Should Video Games Be Longer or Shorter on Average?

[Spirit]

Video games range in length but on average when you buy a new game are you impressed with the length of them on average or do you feel that you sometimes pay too much for the content on the disc?

A few times i've bought games and gotten to the end of them pretty quickly and wondered why i shelled out for so much whereas others have lasted me months at a time but how do you feel?

Are modern games too long or too short?
Do you get value for your money in terms of content and average playtime from beginning to end?

Which games have been good value for money based on length/content and money paid?

 

[isaix]

Sonic games should not cost 60$,they are way too short and they feel empty.Game should be long,that's is one of the reasons why I like Final Fantasy,when a game is too short you don't feel like you're playing on an adventure,when I was play Sonic Colors,Sonic Generations,New Super Mario Bros Wii or Super Mario Galaxy 2,It didn't feel like I was playing an adventure game,it felt like I was scrolling from stage to stage and that not fun.To me the longer the game the better it is.

 

[Curmudgeon]

I don't want every game I play to be a 100 hour marathon. It's why I like the XLBA... for $10-15, I can get a shorter (but no less rewarding) experience that I can thoroughly enjoy without feeling like I flushed my money down the toilet.

 

[misskitten]

I feel games are like stories, some will feel too long (regardless of how short they may be), some will feel too short (regardless of how long they may be) and some will be just right. It depends on the game, really.

 

[RegalBryant]

All games must be 67 hours and four minutes.

 

[Ventus]

I think games shoudl be longer, especially the ones marked at $40 - 60 MSRP. When I pay a lot of money for a game, I don't expect just a fun game. There needs to be some longevity to that fun. Recently games have lasted me just 24 hours, and that isn't a trait I like especially when I pay $40 out of my pocket that I technically could've put towards food, a gaming PC or other such things.

I'd prefer games to be around 60 hours at minimum (meaning, main quest + all content), but a solid 40 hours is also acceptable from me.

 

[Hanyou]

I'm pretty sure the Genesis Sonic games used to cost upwards of $40. They're what, less than 2 hours long? Hundreds of hours of gameplay later, I'm sure I've gotten my (parents') money's worth from Sonic 3.

Length isn't indicative of quality. I'd shell out a lot of money for a very short game if I could be assured of a good experience.

In any case, some games now seem to be too long, padded with unnecessary tutorials and plot threads. Those should be shortened. I guess that would bring the average length down.

 

[Emma]

All games require one or both of these: length, or replay value. At least one of them, both if possible. If a game is short, it needs significant incentive to replay it over again several times. Perhaps by different choices available to make the experience different. Different things to unlock. Something to make it worthwhile to replay a short game.
For a long game, it also has to be good. Elder Scrolls for example, are games that are very long, the content is good, and you can replay it several times and never have exactly the same experience.
Put more simply, all games need longevity. Life. They need to keep you with them for long stretches of time. Longer games need to break things down into units to keep things manageable. TES is again a good example. Only have an hour or so? Finish one or two quests. Want to have a heavy, 18 hour gaming session? Works too. That's the formula you want.
Games like Halo, Call of Duty, and the like, with their campaign modes, not multiplayer, are an example of how not to do it. They're rather short, and they're very continuous. There's real moment of pause for you to stop at. If you save and quit, it's breaking the action. One mission is crammed up against the next with no room to breath. This was the standard for a while, but it just isn't what's good anymore. You have a fairly short game, which tries to make you play it in one sitting. While it is on the short side, not everyone has the time to finish it in one sitting. Saving and quitting them hasn't ever been smoothly done. And when you go back, you might not remember the context of where you were at and it won't tell you again. Though they're still good enough, Halo more so, but it's just not how you do longevity in single player, their efforts in those games are clearly focused on multiplayer.

 

[Moonstone]

The way I figure- if I'm paying $60 for a game, I'd better be getting roughly 60 hours of entertainment out of it, or more. Doesn't matter to me whether the game's story is long or short (as it all depends on the type of game).

 

[feraldonkey]

They should at least have a reason for gamers to come back and play, whether it be more side quests or a longer game length.

 

[Castle]

Depends on the pacing. Sprawling RPGs can take upwards of 60 hours to complete. Dragon Age: Origins, for instance, dragged on for faaaar too long. Dragon Age 2 however was comparably lengthy, but it had me so engaged that I enjoy every minute of it.

Most single player shooter campaigns you can complete in an evening or two. I finished Red Faction: Armageddon is two days of playing several hours straight. I completed Halo 3 in about the same time. IDK why shooters are this way, but their campaigns are seldom lengthy, which can be a drag when you're having fun.

Batman: Arkham City is horrendously short. Disappointing since it is an outstanding game!! It is very similar to Zelda (even surpasses it on many counts) but twice and again as short as the shortest Zelda game. This is bad... there needs to be more - and there is - because there's a freaking ton of optional collectibles to assemble on your own time, but the main story concludes waaaay too soon.

So, what factors in to how long a game should be? I'd say it boils down to pacing and the level of engagement. Many shooters can stand to be longer. Many RPGs can stand to be much shorter. Like a good party, when you're having fun it's over too soon. Like highschool history class when you're bored to tears it's taking too long.

 

[DarkestLink]

The longer the better. Especially for the main quest.

 

[LalaCoyoteGamer]

I think it really depends on the type of game/its story/what it has to offer.

Most of my games are 20-40 hour games, but I have a couple that are shorter. I beat Resident Evil 4 in about four and a half hours speed-running it and skipping cutscenes I didn't care about, but I still really liked that game. I wouldn't pay $60 for such a short game, though. But at least it has plenty of replay value and unlockables.

I'd say, if a game's going to be short, there should be other content to compensate for that, if it's also going to be on the expensive side.

 

[Painmaster212]

Depends on if the game has MP or not cause if its a single player game then for it to be the full $60 it should be 15 hours+. If it has MP of some kind then for the full $60 im thinking 10 hours at least,anything under those standards should not be full price maybe $39.99 at most for Console/PC games and $24.99 for handhelds

 

[1upmuffin]

I think it really depends. Some games are very short but impactful (like Portal), and some are longer and overstay their welcome (like Red Dead Redemption).

I don't play a lot of RPG's because they are way too long. My perfect rpg length is around 25 hours, like Paper Mario. It kept me entertained the whole time and never got boring.

In short, it's not the length that really matters, it's how long it takes for a developer to give an entertaining story or a great gameplay experience.