Your thoughts on 100+ hour single player games?

Most of them are boring.

perfect length is 12-15 hour or even 20.

These days I prefer 20-30 hours due to a lack of time to play. When I was a kid I preferred longer games like ff7, Baldurs gate etc. that were all 80+ hours..

However regardless I have always hated games with mindless repetitive grind in them...

Most of my favorite games are 100+ hours experiences. Persona 5, Fallout, Witcher 3, Mass Effect 2 (I completed the game three times) and so on.

40-60 hours is a sweetspot for me. I don't mind hundred(s) of hours for some games like GTA, elderscrolls, Fallout and Zelda. I dislike under 12 hour games.

Depends on the game really. On rare, select occasions, I don't mind grinding out post-game content. But pretty much anything past 100 hours seems gratuitous, even for psycho-level completionists.

Once you're at a certain point, it can't help but feel like repetitive tasks, or yes... even work. Not fun.

Love 'em keep in mind you don't have to do side missions if you don't want to.

Only in certain circumstances. I feel drained every time I get through one of these epics and think "ok next game will be a short and sweet game"

But don't get me wrong - they earn it. I simply wouldn't play them that long in the first place if they didn't draw me in and keep me coming back

Love em as long as they don't feel like a drag. Zelda: BotW took me about 200 hours to complete, and I loved every second of it, where as AC: Origins I was completely bored of after 15 hours.

As long as the story is compelling I don't mind. A variety in side missions is also important.

I used to play them a lot. Now I think they are too much and look more for quality time than quantity of time. At least they offer the option to save and get them in small pieces for a long period.

Like I’m playing deadfire and have spent several months playing it but I only have 30 hours on.

I still prefer shorter games like tyranny, but I appreciate that unlike multiplayer games you don’t fall behind if you stop playing when you are very busy to resume afterwards.

TheY get too repetitive for me, and I mostly give up. Most 100 hour games are open world, and at least 50 of those hours are spent walking from one challenge to the next.... Fallout 4 roped me in with the storyline, finding new locations and then ultimately bored me to tears planting tomato crops and repairing battle armour.

A good sp game like Titanfall 2 was a good length, with plenty of variation and a solid storyline. 15 hours max.

I kind of like a 15-20 hour experience with the good side mission options that extend the playing time. RDR 2 was a good example of that IMO.

I "Love 'em" over 100 hour is more value for the money and besides, any hours of open-world games is okay in my books but 100 hours is dandy fine for me.

Then you are doing open-world games the wrong way. Repetitive is the nature of video games. You are supposed to do repetitive stuff, like really.

Depends on the game really. If it’s something that I enjoy then time isn’t really an issue one way or the other.

wow you are bored after 15 hours???

I was bored of it after half an hour. so boring and bland.

@davillain-: Lol....you're just plain argumentative aren't you?

The OP was asking for our thoughts...not for you to pretend there's a certain way to play games, or what type of games I'm supposed to enjoy.

Love them. It's impossible that I would get to a hundred hours without enjoying some aspect of what the game offered.

Don't feel like I got my moneys worth if I don't.

$60 for 12 hours? No thnx. No way some linear bore is gonna have me replay it 5-6 times. I think ive rewatched more tv series / movies that many times.

Maybe thats why I've gone to mainly MP games now.

Each to their own,.

To me it's like food. You can buy $100 worth of shit from some discount store and gets bags upon bags of groceries that will last a month, or you can spend $100 on the best steak of your life.

Ghost Recon or something like Rogue Spear in the 1990's is only about 9-12 hours long, still take over something like the latest Ghost Recon: Wildland where t's 50-100 hours of repetitive un-engaging shit.

Reaaaaallly depends on the game. You can have 100+ hours games that are boring as hell and I'm sure as hell not going to play those just for the sake of playing longer.

I am generally down on 50+ hour single player games...

No time for that anymore.

I am playing dark souls all the way through for the first time however and Im 50 hours in and I want more more more...

The vast majority of these games are padded out unnaturally and makes any notion of replaying a distant dream. And don't get me started on the story in these games. Games are better off having a short main story with the rest sidequests than one long overly played out main story with multiple false endings.

For this gen, if they're like the Witcher 3, Persona 5, Nioh, the Yakuza series, and Valkyria Chronicles 4, then I'm totally engaged, and love them from beginning to end.

On the other hand, BotW consisted of monotonous chores, had no meaningful rewards, and was devoid of emotion. If I had known ahead of time how pointless it was to go after the memory fragments, as an example, I could have saved myself dozens of hours.

50-60 hours is manageable.

I liked Persona 5, despite it being a 100+ hour game to complete, it was a fun and enjoyable experience. There were times were it was dragging

It doesn’t matter what the play time of a game is as long as the quality is there.

og ghost recon had mp. I spent a lot of my time in coop games

That would be the logical conclusion so yep :P

Never touched it, but never felt cheated out of money regardless.

Likewise with something like Halflife, even it if didn't have all that mod MP thanks to literally decades of mod support, still be happy with that SP only experience.

Not that i'm trying to excause shitty short content here.

Games like Halflife, Halflife 2 and Portal 2 all shipped with exceptional SP and MP content to go with it.

We get stuff like Battlefield and Battlefront II, where garbage SP is ok because it's all about the MP.

Obviously it depends on the game, but if I enjoy it a lot then I wouldn't care if the game never ended... Perhaps that's just me, but I'm not one of those people who are trying to just play to the end to get it finished. As a matter of fact, more times than not (now that I think of it) I have played many games to very near the end and then lost interest... it's as if for me I don't want the game to end (I play all side missions and explore everything.. often time spending way too much time playing mini-games and smaller mechanics like hunting, fishing, and sports) and by the time I get to the end I already know what's going to happen so I guess I figure what's the point... meh.. strange. Just thought about all this... lmao.

I'm not saying I never finish games, because I do, but far more often I don't. Then again when you have a backlog in the thousands.. lol

Don’t really play sp games, but I regularly put 100+ hours into multiplayer games without qualm.

But what is a 100+ sp game these days? Witcher, Last of Us, or some rando jrpg which is basically the same battle every five steps? I think I’d hang myself if those were my only gaming options.

I prefer games which never get old. Pac Man. Chess. Wave Race 64. Galaga. Value is in the eye of the beholder. My stalker insisted on games like Fallout but those games just require too much of your time.

F Zero X is another game which is likely better than anything you like.

Yeah, this. A game has to be really engaging to keep me playing for 50 hours, let alone 100.

But I'm finding as I get older, I'm enjoying shorter more focused games more than big sprawling gazillion hour games. The example I keep giving is RDR 2... I really enjoyed it, but when I think about it, I enjoyed a much shorter game like Inside just as much as Red Dead (if not more).

That's why, as much as I love CDPR and as much as Cyberpunk looks so cool, I'm struggling to find the motivation to play it when it comes out. These games are just such a massive time sink.

@hrt_rulz01: yeah, I just have so little time to game these days, that "hardcore" games requiring tons of repetition and practice, and 300 hour epics actively turn me off. I need to really like the source material to go in for that (TW3 being an example)

@ghosts4ever: It's not like I had 15 hours of fun. Gave it a good chance. Now I know the AC series still ain't worth it.

RPG elements are like plague that destroy games. it was so bad that it made previous games masterpiece.

Yep, same.

I'm not really a huge fan of them. If it's online gameplay though, depending on the game...it's alright.

I generally like to spend 50 hours on a single player game max, if it calls for it.

I play a lot of building games that go on forever. Then again that is a genre that you make your own fun.

I generally tries to avoid RPG with massive play hours unless I feel like I have time to spend. 40 - 50 hour game is perfect for RPG, more than that it feels like the game tries to drag you.

It really depends. In most cases a 100+ game is unnecessary when the bulk of those hours is made up of fluff. It's truly bad design philosophy to make a game for the sake of being big when it all boils down to padding. A game should only be as long as it's necessary for it to execute its ambition.

That's the problem nowadays... there is this perception amongst a lot of gamers (and therefore developers), that the bigger/longer a game is, the better. I think a lot of it is to do with it being considered "better value for money".

But like you said, a lot of the time it boils down to boring fetch-quests and repetitive tasks that feel like a chore. As I said earlier, I'd much rather a shorter more focused game with all the boring filler left out.

Time is not an issue unless its under 30hrs as I feel like i'm getting ripped off for the price I payed for a game.

As for those saying 15hrs, some of these people are trying to defend certain games because that's how long they take to finish, what a rip off.

I get what you mean, it's why I avoid a lot of PSVR games. They are only 5-10 hours in length and charge the same price as a normal game.

Well it depends. Do you feel ripped off if a game is 15 hours and cost you $15? Would you feel you got your money's worth if the developer padded an additional 15 hours to give the sense of worth?

When we were kids yeah, cz majority ofnus couldnt afford to buy games so we were stuck with whatever we had. Now due to many games availability, income and other factors but due to lack of time, we find it hard to play games or keepn1 with 15+ hrs

No, but games are rarely $15AUS, and I usually buy the games I want to play upon or close to release, so you have to judge price vs content and see if its right for you.

Also very few games are released at $15 with 15hrs campaigns, and the games that usually get released at $15 are indie games that last around 5hrs.

Normally I prefer 20-ish hours. A good example of 'the right length' for me is Evil Within 2. Did not outstay its welcome, but is doable in a week and a bit if you want to.

BUT I am playing through Zelda BOTW a second time now (almost finished) and that is a 120+ hour game for me, and I loved it both times.

So it depends. Normally I like it a little shorter but if a game is so phenomenal I can't get enough of it, then by all means be very lengthy. It helps that all the content in BOTW is optional. So I don't feel pressured to play it. I only play it because I like it.