I think the perfect length for a game is 20 hours after that it always gets boring

I think the perfect length for a game is 20 hours after that it always gets boring.

If a game doesn't have at least 60 hours of replay value, it's not worth my time, to be quite honest fampai.

That's like $1 an hour for a newly released game.

It depends on what it is.

Singleplayer FPS? 10-12
Multi/Singleplayer FPS? 6-8
RPG? 20-30

Anything over 40 hours and I will most likely lose interest unless its multiplayer and even then most games I lose interest.

movie is 2 hours and costs 12 thats 6/hr. I rather get better content over a shorter amount of time than video game busy work just so they can say 60 hrs of game play. Most people don't finish the video games they buy.

If you want a passive narrative experience, why don't you just watch a movie instead of ruining video games?

Stop encouraging this shit.
And I do finish all the video games I buy. Multiple times. Fuck off.

i think games that can't potentially last you a lifetime are shit games. yeah you may get bored after 20 hours straight but if you can't pick it up later and still have fun then it was never good to begin with

>them collarbones
Holy shit she is adorable, post more cute.

When you factor in the length of the game or replayability, do you factor in multiplayer? Almost all games these days have that added in. Would it count as an unlimited number of hours of playability or can it be restricted by the game having too few multiplayer modes?

>you will never have an asian gf this cute
I'm seriously thinking of killing myself.

>Singleplayer FPS? 10-12
You poor soul.

It depends on how long the game stays fun for.
Also, if a game depends on a service in order to continue functioning, it doesn't count, because it will be discontinued in only a few short years.

witcher 3 says hello

I think the perfect length for a dick is 9 inches after that it always gets boring.

if you don't get 100 hours out of a major game then its a ripoff

this so much.
Witcher 3 got so boring for me after 15 ish hours (right after the bloody baron stuff) that i stopped playing.
character progression was ass, story wasn't that interesting and the gameplay was repetetive.
I get the same with bethesda RPGs though those usually last me 40 ish hours. doing the main quest and some side stuff.
but after 40-50 hours you rarely get better gear and your character is probably finished when it comes to stat building and perks.
i feel like most singleplayer games i'm fine with are around 15 hours with unlockable shit and incentives to replay the game.

i feel like MGS 5 did it the best actually.
not speaking of the quality of content but the amount. if you mainline that game then it's probably 20ish hours long.
but you can extend your playtime by doing sidestuff.
and if you come back in a year and feel like playing again, you can either do a challenging new run or do the side stuff you didn't do on your savegame yet.

depends on the game, i thought p4 was fantastic for all 80 hours i played, I also thought Uncharted 4 was the perfect length.

What?

nigga please MH4U just gets better as I go along

because monster hunter games are shit for the first 10 hours.

I wish persona 3 ended sixty hours ago.

>hating the slow grind
it's just not for you

i meaned witcher 3 is a long and good game, faggot.

Requesting the MH tutorial/martial arts training image.

It does suck, but it's necessary.

Oh wow this is one of the worst posts I've seen in a while, and not even OP reached that point yet.

are you retarded

imagine if doom(1) just had more levels with the same quality, it's literally just more content to spend more time on, how could you get bored of it unless you don't even like the game in question?

same thing with rts campaigns

literally just more content, why wouldn't you want more content, you want as much content as the devs could muster

and the same goes for all games, if there's no loss of quality and it's not grindy shit i don't see why you wouldn't want more content to play

it's like saying "the game should only have 10 weapons, any more weapons and it gets boring"

The witcher 3, after beating it for the first time, I started another play through.
A bad game of 40 min is too long, a good one of 100 hours is short.

40 hours is the ideal

well, everything gets boring eventually.
especially singleplayer videogames that lack interaction with other human beings.
yes if doom had more levels you would play it more.
but eventually you would just enter room after room kill all the shit in it, get keycards, finish the level.
and that gets repetetive at some point.
you wouldn't play a FPS game that's just room after room, randomly generated with random enemy spawns forever.

noone says more content is bad. but OP says games often get boring after a certain sweetspot.

Sounds like you just play shitty triple A games

You're right, but it's mostly because the beginning just has you doing shit quests like collecting materials or killing small monsters until you get your first real big monster hunt.

The only thing that's shitty is if your a veteran hunter and you have to go through the motions of the first few * and ** quests. There really does need to be an option to skip that shit and go straight to the reason I'm playing the damn game, fighting big ass monsters.

I can't even argue. That's just your opinion, man.

If that's all it takes then please do.

I think it needs to be entertaining for 20 hours. Not necessarily 20 hours in length. Realistically Max Payne takes me 5 hours or so probably, but I've done that loads of times. Same as Jet Set Radio and Mirrors Edge. Long games tend to be crap. I genuinely prefer a good 6 hour game, maybe with side content. Particularly time trials and challenges.

Its most important it still feels fresh and nice in 6 months.

not really.
i mean there are insane amounts of DOOM WADs out there, doesn't mean i feel like playing more DOOM despite there being unique content out there.

My point was that some games have actually good content and add mechanics as the game goes on keeping it fresh throughout the playthrough even though the game might be a hundred hours long

Hours/dollar is a fucking retarded way of measuring a game. Cavestory must be the best game ever since its free oh wait it is one of the best games ever. You are still a faggot

seems legit, i got bored of witcher 3 at 26 hours.

I want to start listing games that I played for more than 20 hours so you can find something you'll like to prove your theory wrong, but you're just gonna answer "meh, tried it, 20 hours" and then I'm gonna be angry and it's not gonna be nice

you should whitey

it's hours of enjoyment/dollar
yes F2P games are infinite value as long as you enjoy the hours you spend in the game
possibly.
i can't think of a game i played for more than 100 hours except for MGS3 and MGSV both of wich are just the same shit over and over. wich wasn't necessarly bad because what was there was great, but it gets repetetive eventually.

who is this fluid druid

I dont even mind doing those since they give you a feel for the zones. One of the biggest advantages in this game is knowing your surroundings.

>MGS3
>100 hours
Did you mean Peace Walker?

>I have never played an autism simulator

>the gameplay was repetetive
i think you mean the gameplay was shit garbage.

nah just replaying it over and over.
that game was like crack for 3 months.

You can't really be this stupid
why the fuck would you use such abstract arbitrary measurements
a dollar of enjoyment per hour? the fuck?
I'm genuinely getting angry over how stupid you are, so if this is bait then congratulations, consider me baited

Most modern AAA games are $60.
$60 for 60 hours=$1 an hour.

A lot of people on this board and most likely unemployed living with their parents. Before I graduated high school the best games were also the ones that were a one time investment with countless hours of fun on the return. Now im totally okay pay 60 dollars for an enjoyable 8-10 hours

>60 hours
>modern AAA games

i've been playing since the first game, and the slow grind was never good.

Not what he said

You're lucky to get more than 8 hours from a AAA trash game.
Multiplayer doesn't count unless it manages to keep a strong community 2 weeks after release.

Problem is most 8-10 hour games are hardly enjoyable and are just "cinematic" trash

Pretty much yea
>play EDF 4.1 for the first time
>consider it one of my favourite games and love everything about it immediately, its my dream game
>get kindof bored after 20~ hours, I didnt even finish the game and truely try all the classes
No game can keep you forever, I still play it but the feeling is gone.

>No game can keep you forever
Say that to the MOBAfaggots and CS kids

I fucking love 60+ hour JRPGs desu

Youll generally notice that people who have the most time in those games generally dont play many games, or only AAA games.

What's it like living with ADD?

Most multiplayer games in general will have players with high play times, but if you asked those people what theyre favourite game is they almost certainly wouldnt say that game, multiplayer games tend to have alot more variables than singleplayer games which keeps you playing.

Took me 140 hours to finish Witcher 3.
But it was worth it

20 is the bare minimum for single player content. I dont think there is a maximum for me.

I think it's more of whether you feel you enjoyed the overall experience than the hours played.
I put 20 hours into Quantum Break and I don't think i would put anymore in, but I enjoyed the game.

I've found that more content is better until it gets to the point where a game has to recycle it. Most of my favorite games are only like 6 - 10 hours, but they have a lot of variety throughout, rarely repeat anything, and are often very good for interesting replays.

What's wrong with her pupils?

She is sex-crazed