What is the ideal video game length?

>>389222412
However long you want to play it

>>389222412
was ds3 as bad as ds2?

also preferred game length changes per genre

File: maxresdefault (3).jpg (76KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1280x720px

>>389222412

25 hours.

however long the game is captivating to you ya fucking idiot dumb

>>389222517
no

>>389222517
DaS2 with Scholar is the best Souls game
DaS3 is ok for a beat em up like Final Fight.

>>389222412
>67 hours
This is false.

>>389222569
>>389222517
It's worse.

>>389222412
Infinite.

I'm still playing SimCity 4, I don't need a scripted campaign to entertain me.

Not shit.

>>389222412
90 min

>>389222412
Depends on the content and the price you're paying for it. A game like Journey can be completed in less than two hours but its a more enjoyable experience than 99.9% of games.

>>389222412
for a typical adventure style game? gotta be at least 40 hours these days or it'll feel too short.

>>389222412
15 hours for FPS
30 hours for RTS/RTT
50 hours for RPG

>>389222412
6 hours with a fork into 3 possibilities after 1.5 hours

I think it depends on the type of game, how much it focuses on a narrative, what the mechanics are, and so forth. Your average adventure game is going to get pretty grating after 30 hours because the developers could only include so much genuinely crafted content. For a game with lots of white space in between, sort of a zen experience where you grind enemies or quests, maybe 100 hours for one playthrough before it gets cumbersome.

>>389222412
I put hundreds of hours into some games if they were fun to play. Dark Souls 2 was pretty boring though. I had to force myself to actually beat it and never bothered with the DLC simply because the game wasn't very good.

>>389222412
Ideal length is whenever the developer runs out new/unique content to add to the game

>>389222517
Its worse in a lot of ways, and feels more like beating a dead horse than anything.

>>389222617
t.gameplayonlyfag

However long you can keep divvying out sufficient and new content. If we have seen 99% of the game within the first few hours, any extension is just running us ragged. If we keep getting new things every so often for dozens of hours, or if the ceiling keeps rising and different challenges are introduced throughout the length of the game, or if our old mechanics are diverse enough to warrant changing up our old ways over the length of the game, it's definitely better being longer than shorter. For example your average pre-Zestria Tales Of game had a cast of 9 characters who kept getting new abilities throughout the length of the game, and all of them played differently for the most part, all of them kept getting new equipment, most of them have mechanics that chain well with other characters, and thusly they encourage a strategic or simply curious shift in who the player is playing as. Having those games be 60-70 hours is acceptable. However a game like Fallout 3 being dozens/hundreds of hours when it literally cycles the exact same gameplay mechanics from the first five hours is unacceptable.

Depends on the genre really. Arcade games are acceptable at 45 to 90 minutes.

Broadly speaking I'd say 5 to 15 hours. That covers every game on my top 10 list. DKC 2, Silent Hill, Vanquish, RE4, etc.

File: 1422048726919.jpg (30KB, 180x180px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 180x180px

Bloodborne > Dark Souls > Demon's Souls > Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls 2

>>389223121
But look at the most acclaimed titles in the Souls series: Dark Souls and Bloodborne. Neither of their mechanics change very much throughout a playthrough of all the content, and that can hit 50 hours very quickly. Some people go on to play them for literally thousands of hours too. I feel like it's less about raw mechanics and more of how the player is tested in their prowess of them. We also can't ignore the narrative, environmental, artistic, and musical aspect of games. Even if the mechanics of the fight aren't all that compelling, getting to something like Maria in Bloodborne is an experience because of everything else surrounding the gameplay.

>>389222412
20 to 30 hours of GAMEPLAY, not watching hour long FMV cutscenes.

I have to agree it depends on price. If I'm paying $60 I expect at least 35 hours.

>>389223619
>or if the ceiling keeps rising and different challenges are introduced throughout the length of the game

I mentioned this already.

>We also can't ignore the narrative, environmental, artistic, and musical aspect of games
As much as I want to agree, the issue is that even if visual aesthetic changes over the length of the game, it's not going to change much if you're just engaging the same enemies with the same strategies over and over again. It's just a fresh coat of paint on old terrain.

>>389223769
What if that fresh coat of paint is so good that it overcomes the desire to play something else? There's very few games that this would apply to, but I think it's real. There's a reason people beat these 50 hour JRPGs and it's not always a love of stat-based combat.

>>389222517
Nope, ds3 is worse.

>>389222412
$1 per hour of gameplay. Anyone who disagrees is a faggot.

>>389223483
>Dark souls 3 better than 2
If you like mashing roll to win then I guess you're right.

>>389224020
Do you take an hour to eat a bag of candy?

>>389224064
>comparing video games to candy

Thanks for proving me right. Also, lose weight.

>>389224054
>liking garbage floaty animations
>liking ADP
>liking forgettable bosses
>liking forgettable locations
>liking shit NPCs
>liking PVP-focus shit for tryhard faggots
Neck yourself.

>>389222412
20 hours for non-RPGs

What is the Dark Souls of video game length?

>>389223967
>There's a reason people beat these 50 hour JRPGs and it's not always a love of stat-based combat.

A lot of the time it honest to god is the stat-based combat. Most especially with games like SMT or the Bravely games. A nice story is great, but that will only remain interesting as long as the things you are fighting remain interesting. Final Fantasy games, being the most generic and easiest target of all JRPGs, at least provide you with many enemies that have unique abilities, terrain advantages, party switches against your will, etc. I can't name a single beloved JRPG that never gives you unique or challenging engagements that gets by exclusively on its story. Even Persona at least has bosses that use different buffs/debuffs and have specific weakpoints/resistances that you need to adjust to.

>>389222517
It's a great game, but a bad sequel since it wallows so much in the first game (and Bloodborne)

>>389224215
Extremely simple/easy game that takes 150+ hours to complete and never really adjusts your challenges beyond an elementary understanding of the game.

>>389222412
See people want to make exceptions for RPGs but like when I replay Dark Souls games sometimes I just wish I could just get to the part of the game I wanted to replay and not necessarily all of it at once. Like more content is good but sometimes I only wanted a certain part or parts of the game.

>>389224243
This is all very subjective, but if you took out the interesting world and story of a JRPG, would your interest in the game's combat system overcome the boredom of everything else? There are games with mechanics so good you can tune out the rest, sometimes literally mute the game and skip every cutscene like I do with Klonoa because I think the mechanics and levels are so well done. Can you play SMT muted and skip through (or at least ignore) every cutscene, and it's still just as or more fun?

>>389222412
It depends on the game, really, but anything less than 20 hours I consider somewhat disappointing right off the bat, and it turns me somewhat off to the game, and anything less than 15 is just bullshit.

>>389224758
>Can you play SMT muted and skip through (or at least ignore) every cutscene, and it's still just as or more fun?

Would I still get all of the fun demon designs, varied enemies, and things like mid-battle dialogue actually influencing the combat system? Because yes, that stuff takes a very long time before it actually gets old. And Bravely has a brilliant combat system that is dramatically better than its terrible plot and subpar characters. While some JRPGs have literal shit gameplay and only survive on the plot and aesthetic presentation, most of the ones with genuinely horrid gameplay rarely thrive or are remembered for any positive qualities (Looking at you Criminal Girls)

2800 hours.

>>389222412
Minimum, 1h for every $1 spent
Average, 200-1200h
I have 16000h in ffxi and 7000h in Eve online too, pretty low compared to people who take them seriously.

>>389222789
>30h for an rts
Casual.

1488 hours.

>decide to play SotFS for the first time, only Souls game I haven't played
>run off a cliff because it was dark
>trophy unlocked: THIS IS DARK SOULS

I'm not complaining about how I died, but does this game really try to push the difficulty meme? No other Souls game tries to make it seem like they're inherently difficult, besides the Prepare to Die marketing, which wasn't what DaS was about originally.

>>389222459
this is a pretty good post if I am to be honest

>>389227197
>1.8 years in ffxi
bull
fucking
shit

>>389227197
I know this is bait, but it still makes me feel better about myself so thanks

>>389222412

Genre and lifestyle-dependent. Ever since I started working full-time, I've found that the games I enjoy most usually (but not always) wind up taking 15-25 hours to beat. If I were a NEET, I'd probably say 35-45 hours would be the sweet spot.

8 hours, show me a good time and then fuck off

>>389222412
1 hour of gameplay per $1

>>389222517
I like it better than 2, though it felt a bit too much on the fast side, and the enemies do disgusting amounts of damage. But i still prefer that to the general feel of 2 and the overhead tracking.

>>389227197
Does time spent alt tabbed really count?

>>389224020
>reach 1k hours of gameplay
>Paid $20 for game
>*knock on the door*
>FBI storm in
>Guns pointed at you
>ON THE FUCKING GROUND DONT FUCKIN MOVE

>>389222412
>67 hours

Who the fuck took that long to beat DS2?

I have 70 hours in that game on steam and i beat it 3 times

>>389224020
>>389227197
>>389229115
Spotted the autistic retards

>>389222412
One dollar, one hour.

>>389222412
at least 100 hours of gameplay per dollar

>>389222412
An hour for every dollar you spend.

File: 1503319697152.png (178KB, 391x327px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 391x327px

>>389222517
Dark souls 2 is shit. The only reason people argue about dark souls 2 being better is because they're insecure about it

>>389222412
Depends on the genre

And the plot

And the gameplay model

These days main story should be 30 hours minimum for somebody who applies themselves. Long enough to take a week or so for some people but short enough on later playthroughs which would likely be shorter to not make the game feel tedious and dragged out.

>>389222412
I finished Dark Souls in 6 hours yesterday explain this one Dark Souls fags. Another reason why 2 is superior

>>389223483
Bloodborne = Dark Souls = Demon's Souls >>>>>>>>>> Dark Souls 3 > Dark Souls 2
fixed

>>389222412
2-4 hours. Honest without being overbearing.

Progression style games is all about the journey so length is great as long as it isn't skinnerbox-like.