's worth the asking price... That long.

there was act 3 that you can watch on youtube. there are some cut contents from trailer too.

it was incomplete.

Every video game in the world is incomplete by that logic.

For example RE 1 original was supposed to have coop(There is also a footage of that) so it's incomplete by your logic.

Driver 1 was supposed to have some features like getting out of car and stealing other people's car that didn't made it to the game so it's unfinished by your logic.

Max Payne 1 was supposed to have multiplayer but it was removed so it's unfinished by your logic.

Games that are unfinished are either:

1.Too Buggy.

2.Lack content.

And the first Max Payne 1 trailer also shows a giant boss that didn't made it to the final game so it's unfinished by your logic.

unbelievably untrue.

seeing that I have played a ton of those 'unfinished games' and I have played plenty of AAA titles I can say with extreme confidence that what you are saying as a general rule is absolutely positively not even remotely true. In fact many of the 'unfinished games' I have played has MORE content then AAA titles

10 hours.

Generally would prefer even shorter sometimes as some games feel like they are full of "filler" content.

15-20 for shooters and adventure games.

40+ for RPGs .

that giant boss replace by jack lupeno. basically developers change some scenario in development time.

in MGS5 case. entire chapter was cut. having a game suppose to be coop or multiplayer is just they suppose not implement.

kojima create third act of MGS5 only for konami to release unfinished version.

It could be 10 hours to 100 plus hours.. I do not mind to pay the full price as long as I enjoy it!

depends on how you consider a game "unfinished". Since that general rule works well for me for the games that are actually unfinished:

1.Star Wars TFU 2 was unfinished.(Lack of content)

2.Star Wars Kotor 2.(Too Buggy)

3.Driver 3(Too Buggy)

4.True Crime NYC.(Too Buggy)

5.Tomb Raider Angel Of Darkness.(Too Buggy)

6.Alone In The Dark 2008 PC/Xbox360 versions(Too Buggy)

I think of Steam Early Access titles when I start hearing the 'unfinished rant' and I am hear to say many of those titles like 7 days to die for example are very rich and deep in content and not very buggy

• For FPS 7-15 hours.
• RPG, 50-100
• JRPGS - 0
• Racing games -0
• Xbox games - 0
• PS4 - 2-3 hours (good blueray players)

Lol your grammer is meesed up here.

every game has deleted content and that's a fact.(Hell RE 5 was supposed to have a feature that the weather effects chris's abilities but they didn't implement that)

And that part was cut off and was not finished.(They only made 2 cutscenes for that part and just showed some awesome looking concept arts since they didn't even make it pass there)

And it was Kojima's decision to remove it since if he wanted to add that he could remove(Or Dumb Down) one of the empty open world maps and instead worked on that which he didn't.

So what makes games unfinished in your opinion ? I want to hear that since I don't think that game sounds like an unfinished game.

well so when I hear others say 'unfinished games' I assume they are talking about Steam Early Access. I dont have to subscribe to that term in order to understand what they are getting at.

to be clear.

So with that context in mind my answer to your question is I never give it a thought because its not important to me personally. I dont care if a game is unfinished or not, I care only if the play time is fun, so I never think about what those parameters might be

200 - 300 hours

At least 40 hours. It's acceptable for shooters or adventure games like Uncharted to be shorter, though, so they don't wear out their welcome. I also have no problems with games like The Witcher 3 and Skyrim being seemingly endless because I'm having fun the entire time with these games

that is where I am. All the games I reall like I either have 200+ hours or I can clearly see there is enough content of interest to get me there.

I see my games as worlds or hobbies, 'gaming' instead a hobby to me as much specific games are hobbies to me

10-12 hours. After the 12 hour mark, I start to get bored. The only game I wish was longer was the new DOOM. But would only want it to be longer if they kept introducing new enemies, along with new weapons.

If I find out a game is too long, I won't even play it. Which is why I missed out on games like The Witcher 3 and Skyrim. I have no desire to play a game that is over 100+ hours. Life is too short for that.

I don't think I have one, but a reality for me is that I can get sick of every game, even if it's my all time favorite. The key is moderation. If I play for more than 2 hours I begin to lose immersion. And I definitely don't play every day either.

Sometimes the games are too long, or I feel the developers didn't put as much work into the end as they did the rest of the time, but that's not too often.

It depends on the game. I was fine with 3-5 hour games on PS1. I was fine with 5-10 hour games on PS2. I was also fine with 5-35 hour games on PS3 and PS4.

Some games are long and don't need to be forcing the player to do trivial side quests to level up. AC Origins and Odyssey being great examples of this.

10-2000 hours

depends on the gameplay

That's on a scale from PS4 exclusives to Dark Souls ;)

At least 30 hours. Anything below feels like a waste of money.

I don’t really have any set times for how long a game should be myself. As long as the game adequately conveys the story or experience that it is trying to convey without thinking that there needs to be more or less then I’m good.

really depends on the game.

I was happy to spend like 150+ hours in the Witcher 3 + its DLC because it felt worthwhile.

however, I tend to get bored of typical Ubisoft-style open world games in 10-15 hours, usually well before they end, because often by that point I've seen most of what these games have to offer and finishing them is just a matter of doing the same shit over and over.

I feel like in general, SP-focused games are getting kinda bloated lately.

Length is irrelevant. Cost to entertainment ratio is what really matters.

If I play an indie game that's 3-4 hours long but it cost 10-15 dollars and is unique and fun, I'd say that's worth it.

For me personally, I need my single player games in 4 and up hours. Less then 4 hours and price at $60 will be waiting on a sale.

Well over 100 hours total if it's a great game, I don't expect the main story to be that long. I could see a 50 hr main then about 100 hrs for sides and various other things.

Depends. Shmups ~30 minutes. Platformers/Beat 'em ups ~2 hours. FPS/TPS ~10-15 hours. Action Adventure ~20-30 hours. RPGS ~50-100 hours.

what if there is no story at all?

@tryit: Would depend on how fun it was

I'd say under 7ish hours is probably bordering on too short and I generally don't want to spend more then 25 hours to see the end of a game.

For action adventure games 15-20 hours is usually fine, for RPGs 50-100 hours. It also relies heavily on just how interesting a game is. For example, it took me 150 hours to finish Inquisition, which I got bored of after the first 50-60 hours because most of its content felt like filler. I'm tired of open world RPGs filled with meaningless side activities just for the sake of extending game length. Few developers get it right, primarily CDPR and Bethesda, the former with quality side quests and the latter with an interesting world to explore.

If I like to explore the game world? Indefinitely. Steam says I've spent 827 hours on Fallout 4. I finished the storyline at 340 hours. The rest? Just exploring and building settlements and supply lines.

I spent probably 827 x 3 hours each on the Reset Outpost Mode of Far Cry 3 and 4. The SP of each lasted maybe 30+ hours. But, if I like the world, I'll keep visiting it long after I finished the SP campaign.

Among the game worlds I like to revisit again and again?

Far Cry 3

Far Cry 4

Fallout 4

STALKER: Call of Pripyat

The Complete Mod 2009 mod for STALKER: Call of Chernobyl should allow a free-explore mode (not in the vanilla game) once the SP campaign is finished. So, I'm going to count that as well.

5-10 hours.

Varies... I like some games short, like Until Dawn... And I like games like Monster Hunter where you can easily spend 200-300 hrs. Just to be clear though, I'd never spend full price on a short game. It's usually around the $20 range instead of $60.

Agree 60 bucks is alot of money and these company's are greedy as **** I like to get my money's worth.

If I can beat the story campaign within a week of off and on sessions, that's good for me.

Depends on the game.

Mario Odyssey was the perfect length to me, and I haven't even touched all the extra stuff. Games like Breath of the Wild and AC Origins while I liked them, they also felt padded.

So... rough estimate... if I can get 10-15 hours out of a non-RPG, and 30+ out of an RPG then I usually feel like I got my money's worth. I have been slowly moving towards preferring shorter games, what with being crazy busy with work, I have less time (and want) to sink 100+ hours into one game.

It really depends on the type of game, but in general, I'd say 30 hours for a non completionist play through is the sweet spot. This is considering if the content is good and the devs aren't trying to make a 5 hour game into 30.

8-15 hours. RPG's main story, probably 20-30. Anything after that is a whole lot of filler and repetition and gets boring.

Really depends on the game.

If UC4 and HZD had more content I would've played more of those.

I think my limit is 140 hours though for SP games.

20-30 hours is a nice amount for me. Even better if there's stuff to do after finishing the main story. :D