A Game's Length

[OldTimer]

Banjo-Kazooie... definitely one of my all-time favorite platformers. I remember getting a VHS that contained some previews of upcoming N64 games, one of which was a showcase for Banjo-Kazooie. My brother and I were stoked about the game and bought it the day it came out. We spent hours collecting everything and wondering about those darn items you could never get (the stop-and-swap stuff). When we heard there was going to a sequel, we were excited once again.

When Banjo-Tooie came out, we didn't have enough money to buy it at the time. Fortunately, we were able to rent it, but I was never able to beat the game. I began to notice that it was much larger and more open than its predecessor.

Cut to my senior year in high school, I came down the flu. I decided to download both games from the Xbox Live Arcade and play through them again as I recovered. Banjo-Kazooie was just as fun as I remembered and I managed to blow through it in 2 days. Banjo-Tooie on the other hand...well...

I couldn't finish it. It was far too long and far too tedious. I liked how they let Banjo and Kazooie keep their power ups from the previous game; it was something that I had never seen before. However, the level design was far too sprawled out. There was also back-tracking added which made it even longer. In my opinion, bigger in this case wasn't better.

I kind of feel that some gamers and developers are putting too much emphasis on game length. I know we want to get our money's worth, but we don't ask musicians to make longer music to justify our purchases. Case in point, I will probably never play the Witcher 3 or any Elderscrolls game. I wouldn't be able to see the whole game in a reasonable amount of time. Some of my favorite games are the ones I want to play again after I've beaten them. I think having the right length is important.

I don't know. Am I in the minority here? Fallout 4 has got me worried.

[Necreia]

I'm with you.  Every game should feel too short, no matter how long it is.  Time flies when you're having fun, and all that Jazz.

The problem you touch on is really from the commercialization of games.  "Padding" game length for marketability will often take the fun away, since it's through repetition and grinding, more often than not.  It's like how pushing over the graphics for marketing can hurt the game with horrible load times or stuttering.  The marketing materials ignore the downsides of these aspects.

When game companies put fun first, the various statistics of the games are just the outcomes.  If a game is made based on the needed statics, it's going to feel artificial and boring.

At least to some of us.

[Jeff]

I put 100 hours into Dark Souls, but only 2 into Skyrim. Long games aren't necessarily a bad thing because certain people are going to get a ton of enjoyment out of them, but not all games are for everyone.

[Thom Grayson]

If forced to choose, I'd rather have a game with too much stuff than too little - though each are disappointing in different ways.

A game with too much content you can always revisit and find new things in though.

[razielleonhart]

around 300+ a pop in ESIII, ESIV, ESV, F3, and FNW. around 25 hours in the 3 batman games, and who knows what else before i re-bought more games on steam

[TDIRunner]

Well there's finishing a game, and there's completing a game.  There are some games I can play through and beat, but many games have so much built into them now that I'll never complete them.  Gran Turismo is a good example.  I used to play the PS1 versions to 100% (or 96% since I had the original release GT2 with the completion glitch).  But the current games have so many races and so much to do, I'll never complete one 100%.  Grand Theft Auto is another example.  There is just too much for me to every try and complete 100%.  But the games are still fun enough for me to get hours of enjoyment and my money's worth. 

[bender3455]

If forced to choose, I'd rather have a game with too much stuff than too little - though each are disappointing in different ways.

Every game is a disappointment!   

[OldTimer]

Interesting points. I don't mind particularly long games, it's just when the game starts losing steam is when it becomes a problem. I remember clocking in 80 hours into the base game of Fallout 3. Fairly long, but it wasn't so long that it started becoming tedious or boring. New Vegas took a little longer, but that's because it was more quest and economy based.

Indeed, long games are a completionist's nightmare, as well as for a collector. I think I feel the need to play games 100% because of some nuggets contained within. The Dunwich building in Fallout 3 is a perfect example.

Speaking of Dark Souls, that game is an unusual beast; it's not particularly long in terms of world design. Careful character building, repeated deaths, farming and other factors contribute to that game's length. I think that allowed it to stay fresh to the point where I put in 200 hours into the game. I have one character that's lvl 247 with all the boss soul weapons. I really liked that game.

The magic time-frame for me is one month dedicated to a single game. Any more than that and I'll lose interest.