Comfortable length for RPG games

[StaticSpine]

I'm kind disappointed by recent attempts of devs to make games as lengthy as possible (I'm looking at you D:OS & W2) and packing them with tons of filler, so the games become tiresome.

On the other hand I expect a lot from TToN and AoD, because they have a lot of content, BUT most of it will not be available during a single playthrough and the playthroughs are not intended to be lengthy.

What do you think about this?

And what is your preferable length for a single playthrough?

 

[nikolokolus]

When I was younger and didn't have as many responsibilities, anything less than 60 hours to complete an RPG would have irritated me. Any more now, it feels like 30-50 hours is kind of a sweet spot- at least if I'm playing a linear game to completion. If the game has a lot of procedural elements that make each play through feel unique, I sometimes end up investing hundreds of hours over the course of years; e.g something like Nethack.

 

[Snorkack]

It highly depends. I finished the South Park RPG in a bit more than 10 hours and so and was quite satisfied. It did not overstay its welcome because there is only so much South Park that I can enjoy in one piece.
On the other hand I easily wasted ~200 hours or so on Morrowind because there was so much to discover and during each playthrough you could find another interesting Detail. Although you could finish the main quest in a few hours (minutes with cheese).
Since it's hard to compare these two RPG's and there are still tons of other types, I find it quite hart to generalise this. But when pressed I'd advocate for 20-30 hours for finishing the main quest the first time, since the 20 hours mark is when most good-but-not-perfect games start to bore me.

 

[StaticSpine]

When I was younger and didn't have as many responsibilities, anything less than 60 hours to complete an RPG would have irritated me. Any more now, it feels like 30-50 hours is kind of a sweet spot- at least if I'm playing a linear game to completion. If the game has a lot of procedural elements that make each play through feel unique, I sometimes end up investing hundreds of hours over the course of years; e.g something like Nethack.

It highly depends. I finished the South Park RPG in a bit more than 10 hours and so and was quite satisfied. It did not overstay its welcome because there is only so much South Park that I can enjoy in one piece.
On the other hand I easily wasted ~200 hours or so on Morrowind because there was so much to discover and during each playthrough you could find another interesting Detail. Although you could finish the main quest in a few hours (minutes with cheese).
Since it's hard to compare these two RPG's and there are still tons of other types, I find it quite hart to generalise this. But when pressed I'd advocate for 20-30 hours for finishing the main quest the first time, since the 20 hours mark is when most good-but-not-perfect games start to bore me.

Bros, I forgot to mention. The time for a single playthrough.

 

[LeStryfe79]

This thread is ruined.

 

[octavius]

I don't really know how many hours I spend on a game, but games that kind of overstayed their welcome include great games like Magic Candle and Wizardry 7.

 

[Metro]

Where's muh 30-40 option? 20-30 is good. Past that is hard to pull off without it being due to filler. Shorter than 20 is pretty questionable.

 

[Lemming42]

I voted 10-20, but I prefer it when the length of the game largely rests with how the player approaches it. For example, you can technically beat Fallout 2 in about 20 minutes, but it's left to the player to decide how much they want to take from the game.

 

[Metro]

I'm assuming the times are for 'average/legit' playthroughs.

 

[StaticSpine]

I voted 10-20, but I prefer it when the length of the game largely rests with how the player approaches it. For example, you can technically beat Fallout 2 in about 20 minutes, but it's left to the player to decide how much they want to take from the game.

Yeah, but you know, 20 minutes is not a normal playthrough. I mean, if you play the game for the first time, there is no way you beat Fo2 in 20 minutes. (Though I aggree, the ability to do so is nice).

 

[StaticSpine]

I'm assuming the times are for 'average/legit' playthroughs.

Exactly.

 

[Siveon]

I'd say 30-50. I've rarely played a game that felt fresh after 50 hours of game-time. 20 hours is a bit on the short side, and 10 hours or lower is basically the RPG equivalent of blue balls.

 

[Lilura]

"Role-playing game games".

 

[treborSux]

games that kind of overstayed their welcome include great games like Magic Candle and Wizardry 7.

W7 was one of the longest games I've ever played, but I enjoyed most of it, and it's length was fine as long as you're aware of the investment you're putting into it.

People always complain "Now that I'm older I don't have time for long games" So maybe just play less games and savor the ones you do play. Or stop playing games altogether if they've become such a burden.

 

[CryptRat]

- I am sometimes (often?) disappointed when i spend less then 40 hours in a game where most of (all) the content is available in one playthrough.

- 25 hours are correct if the reason is that there are many things that i haven't see (and will probably never see, in 99% of the games, i do only one playthrough).

I voted 50+ hours because i'm much tolerant to filler content and there aren't so many games that i consider good but too long.

 

[valcik]

I've finished shitload of role-playing games, both digital and PnP, without actually counting how many hours they took. Besides, a hour spend with old BIS Fallout is being worth hundreds times as much as a hour spend with some shitty modern bethesdian crap for me, so it all comes down to quality of game in the end.

 

[DraQ]

Between 30h and infinity.

 

[Greatness]

Ideally I'd like them to last as long as they can whilst still retaining quality of content.

Of course I prefer good games to be as lengthy as possible, but I also hate when great games are diminished by piling on tons of filler. So whilst I love the 60+ hour RPGs, realisticly most of the them start to degrade by around the 20-30 hour mark and probably would've been better off limiting their scope.

 

[pippin]

Between 20 and 60. Less than that feels like you've been mugged (which is why it's better to sell your game with an editor, if it's too short), and more than 60 feels like the devs took that desig choice to be edgy. There are exceptions, of course (I'd still replay those 90 hours of New Vegas any day), but that range feels comfortable to me.

 

[Mustawd]

I voted 30-50, but I prefer the lower end (30-40). I'd rather devs focus on tighter gameplay and expand their story via expansions or sequels. No need to make everything "epic!".

For decent to ok games 20-30 hours is sufficient.

 

[Damned Registrations]

All else being equal, more is better. I'd rather have, for example, Might and Magic 3-5 all strung together as one game, than any of them individually.

In practice, there's a tradeoff between quality and quantity, and there's no one length that makes an rpg suck because it's too short or become passable because it's long enough. There are good and worthless games at both extremes.

 

[Invictus]

It all depends on the kind of game; grindy combatfest games like JRPGS can become boring after the 30 hour mark, while Wiz 7 is one of my favorites and it was easily a 150 hour game (sans restarts) which kept me enterianed for almost 3 months throughout. Other than sandbox games where you can pretty much waste your to time picking ingredientes or crafting I think most modern games lose a lot of their charm around the 60 hour mark; even games like Dark Souls tend to drop around the 2\3 mark (albeit because of less polished final levels) but I rather have a game like Torment which ended maybe too quickly and left me wanting for more, or a 25 hour game than lets me replay with another char build than a 60+ hour masterpiece which I kind of get bored with and never finish or that it feels like a chore to finish. Of course a point can be made about games which you have to "learn" on the first run but you can do on faster runs (like F2 or Dark souls) if you know what you are doing

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well, obviously 50+ hours of good content would be awesomeall around, but that's not going to happen so I guess 30-50. But I play at a snail's pace ("nice wall textures on this corridor") so for other people that might be 20-30.

I'm assuming the times are for 'average/legit' playthroughs.

Exactly.

It's hard to determine that on immense games that let you explore at your own pace. What counts as a "legit" playthrough of Morrowind or Fallout 2, for example?

 

[Melan]

The lower half of 30-50 hours, assuming good content, mechanical depth and enjoyable gameplay, is about the right length for a game to feel like an accomplishment. Short and sweet games are also okay, but for this purpose, I don't really choose RPGs.

Huge epics like Wizardry VII should be rare, and limited to the best of the best. I played W7 over three years (no Internet back then, and only a very vague walkthrough to help me through the incredibly hard spots), and that experience defined my first decade of gaming; finally solving it felt like a rite of passage. I don't know if I would ever dedicate so much time to an RPG; and if I would, I don't know if I could, two decades older. I invested into Grimoire even though I knew it was an incredibly risky venture because it has that promise of a game which could sustain my interest for a long time. The demos seem to confirm that promise.

But I would not set aside 100 hours or something for a game that's just kinda-sorta good. Not anymore.

 

[Redlands]

games that kind of overstayed their welcome include great games like Magic Candle and Wizardry 7.

W7 was one of the longest games I've ever played, but I enjoyed most of it, and it's length was fine as long as you're aware of the investment you're putting into it.

People always complain "Now that I'm older I don't have time for long games" So maybe just play less games and savor the ones you do play. Or stop playing games altogether if they've become such a burden.

I completely agree, though with one caveat.

Some games are just poorly designed, and this can cause repeated play-throughs to become chores: not because I don't have the time to play the games, but because the game isn't treating my time as worthwhile. I mean, you can have no saving in combat (and be fine) and cut-scenes before combat (and be fine), but the combination of the two will make a game drag unnecessarily.