Fable = 22 hours (including all side quests)
- Thread starter siamesedreamer
- Start date
Length of a game for me is abstract. It can be 50 hours and feel too short (because it feels nothing was wrapped up when the game was beaten) or not even 10 hours and too long. I do actually tend to buy longer games or games with lots of replay value, but I also buy fewer games. I think the shortest game I bought in the past year was Metroid: Zero Mission, and most other games I buy are at least 20 hours long, usually more. Anyway, it isn't an arbitrary hour mark for me that makes a game feel too long or too short, it's how the game itself goes from start to finish. You don't have to start out killing rats/slimes/rabbits and go to killing giant chimeras, dragons and demons 50 hours later to feel epic, either. If anyone thinks that, they're too mired in RPG cliches. A feeling of an epic game just has to give the player a sense that they made a life-changing impact on the entire game world/universe. Assuming Fable lives up to the hype, it can be epic just by making the world feel responsive to what you've done as you go through it, especially by the end of the game.
So epic proportions are about the build-up... but it doesn't mean it has to arbitrarily be 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 80 hours to accomplish that. The game just has to give you a sense of world-affecting power. For that reason, if the world of Fable truly reacts as dynamically as Molyneux claims it will, it can be very successful at pulling off this feeling. And it's not exclusive to Molyneux or Western developers either (although so far, I think they have done it better than most Japanese developers). It's a mix of build-up and immersion, really. Part of why GTA3 didn't feel epic to me, for example, was that even as I advanced in ranking with a crime family, I could do things to keep my wanted/APB level (don't really know what to call it, but you know - how many and how tough the police chasing you will be) low. Or I could start it up, go kill a few random folks for an hour, save and quit, and when I'd start the game again it didn't feel what I did was that impactful. That doesn't mean GTA3 was bad, I'm just using that as an example of how the game didn't feel epic.
Anyway, I've been too wordy expanding on this... but a game doesn't have to be long to be epic. It just has to give you a sense of really affecting the game world.
So epic proportions are about the build-up... but it doesn't mean it has to arbitrarily be 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 80 hours to accomplish that. The game just has to give you a sense of world-affecting power. For that reason, if the world of Fable truly reacts as dynamically as Molyneux claims it will, it can be very successful at pulling off this feeling. And it's not exclusive to Molyneux or Western developers either (although so far, I think they have done it better than most Japanese developers). It's a mix of build-up and immersion, really. Part of why GTA3 didn't feel epic to me, for example, was that even as I advanced in ranking with a crime family, I could do things to keep my wanted/APB level (don't really know what to call it, but you know - how many and how tough the police chasing you will be) low. Or I could start it up, go kill a few random folks for an hour, save and quit, and when I'd start the game again it didn't feel what I did was that impactful. That doesn't mean GTA3 was bad, I'm just using that as an example of how the game didn't feel epic.
Anyway, I've been too wordy expanding on this... but a game doesn't have to be long to be epic. It just has to give you a sense of really affecting the game world.
RevenantKioku
PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
No. Because the "BEST RPG EVER" elicits different images than the "BEST SURVIVAL HORROR EVER." But I salute your efforts.Optimistic said:
Look, my issue with Fable is, with all the shit supposedly going on in the game, it just seems in my mind that 22 hours should be the tip of the iceberg.
Optimistic
Member
Milhouse31 said:
*sigh*, my name's supposed to be ironic. I usually expect the worst from games.
Optimistic
Member
RevenantKioku said:
No. You're still paying full price for an 8 hour game. And unlike Fable (if what we're led to believe about its world is true), survival horror games have shitall replay value.
Also, two or three of the greatest RPGs of all time only take around 22 hours to complete - Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and Ocarina of Time (not sure about this one, but I think it was pretty short, no more than 30 hours certainly), so really, who gives a shit? Get over it.
RevenantKioku
PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
Optimistic said:
Okay, perhaps my prior post was a bit idiotic.
I just personally hold RPGs to a different and very skewed standard than I do other games.
Optimistic said:
30 hours is not really all that short... I think it's just above average length for games.
2-5 hours (Zero Mission, Fusion, Luigi's Mansion) = incredibly short
10 hours (BGE, PoP) = short
20 hours (Metroid Prime, Fable [both for a perfect play through on one path]) = average length
30 hours (Ocarina of Time, La Pucelle Tactics) = Above average
40 hours (most PSX FF titles for me) = Lengthy
50 hours or more (Xenogears, ToS doing all sidequests) = LONG
It's how I see it anyway. I prefer my games to be at least 20-30 hours. I don't expect to play every game so that they last over 40 hours. Some just get tiring after a while. I was pretty burnt out by ToS and XG after I'd finished them... I remember not playing Pokemon for a while since my Red version had clocked 140 hours.
I'm sure Fable will be a more than worthy purchase- a great game that's pretty fun to just screw around in, and that's all I ever expected from it. Anything else is just icing on the cake for me.
Optimistic
Member
I agree with that scale. Although with OOT, 30 hours is probably including all of the side quests. But I'm not too sure because when I got it I didn't stop playing until I'd finished it, so that may have given it the illusion of being shorter. 
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Optimistic said:I agree with that scale. Although with OOT, 30 hours is probably including all of the side quests. But I'm not too sure because when I got it I didn't stop playing until I'd finished it, so that may have given it the illusion of being shorter.
Isn't there a sandbox mode after the game is done? (if someone already said I didn't read all 5 pages...)
I only read a couple of pages, but didn't decide to read the rest simply because I know how it will be, one side saying it's so short, the other side saying you have replay time.
I feel that as an RPG that had years to be developed, that was supposed to be so open ended, that 20 hours is just relatvely short. I expected it to be much longer because of the hype it gotten, that you can practically do anything in the game. Replayability by playing both sides(good and evil) is something me and most casual gamers won't do. I tried doing that with KotR and Baldurs Gate II and felt that the difference between playing either as good or as evil doesn't really change my gaming experience much, it's just a preference thing.
I feel that as an RPG that had years to be developed, that was supposed to be so open ended, that 20 hours is just relatvely short. I expected it to be much longer because of the hype it gotten, that you can practically do anything in the game. Replayability by playing both sides(good and evil) is something me and most casual gamers won't do. I tried doing that with KotR and Baldurs Gate II and felt that the difference between playing either as good or as evil doesn't really change my gaming experience much, it's just a preference thing.
Che said:
I am pretty sure those are 20 hours without sidequests. I know I still have save games with a minimum of 30 hours on those games. I am pretty sure I had around 35-40 hours on Chrono Trigger and may be Chrono Cross, I only played through them once and got the perfect endings. For OOT, I never finished the game(at beginning of last level), but I had 30+ hours on it and I didn't try to do everything like getting all the scarabs.
Li Mui Bai was being himself. Let's hope he decides to be someone else in the future.ElyrionX said:
WarPig and Kobun were doing that swass thing. Which I suppose violates the TOS, though I haven't checked.
Gore made a crack about the parallel b/w KAR and Fable.
They had it coming, no doubt!
20h to run thru a videogame is fine by me. I sincerely dont care / have the time / have the motivation to play a rpg that will probably spread out across several months.I'll take short, but high quality, well produced, games over long, overdone titles that I just dont have the time to scroll thru thousands of lines of insipid story.
Heck, back in the days, I maxed out at level99 my Final Fantasy 4 characters, because I had the time. But nowardays, fuck this.
Heck, back in the days, I maxed out at level99 my Final Fantasy 4 characters, because I had the time. But nowardays, fuck this.
Optimistic
Member
tenchir said:
No sorry, incorrect. I did every sidequest with those three games and I clocked Chrono Trigger in around 20 hours (certainly less than 25), Chrono Cross in around 25, and Zelda...well I've already said my piece on that, but I certainly did all of the sidequests. Hmm, except for the skull icons; I got most of them but.
But whatever, if you want to pass up what will probably be an awesome game simply because 20 hours is in your opinion "too short" for an RPG (but inexplicably not for any other genre), then be my guest. It won't lower my enjoyment of the game.
One last thing, with the FF games, how many of those 40 hours were spent running around aimlessly levelling up your characters? Quite a few I'd wager. There's nothing wrong with that (hell, FF7 is up there in my top 5 games of all time), but it certainly would skew the length of the game.
RevenantKioku said:
YOU brought up Xenosaga...which, like I said, was reported to be around the same length as Fable when it was first released (and the sequel is much shorter). If it has taken you MORE time to play through Xenosaga, then you should realize that statements of this type should be taken with a grain of salt...
Bizarro Sun Yat-sen
Banned
I don't much care about the length of games, or about Fable, but I just wish people would stop using the completely meaningless (unless you're actually talking about epic poetry) and insipid marketing bullshit word 'epic'.
22 hours sounds pretty decent, if you ask me... Especially since I thought this was gonna be one of those games that took like upwards of 90 hours to beat (with most of it wandering around, accomplishing nothing 
).
I think 30 hours has always been the "average" length of RPGs... FF games usually take me around 40, but lately... TOS and Dark Cloud 2 took me 50. Some of these games, like TOS, could have had portions taken out... I played a LOT of TOS and DC2 for teh first 30 hours, but then after that, I was just rushing to get the game over with... They were still awesome games.
It seems nowadays, games are either really short or excessively long, with no middle ground. I'd consider 22 hours for Fable a bit shorter than the average, but still a good length. Think about it this way... the people who are buying games are getting older, and being older means having more responsibilities. When I was young, I used to polish off epic SNES RPGs in 2, 3 weeks time, since I didn't have much to do at all (adn I wasn't really very social)... in college, I finished games pretty fast, too... since I played a lot after classes, and was a heavy procrastinator But now, I'm working 40 hours a week, and have a g/f, have house chores to do, and all this other stuff... luckily, I haven't moved out yet so I don't have to worry about cooking And there are a lot of other people like me - those who grew up playing with the NES, followed through the PSX, now playing the PS2... with even less time than me. Some companies know this, that's why a lot of big-name games have been pretty short this generation. But then, there are still the people who are obsessed with playing really really long games with lots of stuff to do... GTA:SA is supposedly 150 hours. You could have tri-Ace, Treasure, and Capcom's best members combine, have Rieko Kodama produce, and license the music to a bunch of awesome prog artists... and I still wouldn't spend 150 hours on it
Hell... Ikaruga takes me 30-40 minutes to beat and it's one of the most focused games I've ever played. ICO took me about 8 hours and it felt more epic than many RPGs that have come out lately (Dark Cloud 2, for instance - the story really went nowhere, and parts of teh game just felt like I was wasting my time, not accomplishing anything)... POP took me less time to beat than ICO, but it felt longer for some reason Maybe those frustrating battles
Back to Fable... the only thing I'm really worried about this game is I'm not gonna like the combat system... when it comes out, me and my g/f are gonna rent it and play over her cousin's house, since they have an Xbox, so I'll see for myself, before listening to all these arguments based off of reviews. There's so much trashing and praising going on for a game that maybe .1% of all GAFers (the reviewers) have played to any sort of length. And the fanboy attitude is pretty silly... I don't have an Xbox, since this is the only game that interests me on the system, and it takes a few more than one interesting game to make me get a system... A good game comes out, everyone benefits, regardless of the system. It's nice to see the Xbox didn't tank like I was expecting it to... it means more competition and more innovation in the long run.
It all comes down to, people who want their money's worth... People aren't gonna pay $50 for a 4-5 hour long game.
).I think 30 hours has always been the "average" length of RPGs... FF games usually take me around 40, but lately... TOS and Dark Cloud 2 took me 50. Some of these games, like TOS, could have had portions taken out... I played a LOT of TOS and DC2 for teh first 30 hours, but then after that, I was just rushing to get the game over with... They were still awesome games.
It seems nowadays, games are either really short or excessively long, with no middle ground. I'd consider 22 hours for Fable a bit shorter than the average, but still a good length. Think about it this way... the people who are buying games are getting older, and being older means having more responsibilities. When I was young, I used to polish off epic SNES RPGs in 2, 3 weeks time, since I didn't have much to do at all (adn I wasn't really very social
)... in college, I finished games pretty fast, too... since I played a lot after classes, and was a heavy procrastinator But now, I'm working 40 hours a week, and have a g/f, have house chores to do, and all this other stuff... luckily, I haven't moved out yet so I don't have to worry about cooking And there are a lot of other people like me - those who grew up playing with the NES, followed through the PSX, now playing the PS2... with even less time than me. Some companies know this, that's why a lot of big-name games have been pretty short this generation. But then, there are still the people who are obsessed with playing really really long games with lots of stuff to do... GTA:SA is supposedly 150 hours. You could have tri-Ace, Treasure, and Capcom's best members combine, have Rieko Kodama produce, and license the music to a bunch of awesome prog artists... and I still wouldn't spend 150 hours on it Hell... Ikaruga takes me 30-40 minutes to beat and it's one of the most focused games I've ever played. ICO took me about 8 hours and it felt more epic than many RPGs that have come out lately (Dark Cloud 2, for instance - the story really went nowhere, and parts of teh game just felt like I was wasting my time, not accomplishing anything)... POP took me less time to beat than ICO, but it felt longer for some reason
Maybe those frustrating battles Back to Fable... the only thing I'm really worried about this game is I'm not gonna like the combat system... when it comes out, me and my g/f are gonna rent it and play over her cousin's house, since they have an Xbox, so I'll see for myself, before listening to all these arguments based off of reviews. There's so much trashing and praising going on for a game that maybe .1% of all GAFers (the reviewers) have played to any sort of length. And the fanboy attitude is pretty silly... I don't have an Xbox, since this is the only game that interests me on the system, and it takes a few more than one interesting game to make me get a system... A good game comes out, everyone benefits, regardless of the system. It's nice to see the Xbox didn't tank like I was expecting it to... it means more competition and more innovation in the long run.
It all comes down to, people who want their money's worth... People aren't gonna pay $50 for a 4-5 hour long game.
Not necessarily.
I bought Silent Hill 3 the day of release last year, and absolutely loved the game...but my completion time was just over 5 hours. I still enjoyed the game experience much more than a lot of other games released in 2003, though...so it was worth it.Littleberu
Banned
Oh boy. I can't wait to see the first bad comment about Metroid Prime 2/Halo 2. Oh boy. This board is gonna implode.
Littleberu
Banned
Ghost said:
Well these are less awaited than MP2 and Halo 2. And already had bad comments.
Oh BTW, newsflash : I'm more of a Nintendo Fanboy right now, so adjust your insult gentlemen. Thank you.
Littleberu said:
Including MGS3, GT4, and GTA-SA in the mix...we can easily see that most people KNOW what to expect. Notice how ALL of them are sequels? Fable is an unknown quantity. It had a lot of hype behind it, but there was so much that people simply didn't know about the game.
I'm sure there will be plenty of trolls complaining about those others games, but unlike Fable, most of those complaints will likely echo the complaints found with the previous games. I mean, people WILL bitch about the controls in Prime 2, there will be complaints about MGS3's storyline, and you KNOW people will be comparing Halo 2 to other recent FPS games (crap such as Far Cry) and using those as ammo against the game. Despite that, most people know exactly what to expect with those games.
I mean, what could people possibly complain about in regards to GTA-SA? It seems to have added tons of additional content and improved some of the issues, but a lot of the problems found in previous games will likely return. So people will be bitching about old issues that were always present. Fans have no reasons to be upset about it, as they KNOW what the game will offer. That goes for all of those...
Fable had a lot more to live up to and is an original title. Considering how much was promised, people have likely forged all kinds of crazy expectations for it and most people really didn't have any idea how the overall game would pan out. I mean, if someone starts complaining about sense of speed in GT4 or the controls in Prime 2, fans will simply roll their eyes as they KNOW that the problem is with the person making that statement and not the game. With Fable, the fans have nothing to base their excitement on outside of what they are told...so it isn't as easy to take the heat.
20 hours sounds good...12 does too (though definately leans towards the WTF scale)
a 'short' (still takes me a month) RPG means one that i'll actually beat more than once...If i see fit
I can understand the complaints...many people enjoy lenghty RPGs and I can't fault them for wanted them to be long...it's just that long RPGs don't fit my playing style...especially after wasting so much time of that shitfest Morrowind >_<
a 'short' (still takes me a month) RPG means one that i'll actually beat more than once...If i see fit
I can understand the complaints...many people enjoy lenghty RPGs and I can't fault them for wanted them to be long...it's just that long RPGs don't fit my playing style...especially after wasting so much time of that shitfest Morrowind >_<
RevenantKioku
PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
dark10x said:
I realize, but I'm a hater in training. My haterade is just weaksauce at the moment.
I was always under the impression that the "main quest" of Fable was the hero's whole damn life, which if it takes that short to complete, I think its not living up to what was stated. Maybe I got it wrong though.
HalfPastNoon said:
What's the difference in putting 100 hours into 5 separate games over a year and 100 hours into one game over a year? Age has shit to do with that.
RevenantKioku
PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
HalfPastNoon said:
And holy shit, if you were to put 1 hour into a game every third day, you're still playing for more than 100 hours!
Maybe you can't, but I'm 21, work, go to school, and I can still fit some gaming in along with a social life. Does this have to turn into a measuring contest?
What the hell is your point? Some people have or make time to do what they enjoy?
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
ge-man said:
The fastest anyone here at Bethesda was able to beat the main quest was in just under 8 hours. That's without using the "short cut", but using the console to warp to each location. I think a more typical amount for someone who knows where they're going is somewhere between 14 and 20 hours, but for most it takes about 40 hours.
HalfPastNoon said:
While I also find it hard to play a game for more than an hour, I understand that I don't represent everyone from my age. Just because you/I find it hard to play games for an extended period of time doesn't mean that others fall into the same situation. And just because someone else can doesn't mean they have no life
