It completely depends on the type of game.

For shooters I'd say an ideal length for the campaign would be from 6-10 hours; depending on how action packed it is. Also I'm only counting shooters with good stories so that narrows out all CODS. They don't count. Games like Bioshock excel in this department with a 20+ hour story on most fronts.

RPG's I'd go with 20+ hours for a main storyline; with upwards of 100-200 hours for 100% the game including all side quests and what not .

Sports games I can't really say. I always put 100+ hours into the myPlayer mode alone in NBA 2k.

Action/adventure/3rd person IE the Uncharted/Tomb Raider/Gears/Darksiders I'd say a good 20-30 hour campaign with 50+ for 100%. Not as action packed as most shooters and most action games have a bit of RPG elements in them.

Between 20 and 30 imo. But the minimum length for a game that expensive should be 15-20.

10 to 15 hours for a story based game max. Otherwise it will be spread out over too many game sessions and the story loses its impact. I don't mind longer games though once I'm into them. I guess I spend about 60 hours with The witcher 3, yet after 20 hours I was done caring about the main story. Side stories and exploration were still fun.

Game length does stop me from starting a lot of games nowadays. It's quite a commitment to begin another 40+ hour game. I haven't started Bloodborne and MGS 5 yet for that reason, nor DA:Inquisition or FC4. Oh forgot, still have Batman too :( I did finally finish GTA5, claimed 50GB back on my ps4!

And I'll still get Fallout 4 day 1, I never learn.


It would be nice if developers had the balls to add an actual story mode. Accelerated leveling, abilities reduced to a core set removing the fluff, reduced loot to the essentials, no crafting, condensed story with only the most important side quests. That would give me an incentive to actually replay games like The Witcher 3. Going through the full 60 hours again, or 40, hell no.
A simple choice, how long would you like your experience to last.

For me, it's dependant on the genre and experience that's provided. MadWorld was stupidly short (3hr and 6 minutes after credits roll), but it felt right and was a blast from beginning to end.

I hate games that have fluff or filler to extend the length of a game just as much as games that feel like content was stripped out because of time constraints.

For an action type game, I find my interest starts to wane somewhere around 10-12 hours. Sometimes earlier, depending on how repetitive it is. For RPGs, it's completely different. I can easily find myself captivated for 10-12 hours at a time. It just seems to hold my attention longer. I'd say minimum 40 hours in RPGs, for the most part. And that can vary from game to game.

It depends on the type of game, as well as replayability and extras included, but the main story having about ~25-30hrs would be good

d21lewis, I love you :)

OT: I don't regularly spend $60 on any game, so that makes my answer somewhat inconsequential. But, basically, size doesn't matter to me. Super Dodge Ball can be beaten in an hour; it's a great game. Ico can be polished off in a weekend; it's a masterpiece. Two Worlds has 80 hours worth of content; it's pedestrian.

For me, it's all about gameplay possibilities. It's not about logging x number of hours.

Has anyone seen Annie Hall? Because a quotation from that movie is relevant here: “There's an old joke - um... two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, 'Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.' The other one says, 'Yeah, I know; and such small portions.'"

For me, as long as it's clear a good amount of manpower and a lot of passion went into a game and I'm able to have lots of fun with it for 40+ hours, then it's easily worth $60. Really, we gamers have it easier now than ever in regards to price even when considering the introduction of DLC.... Never have we gotten more bang for our inflated bucks.

I think specifically of Splatoon and dying light, both of which I played recently. I really enjoyed both and was fine with the $60 price, but while Dying Light seemed like the resources to justify that price were certainly invested into development more so than Splatoon, I find there's more fun to be had in Splatoon in the long run than dying light which has little to nothing to do once you've completed it.

I think we sometimes focus too much on our subjective concept of what's required to constitute a "AAA" title and not enough on simply how much fun there is to be had in the game. That's really all that matters, after all.

At least 50 hours, no value to me unless it is. Yes, i predominately play RPG's.

What a crazy confidence! A friend of mine gave me Dying Light, yesterday (same guy gave me CoD Advanced Warfare). I didn't even want it.  Never even planned on playing it.  Guess I should give it a try.