The Mythical 40-Hour Gamer
September 27, 2006 6:04 AM | Simon Carless
There’s an intriguing piece up on Wired News at the moment by Collision Detection blogger Clive Thompson, who asks: “Who the heck actually finishes a story-based game in 40 hours? Who are these mythical 40-hour gamers?”
Interesting question – Clive’s frustration comes from the fact that he picked up a copy of Eidos’ Tomb Raider: Legend under the impression that he was about to play a 40 hour game. Not so, he says.
“I plugged away at the game whenever I could squeeze an hour away from my day job and my family. All told, I spent far more than 40 hours -- but still only got two-thirds through. At some point, I sadly realized I just couldn't afford any more time. I've got a life to lead: Books to read, a day job, my infant son to hang out with, other games beckoning. That's why I've collected a shockingly large mausoleum of unfinished games over the years.”
Clive also asks whether the only solution is going to be a split in the way games are developed, in order to please those hard-core types who whinge about recent releases being too short, and “soft-core” gamers who just want a couple of hours of fun here and there.
I can’t help but sympathise – as much as Final Fantasy XII’s impending release excites me, I’m not sure that another 83 hour slog is what I really need to be doing with my life. Aside from arguably having better things to do, the guilt after spending that long on the previous one was pretty damned tangible.
[edited by alistairw]
Categories:
11 Comments
I don't usually like to use this "argument" on journalists, but maybe he just sucks? I'm kinda stunned to see anyone spend over 20, maybe 25 hours on TR Legend, and that's at the outside. It's not that long a game.
Nich | September 27, 2006 9:08 AM
25 hours, 40 hours, the point is still the same. the amount of time one can invest in a game varies a LOT by lifestyle. i'm one of those who will only play for an hour or two at a time, tops, but still want to play story-based games. that's why i like shorter games. on the other hand, i know other people (mostly much younger than i) who will easily play 6-8 hours at a stretch.
bunnyhero | September 27, 2006 9:21 AM
Hmm, over 40 hours for Tomb Raider Legends? I only took around 8 to complete it, and I'm not the kind of person who rushes games at all (although I only got some of the unlockables, I was only renting it after all)
Monkeyman1138 | September 27, 2006 10:06 AM
RPGs are still my personal favorite genre, but I find it harder and harder to justify spending 40+ hours on them.
This does not prevent me from doing so, but instead of playing all the RPG games I want, I have to simply choose the "best of the best" per se.
Save for RPG's, if a game goes on longer than 15 hours or so, I tend to move on to the next one.
Jakanden | September 27, 2006 11:03 AM
So. My wife mostly plays Harvest Moon and Silent Hill games, and isn't very good at games that require a lot of manual dexterity. She is also a full time nursing student, has a full time job, and volunteers at a local pet rescue many times a week.
She managed to beat TR: Legend in just over 10 hours over about a weeks time and she didn't even realize that you could lock onto enemies until about halfway through when I pointed it out to her.
While I 100% agree with the statements made in the thesis, I don't think C.T. could have picked a worse example to use for a game. I don’t even finish RPGs that demand more than 20 hours of me anymore.
Shapermc | September 27, 2006 11:48 AM
I'm not interested in Tomb Raider, but I'd say, in general, I tend to be bored of any game by the time I reach the 24 hour mark. The ideal game, to me, is no longer than 10 hours.
I'm obsessive compulsive, however, so I tend to complete everything I play (save stuff I did for review that totally sucked.)
mathew | September 27, 2006 3:13 PM
I think games are designed differently these days and just get boring half way through. I find my self investing tons of time in non-games, yet get tired of "real" games in 15 to 20 hours or less.
Of course I'm one of those people who no longer is willing to play $50 for 10 hour games either. Smaller, cheaper games more often would be ideal to me.
d | September 27, 2006 4:22 PM
Articles like this make me angry. I've been playing games since I was a kid. I never think anything like this. I want games to be harder and more complex. Not shorter and easier. I already have a hard time dealing with the same old gameplay over and over again.
I hope ninja gaiden 2 comes out while I'm still alive.
:P
Corey Holcomb-Hockin | September 27, 2006 6:19 PM
I'm going to have to agree with many of the comments above me... I'm no elitist by any stretch, but when I followed the link from gamasutra.com called "the myth of the 40 hour video game", I figured this would be a commentary on the fact that many RPGs promise 40 hours, but almost none deliver that much content.
Blaine Higdon | September 27, 2006 6:34 PM
"I want games to be harder and more complex. Not shorter and easier."
Complexity and length are not the same thing. A 10 hour game can deliver many more times a full experience than a 50 hour game.
Anonymous | September 27, 2006 8:53 PM
I wanna know which reviews claimed Legends was that long. I don't buy it.
Danjo Olivaw | September 28, 2006 7:16 PM