Is 17 Hours Too Short For A Videogame? (The Jimquisition)

Just read Your tweet about the wrestling figure! Please inform us about the availability.

Once again there appear to be two types of gamers: Preteens with infinite free time and the rest of us who have jobs, and families, and bills. I have maybe 2 hours a night to devote to games when everyone else has gone to sleep. I don't have time for these sprawling 100 hour games any more than I have time to grind my online characters. I have observed in the past that multiplayer games would be more fun if there were servers devoted to people who didn't have time to play. They'd be tweaked to be less grindy, maybe start the characters out at max level, and people who log more than 10 hours a week wouldn't be able to connect to them.

I'm quite often concerned with a game's length, not because I need the most bang for my buck but because if it's too long, I likely won't finish it. For example, I know Persona 5 is supposed to be amazing, but I simply do not have time to commit to such a long game! Short narrative games fit into my lifestyle really well though, so knowing that Cult of the Lamb is "only" 17h actually makes me MORE likely to play it, since it won't take up all my game time for months.

I like playing story driven games on occasion and when I do I like to complete those story lines. Consequently the value of such games to me drops off sharply the longer they’re announced to take. Not that I go huffing & puffing on social media or store reviews or whatever - that again takes more of that fucking time I don’t have. I just give the game a pass.

Given this game is trying so hard to look like Isaac and has surely got a lot of sales purely from that, it seems reasonable that people will compare them and some will be disappointed by the comparative lack of content. Sure there'll probably be post-launch content but the review is for now and speculating on future content is pointless (unless you're trying to sell a season pass). Everyone's allowed an opinion and reviews are inherently subjective.

This reminded me. There was a dystopia worker bee game where your job was horrible and everything was bad and then you found music. It was a fea hours long. It was fine. A bit heavy handed but fun. It had a mini game in it where you tap on your cellphone screen to get points. The more qulik points, the better. The more Qulicks on it, the higher points each Qulick would get you at break points. It even had loot boxes in it. You could trade your points for point multipliers at random between 2 and 5 or buy them with money. I suggest that this game that I finished in a few hours is actually endless. There is nothing stopping you from hitting x on a controller for years to really wrack up those points.

Totally with you on the break from all the abuse reporting. It needs to be done, but its bad enough with all the other stuff going on the world. It's hard enough to listen to, so I can't imagine what it must be like to research and report on all the time. It's a travesty that it's not covered by more outlets :/ The irreverant debate it a good break.

Sounds like what happened to Octavia Navarro recently - got a game on Steam for £5 or thereabouts, and if you play it unaided, it's probably a good couple of hours of entertainment. Some joker bought it, played it with a walkthrough, was done in an hour and refunded it - then left a positive review and said they hoped the creator would make more games... Sad times.

"Are we really still doing this" was my reaction exactly. Who needs quality when you can get quantity, I guess.

Game length is a valid critical measure for some people. I know folks who can't afford to buy 20 games a year and get a LOT of good time out of BoI. But yeah, it sounds like this critic was trying to use length as some universal consumerist review point, which is silly.

I think there is some merit in the concept of getting your money's worth, when you don't have much to spend. Especially if you aren't the type of gamer to replay a game once you've completed it (I'm not really a new game + person, for example). I like to know how long a game is in general terms, to play through the story (not to 100% completion) because I want to know if the cash I'm spending this month on entertainment will last me that month's budget. If not, I may need to save specifically for it. I realize this isn't quite the same as the people trying to squeeze every drop out of a game for pennies an hour, but it is a factor I use in purchasing. Also, I'm glad you're taking a break. Look after yourself!

Something you've touched on in the past, and this video made me think of, is how many of The Gamers (TM) are concerned with how long a videogame is because they don't have (and desperately need) hobbies other than videogames? Personally, I find 20 hours to be hitting the upper limits of my tolerance, with my preference being for games that are 10-12 hours in length or that I can just pick up and put down whenever, but I also have hobbies that aren't videogames that I like to do.

Can't make the 24th but looks like it will be sweet. Is there any way to stream it or is it being recorded?

One thing to note: I don't think the value of a game is all that related to its length (if anything, I feel too many games are padded out), but I am still interested in the length of a game before I start playing it. The reason is, simply, I'm not gonna start a 100 hour or longer game if I know I won't have a lot of time in the near future. I will absolutely do that if I am on holiday or something though. So there is value to the information.

I believe that a video game should cost about $10-15 for every 90 to 120 minutes of playtime. That puts it on par with a matinee movie in the theater.

I've found the older I get 10 to 20 hours is the sweet spot for me due to work schedule, home life, and general lack of an attention span. I used to love RPG's (and still do) but they can be difficult for me to get through these days. Great video as always, Commander.