What length of game would you consider too short

In my readings of reviews on games that have been released lately, I have noticed that some people comment on the game being too short.

I know that for everyone it will be different but what length of play time makes you decide a game is too short?

Hi

The length of a game isn't as important to me as the amount of enjoyment that can be had - and how quickly a game can be completed will anyway vary greatly from player to player ....

But if I personally had paid full whack for a game and then finished it in 10 hours or less, I would certainly be questioning value for money

I remember back in the day when I bought Space Quest 3, I finished it in about 3-4 hours, and I was very unhappy about it. However, it was a very fun game.

I've played short games that felt way too long and long games that felt way too short.

Key word: felt.

If a game fails to engage my interest, it's too long. If a game captures my interest, it's too short.

Much less interested in how many hours of gameplay than in how intense the experience.

I finished both Delaware St John games in about 3-4 hrs apiece. WAY too short! I consider a game too short if it takes me less than a week to finish , playing maybe 10 hrs total.

If a game is under around 15 hours, I will definitely consider it to be too short.

Depends what one means by short? I remember the days when I had or was no internet and playing Indiana Jones Fate of Atlantis or 7th guest or bad mojo (remember these??) .. I got stuck for months at one spot without any means to look for a walkthrough. That to me was long.
Right now, many people seem to prioritize graphics over story,...
To me a good game lenght is a game that when it is finished leaves you wanting more .. or leaves with that "wow" feeling.

I absolutely agree with the people who have said that it is much more important how long a game feels rather than how many hours you log in gameplay.

That being said, Critical Path (an interactive movie/"game") could be finished in perhaps a little over an hour. The game consisted of nine parts and each was a single puzzle (one was a maze), and so even the trial and error puzzles didn't take long. The maze took the longest time, so I guess one could get stuck there for a while.

It was fun while I was playing it, but an hour or so of entertainment really is too short to pay much money for. I got it in a multi-game trade.

If you know what you're doing, Safecracker 2006 can be completed in less than an hour.

And I would still consider it one of the best games I've played in the past few years.

Go figure.

I agree with Sassafras, I found Delaware ST John games far too short. The game should last at least one week, approximately 15 hours of playing time. I get really disappointed when a game is too short, I feel that I did not get my money's worth.
I am definitely hesitant at getting the next Delaware ST John's game.

Hmmmm...I've never timed my gameplay in hours... never quantified it... just dived in. But I'll try to break it down.

Too short a game, I'd estimate would be 1 sitting of about 6 or less hours.

Normal gameplay time for me is, maybe a month's worth of weekends, a handful of hours each? I'd consider that to be about the right amount of time. Depending on the difficulty of the game, maybe I'll spend 6 weeks, or like Belgar, I could be stuck for months. When I'm in the game for a long time, that means I like it (I'd 'bail' if I didn't). I do try to savor the good ones... that is, stretch out the time I play.

I always expect to get my money's worth, and I'll 'second' what Mad said about questioning value for money if the gameplay is too short... even a fun, good game.

I think we may all be saying --pretty much-- the same things in a variety of different ways, with an emphasis on quality rather than duration; and consideration for our over-BAAGS-stressed budgets.

It's hard to quantify hours of play, value & game quality. If it were me, I'd make the best game I could that would engage a player for a long time... and keep the cost under $20 USD... just what I would expect to get when I buy a game.

Hey Skye, hope you're not sorry you asked!

I agree with a lot that has been said here. To me, its a question of value. An hour of joy is worth a lot more than ten of agony. I've paid $50 for games that were worth every penny and more. I've paid $20 for games that were pure junk. I've played freeware games that I thought were pretty good. As has been said, the more I like it, the longer I want it to last. The length of the game, or the cost, is secondary to the joy per hour factor. I don't care too much if a game is short, as long as the price matches. Think rental videos. I'd guess about one or two dollars per hour would be about right. Except maybe the true Greats. I'd pay a premium for them.

Albert

i like the length of syberia the first one, i like games that keep me interested, if i have spent alot on it i would prefer it to be long as well as good, i like the dracula series as well, to me scratches was a good game but it was short,

Well, I believe secret files of tunguska is meant to be in the region of around 20 to 25 hours of gameplay. Now that's long for an adventure, if it's true. I have never finished a game in just a few hours. A few days, yes.
Some people read a whole book in a day where it takes many of us much longer. You could go out on the town for an evening, spend as much or more than the cost of a game, and perhaps not have as much fun as staying in and playing a game. And then if you haven't finished it, you can play more the next night. Unless the game is ridiculously easy or very badly made, I generally don't have a problem with game length.

Well personally for an adventure game it should be no less than 25 hours to complete. I like long games like kotor, and TLJ and gk3.

My feelings are if I love a game so much...........No matter how long I will always feel it is way to short........

Thanks for the info on game length. It will be interesting to see what sort of comments my little project results in.

I personally can play it from start to finish in about 1 1/2 to 2 hours but then I know all the solutions to the puzzles and where everything is likely to be located.

Of course we must remember that if you replay the game it is going to be different than the game you just played. If you are lucky and the cards fall just right, 80% of the places you visit on your second play of the game will be completely new!!

I'm hoping replay value will compensate for a game which some may think is 'too short'

I thought the new Nancy Drew game Danger by Design was to short this time. I was done with it in a couple of days.

I don't usually mind as long as I'm enjoying the game.....BUT

I once played a game called 'City of the Lost Children' a few years ago now, it was so short I thought I had a dodgy disk and it had broken somehow What hurt most was the fact that I was really enjoying it!

this is an intersting thread ,
I remember reading a review of my game on another
site saying it was to short. The reviewer made
a comment about playing it twice and noting the
second run through playing length. That truly
baffled me. I can play through the original
myst in less than an hour but what does that tell
you about the game? It is a little difficult
sometimes to understand the thought process of
gamers ,I guess if you like something
its never long enough.

As several people in this thread have already commented, I have absolutely no quibble with the length of a game if the quality is there. As an example, yes the Delaware games are short, but they are so much fun that I find I don't mind in the slightest, they are worth every penny. I could play a 20 hour game that by its length is supposedly good value for money, and be bored witless by it.

I spend at least 4-7 hours a day playing adventure games (I know, I have no life) so even if a game is 15 hours long I'd have it done in a couple of days.

If I get totally immersed in a game though, like Syberia or Black Mirror, I want to wander around and see everything even if it doesn't advance the story so it seems longer.

A perfect game for me would be one that takes a full week of playing to finish it.

Interesting topic - how to quantify something as subjective as how long a game plays! There can be reasons why a game takes longer that don't necessarily make it more fun to play. I'm thinking of those games where you have to run here, run there, do this errand, pick up that bobble, hunt for pixels -- those kind of games may take a while to play, but can be very irritating. On the other hand, an intelligently designed game that makes sense can be played fairly rapidly because it isn't full of a lot of nonsensical padding.

When I played the first Myst game (lo those many years past), I had no on-line gamer contacts, no walkthrough, no Game Guide, and had to figure out not only how to play Myst but how to play an adventure game itself. I think I played Myst for almost four months. I loved it!

In general, though, I agree with those who say it isn't how long it takes to play a game that matters as much as the quality of the game. Having said that, I do remember feeling that Amerzone was "short." My playing style, since I still work three days a week, is to play for an hour or so in the evening and maybe a few hours on the weekend. A game may last me a month that way. If I got through it faster than that, I would be disappointed.

The shortest game I've played so far has been Spongebob Squarepants Employee of the Month, but as that is a kid's game I knew it would be short.
The Delaware St. John games were short, but I did them with the walkthrough. Without the walkthrough, it would have taken longer. Still, I enjoyed them and felt both were good games.
If I spend more than $20 on a game and it only takes a few hours, then I think it's too short. But a lot depends on quality. Some games I like to stretch out over days or weeks to prolong the fun.

Boring games are always too long. Great games are always too short

Carousal nailed it!!