>replay "value">multiple endings>side quests>achievements>grinding>build variety>roguelikes>crafting>simulators>open-world>wall of text>tons of cutscenes>excessive backtracking>etc.A combination of these things is ok, but at some point it is too much, games that would be perfectly fine at 20-40h length; are padded to 100h+.
>>743303351Depends on the genre
>>743303351Its too long if I haven’t seen some cute girl feet within the first minute
>>743303351one 10 hour game could be too longother 50 hour game could be too shortall depends on the genre don't think I've seen a 100 hour long shooters but there are plenty 100 hour rpgs, in a single run I mean through multiplayer or replays of course it could be done
15-20 hours is the perfect lenght.Anything longer and you start getting bored and anything shorter isnt worth $60 or $70 or $80 or whatever games cost now.
>>743303351>Please give me LESS content!Not today, industry shill
>goodMultiple EndingsAchievementsBuild Variety Roguelikes>Ok if done correctly Open worldSide QuestsCutscenes>badText wallsSimulatorsGrindingBacktrackingCertain games(sandbox, non story roguelikes etc) are meant to have hundreds of hours dumped into them. Story focused games are generally meant to be played once, and should peak around 30-45 hours, with exceptions of games with excessive build variety like SMT. My sweet spot is around 60 hours for any game I buy, my 300-3000 hour range is all games that feature pvp(competitive games, soulslikes) games that have no story but infinite run possibilities(spire, sandbox games like terraria, valheim, palworld) and racing games.
Runtime doesn't matter, pacing does. It really depends on the genre too. A well designed game should end before the gameplay loop runs completely dry but not before it had some room to breathe. So an RPG should allow you to reach the level cap and still have a couple of hours left over, but not another 10+ hours. It's one of the hardest things in game design and many games fail miserably at it.
Depends on the genre. Multiplayer games are an easy exception for obvious reasons so sticking to single player games, I personally believe that stretching past the 40 hour mark is near impractical in the majority of instances. Some genres are better getting in and out in minutes, no one wants to play 10+ hours of fucking Altered Beast. But even with more adventurous or exploratory genres, I'm hard pressed to think that the momentum can be maintained for all that long without falling into easily forgotten and rote filler. Some people like that sort of thing I guess, but I think a single player game should get in, do its thing well, and wrap it up before the high is lost. 40 hours of actually good content is fucking hard to do as it is, but that's about as far as I would be willing to push it.
>god tierNever-ending autist bait you can waste a quarter of your entire life on>shit theirGames with a beginning, middle and end.
>>743303351at no point it's too much if the game is fun enough.
>>743306308This but, opposite
>>743303351You know you could just stop playing a game when you think it's getting ""too long""
>>743308037Or just not play shitty games that do that in the first place.
>This game has too much contentI genuinely want every faggot that is capable of thinking this killed.
>>743309343A game has too much content when it stops being good. More devs should have the discipline to drill their concepts and mechanics down to the absolute best ideas they have, and then fuck off when they're out of steam.
>>743303683yeah, I too lean more towards that duration.
