Time is one of our most precious resources, and with video games the concept of value is often associated with the length of the game, amongst other things. Boasting of an 80+ hour experience is a common thing on the boxes of open world titles and RPGs and often regarded as a major selling point, and charging full price for a game that lasts 10 hours or less is often negatively received, regardless of the quality of said game. So, LV! Do you associate the value of a video game with the number of hours you put into it? Do you prefer to get stuck into something you can easily lose tens - if not hundreds - of hours into, or would you rather have a shorter experience that you could finish in a few days, or maybe even less time than that? How long does it generally take before you get bored of a game?
To be honest, how much time I spend on a game really depends on how good the rewards working for are. Put in three hours of searching for a single-use item? Nah. Put in an eternity for putting together a "celebration picture" that only exists just to look cute? PECK YES. (In my defense, Star Allies is a pretty short game and we needed the challenge.) The replayability and post-game content really helps, though. I don't care how long a game is. I just want to know if I can still mess around for a long time even after finishing the story.
Usually, yeah. Games that I am passionate about tend to pull a lot of time from me. I think this was at its peak during the Rune Factory 4 days, where I spent all waking hours playing to get through as much as possible....only ever stopped to do essentials like eat and sleep, haha. Wonderful game and an unforgettable experience. I only ever get bored if I get stuck, as was the case with Kingdom Hearts Dream Drop Distance. Struggling to defeat a boss tends to make me lose interest quickly, since I play games primarily for the story rather than challenge. Was the case with Bravely Default, which I ended up putting down for at least three years and only recently picked back up and restarted. Longer games are great so long as I don't struggle too much to get through them.
A week. That's all the time I need in a game before I get bored, and I don't play games all that much since I put more time into editing stories, so I have, at least, 80+ hours in the five years that I've actually been playing games. So, yeah, not that much really. I just play, occasionally pick it up, then stop after a week, unless it takes even longer to complete or I just can't. Then, I'll just stop before 5 days is over. Is it short? Yes. Is it healthy? Maybe. I just don't play for long, even when it's a game I like.
Depends on the game. Some things if I find that I can complete them and do it all over again I will get bored within 3 days. If it's hard but I'm enjoying the side quests or activities I can be patient and work my way through it.
I absolutely take play time in consideration. It's like when I buy a game, I'm buying someone to work for me. I don't want to pay $60 for someone who's going to give me fun and enjoyment for 20 hours (or like two weekends). But if I can buy a game for $40 that will last me 80 hours, or better yet hundreds and hundreds of hours like Elder Scrolls or Super Smash Bros or my ideal Pokémon game which doesn't exist yet; then that's absolutely worth the playtime to dollars ratio. Speaking of which, that ratio might be something like one dollar per hour to make me satisfied, but half a dollar per hours is better.
I honestly don't take playtime into consideration, as long as I enjoy the game. If it's an endless sort of game that I have played over 60 hours, it's probably good. The worst thing is when you play a game with a 60+ hour campaign and it's not even good and a pain to play..
I’d much rather have a short, replayable game than a long one that isn’t worth revisiting. Games are expensive, so having to pay a lot of money for a one-off experience doesn’t seem as worthwhile.
