What's the ideal length for RPGs?

[Ereshkigal]

Personally I prefer short ones so I replay them quickly to try different builds, but those are becoming scarce nowadays. What are your thoughts on it? is there an ideal standard length or does it depend on the game? does game length influence your purchases? Disc-ass.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

anything under 100 is a demo

 

[bionicman]

Anything i cant spend an eternity playing is not worth it imo

 

[NecroLord]

Depends on the RPG.
A combat focused one like Temple of Elemental Evil can be finished in under 20 hours. Story focused ones can take way longer than that. Also depends on your playstyle,if you like to take your time and absorb the atmosphere and explore meticulously or you prefer to smash your way through the game.

 

[Arbiter]

anything under 100 is a demo

How many 100+ hours RPGs are there? And by "RPG" I do not mean procedurally generated skinner boxes like Diablo. Daggerfall would certainly take much more than that to explore, but what is the point if there is just random terrain with random monsters?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

anything under 100 is a demo

How many 100+ hours RPGs are there? And by "RPG" I do not mean procedurally generated skinner boxes like Diablo. Daggerfall would certainly take much more than that to explore, but what is the point if there is just random terrain with random monsters?

most coherent series that can be played one after another to form a single story which is a lot of games
also, probably well over 50 individual titles.

https://howlongtobeat.com/
filter by rpg and sort by time to beat on completionist, ignore jrpgs

 

[Strange Fellow]

Around 30 to 50 hours. Shorter than that is preferable to longer. Exceptions for properly amazing games apply, but there are only about 6 of those. Most RPGs well overstay their welcome.

 

[Arbiter]

anything under 100 is a demo

How many 100+ hours RPGs are there? And by "RPG" I do not mean procedurally generated skinner boxes like Diablo. Daggerfall would certainly take much more than that to explore, but what is the point if there is just random terrain with random monsters?

most coherent series that can be played one after another to form a single story which is a lot of games

I guess that BGT/EasyTutu qualifies then, as does the Dark Savant Trilogy and maybe World of Xeen.

When it comes to modern gaming, splitting a story into multiple installments is actually an example of decline. I am looking at you, Starcraft 2!

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Something on the short side with lots of replay ability. I don't have time for 100 hour butt fuck sessions like Rusty prefers.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I guess that BGT/EasyTutu qualifies then, as does the Dark Savant Trilogy and maybe World of Xeen.

BG2+ToB itself is over 100 hours if you do all the content

 

[Arbiter]

Steam statistics indicate that most gamers cannot even finish typical casualized, short games.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I don't have time for 100 hour butt fuck sessions

you guys know these games have 'save' features that let you play them in multiple sessions, right?

 

[whydoibother]

Around 30 to 50 hours. Shorter than that is preferable to longer. Exceptions for properly amazing games apply, but there are only about 6 of those. Most RPGs well overstay their welcome.

My exact opinion. I need to add that for those RPGs that outstay their welcome, usually the ending is good. Its the period just before the ending where it drags.
If a game is too long, and just keeps going without introducing new mechanics, new locations, new enemies, etc, just repeats the same stuff for too long, it sags for a while, before moving into its conclusion where at least the story will make me care again. Such games are fun, fun, fun, fun, okay, okay, are we there yet, are we there yet, niiiiice.

 

[Geckabor]

Voted 20-40 hours. Most RPGs don't have deep enough mechanics to entertain me much further than that. I think if you're trying to make a long and epic adventure, you should introduce new elements of gameplay mid-game or else it'll just get stale after a while.

Examples of some classic games that (imo) have great pacing: Gothic 1, Fallout 1, KOTC 1.

 

[Pink Eye]

When you're watching a bad film. You can tell within the first five to fifteen minutes if it's going to be good or bad. if you do end up watching the whole thing out of morbid curiosity just to see if it somehow gets better; you lose what, thirty minutes maybe an hour. Not that bad, there are much worse ways to waste one's time. Now look at a video game. Five minutes, especially for an RPG, isn't enough to gauge quality. How many of you heard: bro it gets better once you reach x location, or dump x hours. Yeah. Much bigger commitment. So what do you do when an RPG is kind of good for the first few hours then turns shit for remainder. All of a sudden, the notion of a game being hundreds of hours long doesn't sound too enticing.

Honestly I'd rather a game that's short, good, yet, highly replayable. Age of Decadence, Dungeon Rats, Chalice 2, Temple of Elemental Evil; these games all fulfill that criteria for me. A run doesn't take too much time and if you've enjoyed it you can start new run to experience different content. For tactics orientated games the replayability comes from trying out different builds, new tactics, experimenting with potential cheese, and et cetera. Pathfinder: Kingmaker is the opposite of this. A single run can take, potentially, a hundred hours to complete. Plus quality isn't guaranteed for the length of time you're required to commit.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

why would you guys keep playing games you don't like?
"argh I'm playing this game and I hate it but I must keep playing it! I wish it was shorter!"
???

play good games that are long you retards

 

[V_K]

Voted 10-20, but really more like 15-25. 10 is a bit too short, but past 25 the sense of novelty wears off and gameplay starts feeling repetitive and stale.

 

[Ivan]

10-30

 

[whydoibother]

"argh I'm playing this game and I hate it but I must keep playing it! I wish it was shorter!"

Read my post. These games are fun at the end. The dullness is before the end. So you force yourself through the dullness to get the fun of the ending.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

"argh I'm playing this game and I hate it but I must keep playing it! I wish it was shorter!"

Read my post. These games are fun at the end. The dullness is before the end. So you force yourself through the dullness to get the fun of the ending.

sounds like sunk cost fallacy to me
if I'm not enjoying something I stop playing it

 

[Pink Eye]

why would you guys keep playing games you don't like?
"argh I'm playing this game and I hate it but I must keep playing it! I wish it was shorter!"
???

play good games that are long you retards

Not everyone is an MMO player like you who enjoys games that force you to waste millions of hours.

 

[whydoibother]

sounds like sunk cost fallacy to me

You cook not because you enjoy cooking, but because you want a nice meal at the end.
You work out not because you enjoy lifting heavy shit, but because you want to get stronger.
Its not "sunk cost fallacy" when there actually is a likely positive outcome in the end that makes it worthwhile.

Anyways, I specifically said I'd prefer this sagging of the game to be removed, and for the game to be shorter and tighter. A 60 hour game can drag for 20 hours of no new locations, no new characters, no new mechanics, leveling not adding anything, little story development, and then accelerate the plot and the gameplay at the end. Just drop the sag and make it a 40 hour game. Drop the filler.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

I don't have time for 100 hour butt fuck sessions

you guys know these games have 'save' features that let you play them in multiple sessions, right?

Rusty we all know if you saw a dude with a erection in his pants you would tear those pants off so quick. You would save that situation and constantly reload I bet.

You lose the freshness and interest going 100 hours even with "save."

 

[rusty_shackleford]

sounds like sunk cost fallacy to me

You cook not because you enjoy cooking, but because you want a nice meal at the end.
You work out not because you enjoy lifting heavy shit, but because you want to get stronger.
Its not "sunk cost fallacy" when there actually is a likely positive outcome in the end that makes it worthwhile.

Anyways, I specifically said I'd prefer this sagging of the game to be removed, and for the game to be shorter and tighter. A 60 hour game can drag for 20 hours of no new locations, no new characters, no new mechanics, leveling not adding anything, little story development, and then accelerate the plot and the gameplay at the end. Just drop the sag and make it a 40 hour game. Drop the filler.

I do work out because I enjoy lifting heavy things actually, thanks. It's cathartic.
Why would you play a game just to get to the ending? What's wrong with you?

You lose the freshness and interest going 100 hours even with "save."

Try taking your ADHD meds.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

can only imagine what kind of reaction the average codexer would have upon seeing a book that isn't a 15 page long popup art book