How Long Should Videogames Be?
It is impossible to give a straight answer since there are many game genres out there. However, when we ask the question: How long should a video game be? We are usually referring to Action/Adventure games or even open world RPGs. Usually, sports, racing games or shooters have a shorter, repetitive game loop made to satisfy gamers in short bursts. Keep an eye on shooters though, we’ll talk about them later because you got different styles and map size is something worth mentioning.
Linear vs. Open World
Action/adventure games usually fall in any of the two categories. Games like God of War, The Callisto Protocol, The Order: 1886, even the Resident Evil remakes are quite linear and throw you in regular-sized areas which you tackle by going from point A to B (with the occasional detour), and then the game puts you in another one.
You may have the option to revisit some of these areas perhaps because you need a key or a gadget to unlock a door or an area.
As mentioned before, the area size is not that overwhelming, and you can cover the area in a relatively quick amount of time. From a design perspective, these areas are quite polished and well-thought out as designers and artists can focus on making the experience for the player something to remember.
Red Dead Redemption 2: The underrated gem.
One game that really stands out for its map size and polished aspects is Red Dead Redemption 2, which is in my opinion one of the most underrated games of all time, even by Rockstar itself who is not going to continue supporting such a gem. The map is big and it has many biomes, also the towns, and cities are vibrant and fun.
Nature itself is another huge aspect of why this game is amazing. You can spend hours fishing or hunting for that special or legendary game. You will be immersed in the beauty of nature, its trees, hills, and many detailed elements each virtual square mile that it contains.
The game is huge, and it forces you to explore it, since fast travel is not at the tip of your fingers; you will have to travel to a train station and pay your hard-earned money to go to another area, the further it is, the more the ticket costs (just like in real life)!
Good effort, but not quite right.
Some games exaggerate the map size, only to make it feel big and vast, with plenty of things to do. The problem is that you face big areas that feel liminal. Empty valleys, unnecessary hills, and scarce forests might make traveling feel like a chore rather than an adventure. A game that comes to mind is The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, or even its very similar bastard cousin, Genshin Impact.
Don’t get me wrong, both games have amazing visuals and the towns are amazing, especially in Genshin. But the problem is that the map is too big with very little things to do. It is just big for the sake of it. One of the key aspects in game development is that everything must have a purpose. In Breath of the Wild, climbing hills and traversing miles of terrain just to get into a shrine seems unnecessary. The good thing is that there is fast travel with the ‘Ubisoft’ towers scattered throughout Hyrule.
GTA V is halfway there; the city is great, but going north to the desert feels like a chore, even with the Oppressor Mk 2 bike or any chopper.
So much room for activities
The go to formula with open-world sandbox games is to scatter side quests or collectibles throughout the map. This is why some of the games make the map bigger just for the sake of it. To give the player the feeling of a big world with plenty of activities to do.
This increases the hours a game lasts. Side quests enrich the lore and provide experience points to further level your character or party, and also might give you good loot like armor and weapons.
It is a good game mechanic if implemented correctly. Bioware usually does this quite well in games like Mass Effect and Dragon age. They enrich the side quests with a good amount of context by conversing with a certain NPC to give you an idea what you are up to and why you are doing it. Games like Elder Scrolls or Fallout also do this well.
The problem might rise when you are just receiving these fetch quests for the sake of doing a certain amount of them to get 100% completion for your game. I understand not all quests or collectibles have to be significant or relevant to the game, but over doing it might make the player feel they are doing a chore or grinding, rather than helping an NPC or finding some mystic weapon.
I got this feeling when playing Breath of the Wild; some of the shrines just felt like a chore, especially reaching them. Once there, you face a large number of challenges, but after completing a few of them, you start to notice a pattern and they become repetitive. You get some decent loot after completing one, but nothing to write home about. Even after completing them all, the final quest you unlock and the rewards you get are a bit underwhelming.
How long do they last?
Usually, a linear action-adventure game lasts somewhere between 6 to 10 hours. This time could increase significantly if you are trying to complete the game 100%. Perhaps you missed a collectible or an achievement that requires you to beat an enemy a certain number of times with a specific weapon. Things like that can make you replay the game again.
With open-world action RPGs the average time can go between 25 to 50 hours. This is relative because you might immerse yourself in the world and savor every moment, every quest, every adventure that awaits. Like in Red Dead Redemption 2, you might just go for a fishing trip or go hunting game. Those are hours of fun not necessarily related to advancing in the game’s main story.
What I like about sandbox open-world games is the fact that you don’t have to force yourself to complete everything. Some games have achievements that are not focused on grinding, but on the player having fun. Days Gone and Horizon: Zero Dawn, and Horizon: Forbidden West are some examples of games that you will enjoy and not feel like you are grinding. I also detected this on the new Mass Effect Legendary Edition which contains all the 3 games of the Commander Shepard story arc.
You mentioned something about shooters
When it comes to multiplayer games, first person shooters or FPS might have a fast, mid or slow-paced game loop. Call of Duty is a franchise that perfected this, even to the point of ‘diversifying’ in their own games and releasing variations of it. Take the ‘realistic’ modern military shooter games like Modern Warfare, they are the mid-point when it comes to pace, action, and map size. The Black Ops games are faster paced, with smaller maps and faster run and gun mechanics. Albeit, Call of Duty is considered to be a fast-paced action FPS.
The other side of the coin are slower-paced, simulator-oriented shooters. Battlefield stands right in the middle of them. Arma, on the other hand, is an FPS with heavy simulation aspects. Maps in these games are huge and the action is quite scattered. You might have a feeling of anticipation most of the time, waiting to shoot someone, or encounter an enemy patrol to intercept.
In my opinion these games are better enjoyed with a squad, and everyone must have voice chat enabled. Often times, the banter, and faffing around with your friends will make up for the lack of action whilst moving to the rendezvous point.
So, what is the sweet spot?
30 hours seems to be a reasonable amount of time to make a game last. Again, there is the whole $60 (now $70) debate and how long it should be. Games like The Order: 1886 got bashed because of how ‘short’ they felt despite getting a full price. It is a bit hypocritical if you compare it to games like Resident Evil or The Callisto Protocol which are on the shorter side. However, the polished visuals, story, and game mechanics are significant elements that make the game incredibly enjoyable.
I think that linear games have found a sweet spot in their own sub-genre. Open-world games seem to vary a lot in terms of time to complete. One thing you will notice is that the game is not that long if you only follow the main quest. Perhaps it is us as consumers that feel we have got to do everything to fully get the experience.
Open-world game mechanics might feel moot at the moment, with the safe-to-play formula of main quests, side quests scattered throughout the map, and collectibles lying around as well. To top it all off, the ubiquitous ‘Ubisoft’ towers to unlock unexplored areas of the game too.
Even Death Stranding whose mechanics focus mainly on ‘running errands’ or delivering packages gets to feel a bit repetitive after a while. What sets this game apart is the fact that you have to prepare with the right gear before embarking on a delivery mission. You got to anticipate your route and consider the weather, terrain, and many things that might contribute to not only damaging your packages, but losing them altogether.
With the current state of open-world and linear action-adventure games, it is quite difficult to truly innovate on the exploration aspect of it. Some games add ingenious motion mechanics or complex skill trees, and other things to make the game ‘stand out’ from the rest. It is up to us, the consumers, to decide how we will approach these kinds of games; whether we attempt to fully complete the game, or if we will focus on the main mission and not divert too much if not needed.
What are your thoughts on the current lengths of your average linear or open-world games? Is the new $70 price tag a contributing factor to decide if you will get a game? Let me know in the comments down below.
Happy Gaming.
