tonyc3742

So I've been playing Dragon Quest XI for what seems like forever. The clock says 240 hours but that's not right - it counts time I was in 'quick resume' mode. But it might be a third that.
Anyway, I'm enjoying it but am ready to be done.
Roger Ebert said "No good movie is too long, and no bad movie is short enough".
Does the same go for video games?
How long "should" a video game be - or, what is your preferred/ideal length?
Quality is obviously a factor but I do think it's possible for even a great game to be too long.

Let's presume it's a game that has an actual beginning and ending and a story. And a "good" game that you find enjoyable and entertaining.
Excluding something like Fortnite or a sports game where you can play season after season, and excluding something like Rock Band or Rocket League that is almost a 'party' game, or Slay the Spire which each individual play is usually less than an hour but is exceedingly replayable.
Excluding "living" games that release 'seasons' or new stuff every couple months, like Sea of Thieves or Borderlands or Destiny.
Feel free to bring price point into it, at least the common price points of $60 new release, $40 recent release, $20 "classic".

For me, I'm usually ready to be in the end game at the
35-45 hour
mark. Even if I enjoy the game, I like the story to wrap up. I may come back and do some 'new game plus' stuff, but that's about the point I'll call it 'complete'. That said, i don't want 10 hours of boring repetitive side missions to pad the time so of course I'd rather it be 35-45 _good_ hours.
The Outer Worlds, imho, was pretty much perfect in this regard. The story was absorbing enough to keep me involved, there was just enough backtracking to have some familiarity without thinking "I have to go back to X AGAIN...", the side quests weren't boring clones, and when I finished the game, it felt "right".

There are a few outliers - I played hundreds of hours in one play of Final Fantasy Tactics and loved them all; I'm pretty sure I had 100-120 in Borderlands 3 (although some individuals parts went on longer than I want).
But in general, I'm quite satisfied if I get 35-45 enjoyable hours out of a 'story' game. And I don't even mind shorter games - I'd rather have 10 hours of awesome than that plus 20 hours of drudge. But at that point I start doing the price/benefit analysis, and it's highly unlikely I'll pay 60 for that game.

So, how long should a game be? Or is this a meaningless metric?

The Questyen

It's a meaningless metric to me other than drawn out 100 hour games that could easily be half that. If I had to pick a preference it would be 5-10 hours for the majority of games and 20-40 for rpgs/open world stuff.

Dan

^ I like those numbers a lot. Very rarely does a game justify over 40 hours unless it's specifically designed to be a life simulator kind of game (Animal Crossing, etc.)

fujishig

That's probably the worst part of JRPGs for me... they need to pad it or people will complain that it's too short. I mean when I was a kid and had all the time in the world that was fine, I'd grind away, but now especially with all the radically different battle systems and complex storylines, I need like a refresher on how to play the game and what the hell is going on if I step away for even a few weeks, at which point I usually just give up and play something else.

I usually make it to the point where the world opens up, then get overwhelmed with options and take a break as well.

I will so Dragon Quest is better than most at letting you pick up and play.

On a side note, I remember replaying Dragon Quest 1 on I think it was the GB Color. They bundled both 1 and 2 on the same cart, so I think they thought it was ok to greatly reduce the grinding in 1. The game is super short without all that grinding for exp and gold. And I was fine with that.

Adam Tyner

It does seem like the typical mindset is "value = hours of gameplay / price", but I'm kind of the opposite. There's no shortage of games I've sunk 100+ hours into, but that's of less and less interest as time goes on. For instance, I never got around to Persona 5 / Royal or Assassin's Creed: Valhalla because I just don't feel like committing to that, and I'm not sure I ever will.

Basically, I just want a game to justify its length. If it's a really fun but brief 2-3 hours, no sweat! I'm not turned off by FPS campaigns that are only 6-8 hours. I feel like anywhere from 8 to 35 hours is a range I'm very content with. When it gets north of 40 or 50 hours, that's when I start to weigh if I want to sink that much time into a game.

It's not because of a lack of free time, exactly; it's more that if I could spend 60 hours playing 3 or 4 exceptionally fun, well-paced games or 60 hours playing 1 that's padded/bloated, I'm way more interested in the former. If a game delivers 60 well-paced, exceptionally fun hours, then, well, that's great too. But I only have so many of those in me a year.

milo bloom

I shouldn't really comment as I rarely finish games. So stuff that I can just pick up and put some time in and have fun for a while, even if I don't "finish" it, is my favorite kind of game,

Even something like Mario Kart, I know you can unlock everything and gold medal every track, but you can still pick up with another person and have a fun race, so that's good too.

lwhy?

I think under 40 hours is ideal. I always have to take a break at least half way in a 80 to 100 hour game. I get burnt out and then don't try to play it again for six months to a year later.

Michael Corvin

Lately I find myself checking HowLongToBeat.com to check a game's length before starting it.

The Questyen

I do the same thing. I like to have an estimate of game length before I start playing. Not because I won't play it if it's too long or too short but more just so I know if I should start playing it or not if say another game is coming out soon that I'm going to want to play immediately, etc.

Wolf359

15-20 hours to me is ideal. Can't handle Fallout type of games anymore

RichC2

Entirely dependent on the game. But I'd say over 30 hours and it's a bit discouraging to start the game.

milo bloom

So last night my son and I got on MK8Deluxe to kill some time and we kept getting enough coins to unlock more vehicle customizations so even with all the racers and tracks unlocked we’re still finding stuff.

Rob V

Assassins Creed comes to mind... I get OCD on completing side missions or finding loot which can take hours of map traveling; unnecessarily bloating the game to over 120-140 hours. Blech!

The Dude

Whatever the length of 'The Outer Worlds' is and add 15% to that and that should be the upper limit for games unless there is something spectacular going on.

Koby

Depends on the game tbh. I don't have time for every game to be 100+ hours, but I don't mind a good 100+ hour game if it has reasons to be that long. Padding for the sake of padding is not my idea of fun.

Hell Resident Evil 3 Remake is only about 3 hours long... and I feel like it was fine.

Groucho

The length doesn't really matter to me as long as I am getting enjoyment. With JRPGs and Bethesda RPGs I very rarely finish the "story", I just keep playing until I'm no longer having fun, and move on. And I'm fine with that.

Shorter games are fine too. "Resident Evil 3" was just mentioned, and it was bagged on because of length. But I still had a blast: mastering the game, unlocking everything, and getting the Platinum.

milo bloom

I wouldn’t mind if more games had a 3-4 fun mode that you could finish but then if you wanted you could go back and 100% it. Some of the Mario games in recent years are like this I think.