I'm a sucker for long games. What about you, user?
I'm a sucker for long games. What about you, user?
dear god no. 40 hours or less please
I think my problem is that I get too attached to these games, and also that I hate having to look for something to do when I'm done with them
180 hours is a little too much. 60 is perfect, 80 is okay but the limit for the most part. 100-120 is only acceptable if I'm in love with the game.
It really depends on the game. I'm not going to flat-out say that I wish all games had playtimes that were 100+ hours. But I do love plenty of games that are. I really take my time with RPGs, so I'm always in the triple digits with those and I have a long, comfy time
spm was 7.7/10
this but 10 hours or less. i got shit to do. unless it's really well paced, an 6-10 hour game is the perfect length to feel like you've mastered the mechanics without repeating your ideas.
thanks for the 21 by the way dude
nice 4
thanks for the 97 dude
Witcher 3 took me ~200 with side quests and dlc. which I thought was a pretty immersive length but just story was well under 180
Thanks for the 79 dude
thanks for the 79 dude, what are the odds of that haha?
Yeah same. I appreciate it if there's enough content to keep me for that long, though I can't say any non-fighting game or non-MMO have ever breached 110 hours
At least for a good RPG, 60 is the minimum for me (or rather, the lowest that I hope it can get to with a slow, but not 100% pace)
I hate them. I stopped buying games +50 hours. There's never once been a game longer than that that wasn't filled to the brim with padding and nonsense.
A $1/hour should be the minimum requirement to be considered a game.
this
long games are fucking shit, get a life faggot.
I'm not usually a completionist, but when I play a game I really like, I like to exhaust as much of the content as I can. I usually run out of steam after 100-120 hours.
Most games I get bored of around 10-30 hrs.
I think it depends on your tolerance/appreciation of progressing without advancing the plot. If I can do a small sidequest that only tells me the story of a father and his child, I'll consider that time well spent.
I feel this way sometimes, but I think it's more about the value of each hour, though I still feel bad if a $60 game takes 20 hours with no replay value no matter how good it was
shut up nigger
Call me that word again you fucking pussy. I dare you.
Yeah I usually go for as 100% as isn't tedious. This usually just means all or almost all sidequests. If a game has 100-120 hours I'm good with riding that out but despite how much I liked it usually don't feel like replaying it. Maybe I get burnt out, maybe it felt complete and starting anew would ruin that. Regardless, I try to buy games that I know I'll like so I won't run into the issue of getting bored.
up
Final Fantasy 6 was pretty long. Lots of optional/missable stuff.
I wish more games had missable quests and things to find. It made the exploring have much more weight. Nu-JRPGs are like "yeah don't worry about looking for secrets, we made all the best shit mandatory and the optional content is available to you whenever"
Persona 3 was the best 50+ hour waste of my life I ever played.
So yeah I love them.
Im saving them for when Im retired
JRPGs are my favorite genre but I've played relatively few because I hate long games.
16 hours is ideal for me but I could do 30-ish for a game I'm REALLY loving. Even rushing it, Xenoblade Chronicles ran me about 45 hours and that's about the max I think I could handle. So far my favorite ones have been Panzer Dragoon Saga, the Mother games, Chrono Trigger and Live-A-Live. Not one of them took me longer than 20 hours, so I certainly know it's not an issue the entire genre faces.
What are some good JRPGs with little filler that can easily be tackled in a few sittings?
>maid uniform
>cat robot
Wow i need to replay super paper mario
Whatever you say, shut