Your judgement is fair enough. FPS games single player campaign is short. Because there is a multiplayer option exist for that game. I hardly remember when I last play the single player campaign of call of duty modern warfare. But I can tell you that a few hours earlier I was online playing that game with some of my friend. So if you think that any game is short then you are mistaken. Because if you count the overall game hour instead just counting the completion time of single player you will find that most of the game actually have similar gameplay time. The game which have longer gameplay hour like skyrim don't have any multiplayer option. So from my point of view most of the game have similar gameplay hour.    

Your judgement is fair enough. FPS games single player campaign is short. Because there is a multiplayer option exist for that game. I hardly remember when I last play the single player campaign of call of duty modern warfare. But I can tell you that a few hours earlier I was online playing that game with some of my friend. So if you think that any game is short then you are mistaken. Because if you count the overall game hour instead just counting the completion time of single player you will find that most of the game actually have similar gameplay time. The game which have longer gameplay hour like skyrim don't have any multiplayer option. So from my point of view most of the game have similar gameplay hour.    

Time is more limited these days and yet there are still tons of games that interest me. So with a game like Skyrim, an RPG I simply could not skip, I was pretty much playing it for at least 3 months straight, and not much else. So in that sense I also enjoy shorter games these days, because I get to have more variety like that. 

The action adventure genre has also always been one of my favorites, so I have more of a tendency to enjoy 10-20 hour games. I like intensity rather than quantity, but it has to be good.  I'm certainly not a fan of anything under 10 hours though, that's not enough for a good story with well developed characters. 

There are also a few games that I consider in the 20-40 hour range, not unlike Skyrim that took me over 80 to finish. But more something like Mass Effect 3 that took around 30 hours if I remember correctly. 

Also, in general, I think it's tougher for a game developer to keep you entertained for 80 hours than it is for 15......few have done it well.

My time has also become scarce and I see myself playing more and more short games (as an example, I'm avoiding Skyrim and GTAIV). The backlog grows ever longer, and I'm beginning to realize maybe I'll only manage to play a lot when I retire (Lord knows when).

But you know, I recently played Xenogear Chronicles, and it took the most of my 2012 to finish it (I think it was 3 months or something like it) and I still felt my time was well spent. So, in the end, I think it's more about selecting games that will truly appeal to you (hard to do sometimes) than playing short games.

I completely agree with what you said.  It's a real bummer for me when a game that I was really enjoying starts to wear out its welcome and drag on for twice as long as it should.  It can turn an otherwise enjoyable game into a chore to finish and it's happened more times than I can remember.  It can get pretty frustrating too because usually I really want to finish the game because I like it so much but the tedium of it makes it all the more harder to keep going.  I still always do though... 

Great blog!

reminds me of how stupid XBROKE DVD players are... "why hell, I love paying for a 4GB game... who needs all that BLU-RAY 25GB nonsense or HD, 3D movies? shucks hell fire I don't be  a needin' suchin' stuff... I like me be payin' $60 for an empty BD because Microbrib dones bribed the devs to dumb all games down to fit on a DVD, I lub muh dee bee dees, who beez needin's tuh ask developers to work for our money? I bee dunt needin' dat"

This reminds me of how people complained about Vanquish being so short. If you count all the various enemies, bosses, and moments you have to go through, then ten hours is actually a long time.

 RPGs, on the other hand, have to be longer to make up for all the walking.

It also comes down to if people feel if they are getting value for money. I put 185 mostly enjoyable hours into Skyrim then had a very good 10 hours playing Uncharted 3, I have no interest in multiplayer. But both games are released at the same price. If a game is short I will wait until it's very cheap.

I pretty much only play games with pretty deep stories, I enjoy them being longer usually but some stories need to get to the conclusion faster for the sake of the story, Indigo Prophecy was a very good ending and it just kind of built up to it, the end wasn't too far off. Final Fantasy has a more twisting story and doesn't really satisfy with most of the endings, I like and see why the games are lengthy in this case, FPS stories can't really be that in depth so the ending is usually the most worth while in short (eg. the older Half life) fair though that the Half life 2 was deeper as you went but I would call that employing RPG elements for a less FPS kind of story line. Metal Gear Solid was a more impacting story like your average RPG, also worth while to extend.

From short games to RPGs and from RPGs to short games, this was my gamer's path. I keep looking the data saves I have from RPGs and wonder the time I've spent with them, fun times but also too much time.

You Sir hit the nail on exact problem I have. I'm also an old avid gamer, now was. As I'm getting older, my back log has gone up significantly. PC games, PS3 games, PS2 games. And I think I'll never be able to complete them. I miss being young though :(

Also, the weekly deals on the Playstation store are pretty cool,  I also got the Hero of Sparda Minis game and liked that a whole lot even though it was kinda cheesy and cheap but at least I had a great time for only paying $1 for the game plus at the same time Earthworm Jim HD was on sale for $1 as well so I got like 10 hours of playing for $2 you can't beat that haha.

I feel you on that comment of free time being a luxury than a certainty for sure.  At least you seem to have a good head on your shoulders.  As for me, I stay away from the 60 dollar games that are short but instead get used games that I know are great that are like 20 to 30 dollars sometimes cheaper or even downloading psOne or psTwo classics that are a good bang for the buck.  I recently got Jak and Daxter for 4 dollars and it kept me entertained for quite a while.  Graphics don't matter to me as much anymore as it used to either cuz you can't upgrade an old psOne game but so much as long as it has great gameplay.  There's not even much story in Jak and Daxter, mostly short cutscenes which I prefer because I don't wanna have 45 minutes to play a game only to watch a 20 minute cutscene and just get annoyed.  The level design was fantastic in that game.

Yeah, I think this really depends on age and life style. As I've got older and have a demanding job and a fiancee as well as just having to do all the boring chores of life (like clothes washing, cleaning, and food shopping etc.) I find it very difficult to find the time to finish most games. I think 8 hours is a good length for the kind of games I tend to play (FPS), and some platformers. I also think it tends to take me longer to finish games than most because I don't really rush but take my time to explore. I understand that young people that have lots of time on their hands want long games, so I think games developers need to consider both markets. I think they should develop shorter games (4-6 hours), but if they still cost £50 then that takes the mick. Maybe have short games for £20 would be acceptable. 

I find that after 10 hours of a game, no matter how good it is, I'm starting to just grind through it to get it completed so I can justify moving on to the next game.

Additionally, as a personal opinion, if you dedicate 6 hours plus a day to gaming, you really need to get out the house and get a life. I love games, but there's a whole lot of other things to do that are more fun (and better for you).

Wow. GS you posted my comment on the completely wrong page.

It's not the size, it's what you do with it that matters.

Sorry. I've been waiting years to use that particular tired old joke and your blog happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A relatively short blog post talking about short games. This is just full of all sorts of win! 

I have to agree - I feel "full" if a game is around 20 hours (and if it's not utter garbage). I have Borderlands 2 and Skyrim sitting around here, but they're too overwhelming to play. The completionist in me wants to see and do everything, but those games are so expansive.

Sometimes if a game is too long I lose interest and stop playing it for a while. If it's long and really entertaining, it will probably become a favorite game of mine. If all FPS games were as long as Resident Evil 4 (25 hours for me), that would be cool.

My opinion, the FPS that have the 5-6 hour campaign isn't focused on the single player campaign anyway. They are much more focused on MP which can have an infinite amount of game time. Games like that are fine. If you don't like them, don't buy. I think $10 a hour is way to steep for any game personally.

On the other hand, RAGE doesn't have the standard run of the mill MP. It has missions and races. I felt the game length was perfect. I beat it in roughly 21 hours. I read that a ton of people said they beat the game in 8 hours or 10 hours. Those people certainly rushed the game. 

I think a game that lasts 20 hours is fine. Darksiders 1 took me 19 hours to beat and it isn't a FPS. I was perfectly fine with the game time because I had a lot of fun playing it.

 So 20-25 hours is the sweet spot for games that aren't MP focused. Games that are more MP focused can have a short campaign.

i think 15 hours is the perfect length for a game. it lets the devs lay out a developed but quickly paced story, and gives plenty of opportunity for long gameplay, and long cutscene sections. much longer and games seem to drag and i tend to lose interest. much shorter and i feel like i should have just rented instead of buying.

I agree for the most part.  10-12 hours is my sweet spot I think.  I have played games where I spent more than 50 hours in them, but by the end I was quite through with the game.  I didn't even want to consider playing it through a second time.  I also have in the back of mind that really really long games are keeping me from playing other games in my "need to play" list.  

10 hours is the sweet spot for me.  There are just too many great games that I want to play.. and finish.  Although I'm  at 80 hours in Persona 4 and I don't want it to end...

It's not about how long a game is; it's about how compelling it is. I'd rather play a really fun but short shooter like Bulletstorm than an overly long first person shooter like Far Cry 2. Sure, Far Cry 2 is long, but it gets boring about 1/3 of the way through. I'm pretty much of the mindset that most Action games do not need to be any longer than 10 hours. There are a few exceptions to this, but for the most part, 10 hours is plenty.

Interesting point 

I tend to agree. With little free time and a large backlog, it's difficult to get through games that clock in at more than 20 hours. Sandbox games have really become hard for me to finish.

The problem is , people have been conditioned to expecting 4 or 5 hour shooters because shooters now are often seldom more than popcorn action movies that have been made interactive. Lower on story and heavy on multiplayer. Take Half Life 2 , took me 20 hours to complete (taking my time exploring , taking in the sights) and once I did it felt like I had completed the same journey Freeman did , I had memories from locations and I felt as though I'd actually accomplished all of it. It was a long shooter that was worth every hour put into it.

     What it really comes down to though is.. why is it how long or short it is? Is it short because that's the length of the story the developers wanted to tell is? Or because they wanted to go ahead and finish the project for another game you'll pay $60 for. Is it long because they wanted to give you a full and varied experience that left you with a sense of conclusion after you finish it or is it because they felt they needed to stuff it a bit more so you don't feel cheated? I think that's why length really matters.

I think it's something you take on a game-by-game basis.  I don't think it's really exclusive to the genre.  I think there have been good RPGs that were kind of short, and I really wouldn't mind an FPS with a longer campaign.

Any game can be as long or as short as the game company wants to make it, it's pretty much a guideline and not a fact that the usual length for a certain type of game works best.  I think a Super Mario game with 500 levels would be great, if they took the time to make each level decent and not just simple filler for the sake of reaching 500 stages.  I think an FPS game with interactive environments, NPCs you can talk to, hidden items you can find and 100 stages would be great.

That said, even if a game isn't long that doesn't mean it can't be good.  Golden Sun still stands out to me as one of the most memorable RPGs I've ever played, because it had a great story and good artistic direction.  Granted, the first two games were technically one big game broken into two parts, but the first game was still long enough that I felt it was its own complete game, worth the $30 I paid for it.

But then, some gamers get bored more quickly than others.  And playing some games for too long might get boring and repetitive.  But each gamer will get bored at a different rate.  So, there's always going to be a matter of personal perspective to it.  I'm sure all of us can think of that one game that needed more levels, and that one game that dragged for a little bit.  But at the end of the day, not every game's gonna hit the sweet spot.

Video game length is like a trip to Disneyland. You could run through the park, take a few snapshots and dive through a couple of rides in a few short hours. But are you really seeing everything on offer for the price of the ticket? Do you appreciate the effort made to create such a world and every detail? Do you cherish the time you had to wait to get to the park?

Look at Christmas. Its only one day of the year, but look at what you have to do to get to, and out of, that one day.

It depends on the game. As Portal showed us a game even as short as 2 hours can be one of the best games ever

if its a good/great game...i would want the game to be longer. i think thats what most people want...not just any game

It all depends if you want the game you're playing to keep going.  Super Metroid is very short, but I have to wonder if the game would have been better if it was longer.  I look back at it and I don't think it would be better, because one of the best things about the game was how quickly you went from one area to another in its semi open world.

It just depends on the game and the genre. When I'm playing an RPG, I expect to get my 40+ hours on the campagin, becuase that's what RPG focuses on the most, that's where the meat of the gameplay should be: the story. When it comes to games like call of duty, halo, and gears of war. The majority of the hours won't be on the campaign, it'll be on the multiplayer. Those games are almost designed specifically to play with others. So really for me, its not how many hours I put in a specific game, it's what mode where the bulk of the gameplay takes place, where I put those hours in, If that makes any sense to anybody.

I tend to agree with this as well. Now, I love to play shooters - I have probably played every one ever released since 2006 (including terrible russian budget shooters!), and often, the shorter they are, the better (at least if they bad). CoD has always had great campaigns for instance, but they are also quite exhaustive - longer than 6 hours and I will likely get tired of them. But there are other shooters that also incorporates RPG elements - like STALKER or Deus Ex - which I gladly play for more than 20 hours. But for a basic shooter, 6 hours is well enough.

I prefer shorter games to longer ones. I don't play any RPGs as I like to play a variety of games, not the same one for months. 8-10 hours is about right for me. I like games that give the option of letting you play longer.

Open world games that aren't RPGs are good for this. You can crack through the campaign in 10-15 hours but you can sink many more in if it's a good game. I spent 55 hours on The Saboteur but that's because I loved the game. If I hadn't I could've probably done the story missions in 10-15 hours and then moved on.

Level based games that go on longer than 10 hours generally get tiresome for me as it's just the same thing with different scenery. Unless it's a triple A game where the developer has the money to make a game great for 20+ hours, any longer than 10 hours is just extra game for the sake of length.

yeah....married Father of three here pushing 40. I LOVE LOVE LOVE video games, but if you are not careful they can get you in trouble with neglecting wife, kids......lawn work (lol)...etc. I know that sounds irresponsible and I'm not talking about sitting around for 20 hours straight like a dorm room sloth playing World of Warcraft. When you are family man it is often difficult to find time to squeeze in 2-3 of gameplay at night. I find myself staying up late to play games when everyone else is asleep so it won't bother them to sit there and watch you play all day long. Then that can cause problems with rest for work the next day and wives can also get upset if you sneak downstairs to play games all the time after they go to sleep...lol. Anyways, here's to the Old Middle Aged Daddy gamers like me..........kill some zombies for me!!

I also enjoy small games the most, but it doesn't have to be the duration that matters. It is mostly that I am getting bored of games that force you to do the same things again and again.

$10 an hour is a steep fee, I think...I want games to go over the 20+ hour mark even if I don't honestly have the time to dedicate...which is why I have 40+ games in my queue that I haven't gotten to...