By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TornadoCreator on 06 March 2014
Edit Thread
kupomogli said:
TornadoCreator said:
Scoobes said:
Where on Earth did you get those numbers from? How on Earth of FF6 and Zelda only take 5 and 6 hours respectively?

I based the numbers off three things. Personal Experience, the times listed on howlongtobeat.com and the YouTube longplay community. Some of them I disagree with slightly, but generally they're quite accurate and the longplays can't really be argued with as you can physically watch them play them. (Admittedly, I'm using speedrun times for FF6, it's open ended in many respects so it's entirely possible for the game to be 30 hours long depending on how you play it, but it's possible to complete the game in around 5-6 hours, in fact some people can do it in as little as 4 1/2 hours).

Link To The Past in 6 hours, now that's perfectly reasonable, and I've done it multiple times myself.

I'm sure it's not from personal experience because unless you speed run Secret of Mana there's no way in hell you're coming close to 2.5 hours.  My opinion is you typed each game in Youtube and took the first playthrough you saw.  There's actually a co op Secret of Mana speed run that was live streamed in two hours and 30 minutes on Youtube.

I say this because even if you beat the game, doesn't mean it took you that amount of time.  Why not say that Castlevania takes  13 minutes to beat because that's the fastest speed run.  I can beat it in under 20 minutes, but is your average player going to be able to beat it in less than 30 minutes their frst time playing?  Probably not.

I said I used the YouTube gameplay numbers didn't I... you're not uncovering a conspiracy you're just pointing out something I already flat out admitted... If I got these numbers wrong, fine, but that's not the point of this discussion. The point of the discussion is whether we should be judging games by game length. I've actually never played Secret Of Mana so it's entirely possible the video I was using as a basis for the length of the game is the one you mentioned, if so, ignore it; the point of my post is still valid.

I do however think you make a good point that difficulty and skill plays a part, after all, I can play Golden Axe and finish it in about 30 minutes, but I know some people who've never yet completed it and they've sunk hours into the game. I'm fairly sure I didn't complete it first time round either, it likely took me a few hours of practice to learn the game and get further each time; so at what point to we call game length, the length from beginning to end or the amount of time a person spends with the game... an interesting question.

Note: I'll say this once and once only because I don't want this to end in a flame war, also please note this bit is not directed at kupomogli specifically or anyone else who respectively pointed out the times where wrong... fair enough, my sources where bad, I just want to stop this now before it usurps the entire bloody thread and stops any real discussion from happening. Can anyone else wanting to jump on the game lengths I posted and correct me about them while adding nothing to the discussion kindly fuck off now and wave their ePeen somewhere else. I'm not claiming to have completed these games in these times, I'm not claiming these games are bad, good, too short, or anything else for that matter, and I'm certainly not trying to show off my speedrunning abilities... I just wanted a discussion about game length in modern gaming and how we judge games nowadays. Please focus on the actual discussion not unimportant details; no-one is impressed by you correcting someone on the internet.