There was a time when we wished every video game were never-ending.
Back in the old days we'd save up all our pocket money and wisely invest in only the very finest games after weeks and months of meticulous research; consulting reviews, collating opinions and perhaps even renting or borrowing from a pal to make absolutely certain we weren't buying a turkey. Once we'd settled down and finally begun playing the thing, sheer lack of anything else to play meant we'd wring every last drop of enjoyment from the software, good or bad, and try to make the experience last as long as humanly possible.
Now we're older, of course, and it's the other way around. We've got more disposable income — not a lot, you understand, but enough to buy a video game without having to wait for birthdays or Christmas. However, we're incredibly time-poor these days, and with so many more games vying for our attention it's got to the point where we often can't stomach the thought of scratching the surface of games which offer more than we can manage — especially with the niggling feeling that they've been padded out for players with much more time on their hands.
it's got to the point where we often can't stomach the thought of scratching the surface of games which offer more than we can manage
Don't get us wrong — some games need 60+ hours to tell their story, to really tease out details and explore the depths of their mechanics... but most absolutely do not.
For this writer, it's the same with movies; some films need three hours or more to tell their tale, but brevity is a real boon, too, and 90% of theatrical releases would be improved if they ran a nice tight 90 minutes. Of course, opinions will differ on that — complaints to the usual address — but in our opinion a great many movies and games could do with tightening up in the hour count department. It'd be lovely not to have to consult How Long To Beat quite so much, but here we are.
Metroid Dread met with near universal acclaim when it released earlier this month, although we've noticed online murmur grumbling about its length. There's obviously a factor here regarding the value proposition of a $60 game, but that's hard to analyse because the value of $60 will vary on a person-by-person basis.
By all accounts a first playthrough of Metroid Dread will take the average player 8-10 hours, although subsequent playthroughs will obviously be much swifter. For this writer, that's a decent chunk of time. Sure, it's nowhere near the 275 hours (or more) we've apparently ploughed into Animal Crossing: New Horizons, or the 280 hours logged on Breath of the Wild over the last four-and-a-half years, but that's a perfectly respectable game length — far from a long game compared to those examples, but by no means 'short' in our books.
We've got an entire list devoted to short Switch games, and there we defined them as games you can finish in a single sitting, maybe two. Around three hours is the sweet spot, although we'd stretch to five or six at a push. Beyond that and by our measurement you're out of the 'short game' category and into the realm of plain old 'game'.
Or are you? Maybe our definition is all askew compared to public opinion! If you expect to spend 40-60 hours with your average game, an 8-hour romp around ZDR will be a slight experience. With that in mind, we invite you to vote in the poll below and let us know what qualifies as a short game for you.
Feel free to let us know your favourite short games — or the games you wish were a bit shorter — in the comments below. Alternatively, definitely explain to us in great detail how Kill Bill would have been improved had it been three movies instead of a measly two.
- Further reading: Best Nintendo Switch Short Games
Comments 194
It somewhat depends on the genre. For something like a 2D platformer, 10 hours is reasonably lengthy but for something like a JRPG, 10 hours would be really short.
6-10 hours is short at least for me But again I prefer games that have lots of exploration and secrets + side missions and grind!
Anything under 10 hours is ‘short’ but it’s not like short games are bad. Celeste took me under 10 hours, but I’ve now played it for almost 30 and it’s one of my favourite Switch games.
If I can beat it in a day or two of play, thats short.
All depends how much the game cost.
Something I can beat in a day so under 10 hours or so, given how little spare time I have.
I’ve been enjoying short experiences lately. Short IMO is under 2 hours. I enjoy any lenght in the right genre but games like abzu that take 40 minutes to beat I appreciate just as much as a JRPG that takes 100 hours.
Under 6 I’d say is short. 8 is a good few days worth of fun. Some people called God of War 2018 short but I’d say that was the ideal length for its gameplay style.
Bowser's Fury is what I'd consider a short game.
I’d say about 4 hours is a short game for me. I prefer my games to be about 6-10 hours long. But it’s also entirely dependent on the genre. For instance, if a JRPG is 15 hours, I think it’s short, but if a platformer is 15 hours, I’ll think it’s long.
Voted for 6 hours or under, I'd typically expect 8 hours average for a game
Article definitely resonates with me with the lack of time and too many games. I have so many untouched or uncompleted games
@nessisonett what you said goes for me too
EDIT:
In the end it’s the most important wether the game fulfilled it’s experience. It’s better to have a great short game that makes you want more than a ok long game that you wish was over already at the halfway point.
I can't really quantify this. I play games to enjoy them, not watching the clock to rank my investment or complain on social media. If I reach the credits and feel content, it's a good game, no matter how quickly I got there.
I consider less than 5 hours to be pretty short, but some of the best games I ever played are like 1-3 hours long.
It’s by no means a negative or anything. Sometimes a few hours is all a game needs.
It's an excellent game, but not worth the full $80 (CAD). When I compare it to a game like Hollow Knight, which costs under $15, I got well over 80 hours of playtime in that game doing all the extra boss fights. Hollow Knight is the gold standard now of how I compare games for value, and most don't hold up. Especially not this one. I'm glad I'm able to get my money back for Metroid Dread. Not worth the full price.
Although I will say anything under five hours is a short game, for me, I base how many hours I want from the game based on its genre. For a walking simulator/story-driven game, I expect a couple of hours. Any more is painful. For an online multiplayer game, I expect upwards of tens of hours. For a rogue-lite, I want at least thirty, if not considerably more. For Tales of Vesperia, I wish it was 15 hours, but oh well.
@nessisonett I thought God of War (2018) was really long for that style of game, but I still loved it anyways. I had no idea people considered it short.
Short? 5 hours or less.
Now remember, short isn't bad. Untitled Goose Game is in and out in 3 hours, but that game's fun and even better to play again with a friend.
What's that old showbiz saying? "Leave them wanting more."
After watching and playing speed runs so much, EVERY game is a short game, now! You can beat Skyrim's main quest in 90 minutes, glitchless! Dark Souls can be beaten in around 20 minutes with the Homeward miracle glitch! Dread is being pushed to around the 90 minute mark for any%. Not sure if it's broken that margin, yet, though.
So yeah, every game is short LOL
(except Baten Kaitos....)
NINJA APPROVED
Replayability plays a role as well. Is a two hour long game that can be replayed a dozen times and still be fun a two hour or twenty four hour game??
Short games are games that can be beaten in one sitting. So stuff like a short hike, while a great game, took a couple of hours to get my fill with it. Of course it differs per genre (RPGs for example), but generally something that is like 5 hours or less I would deem as "short".
Those saying that AAA games being short are just wrong, especially in the case of metroid dread recently. Personally I would have paid £40 for it max, but I jumped the gun and got it day one for £50 instead. Still kinda worth it, but personally I would have felt better paying a tenner less for it. Still an amazing game though, and certainly worth the full price bases purely on its quality and attention to detail alone. On a personal level, of course it's going to differ, but as the product presented it certainly has £50 worth of "stuff" there to justify the price.
It's entirely dependent on the game for me. For example, if I can beat a dead horse for a second, Sonic Mania and Sonic Forces are both similarly "short" in length. However, Sonic Mania is an incredibly fulfilling game to play, whereas in Sonic Forces every level has me thinking "That was it?" And before you know it, it's over. It all depends on the quality of the content itself, at least in my opinion. Sonic Mania doesn't feel short, whereas Sonic Forces totally does. A game can be whatever length it wants as long as it's great.
Under 5 is pretty short, but depends on the game some games being under 10 hours is just right before it out stays its welcome.
Dread hits the sweet spot
It all depends on the game. Red Dead Redemption 2 needs 50-60+ hours at least, whereas my main complaint about The Last of Us 2 is that it's way too long. They could have easily cut a third of that game. It should have been around 20 hours like part 1.
Metroid Dread is about right. I think they could have added a little bit more, maybe another location or two, but it's not so short that I would complain. I'm not one of those that obsesses over one game at a time, though. I'm usually playing at least 5 or 6 different games at any time, so I'm glad Metroid Dread isn't super long. I'm currently working through Metroid Dread, Super Mario 3D World, Castlevania Advance Collection, Far Cry 6, Horizon Zero Dawn, Sable, and I also play Battlefield, Call of Duty, Insurgency: Sandstorm, and Hell Let Loose pretty regularly.
A short game to me is something I could probably beat in 2 or 3 sittings. Certainly it's all relative though. I wouldn't call Dread a long game, either.
It’s hard to say, because it is so relative to the experience itself. I absolutely would not put dread in the too short category. Metroid is so incredibly dense with content and progression, I feel very satisfied there. I can think of games were way too long, like luigis mansion 3
"90% of theatrical releases would be improved if they ran a nice tight 90 minutes" naming no names Bond, James Bond
A Short Hike. That’s a short game. But it’s ruddy perfect.
Metroid Dread. Not a short game. My run is now approaching 20 hours (on the Switch clock not the game clock). It’s Pretty perfect too.
Who's paying $60 for a 2 hour game? I mean yes two hours is short, but so is a 10 hour game.
If we're talking games with no replay value, then 15-20 hours is short. However if a game has a high replay value, or a stellar story then it being that short can be excused to a degree, sadly those games are few and far between.
RPGs are one genre that tend to be 40+ hours, as they should be, as its the story that is the main driver of these games.
Depends on the kind of the game. For me Metroid was Just as it should. I spent about 21 hours in my first walkthrough, with the time of game over's of course.
@chapu2006 for me, Bowser's Fury maybe short but it has amazing content.
For me it isn't so much about length as pacing. There are dozens of 40+ hour games that do not know how to pace themselves. I was enraptured by the likes of BOTW, TLOU2 enough to see them through to the end, because they had good pacing, BOTW through engaging exploration and TLOU2 through emerging narrative. Recent sprawling Ubisoft slogs, for example, just cannot pace themselves adequately, for me anyway
I voted that anything under 8 is short. Also, short is good. I'm typically turned off to playing games I know will take over 30 hours. That being said, I still play games that long and often enjoy every minute.
Edit: Right after I posted I looked at my profile pic and thought about the hundreds upon hundreds of hours I've invested in Fire Emblem and Pokémon 😂😅
Not going to vote on a "time" as it depends on the genre of the game, but for me the perfect shot game is Slay The Spire because a single run and last from a few minutes to just over an hour.
Dread took me over a week of playing fairly regularly. Final playtime was almost ten hours of near-constant enjoyment. That's a perfectly acceptable game length in my book.
Short games these days are those that I can beat in a single setting
It depends on the experience. I haven't played Dread yet, but Super's my favorite game. And though it's not particularly long, it's clearly made for replays. I've accumulated dozens upon dozens of hours over the years.
Ultimately, it kind of depends on what you think "finishing" a game entails. I still want to replay Mario 64 even though I've 100% it twice since last year. And that's because I don't think I've "finished" it in the sense that I'm still finding new exploits and ways to get stars. Super's sequence-breaking obviously lends itself to the same logic. There's a lot I still haven't done with Super — but I've obviously reached the "ending" a handful of times already.
I think shmups are the purest, simplest example of this. I've "beaten" (or more like cheesed) Ikaruga a few times, but I'm nowhere near done with it. (I'd have to, at the very least, beat it legit.) It will take me a long while before I can really master (or at least not suck at) that game. Reaching the ending of Ikaruga (with infinite continues, obvs) is basically the tutorial. You need to see what you're up against so you can start practicing and not blow up a billion times with every boss.
Videogames are, at the end of the day, a hybrid medium. They tell stories and narratives, but they're also, at a fundamental level, games. And you don't declare chess "finished" because you won a single match.
@BloodNinja Not sure if it is the current record, but I saw Dread with approx 82 mins.
Edit: Have been searching to see if I could find the video, but am struggling to find so I might of imagined it. Approx 87 mins seems to be the current record.
@imgrowinglegs @nessisonett God of War (2016) was awfully short, so short I don't even remember playing it. God of War (2018) was much better in that regard.
It all depends on replayability. I had better experiences with 2-4h highly replayable games than with certain 15-20h RPGs. I keep coming back to classics like Mega Man X4 every now and then.
I voted for 4 hrs or less as short. But, I know that that's me, who has 4 kids I share the Switch with. And short does not equal bad. I completed Gone Home in one 2 1/2 hr sitting and it is one of the best gaming moments I have.
I agree on earlier comments about pacing. I play a lot of JRPGs. These are long games, though often they don't need to be as long as they are. A lot of 40 hour games could be condensed to 30 hours without losing much - at least for the main story. That way you get a tighter experience without so much padding and can play more games overall! And let's face it, 30 hours is hardly short.
Xenoblade 1 & 2 and Persona 5 are very much exceptions as they justified their long playtimes. I just think that a lot of JRPGs could be shorter.
@MS7000 Nice! I knew it would hit that mark. Judging from what I've seen so far, it's very possible that someone can get that game down to an hour, or very close to it.
@mcdreamer JRPGs are way too padded out. I enjoyed them when I was a kid, but in adult life I no longer have the patience for the grind!
I agree with @BenAV as it really deoends of the genre for me. Something like Metroid dread i wouldnt want to be a 30 hour game. I was happy to 100% it in 15 hours but naturally that time would come down on a 2nd run. Something like an RPG between 20 and 50 hours i guess as, anything more is a big invest in to one game.
I like my games to be at least 15h on a first playtrough. Anything below 10h is definitely short on my books
It depends on replayability value; is it fun to replay several or many times. Relatively short games (8 to 12 hours) with great gameplay, can hold more value than long games (more than 15 hours I would say), because sometimes these games over stays there welcome.
I guess 15-20 years ago, I would have said anything under 40 when I had more time to play games. But as one of the folks described in the article with more disposable income and less time, 20 and under I would consider a good short. But reading the comments, I definitely would agree it would depend on the genre.
The shortest game i have ever played = Jake Power Handyman NDS.
It took 30 - 35 minutes to finish the game.
With my limited free time at college, new releases that are short*er* can be a godsend. I have trouble sticking with anything over 15 hours over a long period of time. I will always jump at new, full-price releases with a shorter playtime, like Dread, if they interest me!
Simple;
If you can, on a whim, sit down and play the game and beat it, without having to plan out or adjust any prior agreements, it's short.
And I mean where you don't have to tell yourself you'll do the laundry tomorrow or garbage like that.
That's a good question. I've found myself avoiding some games due to their length, but I have been disappointed with some games being too short. Donut County for example, was only about 3-4 hours and I thought it was short. A 6 hour game like Panzer Paladin was a pretty good length. I think my sweet spot is somewhere between 10-20 hours. Enough time for me to sink my teeth into, but not long enough for me to feel burnout.
I feel like it depends on how much replay value you can get out of the game. While my copy of Dread is still in the amazon warehouse being prepped for shipping, it seems to be the perfect length.
I can play a good 4 hour game 3-4 times through and I can abandon a boring 150+hour game after 2 hours. For me it’s the experience that counts.
There is also another question: how valuable is the experience, when all is said and done? For instance: I've replayed the original Portal a few times and completed many of the extra challenge rooms. But in terms of pure metrics, I haven't really spent that much time with it. Still, it's easily in my top 20 all-time. It's important to me and I think about it often. More than I can say for many 50+ hour games I've played over the years.
I would say that the length of a game and the price of a game should have lots to do with this. In fact as I have got older with less time to play games this is exactly how I determine my game purchases, in fact I like to get 300 hours out of most full priced games, but far more forgiving of smaller indie type games or one's I picked up on sale.
@Pokester99
Getting lost is a part of Metroid though, so it should still count towards playtime. Subsequent play-throughs will naturally get shorter and shorter.
It took me 12 hours to beat Dread, so to me it was worth the $60. Fusion and Zero Mission each took me around 5 hours, so it felt like a longer 2D Metroid
Usually 6-10 hours or below I think of as a short game. One of the main reasons I love Super Mario, Zelda, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade and Persona is that even after you beat the game there is still more stuff to do and story mode is a bit longer. I'm really hoping with the Kirby and the Forgotten Land and some of these other future titles they actually give you more stuff to do after you beat the game or at least make the story mode more longer than usual.
@BloodNinja Yeah, I have been waiting for it to hit one hour. It wouldn't surprise me if Terminal Montage did an animation once the new faster times start slowing down.
It's all about the fun, not the length. Most of the games I used to play were extremely short by today's standards and from the 16-bit era, but they were either highly replayable, or so difficult that hours kept racking up just trying to make it to the next level. I still prefer that style of gameplay over a lot of the "modern style" crap we have today, which is loaded with pointless, boring, annoying, and in some cases even excruciatingly painful filler just to add tens of hours to your save file's time counter.
I'd rather play a game that people refer to as "short" these days than an 80-hour monster that is boring me to quit not even ten hours in. Also, it is very difficult these days to even not only get into a game for a long period of time, but to be able to consistently do so.
In the end, you can play an eight-hour game that is so fun and exciting that every hour almost feels like two or three; or you can play a 200-hour game that is so boring you barely even want to play eight hours of in the first place. Personally, I have always felt that reaching the 100-hour mark is getting on the ridiculous side, even when I could spend practically all day, every day playing.I recall a few RPGs taking sixty or eighty hours (Skies of Arcadia Legends, Tales of the Abyss, etc.). I recall 100-percenting Tales of Symphonia was by far the longest at about 120 hours if I remember right, although I could have probably stopped after 80 or 100. But even back then, those were standouts, and I always preferred shorter games with better replay value.
I work full-time, I have to to pay the bills, and I can't just stay up all night, slack off and sleep all day at work like I could do in school. There are actual consequences in later life... like being able to actually buy those games you want to play, and to actually afford to avoid being thrown out on the streets and basically losing everything you've got--possibly permanently. What a fun world us adults live in, eh?
I just find "game length" to be the least of my worries, I just play the damn things. And the ridiculously long ones don't gain my interest (honestly, they never did really; never was a big RPG fan), because my awake time can no longer be up to 95% video games. I can no longer put up to eight-plus hours a day into a game. And even if I could... I wouldn't want to play the same damn game all the time. I want to try something new and exciting every once in a while.
I guess based on my thoughts a game less than two or three hours would be "short," and eight to ten hours would be a nearly perfect time range for a more modern game in my tastes. But I will still certainly play an hour or two (or less) game and, if it's good, be perfectly happy with it. Let's not forget, many of the all-time 8- and 16-bit classics were easily around one or two hours, and could even be beaten in less than that if you know a few secrets. But again--it all depends on the type of game. What may work for a 2D platformer like Metroid Dread will obviously not work the same for something like Breath of the Wild or Tales of Arise.
I’m not one to complain about that stuff but I thought Gato Roboto was too short. I loved every second of it but felt it could’ve used maybe another 2 hours or so. I’m hoping they release a second one. There’s so much charm in that little game though and it was like a tease to not have it extended a bit.
I do think it depends on the amount of stuff to do in the game though. It’s really only short if you don’t feel fulfilled at the end. Still I do think there is absolutely a sweet spot for game lengths.
Metroid Dread was short but also felt exceptionally polished and fulfilling to play. I feel it lives up to its potential. On the other hand, I found the Resident Evil 3 Remake to be a game so short and bereft of substance that I came away feeling bitter. I’d also feel that way if I got the impression a quote on quote huge game was brazenly padded with tedium to reach that status.
Under two hours for me, I suppose. Awakening of Cthulhu is probably the shortest I've played on Switch to date, and I wolfed The Long Reach down overnight, so these are the examples I readily think of in this context. The rest is mileage bound to differ - it's pretty common for me to spend a lot more time in games than all the HLTBs would make you believe. Nelke, for instance - I just curiously googled it for the comment at hand, and HLTB claims "70 hours for a completionist"? Har har, I'm still on my first playthrough and almost every turn (out of 100 per game) takes me up to half an hour, even without accounting for the moments spent just zoning out and bopping my head to the background music. Open-worlders are the biggest subversions in this regard, especially as I deliberately try to opt out of fast travel in most freeroam games (except for many a metroidvania whose relative space and enemy density can otherwise strip you of all the restorative items by the time you reach a new boss room). Despite the unapologetically obscene backlogs on multiple platforms, I seldom hurry to be done with a game unless I want to move forward in the respective franchise binge, so I have no concern for alleged game lengths reported in someone else's experience. I've recently seen some people complain about Blue Reflection being only 25 hours long or so; my own current playthrough took over 2 hours for the first two chapters (out of reported 12) alone, and that was introductory stuff with zero side activities.
I also don't fear the so-called "padding". I'm not interested in an optional side quest (like the gardening in Tales of Destiny or the catchemall routine in FFX-2) or find it too much for me (like the once eagerly anticipated car hunt in L.A. Noire - to my annoyance and embarrassment, I simply found myself struggling to tell apart the car models of the depicted period😅), I simply forego them, but they aren't even common either - I'm the kind of player who actually likes gradually cleaning up all the proverbial "towers and camps" on Ubisoft maps. And compared to when I would deliberately grind up job AP in Final Fantasy V or, earlier yet as a kid, rack up nine lives' worth of points from a single snail in NES Tom & Jerry... I can't even call all these towers and camps "tedious" with a straight face.
It all comes down to replayability. I always replay Metroid games from time to time. Sometimes twice in a row. It's hard to say how many hours I'll have played it within some years.
And I've played a lot of games that should have been shorter. All in all, it all depends on how much fun you have with it and how many times you'll replay it. And let's not forget that sometimes one can have such a nice experience that one run might be worth the 60 bucks. That's a person and their game, a unique experience
I'm not too concerned about the length of a game as some short games are wonderful and some long games are dull. So I don't think it's strictly a fair metric. And if a game takes say 8 hours to finish, does that take into account exploring and improvising etc. I dunno, length is hard to gauge (for me)
But if a game is far too easy and and I stroll through it on my first go, then it doesn't matter if long or short, I would find it an empty experience.
Everything beneath the 6 hours is too short for me for a full prices game.
Same whas with the gamecube version of luigi mansion. I finished the game in a couple of hours. I brought it back to the store and got another game
It rarely is too short. Actually most games could be trimmed of some tiedous moments.
I never was thinking about if a game is short or not. What counts (for me) if it is fun or not.
Also, what does "short" really mean? Super Mario World did entertain for weeks and maybe months, but in reality it was only a 10 hour game at most.
It’s funny cause now that I’m older I never think of games as short anymore. I only think of them as stupidly long. Probably just cause I have such little time to game now and a huge backlog. When a game is more than 20 hours long I got pretty annoyed now lol.
for me depend of the replay value, metroid i find to pricey because is about 10 hours and not replay value , while i find game lie void ***** much more price fair because they have great replay value because of randomized of enemy and loot , for me the minimal amount of hours for a game with not replay value must be at least not less than 15 hours, 20 is perfect
(i will still buy metroid dread but only with the 33% discount and not now because i am already broken i decided to get dying light instead
Well for me, earning in South-American currency and paying games in USD, anything that is $60 should not be under 15-20h to be worth the price. For example, even though I loved while it lasted, Link´s Awakening for Switch was a disappointment due to it´s lenght
There’s a massive difference between a game being ‘too short’ and ‘not outstaying its welcome’. I completed Metroid Zero Mission for the first time the other day in under 4hrs. Felt like the perfect length for a handheld game and I know I didn’t find all the items either, so there is replay value there.
I would take a short and sweet game over something go that drags on. Games like Breath of the Wild have found a good middle ground; sure some people put in 400+ hrs to explore fully, but I enjoyed the sub 100 hours I put into it before moving on.
@Pokester99
How do you know this? Did you stop the time when playing?
@MS7000 Terminal Montage has some excellent explanations of speed runs. Very entertaining, if a bit one-note.
As a working adult 8 to 10 hours is my sweet spot for action games. Metroid dread was the perfect length
It kind of depends on replayability or whether it's a one-and-done short experience. Golden Axe only lasts about twenty minutes but I'm still playing it over thirty years after its launch.
On a related issue I think there is a bit of a growing obsession with long experiences in gaming (and movies too really) these days. Some games need it but for me, if a beat em up is lasting 7 hours to complete once then I think there's a fair amount of bloat in there. Nothing wrong with a short experience. All forms of entertainment should only be as long as they need to be.
5 hours or less is short. Most games that are affected by their length are too long.
But obviously this discussion is about the price of short games. A 10 hour game like Metroid Dread is not always worth 60 bucks for me. But since Metroid Dread has really high replayability and I'm in my third playthrough right now it's fully worth the asking price if we're talking about length.
@Slowdive Welcome back, sir or madame You were missed!
NINJA APPROVED
For me, it comes down to value for the $. Did the game give me my money’s worth? I don’t expect a lot of hours from a $15-$20 game, but a $60 game better give me a lot, because that’s a chunk of change. If I finish a $60 game in under 10 hours, I’m going to be angry. Now, if it has lots of replay value, that’s a different story.
10 or less hours make a game short imo, though that's not a negative. I just think is short cause I'm used to RPGs asking way too much time in comparison XD
Better a short, but fun fullfilling game then a long watered down experience, that's for sure.
Though price wise it can be tricky. I guess quality and fun play a role too. If a game is short and feels a little too simple and boring then I guess it is a bit of a rip off, but 10 hours of quality and amazing fun can justify the price I guess (note: I haven't play Dread, so I'm just speaking in general, not case in point).
@Octane How did I miss that one! Cheers.
@cowntsikin It really does. Hope they do another game based on the ideas it introduced (BOTW open world / Mario 3D World islands) in the future.
As I am fond of saying, a bad game is always too long, and a game is always too short.
20 for me considering, that’s how much time I spend in games with nice side missions before realising okay I need to start playing the main campaign
For a JRPG, I would agree more time and hours are needed. At least 15-20 for me. However, most games 10 and under are easier for me to enjoy, given my current play style and available time. If I think back to some of my favorite games (NES/SNES), most are easily completed in 5 hours or less and I love them. Time doesn’t matter. Quality does.
In many ways, my backlog determines how long a game needs to be for me. When it’s full, I want shorter games so I can experience more of them. If I have nothing else I want to try, then I can enjoy a long-running game, such as Breath of the Wild or Octopath Traveler. I recently prepared for Dread by knocking out a few quick ones, like BioLab. They were enjoyable and passed the time easily while I waited.
And even now, I feel like Dread is just right. I’ve played for several nights and can feel myself nearing the end, which is rather gratifying. I’m feeling accomplished while wholeheartedly having a good time. Sure, I’ll miss the world when I’m finished, but I’ll also be happy to move along to the next great game.
If the main story is shorter than 10 hours, I consider the game to be short. If getting 100% takes anywhere less than 20 hours, I consider the game to be short.
Right now, I'm sitting at 300 hours in Age of Calamity. The story is roughly 20 hours - typical Zelda playthrough. But becoming a completionist at that game takes much, much longer.
If I’m paying $60, I want at least 45 hours of game, with 20 hours of story. Post game content is a big deal to me, as I’m only 15 and can only get 1 game every once in a while
@dew12333 Exactly. I’ve poured 100+ hours into apex legends and haven’t payed a single penny
OutRun 2 is one of my favouite games, 6 minutes or so to the goal, but I've played the game for many hours over the years. I grew up with the classic arcades, so playability is more of a draw for me than story, or how 'long' a game is in total.
Im a slow paced gamer, i usually just play 2 to 3 hours a day, so under 3 hours is a short game to me since i can finish it in a day.
As for the money, i usually just wait for them to enter gamepass if its short, but i've bought full priced short games before, like resident evil 8 and no more heroes, worth the price since they were great and took me about a week to finish the 10-15 hour story mode
Shortness isn't necessarily pure time. Not only do certain genres have expectations of how long a typical play will last, but there's a degree of perception, especially when you fold in your enjoyment of the task.
I, for one, don't like grind. I don't mean for completion's sake or by choice, I mean it's a barrier to progress. Whether you're too poor or not strong enough to survive the next area, it could have been negated entirely with better balancing. SOME games can make the core action fun enough you never notice the grind. But in an RPG, I'm going to notice my response to them kidnapping the princess is spending the next month of game time killing every damn shrew in the immediate area.
Contrast this with wandering around in a metroidvania. I usually love this. Whether it's finding where I have to go, or backtracking to stuff I couldn't reach before, that's my jam.
Especially if getting around never feels like too much of a chore. Assuming I'm not genuinely lost, I never notice I'm doing it for hours and feel that is time well spent.
I think less than 6 hours is short. Even for games longer than that I prefer them to be in the 10-20 hour range. I loved Hollow Knight, but I have not really considered replaying it because it is so long. Although the notion of replaying a game I’ve finished is a bit of a newer thing to me — I have not historically done much replaying. This year I replayed Celeste though and still really enjoyed it the second time around. That second play through was about 6h for me. That has gotten me thinking about doing more replaying.
For Dread the switch says 20 hours or more and in the game my clear time was 10h 16m. I am kind of tempted to play it again right away (or soon at least) I enjoyed it so much.
6 hours and under is definitely where I stand on this subject. It all really depends on the genre of video game and the expectations that go with said genre. Anything less than that, brings expectations and also money investment. Those two aspects are the most important, followed by the quality of the game development, plus the overall fun of the game. Graphics are typically close to last.
I think Dread had a perfect length. Still compact enough to have a steady stream of new abilities and items, yet long enough to throw at your a lot of variation.
Also very happy they didn't go for some generated map setup, this carefully designed maps brought a might tighter and cohesive experience.
So as a someone with not 20 hours a day to play a game, too long games tend to end up in the dust bin as they require too much of a commitment.
For me even though I voted 6 hours and under. It all depends on the Price and Genre of the game. Like if a game is €15 and the game is 4 hours but those 4 hours are good then I wouldn't call it a short game as the price was fair for the length of the game.
But again it all depends on how good the game is in those short hours. For example, South Park: Stick of truth is around 20 hours and that is short for an RPG at €60 when it was released but those 20 hours were fantastic and made up for the price. Could it have been longer. Ya it could have been but would adding more hours to the game make it even better or worse.
Again long games aren't always better. There are games that can overstay their welcome and that can end up making the game worse.
@BabyYoda71 I agree, short is not necessarily bad. I'm in the middle of Mirror's Edge: Catalyst right now, which is much longer than the first but definitely not better. Still great though, and even does a few things better than the first, however I don't see myself replaying it as much as I did the original.
I'd say ideal length depends on the genre, but in general I find a game being less than 10 hours a plus.
I haven’t played Metroid Dread yet, so I can’t speak to its cost.
Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey, though, are both underpriced.
It's not that much that i lack time to play games (even though i can't manage more than 8 to 10 hours a week at very best, it's more that there is so much to play nowadays, i'd rather play short games (15-20 hours max) than very lenghty games...
Not that it corresponds to quality, but to me, the border between a short game and a long game (while it shifts with genre) is generally the 8 hour mark.
Below 8 hours is a "short" experience while more than 8 is standard for me. Over 15 is when it start to get into long for my calibration.
Basically, a good marker for me is : did I beat it before falling off of it? I will often play a game consistently for a week or two before putting it down for another project. If I didn't beat it in that initial playing period and have to return to it, it'll most likely not qualify as a short game for me.
Just finished my first run of Metroid Dread just under 9 hours.
I think it is a sweet spot because I feel like I could play it 3 or 4 more times.
@OnigiriSan As someone who often favors atmosphere/immersion over pure gameplay, I feel the same way.
I'd much rather play a short game that develops nicely as opposed to it being drawn out in its mechanics.
That being said, I love longer games that keep introducing new ideas like LttP!
But a lot of RPGs, to me, feel like they could just kind of move along and finish up the story just fine but instead pad it out with a lot of same-y gameplay. But I'd imagine that something like that would only add to the fun if you really dig turn-based combat.
I agree with the idea that it depends on the game. A good shorter game is okay because if you really enjoyed it, it can be easier to revisit and finish every once in awhile, thus making it worth investing money in. I love long games as well but some of my favourite games that I have played in the last few years and spent 100's of hours on, I just can't imagine starting over anytime soon because it is such a time commitment. Not that I didn't get my money worth out of it already.
Short game = 10 hours or less
Medium = 10-25 hours
Long = 25-80 hours
Taking the p**s = 80+ hours
Depends on the genre, in the case of Metroid Dread it took me 12 hours to fully complete, and that seems perfect for me. But 12 hours of an rpg like Skyrim would be far too short.
Replayability is much more important than durability. Also longer games tend to have a lot of annoying fillings
If I can beat a game in 5 hours or less then it's really too short, but it also depends on how much I paid for that.
Under 8 hours is short to me.
It depends on the game, genre and price.
It's also always subjective.
But personally I would almost ALWAYS take a shorter focused experience over a bloated cut'n'paste fetch quest filled time sink
i.e. don't create needless busywork just to artificially extend the length of your game.
Depends on the genre and scope of the game. Length isn't everything either, it's all about the quality of the experience.
Really subjective question, as others have said, genre plays a part.
Whilst waiting for Metroid Dread to be released, I played Inside over a couple of days, it took be around 4 hours to complete, i'd consider that a short game.
My in game clock for Metroid Dread is approaching 9 hours and I haven't finished yet, currently battling the flying bug boss...I wouldn’t consider Metroid Dread a short game. I put 50 hours into Zelda Skyward Sword, I'd consider that a long game.
@KryptoniteKrunch I agree with that, short or long, if it's not enjoyable, it's not worth playing.
Probably I’m just old, but you used to only get 5 hours out of a 60 dollar game and that was good enough. You’d replay it, but that didn’t mean it had great ‘replay value’. If something is between 8 and 20 hours I’m happy to pay for it. I have no expectation that every game is a 200 hour adventure.
@Al_Godoy
So you played the game for just undet 9 hours? How do you know this?
It really depends on how much I paid for it, and if I will replay it or not. If I paid $5 and got 2-3 hours out of it, I'm happy and wouldn't feel like the game was 'too short'. However, if I paid $60 and only got 2-3 hours out of it, then, yes, the game is too short.
However, if a game is 2-3 hours long, but I really like it and I replay several times, then it is fine.
@MichaelP it gives you a time and an item percentage, I did it in 8:47 with like 43% items.
I think Mario Oddyssey or Luigi’s Mansion was the last “short” game I played I paid full price for (Luigi was technically a discount because it was the time of game vouchers).
I don’t regret either. At all.
As far as DREAD is concerned, I’m about 7 and a half hours in according to the in game timer. Probably going to complete the first run in around 10 at 45-55%. As a parent it’s taken me about 8 sessions in 12 days to get that far. So to me that is what I would call a complete experience. Not too short, not too long.
Considering I have a lot less free time than I did ten years ago (when I could get through a 15-20 hour game in a few days) I certainly feel I get my money’s worth.
A game being short isn't a bad thing. If a game is short, I will almost certainly play it at least twice. There's something nice about a game you can knock out in an afternoon.
Well. don't knok twice... only taken me 25 minutes to complete
Worst value for money that game is
I’m more concerned with pick up and play experiences. If I can both get a few hours here and there without having to relearn the mechanics or can come back several months later and not have to start over I am good. Perhaps that is why tactics, fighting games, musou and life sims get more of my play time right now. I love good RPGs but I don’t have the free time to devote to them and remember what is going on.
Resident 3 Remake that was ridiculously short, it takes 3 hours to beat with plenty of content missing from the original
Alright, I’m in the 0% 😎
12 is right about that barrier for me, can beat those type of games in a week which I consider the Maximum of short. Anything below is a short game, medium for me is 12-25 and beyond that are longer games that push that 30 hour threshold. RPGs would be different though.. short RPG would be under 30 hours, medium 30-60, with 60+ being those epics that deserve the time.
@ERIC_MACK I feel the same with RPG. I've grown up playing a lot of JRPG, mainly on the PS1, but i tend to get bored more and more playing them.
I think 4 is short. But I like a short game. I did Edith Finch in about 4 hours and had a really good time. That game has some style.
4 hours seems about right. It's not about the amount of content, but rather how a game is paced. A game that's supposed to be short can be exhausting even it lasts under 10 hours.
Case in point, Actraiser Renaissance can get needlessly long - the way it tries to artificially extend the original game's 2 hour duration by relying on the Tower Defense mechanism to level up your characters. It can take well over a dozen hours. 10 hours too long, if you ask me.
I can only really beat a 10 hour game realistically these days, when a game ends up being 12 hours I'm usually relieved.
@hypnotoad This is the correct, and criminally underrated answer.
@dudujencarelli If a sub 10 hour game is exhausting then it's a bad game and that's not a metric.
@Al_Godoy
Okay, and what does your Switch say?
I don't think any game under 15 hours should be full priced to be honest. That's what I consider short. I'm willing to look the other way for Nintendo games because they are usually so polished and brilliant in general, but it does leave a bitter taste when they're one of the few asking so much.
I felt Metroid Dread was short, but all 2D Metroid games are short. It’s the $60 price that makes me a little unsatisfied with its length. Even Nintendo knows when a first party game should be cheaper than the standard $60, just look at the latest WarioWare that retailed for $50. Had nothing to do with the quality… it was just simply a short game and they made it cheaper. I feel like they charged $60 for Dread because:
A) They could
B) If it costs less than standard, it might have been perceived as an inferior product.
For me, it’s always “how long did I play the game vs how much did I pay for it”.
@ArcadeEighty
For me, it’s always “how long did I play the game vs how much did I pay for it”.
To some, that makes sense. To me, it depends on the quality of the game. Dread oozes quality in every aspect, is replayable, and worth every penny
It's hard to remember how long it took me to beat Super Metroid for the first time. Granted, that was back in 1994. It probably took me 30 hours, with a lot of that featuring me wandering around, being lost, shooting things without much care for progressing.
I'd say an average, leisurely paced, non speedrun of the game would take the normal player about 15 hours.
Metroid Dread can probably be finished under the same circumstances in less than half that time. The game is great, and I'm sure a lot of work went into interconnecting the world and laying out the progression, but I wish it was 50% larger.
A short game for me is based on the cost. I like to see 1 hour of gameplay for every $1 spent. Its a cost/value proportion that I try to figure out. Dread is 8-10 hours on the first play through, and that again on the hard mode. Still a little short in my book, however a very good and polished game.
The more it goes, the more I love short games. I don't have that much time to play games any more, and there are so many interesting releases. 2 hours or less, is a bit too short though, because it means you can beat the game in one sitting.
10 hours is long for me now, it takes like a week for me to finish a 10 hour game .
It depends on context of the game, and it's replayability. And time is not judged based on official speed run credible clocks, but on actual time spent in the game.
For Monster Hunter, 200 hrs is short. I typically get 400+ (Rise, 3U, 4U, GU) but in World only got 200.
For RPGs, less than 30 is short.
For a Metroid game, sub 8 is short. And some will say that's the case for Dread, but not for me. The 8-13 estimates were using official in game speed run credible clocks. Real playtime is like 33% higher, so 11-16 hrs. I'll probably land around 15.
Honestly I never pay attention to times. It's the quality that matters. I'd rather spend 15 hrs in a game where I absolutely love every minute of it to death, than spend 100 hrs in a bloated game where alot of it is trudging along.
@bigpale
I said it before, but my completion time was 12 something. That was a pretty leisurely playthrough, granted, but not much less than Supers 15
Depends on the type of game. 12 hours seems short for an Rpg, while 12 hours to beat a platform game is a lot. Metroidvaina games, anything 8 hours or more seems right. Resident Evil games usually take 6-10 hours their first go through.
I have grown out of that mindset. I dont mind game being short as long as its good.
It depends on the quality of that time. If everything during those 10 hours feels different and new everytime, then it’s a good length. If it’s 10 hours spent grinding and doing the same monotonous tasks …. Then it’s too much.
There’s a point where you Can feel you’re finishing a game like it was a task for work… when it passed that length sweet spot where it stopped being fun.
Metroid Dread’s length was perfect.
Price is not correlated to length as long as you have fun.
With only maybe a half hour per day to play, 10 hours is right in my sweet spot. I really enjoyed Mario Odyssey but I didn't go back to get all the stars after beating it. 20+ hours can really feel like a slog especially if my entire 30 mins is just cutscenes or fetch quests for filler.
The one exception is grand scale RPGs. I do expect at least 30 hours on the short end for those, but that's the type of game I come back to periodically instead of blazing through it all at once.
I'm a single dude in my 30s with fairly substantial social deficits and an addictive personality, I sink the majority of my free time into gaming. 60-100 hours is the sweetspot for content in a single game for me, though some games will be higher if I like them enough. That said, I do enjoy shorter games if they're high quality. Anything under 20 is short to me.
My absolutely favourite game is Star Trek: Conquest for the Wii. It's a strategic turn-based game. Number of fractions and level of difficulty decides the length of the game. When I start gaming I can decide if the game should take 20mins or 4hours.
HOPE this game will come to Switch - perhaps with online play.
Ooh, this is gonna be tricky...
I never beat games as a kid. Or at least, the games that weren't meant for just kids. OK, simply put, Beating the final boss in sonic heroes was considered an accomplishment in my family at the time. As time went on, seeing the end of the game went from a great accomplishment to a necessity as the concept of recording the whole of the game and posting it release day became way too common, in my opinion.
I see people going on that being shorter can be a good thing. And that is true. I bought what remains of Edith finch AND completed it the same day i bought it! THAT was definitely a strange day for me, I'll tell you that. It's still one of the most important games ever to me though.
But now that i enter the age that i am entering, i seem to value long games too. A lot of open world games are padded out to heck, but the world and mechanics i enjoy a little too much to want to beat it. Some games i hold off on completing because of the feeling of "Aww, it's almost over already?" Yeah, you could go back and replay the story for the replay value, but is that really the same as playing it for the first time? Some games I've been putting off finishing not because they suck but because i want the feeling to go on for longer. Don't know if anyone else feels that.
Now, i'm not discrediting the people saying that a game going on for too long can kill it. As much as i loved it, eventually as i was playing astral chain i was going "YES! WE'RE GOOD! BAD GUYS BAD! CRIME AIN'T AS SIMPLE AS IT SEEMS! PLEASE GET TO THE POINT AND GET TO THE FINAL BATTLE ALREADY! PLEASE!!!" Not to mention all the games out there that go "Up! You didn't do this or collect this much of that thing or you Didn't do that thing, so you get the bad ending! Sorry! Better luck next play through!" (I'll be honest, the latter thing is a thing i'm kind of happy to see die out in this era of gaming. Mostly because of how frustrating it is, dunno about you, I just hope whoever's reading understands why this could be seen as frustrating.)
I guess it's like browsing TV Shows; How long is it going to take to get through this show? How long does it do on for? When does it start getting good?
On a final note, i don't play all my games to win- Sometimes i just like to experience them and their systems. Sometimes i play a game to get the feeling of it like a movie, sometimes i like treating it like a fancy expensive toy- Where i draw the line is when i feel like i'm being pressured to get the darn thing done within a week because that's what everyone else is doing.
EDIT: I should note that i have nothing against games with multiple endings or the like- It's that i get annoyed when it turns out there was a hook you were never warned about or mentioned anywhere that turns out to have a massive impact on what you're playing. Games that are marketed with choice as a central mechanic i can understand. Now not restarting the game because you're worried that you've made a stupid choice that could effect the rest of the game, that's a debate for another day. (If anyone has any tips for sticking with the game even when you make hard choices, i'd love to hear them, but that's, again, likely for another topic discussion.)
Can Never be enough Samus in my life💙
It really depends on the genre and the gameplay loop!
8-10 hours for a game like a 2D Metroid is fine. I don't know how it could be much longer without becoming overbearing.
Whether a game's lenght should directly bear on its price is a different thing. I don't know if Metroid Dread should be $60 in today's economy, but I'm so old-school that I have no problem paying that for a quality First Party Nintendo game.
As many already said: it depends on the genre. I don't mind short games at all. I've beaten A Short Hike in roughly 1 hour and that game really sticked with me and left me very happy after beating it. I also don't use length as a metric to judge a game's value. I'd rather pay for an enjoyable short game than a long tedious game.
Depends entirely on the genre of game, honestly. A 20 hour horror game is incredibly long, whereas a 20 hour JRPG is quite short.
8 - 10 hours is perfect for the sort of game Metroid Dread is, IMO.
@nessisonett People called GoW2018 SHORT? If anything, I'd have liked to see them chip off a couple of hours, since it seemed to drag on in places.
I have many issues with games today but one of the biggest is overly long games with nothing to justify that length. Some of my absolute favourite experiences have been the "right" length. Sayonara Wild Hearts is extremely short but the experience is pure concentrated fun. Links Awakening is 10-14 hours but there's not an ounce of fat on it. There's tons to do but none of it worthless. All games should be made this way. Too many games leave a bad taste because they contain hours upon hours of pointless activities that detracts from the rest of the game. Metroid Dread is another good example of a game being paced perfectly. The writer mentioned movies and a key problem to solve when telling a story is pacing. Games should be no different but at present pacing comes a distant second to content. I hate not completing games but there are so many I have to force myself to finish. A perfectly paced game is also much easier to replay because you don't have a list of boring chunks swimming round your head convincing you not to bother. Do yeah, give me games that are the "right" length all day long
@Ralizah Yep, think people were used to your Horizons and Skyrims and such. I guess you could probably plow through the story in a couple days but I thought it was pretty perfect in length for what it was. You could bulk it out with the extra content or just leave it after the end of the story.
If you can finish it in a weekend or even one day first time that's pretty short but don't forget about speed runs and replayability. To me, Games are meant to be replayed otherwise they'd be sold as a one time use thingo and that just isn't real.
@nessisonett I'm hoping they don't pad out the story in Ragnarok. A 40-hour story would be insanely long for the type of game it is.
Although, as I recall, it's David Jaffe who started that rumor, so it's probably not true.
For me it's not about time directly, but about joy. I'm almost 45 hours in Dread (according the console profile, not the game saves) and I play my first playthrough in 19hrs (save game) with 100%, my second was 3:49 on hard and I was thinking it would be enough, but I miss the between 4 and 8 hours under 4 hours arts (both in normal mode) because I assumed they would be included in my Under 4 on Hard. Happily it's not and I'm playing again. It it was a larger game I was thinking twice before that (like I'm still thinking in 3 Houses for my Golden Deer Playthrough)
Depends on the genre but generally for modern games I feel like anything I can beat in under 10 hours is short.
Ideal length depends on genre:
'Walking simulator' - 1-2 hrs
Platformer / beat em up / shooter / FPS campaign - 4-8hrs
Action adventure game 8-15 hrs
Open world 20-50 hrs
RPG 35-100 hrs
If you're charging full $60 price you should at minimum be able to get 20 hours out of the game. Games should be priced accordingly based on their length, not their brand.
I can see why Game Journalists prefer shorter games though, it's quicker to pump out reviews when the games are smaller and quicker experiences.
Also, for people saying that a game's length only serves to make it a slog, a smart game makes the content optional. See Breath of the Wild as a brilliant example. The content is there...but it's not forced on you if you just want to hit the credits.
Seven is short, I'd rather 10 to 15 with extras. Like now I've been playing Catherine Full Body and only playing a couple of hours a night but is enough time complete a whole bar and nightmare section per day. Feels like real progress.
@chapu2006 Nintendo could have sold it on its own for $30 and would have been great.
The raw number of hours from start to finish is irrelevant.
Replay value is king.
Let's take Devil May Cry. About 6-8 hours from A to B.
On paper it's a bit on the short side.
But then you have difficulty modes that change more than just numbers, unlockables, NG+, different costumes (with functions) etc.
Even a simple score mode can go a long way, DOOM (2016)'s Arcade Mode comes to mind.
I don't care about the raw A to B playtime as much as i care about how replayable a game is.
It really depends on the game.
Is Tropical Freeze a short game? I got to the end pretty quick, maybe 8 hours or so. However, I have now pumped in nearly 40 hours into it and have 116% completed it.
Give me a short-ish game with loads of replay value over a long game with no replay value anyday.
So 10 hours or under that I want to replay again, maybe in a harder mode > 30 Hour+ game where I may not be bothered to play again.
I imagine when I eventually get around to playing Metroid Dread I will really enjoy the playtime. 8-10 hours first playthrough and then another playthrough in hard mode. That's about 20 hours right there. And then in a year or two I may blast it again for another 8-10 hours. Before you know it, I've cranked up 30 hours on it lol.
Personally it isn't about how long a game is, but the quality of time spent playing it.
Different games provide different experiences. I mean the original Star Fox can essentially be beaten in about 25-35 minute session. That said there are multiple routes and different outcomes for repeat runs. You are highly incentivized to play it over and over again. Mind you even then it's probably a 2-3 hours to find everything in it. Still it's a fast paced and fun time, pure action that keeps you coming back.
Then you have JRPG's which can easily drag out their run time with level grinding, side quests, running back and forth across the map, you name it. Easily padding out gameplay time from 60-100 hours easily. They can be a slow burn, fun and great adventures certainly, but definitely are times where you question if every hour you spent hunting some rare item was really worth it. Mind you there is a joy in grinding as well for those who get into it.
Pacing is important from genre to genre, and ultimately I boil it down to the overall experience. If I had a great time, and the game left a lasting impression, or makes me want to go back and replay it, who cares if it was only 3 or 4 hours to complete it. Personally I don't equate time completion with $$$ value. It can be just as challenging developing a 6 hour game as developing a 40 hour game.
Also, the time I spend on a game is more valuable than the money, so the question I often ask myself is "is it worth the amount of time I spend on it"?
The shorter the better for me. My gaming time is very limited. When they announce a game is like 10 hours long.. I'm out.
Like AngryJoe famously said... "4 HOURS?!?". That's a short game, especially at full price.
I think a lot of people are confusing their official in game clock time on Metroid Dread (which doesn’t include time for the parts of runs where you die since the save, or time spent looking at the map) with their actual time spent playing the game in total
I'm perfectly happy with the length of Metroid Dread. And the the length of it means there's a good chance that I'll be able to replay it. And that's the thing I really regret about modern games, some of them are just too long to go back and revisit. I'd love to be able to revisit some of the jrpgs I've played through but they're just too long for that. Honestly, one of my biggest gripes with a lot of rpgs is that they do seem to be padded out just for length sake.
"Length" can only really be estimated, and the quality of the content can drastically change the real amount of time someone spends on a game, whether it's a completionist run or grinding out routes for speedruns or alternative experiences.
I recall my first time beating Super Metroid with an in-game time of 12 hours, without getting 100% items back in 1998/99, which technically puts it at maybe the 15-20 hour mark if I went to look for all the items without additional help. Now, the in-game time can read 90 minutes with 100% items due to lots of well thought-out routes for minor enthusiasts, much less hardcore speedrunners.
But like, how many hours did the speedrunners themselves grind the game out just to come up with those routes? 100 hours? Over 1000 hours? Most likely a lot of these people who enjoyed this 12 hour game have put in well over 5000 hours or more for just one game of the series.
At the end of the day, the length debate comes off as ignorant of what exactly experiencing a game is. They're honestly so much more than that.
I'm fine with a 2 hour game if it's cheap (like the one dollar Toree 2 which was fun for the short time it lasted). There are also a lot of cute 10 dollar games out there which take around 5 hours.
More expensive (enjoyable) games I usually prefer 10-20 hours. I have to reaaaally like a game to play 30+ hours.
If I'm going to buy a $60 game I expect to get 30 hours out of it. This doesn't have to be all in the first playthrough but a 10 hour first playthrough tells me I'd need to play the game enough to beat it 3 times and then some to get full value from it. I would have preferred hearing it took closer to 15 hours on first playthrough.
Yeah it really depends on the game.
The thing is that most games don't expect me to sink 100+ hours into the game multiple times. Metroid Dread expects me to sink 4-20 hours at least 4 times. My first normal mode playthrough took 18 hours. I now know that the speedrunning reward goal is completing under 4 hours. To do that will probably mean sinking far more than 4 times as I'll need several playthroughs to get the game down cold enough to shave off my time to get that reward. Metroid games are made to expand and tighten in timeplay.
Arguing that Metroid Dread is "too short" because if you're really good you can make it short is a rather silly argument. The only people making it really short are the people who have honed the tools by playing either Metroid Dread or other Metroid games that play similarly enough time that they've poured enough hours into the game that they shouldn't be arguing it's too short for $60.
Pretty much, $ ≠ time sunk. Value of a game is not solely built on how many hours you can fill with them. The value is obtained from how much fulfillment the time you spend with it is. Metroid games are of course not tiny little microgames but somewhat larger affairs. So they should be robust enough games to accomodate more playtime. But fundamentally, making Metroid so big that you can't speed through it defeats the purpose of 2D Metroid.
There's an argument to be made that it hurts 3D Metroid too - the biggest complaint from Metroid fans towards the Prime subseries is that the games play too slowly. As someone who loves the scanning visor, I adore those games and can sink hundreds of hours into them, scanning everything and exploring every nook and cranny in a single playthrough. But in contrast to 2D Metroid, they don't have a speedrun built-in reward mechanic. They're designed to reward finding everything, but not to reward racing through. 2D Metroid games favour speed over 100% Completion, though both are important goals to strive for. That balance is what gives 2D Metroid longevity even while being a game that I can watch someone like Oatsngoats achieve record times that I could only dream of.
@ap0001 Metroid Dread took me 18 hours to beat on first playthrough, but I hear a lot of people said it took them 10-11 hours. I was a bit obsessive about trying to fill in those dark spots on the map though, which made the escape sequence all the more frustrating since there's not enough time to 100% the last area of the Map and still survive. I think the game will easily give me more than 30 hours, probably going to give me 60 hours before I've unlocked all the gallery rewards…
I said 10 but really I would go with 12. 10-12 being the top end of something short to me.
My Metroid Dread clear time was under 10 hours but the time via my profile was 15 hours. A lot of deaths for me learning the bosses.
7-15 hours is pretty much the sweet spot for me. If I’m only casually interested in a game, I’ll still take a chance on it if I think it’s less than 15 hours. I generally only play 15-25 hour games if I’m sure I’ll like them, and I usually avoid games 25 hours and longer altogether unless it’s something I’m absolutely dying to play.
One thing that's worth noting with Metroid Dread and isn't being properly reflected is that the clock only counts deathless, unpaused, mapless playtime. The average player is spending hours on the menu, from reading to tutorials to checking upgrades, but mostly studying the map, setting markers, etc. And the average player is probably dying dozens of hundreds of times. None of this play time is clocked.
I wouldn't be surprised if Metroid Dread was offering 15-25 hours for many "average" gamers. I've already seen a number of people claim their Switch profile showing 15-20+ hours played even with a completion time of 8-12 hours. And that game time counts. It's not like Dragon Quest freezes the clock when you hit up the menu or Tales when you retry a rough boss fight for the tenth time.
For me it’s more about having a main story campaign that isn’t too long, but a lot of post game or collectibles. I like to come back to my favorite games and it’s a shame when you reach the credits and that’s all there is. I like to have an excuse to stay and explore the game world a little longer, Yknow?
Kinda depends, for an indie an hour is short unless it's an hour per run and you're supposed to replay it (e.g. The Binding of Isaac). For a big budget game 6 hours may feel short. Surprisingly I put 40 hours into Akrkham City and that felt like it was overstating its welcome (but I wanted to 100% Riddler trophies and side missions).
"short" doesn't necessarily have to do with hours. a walking simlulator thats 30 hours long might be pretty long. A Fallout game of the same length might be pretty short. When I played Inside, I thought its gonna be pretty short from what I read and in the end I was surprised how much longer than expected it kept me going. There are many differing perceptions out there.
And games like Mario's Odyssey might disrupt these perceptions even more as I coudn't tell if Odyssey is a long or a short game. The main story can be played through failry quick. Then there are certain things to unlock that will take more time. Then theres advanced stuff. Then theres the really difficult stuff. Then theres completionist stuff. So is it a long game?
6 hrs and under becomes a pretty short game, and I will not get a $60 or higher price game under that game length time.
$40 or less is fine. Ofcourse depending on the quality of the game.
I don’t expect/desire every game to be some +30 hr epic for $60 or more.
It does NOT mean that the <6 hr game is trash, not at all. Just a value proposition, it’s not worth $60
Funny, a Hades run is about an hour (and you want to beat it in less than an hour) yet I've spend nearly 150 hours in that game...
First playthrough Metroid Dread was 17 hours, I knew that was going to be a short game so I took my time since I sincerely think I could have beat it in less that 15 hours. It's not a short game, but I wanted to last more since I waited 19 years for it and as someone said above, Hollow Knight it's now the benchmark against all metroidvanias will be me measure. Mercurysteam did a fine job (specially on the sound department) but I can only dream what team cherry would have come up with if given the chance
Every Resident Evil game can be beaten in just a few hours. Final Fantasy 7 original can be finished in 20. When I was a kid it took me years to finish the original Zelda the first time. I can beat it in around an hour now, with my best time a little under, and I love every minute and play it repeatedly. Seriously, when I get manic and need Zelda I will play that game seven or eight times back to back, and I’ve done three hearts, wood sword, and no sword challenges. The same goes for Resident Evil 1/2/3 (and remakes and village) and Symphony of the Night. These are classic games sold at $50 that still hold up and can be cleared quickly or deliberately.
Mainline Metroid has never been a 50-100 hour series and most games of this type are not. The only metroidvania type titles I’ve spent 50 hours on in a single playthrough are Bloodstained (quests and collecting) and Hollow Knight (wandering around wondering what the hell to do). I loved Bloodstained and even with all the added updates haven’t gone back. Hollow Knight was a pleasure but I wouldn’t want to start from the beginning again, it’s a slog and even at the end you don’t get the feeling of “I am at full power.” I’ve already played Dread three times though and will continue going back, just like I have with the others in the series, and my most loved games. Dread actually took me longer to beat on first playthrough (12ish) than any Resident Evil game, which I consider to be loose Metroid types.
Metroid games are tense, dark, straight forward action adventures each with a clear primary goal to resolve in what I think of as a somewhat loosely based real time setting.
RPG elements work in these games, side quests and side characters work in these games, but Metroid is Metroid. Samus will blast around at Mach 5, investigate, find everything, kill it all, and be home in time for baseball.
These days I don't play anything longer than 10 hours. That's when the game stops being fun to me, when it just becomes recycled gameplay over and over again.
People think longer games are worth $60 but really... Is doing the same actions over and over, just because it keeps you longer, really valuable time spent?
As someone without a lot of free time I prefer short games. I hate that some reviewers treat that as a con when its a pro to me. 😄
It depends on the genre. 8 hours is long for a fighting game’s single player mode, moderate for a Metroid like game, and short for an RPG.
Depends on the intensity of the game. For a bullet hell shooter 15 mins might be short, but still get the adrenaline pumping if it is good. A long bullet hell drawn out for 4 hours would be tedious, repetitive and overstayed it's welcome. A 4 hour adventure, however, with less intensity might seem short and pointless to even play again, because you can remember it.
One of my favourite games was Resident Evil 2(original), which i could play through under 2 hours per character, but the alternate runs were different enough to warrant the 4+ play throughs, to nail the S ranks etc. So even short games can be made in such a way that they have alot more content than it seems at first. Metroid is an exploratory adventure so 8 hours should be about right.
One thing i'll say about Dread, it feels like a £30-£35 3DS or Wii U game, not a big budget £50 game, so from that perspective i understand why people are bemoaning it's brevity.
Rpg players say Chrono trigger is a short game at a mere 18 hours.
Dread is a short game deal with it. Too expensive compared to other longer AAA games
I would say anything under 8-10 hours is short if its in the 6 hour region then it better be good with extra modes or leader boards something to keep you coming back. I remember back in the day when there was no Internet it wasn't as simple as it is now to make a choice buying a game you had limited options. Buy a gaming magazine, word of mouth/ borrow the game off a friend or look at the back of the box and make a decision off the pictures. The way I view it is quality over quantity no matter If its short or long all that matters if its good as it's your own time and money your spending.
Surely it depends on the game itself and what it needs. It shouldn't be about cost, or the longer the better. Some games would get dragged out, some games would be cut short. Something like Donut County for example is perfectly short for what it is, whereas some could argue Breath of the Wild is pointlessly long for the amount you get out of it towards the end. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Most games take me a lot longer than the average player. I wouldn't call me a completionist but I do try to uncover as much as I can.
<4hrs is short. A 2D platform game 8-10hrs is perfect. I need a bit longer anyway. For a shooter 15-20hrs are perfect IMHO. RPGs 40-60hrs. If they get to long I get the feeling never to complete it.
I think developers should concentrate on good writing and storytelling instead of making the games longer and even longer these days.
@BenAV Agreed but I had to pick the last choice since it made me chuckle
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...