Do really long games (80+ hours) excite you or turn you off nowadays?

[Shizuka]

As an avid gamer that loves japanese games, I've begun to notice that as time goes by, with work and life in general, I get less and less excited to tackle really long games.

I used to love these games, I'd eat them for breakfast, doing seven hours a day, seven days a week while I was in college, but nowadays, when I hear the new Fire Emblem is possibly 200+ hours long, the first thing I want to do is to run in the opposite direction.

This shift is somewhat recent in my life (the last two years or so) and I wanted to see if there are more people that used to love long games, but that that aspect of them turns you off now.

Still waiting to see if I'll ever have the courage to finish Clannad as well.

 

[TheRulingRing]

I don't buy games at full price unless they can give me at least that many hours.

 

[DecoReturns]

Yes.

I love long Journies even if it takes me months to beat. (Took me 6 months to beat Xenoblade 2)

 

[Deleted member 9479]

They excite me till I'm about 20-30 hours in when I start to realize I'm never gonna finish it.

 

[Flandy]

Depends on the series. If it's something that comes out fairly often (Assasisns Creed) I prefer shorter but if it's something new or has infrequent releases then longer length can exicite me. Doesn't meant I prefer it but I did enjoy the long length of RDR2 fwiw.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

Complete turn off, but that's not new for me. Even 30 hours is really pushing it unless it's something I'm super into and it's not too heavy on filler.

 

[anf]

I usually don't buy them. I know the filler amount is going to be a huge turn off. I stopped playing AC Origins because of it and I didn't buy Odyssey.

 

[texhnolyze]

If it's a RPG, then yes it'll definitely excite me.

Adventure open world though? Nope.

 

[THErest]

Never once has the idea of having to play through 80 hours of a game excited me.

If I play a game that long, it's because I didn't know in advance how long it'd be, and I didn't realize how long it was because it was so good.

 

[Strings]

I do like longer JRPGs if they're worth the time. Something like DQXI was fantastic, since I loved the cast and world, and it had plenty of content to sustain its length.

Less so with XCX or XB2 where I didn't like the casts and thought at least 30% could have safely been cut from the narrative while losing nothing.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Anything open world, massive is a big turn off. I already know I'm gonna get bored at some point and just stop playing forever. Then I'll go play something exciting like DKC2 for the uptemth time.

 

[Deleted member 17643]

I've had both Utawarerumono's downloaded and ready to play for months and I can't start them because howlongtobeat.com says they're both at least 30 hours.

 

[MajorBritten]

For me its a huge turn off, I might actually avoid the new fire emblem because of the time it will take to finish everything. Games that are 5-20 hours long are much better imo as they usually have way less filler and grinding, which is there only to pad the game out and make the completion time longer. Iwata was correct when he said devs should be aiming for games with shorter completion times as more people will actually finish the games and it gives players more time to buy and play other games. Id much rather play and finish 5 games that take 20 hours each than slog through 1 game that takes a 100.

 

[SuperFakerBros]

Depends. There have been long games I've enjoyed the whole way through and short games that I had a rather poor time with and vice versa so a game being long is never turn off in and of itself but rather if I notice that there's a lot of padding and there's still plenty of content left to go through. Otherwise, the length isn't too much of a concern to me

 

[Deleted member 8861]

Uni student (ha) and 50-80 hours seems to be my gaming sweet spot, allowing me to immerse myself really, REALLY deep into a game and its world/lore/story (main reason I play).

Exceptions exist of course- Hotline Miami and Thomas Was Alone are sub-10 hour games I adore and immersive sims like PREY and System Shock 2 are in the 15-25 hour range, but I digress.

I like some really long games -Dark Souls 2 SotFS took me 110+ hours, Persona 5 took me 108, I don't know how long Umineko took but a reread last summer clocked in at 90 hours I believe.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I usually drop games long before I reach that point if I'm not enjoying it deeply. Umineko for example is one of my favorite stories of all time. It just works and the length is in its favor.

I'll say one thing though--- playing long games like that usually entails me dropping/stalling it for some time before continuing over a period of months.

 

[Reinhard]

They completely turn me off, I still occasionally buy an 80 hour+ game like DQ11 but it is extremely rare. I value my time much more than that, a game has too much bloat if it can't tell its story in say 50-60 hours and most games I prefer to be under 40 hours. Persona 5 was really bad about making me feel like I wasted my time with the game. The game took me over 100 hours and really needed to have like 30+ hours shaved from it...

 

[Soulflarz]

turn off as fuck but I'll still play them

it just takes AGES because I never wanna commit.

DQ11 took me 4 months :(
90 hours and 70 of it was in 1 real life week.

 

[Continental 0p]

At this point I prefer smaller games. The length of Persona and SMT games pretty much single-handedly stop me from playing them.

 

[Rubblatus]

I may have a lot of time, but that time's split between four MMO/GaaS titles (FF14, WoW, MHW, Destiny 2). I literally can't afford the time to squeeze an 80 hour game into that wall of nope.

 

[wafflebrain]

Turn off unless it's something truly special from a story, gameplay, or tech perspective. 2077 is probably the only game in this range of time investment I'll be interested in playing.

For single player games the sweet spot for me these days is around 10-20 hours.

 

[Strangelove_77]

I love long games. I just finished Spiderman yesterday and wished there was more of it.

 

[MayorSquirtle]

Depends entirely on how much I enjoy the gameplay/how stale it gets while playing it. I put more than that much time into Breath of the Wild and Persona 5 and loved them both (and I'll be doing another all-shrines playthrough of BotW at some point before BotW 2 comes out as well as playing P5R), but the idea of Three Houses being an 80 hour game makes me feel tired and it's not even out yet.

 

[LazyLain]

Not really a turn on or a turn off. The excitment of getting a lot of value is tempered by the concern that it'll just be excessively drawn out.

 

[Deleted member 17627]

Came into this thread about to say the same thing about Fire Emblem. Fates put me off from the series for the rest of the year because of it being 120 hours long, with about 20 hours of said content being meaningful. If Three Houses, and other RPGs by that extent, are able to make the majority of that time fun and meaningful, then I will gladly play, but lately I have been noticing more and more games running longer than they need to be.

Ultimately, as someone who is trying to do numerous things in a day and pretty much only has time to play video games on the weekend, especially as someone who has tastes similar to yours; definitely understand your position as I have been feeling similarly.

This is coming from someone who would not buy a 60 dollar game unless it has 60 hours worth of content. Now, as long as a game looks fun, aesthetically pleasing, and is something that I can at least play for a few weeks to a month (so 20 to 30 hours given my availability these days), I'll be fine paying $60.

 

[HardRojo]

Absolute turn-off. I ain't got time to dedicate that many hours to a single game, unless it's a fighting game I'm gonna try to learn well.
It's part of the reason I'm not so excited about the new Zelda being a direct BotW sequel, as that game took me like 100 hours to beat and I don't want to go through that shit again. I've read some people actually bothered finding all the Korok seeds, some even twice because of Master mode or whatever, it's safe to say I wouldn't want to be friends with those people lol.

 

[Rbrogue]

Depends on what you're doing for those 200 hours. I don't need to fervently play every release on release date so if I'm playing a game I enjoy for several months, I'm saving money on games so cool.

 

[IIFloodyII]

Length is a pretty low priority for me, but doesn't really turn me on or off, all down to the pacing or how much I like the characters. A poorly paced 80 hour game will probably get dropped by me, whereas a well paced 8 hour game will be liked/loved.

 

[Elven_Star]

Turnoff, unless the game is really special (Persona 5).
If the game is only kinda sorta OK, I begin with the best intentions but before I can finish it, I am bound to get distracted by another game.

 

[jacks81x]

Depends if those 80 hours are well designed. If it's mostly fluff and repetitive side quests, then no because it gets boring after a while.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Big, big turn off, I expect games to have at least some sort of closure at 20-30 hours at most.

 

[TheXbox]

Big turn-off. I'm not sure who's playing these games to completion. I burned out on AC Odyssey after 40 hours and I don't even feel like I got through a third of it.

Too many games fail to justify their length. For any game over 40 hours, the loop needs to be phenomenal or the mechanics need to consistently and meaningfully evolve over time. I cannot fucking play Assassin's Creed with its dumbass combat system for 200 hours. There isn't enough depth and it doesn't feel great anyway. Hacking at dudes in hour 40 the same way I hacked at them in hour 3 is poor design.

 

[Stefarno]

It depends - if it is something where I can stop and pick up relatively freely to allow me to play in short bursts then that's great, but if it is something that requires long play sessions each time I'll probably fall off.

Also games I can play on a portable (or something suitable for Vita remote play) I'm generally much better about being longer than games I have to play on a TV.

 

[NightShift]

Mostly a turn off however there are exceptions like Cyberpunk 2077 where if that game doesn't go over 80 hours, I'll be disappointed.

 

[takriel]

I don't mind long games per se, but it seems to me that much of the content is padding in these games.

 

[Falchion]

It doesn't bother me if they're super long but I may not start them right away if I don't feel like I have a ton of time to devote to them.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Hearing a game is long is usually a turn-off. I don't need a "Dollar per hour" metric when I purchase a title and the majority of games i've played never needed to be such a long length the majority of the time. I much prefer scenario's of "Main story is 20 hours, but there's 80 hours of side content".

 

[spman2099]

I am generally not in for super long games. They need to really sell me if they are going to be a hundred hours long.

 

[banter]

It really depends on the type of game. I get excited about pumping hundreds of hours into monster hunter games, but if it's an rpg that I know will be filled with bullshit fetch quests and the like, I'm turned off by it (unless it has a great word to explore during those fetch quests. For example Skyrim and FFXV have a bunch of bullshit fetch quests but, to me, exploring skyrim is far more fun than exploring Eos).

 

[senj]

Turn off.

90% of games that have anything close to that length are bloated beyond belief with unfun bullshit.

 

[Dyno]

Depends entirely on the game. It needs gameplay that's fun enough to stay engaged over everything else. Secondary is a world with things to discover throughout all those hours. Last in line is the story because that alone isn't gonna get me playing for that long.

 

[alundra311]

They excite me, but I get tired of them after playing like 30-50 hours. An 80 hour game to me is like double that, LOL.

 

[Panic Freak]

At this point in my life How Long to Beat is a consideration before I even pick up a game. 10 to 20 hours is pretty perfect for me. If a game is 40 hours or longer, it has to be a masterpiece for me to try it.

 

[Strike]

It depends on the genre. I rarely play games that long.

 

[Unicorn]

A mix. Only certain games will appeal to me due to length. RPGs have left my life long ago. Even Monster Hunter is hard to get more than 100 hrs in.

Something like Animal Crossing I still have room for. Games like Rocket League and other dialy duty MP games have waned from my interest.

 

[Jiraiya]

I'm cool with it. I like to invest some time in games. I don't buy enough games for that to be a problem.

 

[Shadout]

If it is a good CRPG (and sometimes JRPG), then 80+ hours excites me.
Pretty sure most of my favorite games each year are 60+ hour games.

 

[Deleted member 16657]

Can't get through them anymore, unless the story is extremely worthwhile.

For the most part I like indie games the most, which are short but very sweet. I don't need to waste my time on dumb padding gameplay

 

[Duxxy3]

Completely turns me off. I'm about 40 though.

 

[Benzychenz]

Depends on the game.

A tactics style game like Fire Emblem, fuck no, that should be a 20 hour game.

A big RPG with a world to explore full of towns, sidequests etc like Xenoblade 2 or Dragon Quest XI? Fuck yeah, I'm all in.

 

[Deleted member 24540]

Not anymore. The gameplay is unlikely to remain engaging for such a long time, unless you are going for mastery, like getting the Platinum medal in all Bayonetta stages which takes more than one playthrough of the campaign in order to get that good. There are exceptions though, like the Xenoblade games. I think it's because they are so high in quality in every aspect that you don't mind some grind and repetition. The environments, music and creature designs are just stunning, to the point where I don't mind a mental downtime every now and then, I guess.