How long should a quality single player experience last to be considered worthwhile?

Another post brought up the fact that gamers lose interest in a single player game after 6 to 8 hours of gameplay. I beg to differ, but let's let our vast number of gamers here tell the story!

And I mean a quality game like Half-Life 2 or CoD 4: Modern Warfare, not a repetitive same-same with each level.

 

I'll be honest, CoD4's single player sucked I think. It depends on whether you like the game or not really. Even a realitively short game can be tremendous fun like HL2:E2, but so can a 20 hour long game like the original Far Cry.

 

30-40 hours is great. 20 minimum, but replay value has a lot to do with it too.

 

Ideally I think single-player games should have a campaign that lasts at least 10 hrs, but as mobius1aic pointed out, if a game is super fun, it can be ok if it's short. Replayability is also a factor. Portal isn't a very long game, but I've played it many times.

 

It's more quality than quantity IMO. Sure, sometimes you feel it was short, but if it was good, I'd refer that than a long, boring campaign.

The thing is, from a sales market point of view, not everyone has 30h to fork over for a game so to make it compelling to the masses, companies make casual games which last a decent amount of time, but are still long enough so they aren't rushed through.

Personally, 10-20h should constitute a decent gaming experience without making it overly long.

 

I think if the game has a very deep and connecting story that it should last well over 20+ hours. If I really get into a storyline and fall in love with the character...and then it ends around 10 hours I'm extremely disappointed. An an example is while I really like FF7: Crisis Core, the main storyline was a bit short for me, I think they could have gone a little further with it.

On the other hand Resistance 2 was an amazing game for PS3 and I think it only took me about 10 hours to beat. Nonstop action, cool cast of characters, amazing graphics, smart AI, and killer bosses.

 

voted 15-20, but I wouldn't be tired of it by then if it was fun... I just don't expect a game to last much longer than that.... but by all means I'd love it if it did and was a fun game.

I'm a diehard singleplayer guy, multi is ok, but just seems kind of like a stripper to me... brief fun for a bit for sure, but singleplayer is the hot girlfriend who will always be there for a good time that I go back to...

 

I found Overlord one of the best SP games I ever played because the minions are so darn hilarious. It is short, and the story is not fantastic, but I loved it.

+1 for quality over quantity.

 

Any length single player experience can be worthwhile.

A short experience can be made up for with exceptional quality or replay value, a low price point, or having a great multiplayer component to go with it.

And I don't believe there is any real limit on how long a single player experience can be and still be fun, as long as quality does not falter.

 

One of the longest SP experiences that I really enjoyed was Fallout 2.

One of the shortest SP experiences that I did NOT enjoy was Fallout 3.

 

I voted 10-15 hours. This is assuming that there is absolutely no multiplayer component (i.e. a JRPG like Tales of Vesperia on x360)

I think this should be roughly the bare minimum to warrant my $60 purchase for a game, replay value included.

To anyone saying quality over quantity, I'd rather have both. If you want to factor in quality that badly, you should be including the entire game's potential (multiplayer, mods etc.). However, if a game's quality was lacking, I wouldn't be buying it in the first place.

 

Well, assuming it is a quality single player, it can theoretically extend forever (it has quality, right?).

 

COD4 SP sucked??? Someone obviously doesn't know how to use the SP mode of a game to train and sharpen themselves for online MP play. You must be on that other team I keep fragging into Neverland.

Then again there are those bullet sponges who buy the game and never bother to play the SP game, and who wind up being absolutely useless for a team-combat game. Most of these are those who shouldn't even own an M game anyway. Don't get me wrong - I have a different view of what the M rating should be, as opposed to what it is. I believe that the M rating is to keep all snotnose punks from ruining a game made for us adults.

Most games that are/were SP only at least for me weren't that great if you couldn't get 100+ hours out of it. Examples are Resident Evil, GTA series (especially Vice City and San Andreas), Half-Life, Metal Gear, etc.

For MP shooters like COD or Killzone 2 right now, I'll routinely use the SP game on its hardest level to help tune my skills for online play. If you can get through those levels, most online matches are a breeze.

For those of you who are going to post and brag about how you've easily beaten every possible hardest mode on every shooter that's ever come out, spare us - remember who you're trying to BS before you even consider it.

 

Well i used to refuse to buy games if the single player story wasnt at least 10hrs but after CoD4 and CoD-WaW i have changed my perdpective, id much rather have quality over quantity.

 

I'm with CyberVision here. The CoD4's SP was ok, but the arcade mode gave an incredible amount of replayability. When I was bored, I would try over and over again to get the most ridiculous scores possible. Combination no death and mad streaks would jack up my scores. I think all games should have scores, or even better stats. This gives a lot of replayability. L4D's stat page is a good example.

Replayability adds to the hours of play. It doesn't matter as long as it is fun. Fun will add replayability. And replayability will add hours to the game. If it isn't fun within the first 6 to 10 hours, then I would dump the game. that's what I voted.

 

A worthwhile game shouldn't be measured in length, but with replay value, and entertainment.

The Final Fantasy Series are awesome. I've easily 150+ hours on FFX and FFXII and I still haven't beaten either one of them. The games require alot of time, but the story lines are well worth it.

Super Mario World for the SNES... one of the best games ever . It can be beaten in under an hour(if you know the secret exits). The replay value is very high, gameplay is simple, graphics are beautiful, and its just so much fun.

How about the Pokemon series for the game boy? Well over 20+ hours, and that's if you just try to rush the game.

 

It's different based on genre IMO. Some game's values come from story (RPGs), explosiveness (FPS) or gameplay (adventure/RTS) and these come at different development costs.

An RPG/SRPG should go at least 30-40 hours

An adventure game should be 15-20 hours

An FPS/RTS should be at least 10 hours.

 

I don't know where you get an RTS should only be at least 10 hours. I've spent that on 3 missions before. To beat all 3 campaigns on SC or all 4 on WC3 took much longer than 10 hours, sometimes 2-3 hours per mission. And because most story line takes place in between the actual missions it's hard to tell a story with only a few intermissions. I'd say an RTS should be the 2nd longest genre, second only to the rpg.

 

If a game feels short, that's a good thing, because you probably enjoyed it and raced through it. If it feels long, it probably feels repetitive and you just want to finish it, and you're unlikely to replay it. I'd rather have a 10 hour enjoyable campaign than a 20 hour boring one.

Certain games are deisgned to be long, namely RPGs. Since they're built on player development, I think that's fine, but the player development to me is essentially the length of the game. When I'm maxed out, I beat the game, and that's usually it. If it's a great game, I'll make new characters/builds. If it wasn't, that's it....

 

QFT. That's the same feeling I get playing HL2 (and episodes). I've played the game multiple times already but still go back to it because I love the story so much. In fact, I'll probably play it again late this week and next since I'll have the week off.

 

I feel compelled to post here because I feel like this thread was a response to a reply I gave the OP earlier (plz correct if I'm wrong).

When I pointed out that industry data suggests that most gamers will only put in about 6-8 hours into a single player game, this is meant to represent the general population of gamers. Developers will focus the most effort to appease this segment due to the realities of economics and the simple fact that they want most people to see the entire product they worked so hard on. This is the same reason that games on the whole are getting easier as well as shorter.

I was simply trying to explain the trend, not justify or generalize it to the whole population. Furthermore, posting a poll on a laptop gaming forum (which has a much higher percentage of "hardcore" gamers) is terribly skewed sample and does not produce statistically relevant results. This is especially true when you limit the games choices to great games like Half Life 2 (which would of course command a longer attention span) when the 6-8 hour time frame is meant to represent the average of time spent on all games.

 

i don't mind if an fps is just over 6 hours because you get your value through MP
but if an rts or rpg had a SP just longer than 6 hours i would be pissed

 

I was mad when i beat COD4 after the second time i sat down to play it. FEAR, FEAR XP, FEAR PM, FEAR 2, DOOM3, DOOM 3 RoE, B: Bad Company, CoD4, MGS4 all take less then 12 hours for first time play.

Dunno how long CoD4 actually took but I know ive done a no kill no alert run of MGS4 in 6 hours flat.

As soon as i get the new asus im replaying all the pc games i have.

 

I voted 25+ hours since I buy games for a solid single player experience and it has to be something that will last me at least a month since purchasing games locally doesn't cut it for me (I've been asking relatives to get me the games I like when they're abroad and I only see them 1-2 times a year).

 

I've given up after 100+ hours playing Final Fantasy XII and there's still numerous side quests that I still haven't finished

 

Quality over quantity in this situation, take CoD4 for example, incredibly short story but rich with different situations and events

 

I don't see how shorter is better

 

The length of a game will also depend on gameplay itself. Even with nice storyline and development, if you have to do the same repetitive thing for 100 hours, the game doesn't become that much more enjoyable either :/

I mean, there has to be some level of fun factor involved within the game to make it last long without making it overly tedious and tiring.

I've seen games where everything was nice, but the gameplay style of the game did not promote nor incite me to spend the humongous amount of hours needed to advance/complete it.

 

Man...Im with you all the way on this Cyber. I didnt even want to play MP in modern warfare because the single player was so outstanding. And when I did start playing MP It felt great because I pretty much pwned everyone! ahh

So Thats why you should always play SP first, no matter what the game is. Because you could actually love the SP more than the MP...and you should, thats what a quality game is.

And for the amount of time to play in SP, I put 20+ but really it doesnt matter, because I never think of the times I play a game unless the game absolutely blows and I get frustrated.

 

I'll take quality over quantity any day.

 

Best example I can find that showcases that a game can be really short and still be amazing is the most obvious one: Portal. I beat that game the first time through in about 4-5 hours. I've played it since and it takes me about an hour and a half to beat it. Still, this game is probably one of the best in the last 5 years. Half-Life 2: Episode 2 was also very short but one of the best rides I've experienced.

 

Agreed: as long as the game is good, doesn't really matter.
Short game: Portal
Long game: Knights of the Old Republic

Both very good with one in 2 hours and the other in 60 hours.

 

each genre has its own time. there is no minimum for every game.

rpgs tend to last a lot longer since the storyline is drawn out, twists in plots etc. a typical rpg for me, can last from 30-45+ hours (depending on side quests, difficulty of the game etc) a game like oblivion with tons of sidequests, mod content etc, can last for a lot longer period of time (all for the initial price of the game)

fps games typically are shorter. i would be happy with a 15-20 hour single player. (if it is JUST single player, it should be longer then if the game has a multiplayer). games like cod have a pretty decent single player even if it is less then 10 hours etc. but the multiplayer more then makes up for that.

those are really the only types of games i play, so i won't comment on other genres.

 

I dont know, its a tough debate. Sometimes i miss the days of games from the NES and SNES era that were beatable in 1 sitting, but at the same time I appreciate games like the Zelda franchise that take days or weeks.

Im an avid FPS fan, and some games kept my attention like HL2 and FEAR, but other games like Crysis & Fear 2, I had a ton of trouble staying interested. I always found myself leaving the game after about every 3 checkpoints and going to play some Counter Strike or something haha.
I think instead of making every single FPS have 1 long story line, maybe go back to episodes like Duke Nukem 3D. Still love that game

Seems like all the games being released these days fall into 1 of the 2 categories: amazing graphics, or amazing gameplay. Its hard to find one that falls into both categories.

 

I seem to get bored when shooters get over 15 hours...im playing dead space and its taking me a while...starting to get bored. Shooters can become very repetitious. Sand box games are different however