Time To Beat/Complete/etc.

[hanselthecaretaker]

HowLongToBeat.com | Game Lengths, Backlogs and more!

How long are your favorite video games? HowLongToBeat has the answer. Create a backlog, submit your game times and compete with your friends!

howlongtobeat.com

I’ve never come close to any of these beating/completion times for anything I’ve played that’s more than a single-pathed walking simulator, so I’m wondering if it’s actual people playing the games being honest about it, or if it’s some algorithm approximating results based on content. Because reading some of the trophy guides of several games, everything would need to be followed to a T from the very first minute of a NG, and in the most efficient way possible to be within throwing distance of the average times shown on that site.

I guess this is one star I’m a complete casual in, because the last thing I’m concerned about when playing a game is how quickly I can get through it. Unless I truly dislike it and want to rush through as much as possible.

 

[SilentPony]

Unless I truly dislike it and want to rush through as much as possible.

At that point I'd probably just stop playing. Unless Im in some Saw type death trap where if I don't keep playing Call of Duty a giant ice pick will go up my urethra. And even then it'd have to be a pretty substantial pick.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm pretty damn sure my completion times are way above average because I take my time with games. IIRC my 1st playthrough of Dishonored 2 was 40 something hours because the game save recorded time played. I love checking out everything in games like Dishonored.

 

[Dalisclock]

Yeah, I'm usually pretty well above play times in a lot of these games, mostly because like the OP I like mucking about some if I'm not on a mission to make lots of progress.

Pretty sure the numbers are averages regardless, so speedrunners and people on their 10th playthrough(and thus know the most efficient path through the game) can push the numbers down. There's a saying I've heard and might work well for this purpose "Given the chance, players will optimize the fun out of a game".

 

[BrawlMan]

I rarely ever rush through my games. I enjoy playing them and discovering all the little secrets and extra details if they are available And they usually are. It's called getting my money's worth.

 

[happyninja42]

Prior to Ghostrunner, I would never bother playing a game to try and get better times. But, I mean Ghostrunner is pretty much built to speed run it. The only 2 metrics tracked between stages is Time/#Deaths. And you can see your metrics on the leaderboard. So it does encourage you to try again, and go faster. Try that shortcut along the other wall, not the one highlighted for you. See if you can master the dashjump and just fling yourself across the gap.

And I've watched a speedrun of it (not even the fastest one, just one with zero deaths), and so yeah, I can totally see a demographic of the gaming community, being obsessed with shaving off the time as much as they can. For them, that's the thrill.

I don't see the appeal in doing that in games not designed for it? Like, say, I don't give a shit about speedrunning Mario Galaxy

 

[Chimpzy]

I’m wondering if it’s actual people playing the games being honest about it, or if it’s some algorithm approximating results based on content.

Afaik, they're averages of self-reported times from users. So that's wide open for shenanigans, like if users start reporting exceedingly low or high times en masse. Tho there is also a color-based grading system to denote how reliable a time may be, from red to blue. The more times users reported for a game and the more consistently similar those user times are, the bluer the times for that game are graded. Which doesn't make it foolproof either, of course.

In all, best to just treat it as a rough guideline.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Afaik, they're averages of self-reported times from users. So that's wide open for shenanigans, like if users start reporting exceedingly low or high times en masse. Tho there is also a color-based grading system to denote how reliable a time may be, from red to blue. The more times users reported for a game and the more consistently similar those user times are, the bluer the times for that game are graded. Which doesn't make it foolproof either, of course.

In all, best to just treat it as a rough guideline.

I've found most of my numbers to be on par with what people report on this site, so I tend to be fairly trusting within reason of the hours.

 

[Dreiko]

I always try to do everything I can in every game I play but I do not use guides so while I may miss a couple things here and there I generally take a long ass time to beat things. I'm now playing trails of cold steel 4 and I just started act 3 but I already am at around 110 hours of playtime, which to give you an idea is longer than the playtime it took to beat 1 and 2, 3 taking about 130ish hours if I recall correctly. So yeah, game's definitely much longer too but I'm also doing everything possible.


My first playthrough of p5 was 150 hours, I tried to talk to everyone, max out as many confidants as possible, fill out the persona compendium, all that stuff. When I hear people say they beat it in like 80 hours I just scratch my head. They must have skipped half the game and played it on easy lol.

 

[laggyteabag]

I find the website to be fairly accurate. I actually use it fairly often, when im looking to play a new game, and I need to check that im not diving into a 100h+ monster.

That said, I suppose it really depends on how you play your games. Some people try to do everything, and some people are only really bothered about the main quest.

According to the site, if you just focus on the main story, you can complete The Witcher 3 in about 50h. Whereas if you do some, or all of the sidequests, it can take anywhere between 100-180h. Those figures sound believable to me, with my playthrough taking about 150h.