What do you prefer in game length?

Post Reply New Topic

30 short levels?
15 medium length levels?
10 long levels?
5 really long levels?
Or one really really expanded overworld with lots to do?

I would say for me both open world and 10 medium levels, for example I've been playing a lot of Xenoblade Chronicles and Mega Man as of late.

No levels, open world, open ended.

Same.

Which open world games haven't had some form of level?

Pretty much evey one: Elderscrolls: Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Skyrim, Oblivion, GTA3, GTA:VC, GTA:SA, GTA4, GTA5, Elite Dangerous, Empyrion, Ascent, Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 4, Starbound, Stranded Deep, Stardew Valley (etc etc).

Having a level with set parameters, invisible walls or some other ancient device (that should be eliminated from game design completely) that prevents the player to progress however she/he want's is the direct counter-definition of an open world. Open world is not levels. Super Mario brothers for example have levels, SMB is not open world.

Mostly these days I play games with roguelike elements or other forms of procedural generation.

AKA, it's impossible to memorize levels/layouts/areas/whatever in them because it's completely different every time. Could play for 500 hours, and you still dont know what sorts of things the game will produce next.

I like exploration in games, but in MOST types of games, you get that exploration aspect once, and only once... period. Because the levels/areas/world never change. For me, this genre fixes that.

Also it just keeps things interesting as I must constantly adapt, and memorization cannot be used in place of skill.

Usually games like this are made up of numerous levels/floors comprised of many different rooms.


For actual game length, as a rule an individual run in a game like this isnt very long. Could be 30 minutes, could be 6 hours. But the actual amount of time many players spend is hundreds of hours (and may still not manage to beat the game in that time, depending on which game it is).

I do play other sorts of games though, usually things like platformers such as Mario or whatnot. The more levels, the better.

I dont touch open-world games. Nothing bores me faster. Well, a JRPG with a million cutscenes would do it.

I don't have a specific preference when it comes to game length. What matters more to me is that the experience is memorable.

The game length doesn't matter to me as long as the game keeps me engaged. The only thing that usually stops me is things within the game. I can handle cut scenes as long as it's not excessive. The main things to turn me away from a game is if it has a poor story, boring characters, or game mechanics that make the game feel repetitive.

I don't know, this isn't an easy question to answer. It really depends on what mood I'm in.

If I'm in the mood for a high-score style of game, you don't really have a set number of levels that you're expected to complete.

If the game is really, really good, I don't quite mind if it gets lengthy...however, I've played plenty of games where they overstayed their welcome, and I just wanted to get things over with already. I thought Metroid Prime 2 was far too long and tedious. Breath of the Wild, as long as it was, felt kind of short. I would've liked the hundreds of tiny dungeons to have been longer rather then numerous, but I suppose it's preferable to having long, drawn-out dungeons.

I think racing games are another good example...you've got games like Mario Kart with tons of fun tracks to play, and then you've got games like Sega Rally or Virtua Racing where there are only a few tracks, but the fun of the game is to keep practicing and learn how to master those tricky turns and improve your times. I like both, though I'm really quite bad at Sega racing games.

I don't know, I think games like GTA, I would consider the missions to be the equivalent of levels. There are a finite number, and once you finish them all, you win the game.

Similarly, Elder Scrolls have quests, though most of them are optional.


"Inivisible walls" are kind of a necessary evil...you can't really give the player complete freedom unless you go through the work of creating an entire planet, which kind of died out back when 2D games did. Even Minecraft will eventually start to break if you go out too far =) Some games use cliffs, mountains, and oceans to block the player, but I see it as essentially the same thing, just more aesthetically pleasing.

And Bethesda especially have to rely on limiting the player, they have a surprisingly small development team. That's why they have to use prefab cookie-cutters everywhere just to ship the games out in the state they're in.

20+ hours of gameplay please game developers.

1 hour levels I guess. I don't mind short ones sometimes at the start.

But just give me a 20 hour campaign. So sick of these 10 hour campaigns then everyone jumps into multiplayer.

An engaging story is important to me. Because I am a screen writer I like well developed and memorable characters, cinematic cut scenes and a deep lore.

Or just give me Uncharted 1 and 2 again.

I prefer girth over length...

As I get older I find the games I get the most impact from are shorter in length. I still enjoy longer games but I find that unless I have a lot of time to devote to them, such as if I have prolonged leave from work, I end up dropping games before I finish them.

I really, really dislike games when I feel they don't respect my time. Despite the amount of time I've enjoyed and played it, games like Elite Dangerous fall into this category. For some reason the community for that game loves stupid timesinks, confusing it for immersion. So you have game mechanics like changing ships taking a set amount of ingame time. Whenever I come to this sort of mechanic I tend to just stop playing the game. MMO daily/weekly quests fall into this category, as well as games that only allow saving between long intervals. It's also why I don't tend to play any mobile games - they are all full of annoying mechanics like this.

Can vary depending on the game and even mood abs others have said.
Personally I reckon a proper game (not indie, for example) should last at least 20 hours, but again this can depend on the game - I have racked up over 300 hours on several pokemon games, when the ‘main game’ can normally be beaten in about 30-40 hours.

Replay factor can be an issue as well.
Rogue Squadron 2 on the GameCube springs to mind where earning a platinum medal on every level can take ages!

This.

I don't want the world too open, that can be overwhelming. I like for the game to be linear but with lots to explore along the way.

I don't want my fave games (Pokemon, Rune Factory, Fantasy Life) to have ends, I want there to always be more to do. Random quests, strong trainers one can challenge over and over, say once a day. It's okay for there to be an end to the main story, but I always want more of that world.

I, personally, really don't care about the length of a game so much as the quality of the experience it delivers.