It really depends on the type of game and how it presents itself.
Some games have a very long and complex story but others might have a shorter story told more indirectly, then there are also multi-ending games which might take longer than a regular story game since you have to replay them. Then there are sandbox games which don’t necessarily have a limit on how long they can be since it’s dependent on how much you want to put into them.
Ultimately in my opinion there’s not really a required amount of time for completion, the thing that I think is most important is whether the games are fun and enjoyable. In the case of story games they can be as long or short as needed depending on how they tell a story.
then there are also multi-ending games which might take longer than a regular story game since you have to replay them.
That’s something I have a hard time doing depending on the game. Sometimes you can get a wildly different experience like in Fallout NV and see your actions having consequences while you play but a lot of the games I have been playing only are linear up until the ending cut scene.
Yeah a lot of times the multi-ending ones don’t offer many unique experiences.
Though there was this one game I played that largely did, it was a Horror RPGmaker game called Red Haze, by far one of the more expansive multi-ending games (so much so that it’s actually not finished, there’s supposed to be 26, possibly 27 endings but only about 3/4 of them are there) the endings might be short or require a lot of steps, and some changes propagate into later playthroughs, some of the endings also require you to have done other endings for them to work.
It’s a very interesting concept but unfortunately not many games implement multi-ending in this way since it takes a lot more work to do.
I just want to have fun, no matter the length. I love Titanfall 2’s campaign and it only takes a couple hours to complete, even shorter than most shooters. People complain that it’s too short but I think that’s its strength. But a lot of AAA games I’ve played just feel stretched and bloated like Assassin’s Creed and Far Cry, where it’s just not fun at all between all the tedious things I have to do.
Really depends on the game. A linear story game is not going to be very long. Then there’s sandbox games where you can have hundreds to thousands of hours.
Have a hard time dedicating consistent time with a single game because of other things like work. So any long story-driven game is gonna be a pass for me. If I need to remember a town name, map, or a character name and its more than a couple hours, its a nope. I simply have a hard time with dedicating the time to something like that, even if I enjoy it. MMORPGs or anything with dailies have similar issues.
I mostly tend to play games where I can spend a short period of time in a session and it doesn't matter if I come back to it in months. Over the past year or so, beatsaber and Terraria are the games that have fit that bill for me the most. Have over 1500 hours in Terraria and expect that number to probably grow over in bursts over the next decade.
I love Hades, one of my favorites in recent years.
The gameplay is tight and action packed, the loop is fun, not too long, yet different enough between each run.
There are still tidbits of story and lore, but nothing that really takes time away from actual action.
I guess the absolute opposite would be a Kojima game with 45 min cutscenes, which I usually bounce off hard.
Might be a weird comparison, but the pacing in Hades kinda reminds me a bit of DOOM2016. (Another game I loved.)
Although a completely different setting and top-down roguelike instead of FPS, I get the same action packed vibe out of it.
Generally, I’m not into the “price per hour” reductionism… I’d rather a game was a short, remarkable (bonus: replayable) experience – 10-20 unless a longer game truly is that long without filler. Can’t put a price on having fun 100% of the time!
Sonic 3 and Knuckles takes like 3 hours for an average person to beat.
Mmm i dont think its at all a static number. What matters is trimming it down to whats important. If you can keep bringing in new game mechanics, or exploring existing ones in new and interesting contexts, or keeping me engrossed in the story, it can go as long as it wants. Like, Chrono Trigger is considered a pretty short jrpg, because its very condensed for how broad of a scope it has, but boy is it a great game. Mario Odyssey got some criticism for how many moons are in the game, but i loved getting each and every one.
Opus Magnum. It’s an optimization puzzle game. You have to assemble mechanical arms and other bits (that grab, swing, rotate, push, and pull) into contraptions that assemble resources that look like molecular diagrams. Optimization puzzles aren’t unique but I felt like the pieces you build the contraptions out of in this game are pretty unique, the game is on a hex grid so rotation can play a big roll. Another interesting thing the game does is that to beat a level you simply have to accomplish a proper assembly, which in itself isn’t that hard, but the game grades you on three different metrics (speed, size, cost) and gives you no overall score to tell you how much you should value each metric. In this way it is up to your preferences what you want to optimize for if anything. I had fun trying to minmax every stat separately on every level before building my “compromise” machine was not supposed to make big sacrifices in any field.
A lot of people have mentioned it but I definitely recommend Obra Dinn, haven’t played a mystery game as unique and enthralling.
I don’t think I could pin down a universal number. I really enjoy when a game understands the staying power of its gameplay loop and finishes up before it gets stale.
I’ve got 180 hours into TotK and I’m not sick of it yet because I discover something new every time I play.
Conversely I 100%-ed Dredge in 20 hours and that felt like the exact right amount of time. Any longer and I’d have been sick of it.
Or we can go even lower with something like Untitled Goose Game, which was under 10 hours and also finished up just as it got old.
So yeah. I’m all about the self awareness of a game with regards to the experience. Whatever amount of time that takes is cool with me.
Yes that’s also what I’m talking about
Your previous characters aren’t important anymore, it’s a fresh start all the time. On each new season there has been 0 previous time and effort investment
You have on the game as a whole, though. Mechanics, strategies, locations, weapons, lore, maybe friendships with other players. Hard to leave all that behind.
Diablo seasons are just a character reset for those who enjoy them. It’s a huge part of a lot of ARPGs like Path of Exile or Diablo. As you can reach endgame in about 5 hours on diablo and have your complete build in 20, it makes sense.
Enforces everyone to reset at the same time and not use gear and stuff from previous characters. Some people care about leaderboards and those usually reset at the same time. For other ARPGs with a trade economy that being reset is often the biggest draw, but that doesn’t apply to D3.
I couldn’t give less of a fuck about leaderboards, but I enjoy seasons in D3, but not D4. In D3 you get to max level and get a set of pretty good gear in a few hours. I’m a casual player, I don’t play the entirety of the season because I kinda hit my limit and stop getting new shiny things and don’t feel like pushing it so I stop playing. Then a new season comes out, I’m like “I haven’t played Diablo in a bit, that sounds fun” and I do the same thing, smash monsters and get shiny things.
In D4 the new season landed and I just couldn’t be bothered to level again and it really killed the game for me, I’m kinda maxed out on non-seasonal, it gets to the point where you’re doing the same thing over and over for hours, or you push harder content where it takes forever to kill something and everything kills you in one hit. I just want to smash shit and get loot, I don’t want to level again if it takes more than a couple hours.
Basically seasons can be fun (also they test new content, that keeps things fresh) as long as you can jump right back into the game. Without it you have a ton of legendary items for every class so you just never really need new gear, you just grind for that single piece you need for a 2% upgrade.
Tldr I don’t want to grind, I just want to smash baddies, and I’m basically a bird collecting shiny shit. D3 enables that, D4 doesn’t. It’s all about implementation.
A session should be doable in 2 hrs or less (a single RTS game). Vampire Survivors nails it for short and sweet but I love open ended creation like Factorio.
Some games like Ultrakill are short and sweet, but others like Factorio can keep you busy for weeks. Both of them felt right for me, but then again I have quite a bit of free time.
If you like shooters, check out anything from New Blood, Turbo Overkill and Postal brain danaged. Those games are segmented into individual levels, which is great for when you just have half an hour.
I think it’s highly dependent on the player. I’m not a completionist in any sense, I mainly play games to have fun. I stop playing them when I stop having fun. I’ve put down games after a few hours and I’ve played some for hundreds of hours.
The gameplay loop in that sense is important whether it remains fun and keeps me coming back. Time is short as you get older and I guess I don’t really care about beating games.
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze