General Category > General Discussion
A Game's Length
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:
--- Quote from: Thom Grayson on June 22, 2015, 11:40:58 PM ---If forced to choose, I'd rather have a game with too much stuff than too little - though each are disappointing in different ways.
--- End quote ---
Every game is a disappointment! ;D
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.