Support NeoGAF

[Tain]

Do you have a waning interest in games, or just play them for the story?

What? Not wanting to replay a game doesn't mean that it was only played for the story.

I mean a classic game is something you can come back to again and again.

I don't see how someone could play a non-competitive game a few times in a row. I mean, with something like Riddick, I can play it with something like a year or half a year in-between, but I don't see any sense in plowing through it over and over. Yet, it was an amazing game.

To just throw away a game after you are done, just seems more like a casual gamer thing to do.

ePenis-waving about being casual or being hardcore is, by far, the worst thing about GAF. Why classify?

 

[Shalomi]

It doesn't really matter to me. I love Metroid Fusion, which lasts about 5 hours. Then again, if you count the replays I've actually gotten about 30 hours out of it. To me, it really depends on the quality of the time spent and not the quantity.

 

[Reilly]

I like games like Guitar Hero which I've been playing since christmas (took a break from it for DQ8). It doesn't keep track of hours played or anything lame like that to make the gamer feel special.

 

[Callo Merlose]

7~8 inches.

 

[Bebpo]

Do you have a waning interest in games, or just play them for the story? I mean a classic game is something you can come back to again and again. To just throw away a game after you are done, just seems more like a casual gamer thing to do. Every one of my most memorable classic games have been ones I have played to death. I can't even remember all the games I played through once and never again.

I agree with eXxy on this. I never replay games. I beat them and when I beat them I try to do as much as I can in them (I don't scrape every corner for 100%, but I try to get/see at least 80-99% of everything before finishing) and then I beat them, put them on the shelf and move on to the next game. I absolutely adored RE4, but I beat it once. Did all the Mercenaries stuff/Ada stuff and then put it on the shelf and I'll never play through the main game again.

I'd rather be playing a new experience than something I've already done before. At least stuff like DMC3: SE gives a reason to replay. Playing as Vergil is an entirely new experience. But on the other hand Ninja Gaiden Black felt so much the same (even though it does have some new stuff) that I just couldn't be bothered to play through it again. Same thing with Shin Megami Tensei 3 -> Maniacs (where Dante was added) I can't bring myself to replay a 50 hour game just because there is 10 hours of new stuff mixed in. The only way I'll replay an entire game again is if the do something that changes the entire main experience (like a totally different playing character. The Ada scenario is another good example).

Therefore I don't really care much about how replayable a game is. A 10 hour game with 50 hours of replayability is still a 10 hour game for me unless the bonus stuff is 'that' good and different. Whereas a 30 hour game with no replayability is 30 hours for me. So yeah, I'd rather have a 20-40 hour game that's meaty than a short game with tons of replay.

 

[DodgerBlue]

Ideal game length: 12-15 hours

Age:23

Why: As I grow older, I continual have less and less free time to play games. As most have already said, "life" has a tendency to get in the way. In my situation, school, work, and bodybuilding consume most of the hours in the day.

Good Topic Jack

DB

 

[firex]

20-30 hours is the longest i want to play a single player game, unless it's an SRPG. somehow I can sink 50+ hours into those, possibly because they're more segmented than a lot of other single player games. there's no real point in listing a "length" for multiplayer games for me, cause I'll play them as long as I've got friends to play them with.

edit: and I'm 23 years old. I used to like longer games when I was in high school.

 

[Cosmozone]

I replay games when they're more fun the next run, e.g. when you keep the powerups from the last game. That's why I replayed RE4 and ZOE2. Otherwise it's just not worth it. Talk about going through the same experience with only minor changes just to get some gimmicky reward. Replaying for a challenge is a different thing but that's only applicable to shorter games that are focused to be challenging.

 

[Warm Machine]

I've never been one for the 100 hour game length nonsense. I've always liked RPGs to be around 20 - 30 hours. An action game or FPS should clock in around 8 hours of solid playtime then supply many many more for replay value.

I'm 31 now.

 

[Walter Matthau]

_

 

[rastex]

My most common gaming is the Halo 2 situation, where you have a 12 hour single player campaign and then unlimited amount of multiplayer. You feel happy with the single player experience, it's satisfying, then you can pop in the multiplayer over the next year in the mix with other multiplayer games you have.

Every once in a while it's really fun to go on a hardcore gaming binge where you're up until 5AM 4 nights in a row, going on crazy marathon sessions. For those games I like the 40-50 hour length, so there's enough meat to go crazy for a few days, but not too much that it becomes ridiculous.

 

[Pimpbaa]

What? Not wanting to replay a game doesn't mean that it was only played for the story.

I said that because most of the games I never wanted to play through again were the more heavily story based games. Any games where the focus was the gameplay, I want to play again and again.

I don't see how someone could play a non-competitive game a few times in a row. I mean, with something like Riddick, I can play it with something like a year or half a year in-between, but I don't see any sense in plowing through it over and over. Yet, it was an amazing game.

And I don't see how anyone who say they love a game, not be able to play through it again. I'm not talking about repeatedly now, just every now and then. If someone doesn't want to play through the game, ever again. I don't really think they liked the game as much as they claimed.

ePenis-waving about being casual or being hardcore is, by far, the worst thing about GAF. Why classify?

I'm not saying casuals are the scum of the earth or anything (I tend to dislike hardcores more). But I've only know casual gamers that could just throw away a game after it's done and never give it a second thought. That whole disposible game thing is what I hate. For a developer to put so much effort into a game and someone blows through it in 10 hours and throws it in the corner (and claim to love it or hate it) kinda irks me.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

3-6 hours. If that.

Age: 30

I'd rather have short'n sweet with sexcellent game design that lures me back to play again and again, than some superficial return on investment which means I drag ass all over god's creation for 15-30 hours; but never play the game ever again.

I'd say my preferences have remained consistent since I grew up playing a lot of arcades games, and those could be beaten in a couple hours. Unfortunately the Nintendo generation, and later, never got to experience the joy and wonder of an arcade, and so the art of making short and sweet games is lost for all time. >:|

 

[Ranger X]

I'd like a game this is the less filler stuff possible and keep me interested. Not many 20 hours + games did this actually. So i'd say the magic number is 15-20 hours.

But the real question is all in the content of the game and what makes the player feel he did achieve something. There's some games that needs to be short and others that needs to be long because of that.
I'm 27 right now and my life is pretty busy (i don't even have a girlfriend but i work more than most). I can pull off 2-3 hours of gaming a day maximum. (this not counting my DS time in the Bus/Metro that must be like 1-1.5 hours a day)

What keeps me playing a game is a game i can pick up, play 15 mins AND feel satisfied. Most long ass RPG you need to play 2-3 hours AT LEAST to feel that your game did progress and getting some achievement feeling. This is where a game fails imo.
GTASA for example have received and incomprehensible 170 hours so far and i'm not done yet (around 75% complete). There's also Fire Emblem Sacred Stones i'm having 34 hours with so far. Why do i keep playing those games?? They are WAYYYY beyond the magic 15-20. The answer is pretty simple: With all the mini-tasks mini-missions and side stuff in GTASA, you feel you progress in the game even after just 15 mins playing. It keeps the interest, it keeps you playing.
With Sacred Stones it's the battles. You do only one battle and you have some awesome feel of achievement. And then you want more...

Seriously, most game should focus on "what are the rewards i give to the player with playing time". Then after that, they should cut the filler stuff and get their games more streamlined. After that, there wouldn't be much problem in putting 15 hours or 100 hours into the game.

Most devellopers won't be able to achieve that or to believe in this kind of theory though i guess. In this case i'd vote for "shorter games that gives better experiences/feelings".

 

[Tain]

I'm not talking about repeatedly now, just every now and then. If someone doesn't want to play through the game, ever again. I don't really think they liked the game as much as they claimed.

Aah, okay. That makes much more sense. I guess it depends on how often you get new games, really. I think I'm always going to put playing a new game that I'm enjoying over a game that I've already played through, leaving very little room to replay. Not like it's never happened, though, particularly with stuff I can plow through (like the LucasArts adventure games).