Poll: How long should a game be?

[Flos]

Cheap Ending? The ending tied up thigs nicely and added room for Mw3.
Would people stop hating on Mw2 already? Its starting to become really tiresome.

Y'know, I don't particularly like it when games pull the entire 'BUT THERE WILL BE A SEQUEL!' ending bullshit. That is not good story telling and I will not forgive it just because 'omg it's a game it doesn't have to have a good ending!'

It's the same problem Halo 2 and Assassin's Creed had. Both pretty darn good games, the endings weren't, y'know, endings. The entire game was based around the fact that there was going to be a sequel that was going to tie up the story. It was a cheap, "There will be more another sixty dollars later, kids!" ending. Good thing Modern Warfare 2 isn't usually praised for it's story anyway, I suppose.

A game leaving the 'ending' open for a sequel doesn't make the ending any less cheap.

 

[Dommius]

the game. So when I look at MW2 I think of it like Team Fortress 2. No single player (yes, i know there is one for MW2 but its easily ignored) But a great online experience and thats what the price tag justifies.

The problem with that is, for the price of the online for MW2, you are paying (for where I am) about $64.99, while TF2 is a meesly $9.99.

While, the online might be good, and it might increase the game time, it don't think it is worthy of a 64 dollar purchase. While I am not a big online fan myself, I do own TF2, and I would rather play 9.99 than 64.99 for a solid online experience.

But I can also agree with what some of the other people are saying as well, with it doesn't matter how long it is, as long as the gameplay is solid. I got PoP:The Two Thrones for X-mas a few years back, and beat it the same day, and then beat it again and again for the rest of the week, just because it was such a fun experience.(I still go back to the PoP trilogy from time to time)

True, TF2 is nice and cheap. I had to pay 20 for it when I got it, but thats besides the point. I'm not going to defend MW2, well... I'm not trying to defend it. But the game does have a few things going for it. Certainly more then it has against it.
+Good action film type cinematic campaign
+Large variety of weapons
+Good AI
+Rich, deep, fufilling multiplayer

-To damned short, leaves you wanting more. (Is this truly a - however? I mean I felt the same way about Uncharted 2. Was deeply saddened when I beat it)
-Some spots still have the infinite spawning enemies, but its hidden better and easier to get past.

Thats all I can think of. But I suppose your right. If you aren't into multiplayer the game certainly isnt even close to worth the $70 to buy it. Hell, $10 to rent it could be considered pushing it. But its the sum of all its parts that lets it slide, at least in my book. That being said, I still wish it was longer. But there is always a veteran playthrough left.

 

[NBSRDan]

If the game is good, as long as possible. If the game is bad, as short as possible.

 

[mooncalf]

As long as a piece of string.

 

[robinkom]

It depends on the genre. I like my RPG's to be hefty and time consuming. A short RPG is like sacrilege.

It's changed a lot over the years though. In the 8-bit & 16-bit generations, RPG's were sometimes lengthened due to incredible difficulty or a necessity to grind levels before doing anything (Phantasy Star II requires such arbitrary game-lengthening. If you're weak, the game is unforgiving).

These days, they are lengthened with cut-scenes and dialog or, in the case of most modern J-RPG games, a crafting system.

I have to say that there have been few recent RPG's that have shown me how epically long they are than the Main Campaign of Neverwinter Nights 2. Even if you didn't do a lot of the optional content, it was just insanely lengthy, which I thoroughly enjoyed. After it was over, I really had the feeling of completing a truly epic adventure.

 

[kotorfan04]

I honestly don't care, if it is short sweet and well made I will play it, or if it is a long sandbox game I will play that too. Now if it is a massive epic such as Dragon Age Origins well I will play the shit out of that, but I digress. To me the whole question is analagous to asking "How long should a book be?" To which my answer is "Does it fucking matter?" If the game/book is good, tells a great story, and offers polished mechanics and gameplay then fuck the length. After all Deadrising must be completed in 8 hours but that is one of my favorite games. Now then if you will excuse me back to DO:A.

 

[Georgeman]

I think you should add a new option: I don't care about a game's length. Because that's what I personally feel. If a game is replayable it has succeeded, even if it lasts 5 hours. If not, then it just hogs space on your home never to be touched again.

 

[Squeaksx]

A game should be set at a length that allows the narration, creativity, and technical prowess to reach a point of providing the most powerful and satisfying climax.

 

[The_Deleted]

I don't mind a short game as long as I don't pay the full price. I'd have been pissed if I'd have paid £40-£50 for MW2 only for it to end less than a afternoon later. Even if I'd been able to get online, I doubt I'd have stuck at it being terminally crap.
I paid £26 for MW2, so don't begrudge it's short single player time given it is a really well made game. And no doubt I'll make it back in trade when I'm done.

 

[Nazulu]

Well most games can be completed in under 3 hours but on your first time it should be at least 15 hours. It also depends what type of game it is and if it has good replay value but it should always be 15 hours and over.

 

[martianman]

I say if it is cheaper per hour than a movie at the point in time where the game is released, than it is long enough. Where I live, movies are 6.50 American; since movies are on average about two hours in length, that's about 3.25 an hour. A game, is about 65.00 dollars American, so I expect a good, enjoyable 20 hours of gaming. Whether this comes from a solid campaign, great multiplayer, or a combination of the two may depend on what game it is and what kind of game the developers are trying to make. But as long as I get my 20 hours of gaming, and as long as it is enjoyable I will consider it worth my money. I consider the fact that most good games come in at 60 hours of playtime and most excellent games at 100 hours of game time a bonus.

 

[RanD00M]

It all depends in the genre of the game and the epicness scale of it.

 

[asinann]

It all depends on the type of game.

An RPG should be 50+ where a fighting game shouldn't take more than an hour to run through with one character. Other games should fall somewhere in the middle.

 

[Deathkingo]

I would like to say the 50+ hours is great, and if every game had THAT much playtime, I think we would be in heaven. Yet, I look back at other favourites like Brutal Legend and Spider-Man (for the PlayStation 1) and see the greatness in their time-span as well. With games like BL, you get the effect of going to explore a lot more because the game is short. Also, I tend to play them more becuase I know I'm not getting into a Behemoth of a game *coughcough* Lost Odyssey *cough*.

 

[lordkosc]

For me a guy who works 50+ hours a week, I have very little gaming time, and I feel a FPS should be around 10-15 hours for the single player portion.

Batman Arkham Asylum took me around 13 hours to complete with all the riddles, and I felt that was a quality game , and just long enough.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

I like long games, long games with many things to do and to go see (Fallout 3 likes my thinking apparently)

But then again, a short game can be made long too. The replay value also factors in, Left 4 Dead is pretty short with all 4 campaigns (5 now with Crash Course) can only take about 4 hours or so but the game has a huge replay value with online multiplayer and new modes and such.

So yeah, games should try to be as long as they can without compromising quality.

 

[Kirosilence]

It does depend on the game, and the experience. I like to think I am a relatively good player, I pick up on things pretty well so I can usually blow through a game in 8-10 hours, some games (Like Gears of War or MW2) I manage to pull off in a single sitting (Taking breaks obviously). But games like that, that only last about 6-8 hours or so, never really leave me satisfied. I always feel like I have been denied something when a game ends so quickly.

Playing through Dragon Age Origins while I had H1N1 (I think) gave me a chance to really immerse in a game. I was off work for a full week so I had time to play through it almost seemlessly (Other then breaks to throw up or sleep). When I finished the game, I truly felt satisfied, that feeling you get when you finish a particularly difficult paper or assignment or landed a big sale at work. That feeling of victory that makes you think "Yeah, I worked hard I played hard and I saved the frakk'n world in the process I am victorious".

As much as I do often save the world in video games, when it's 6-10 hours I feel good, but I never truly feel like I have earned that victory, even more so when i manage to pull it off in one sitting. I kinda feel that it was just all in a day's work not some great victory that I could be proud of.

That's just my thoughts on it though, I believe a good game should last you a long time, more then one day, more then one play-through sometimes. And I believe a good game needs to make you feel like you have earned your victory when you finish it, not as though you were simply doing your job.

Maybe I am just an oldish bastard who grew up in the days of the 50+ hour JRPGs and Platformers.

 

[traceur_]

Ideally, 50+ hours, like final fantasy 10.

I think a good game should have a minimum of 30 hours of story, not gameplay, just the story.

 

[Dys]

I have 750 hours logged on WC3, that is probably the most ideal situation (naturally that doesn't include single player, so I suppose MP games are different). If I don't get 30+ hours playtime, I question whether it was worth my money (if I paid full price), though really most single player games I have (and enjoyed) have only between 20 and 30 hours gameplay, so I suppose it depends on whether the game has high replayability or not as well.

I picked crysis up cheap, and I've only logged 7 hours of playtime for my first playthrough and it was definately worth it (moreso after MW:LL is released). Basicially, if I'm willing to spend ~$50 for a night out (~8-12 hours, so average about $5 an hour) or spend $10 to see a two hour movie, I expect at least comparable time/money ratios from videogames, more if I have to deal with over the top DRM or broken game engines (DoW2 being a notable regretted purchase here).

 

[LongAndShort]

Depends on the game type. Shooters? I don't mind as long as they're solid. RPGs? I want to get as much from them as possible at least first time round.