I've been wondering, how long should a good game be? I know it's different for every genre. I'm making a game that could be classified as an adventure/shooter/fighter. Kindof like The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess would be if it was more combat oriented and you only had your bow and sword, except that there's more than one playable character. How many hours of gameplay would it need to be a game that isn't "too short". A 100 hours total maybe?

Quote:

Original post by 3DModelerMan I've been wondering, how long should a good game be? I know it's different for every genre. I'm making a game that could be classified as an adventure/shooter/fighter. ...A 100 hours total maybe?

How do you define length?
A. The amount of time it takes an average player to reach the final level?
B. The amount of time it takes a skilled hardcore player to reach "?
C. The amount of time it takes a novice player to reach "?
D. The amount of time an average player would be willing to spend on the game (including possible replays)?

100 hours seems like way too much to me if it's "like Twilight Princess but with fewer gameplay elements". I finished Twilight Princess in about 70 hours and that was only because I decided to be obsessive and get every single heart piece. So for a less complex game, and a non-professionally made one, I wouldn't recommend aiming for more than 40 hours.

How much gameplay can you provide without it getting boring and repetitive?

You should be providing enough levels (or quests in an open-world game) to let the player try out and master each ability that is available to them, and then a little after that for them to master their skills and try more challenging opponents. After that you're probably just making them trudge through boring repetition.

I'm a fan of shorter, well-crafted games.
However, when I was younger, and spent a
greater percentage of my time playing games,
I wanted games to be huge. I'm sure there's
a market for both.

My Current View
*******************************************
Slogging though filler is a chore.
Long drawn-out plots are often boring.

I would focus on making the game as great
and fun as possible, and not worry about
length. It's better for users to want more
of your game than to want less of it.
*******************************************

As an adult with a family and a full time job, if a game takes longer than 10 hours for a single run though, chances are good that I'm not going to finish it. If that 10 hours is really, really cool and I know there is more I can gain, such as through exploration, if I play it again then I will. A lot of the biggest current franchises, such as Halo, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead, etc. have campaign modes that are a heck of a lot of fun, but fill no more than 10 hours for a single play through. The key thing is that they offer a LOT of replayability through extensive multiplayer modes, achievements, etc.

i think the length of a game should depend on two things:

1. how long is it fun to play
2. how many effort you are willing to invest into the game

Personally I would first see how much time i want to spend on
the game, and then decide how long the game should be.

I always thought that 40 hours to get every item in a game while 20 hours to just beat the game is the perfect amount.

Funny, I was just about to post a thread about this very same topic, though specifically as it pertains to FPS's.

Obviously as others have mentioned it vary's widely on demographics, genre, and sustainability of the fun factor.

Personally, for a an action adventure game I expect somewhere between 20-40 hours for the core game experience. If it's a little bit more than that as a result of added exploration, achievements, and secrets then all the better. When I was younger I wanted games to have 80+ hours of content, but now with responsibilities and limited time that's simply too much to digest. Now I tend to enjoy games that allow me to have fun and progress in one-two hour increments.

For FPS's, I hope to have 10-12 hours of game play for the campaign. If the campaign/single player mode is interesting enough to be replayable as a result of providing options for variable tactics and bonus achievements then the game has doubled its length for me. If the game has a compelling multiplayer with a decent fan-base then I'll be getting even more hours of gameplay out of it.

For some games such as the Battlefield series I was able to get hundreds of hours of gameplay despite not having a campaign or story mode because it's multiplayer could be consumed in 30-60 minute bite-sized pieces.

I can replay the Halo campaigns many times because its sandbox allows me to have a slightly different experience each time. I can only play through COD's campaigns once or twice because the experience is so tightly controlled that I know I'm not going to get much variance out of it with another play-through.

If it's phenomenal: 20-30 hours


If it's ok: 20-30 hours, but half the price


If it's bad: don't make it