What is Reddit's opinion of
HowLongToBeat?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ HowLongToBeat website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
100 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
First people uploading playthroughs always play quicker because the first person to have a full one uploaded gets more views. It's opportunism.
Seach for Uncharted 2 full walkthrough by HassanAlHajry, uploaded 3-5 days before release date. It totals under 7.5 hours. Now compare that to the average reported time to complete the main story in howlongtobeat.com http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=10796
That's 11 hours. 3.5 hours more than the video playthrough.
I usually check HowLongToBeat for a good average of gameplay length - it considers singleplayer and multiplayer differently, as well as listing avg time for 100% completion. Unfortunately, you will have to calculate the $/h yourself.
Oh man, thanks for the nostalgia overload! I totally remember these. Did anyone ever play Freddi Fish or Putt-Putt?
Took me around 10. In all honesty, the length of The Order 1886 was not really any different to other shooters. People just like to circlejerk. According to this, the average player takes around 8 hours to beat it.
I might get shit for this, but I play almost every game on easy. I have a wife and 3 young kids, boardgames/tabletop RPGs for hobbies, other social events for our family or friends, dates with my wife, and I workout 4-5 days/week. I have very little time to play. I hate repeating the same area because I died, and if a game's game-play starts to bore me but I like the story, I just cheat to speed things up. I generally rate games by how long it takes me to start cheating, with the better ones never giving me that urge. I review the website How Long to Beat for almost every game I play. The Witcher 3 took me over 2 months to beat, and that was playing more than I normally do. The longer the game takes to beat, the more averse I am to playing it (typically, but I'm a sucker for good RPGs). I also look at reviews for every game I want to play to make sure it'll be "worth it".
In my life, I love short and easy games or games that can be advanced a small bit at a time. Yes, there needs to be a bit of challenge, but I much prefer to coast through it to be honest. I play on hard-mode in life, so i don't feel the need to excessively challenge myself or spend tons of time getting S-ratings when I can just sit back and enjoy the ride. I use to play much more than I do now, and I find that the inclination to unlock everything in a game, beat every mode, etc really comes down to how much time is available. The more free time you have in life, the more time you might want to spend unlocking everything in a game. I'm a sucker for being a completionist, but I often shortcut it by cheating so that I don't spend 100 hours gathering shit for a game that I'll never play again.
I think it just seems short because it's so good. The median time to complete the campaign is ~30 hours according to that site, and that's longer than most AAA games these days. GTA IV's average time was about 28 hours, 33 for San Andreas, 21 for Vice City, 17.5 for GTA III (all from the same site), so it's actually longer than any of them except for San Andreas (which was bigger, so it probably padded out the time a good deal just travelling in between the cities).
It's also better than most AAA games these days, though, so it does feel short just because it's so enjoyable.
More memorable address: http://howlongtobeat.com/
What's the criteria for "beat" though? It's fairly meaningless if there's no distinction between people that rush storyline-only and completionists. I mean, I guess it's better than nothing, but a bunch of "1 person took xx:xx to beat this game" data points without any info about how thoroughly they played it doesn't tell you much in the end.
I've heard really, really good things about this.. however the downside I've heard about it is that it's really short.
Edit: Down voted for speaking the truth about the game's length? That's kinda sad, especially when a lot of people value knowing how long something is. I didn't mean to slander the game at all.
Comparing it on http://howlongtobeat.com/ :
Human Revolution main story is 21 hours (24 for the directors cut)
Mankind Divided main story is 13.5 hours
http://puu.sh/rQIjV/bb61429742.jpg
I don't blame people for calling it half a game there. With sidemissions and such both are still at 30 hours.
I just posted a link to http://howlongtobeat.com elsewhere in this post, but I think it’s a valuable enough site that I’ll post it on the top level. If you want a game with a manageable time limit, check it out. There are plenty of similar sites out there too.
Historically speaking, most games used to be 1-2 hours long, all the 8bit and 16bit jump'n runs are really short. They sometimes stretch it out by being difficult, but games like Kirby and Disney's Magical Quest could be beaten on the first try with ease. Howlongtobeat lists literally hundreds of games that don't even reach the 1h mark.
Essentially the issue is never length, but if the game feels complete. Many 2h games can feel satisfying and complete, while some 15h games end up as incomplete mess.
As for Steams return policy, since they track achievements it should be easy to spot abuse.
depends entirely on how much you value 15$. personally i think it's worth it.
also, the other guy responding somehow missed the fact that there are multiple endings depending on how you bartender, but whatever.
i prefer to judge by quality of the experience, and not the quantity, but it's about 8 hours of content if that's important to you. judge that based on the 15$.
edit: i think i should speak more qualitatively about the VN, since i did emphasize the importance of it:
VA-11 HALL-A is great, because it combines 5-10 year old 4chan meme references with a progressive look on identity and sexuality, and a lot of lewd topics, which is like perfect to me. there's a lot of characters, and most of them are very colorful and quirky. all of the things happening in the city never enters the bar. naturally, the bar works as a respite from everyday life, but that everyday life is a cyberpunk dystopia so it's always interesting to hear about everything going on, and the events influence the characters you speak to in real ways. while most of the plot is about the other characters, the main character's story is about fucking up, being stubborn and afraid, and wanting to create your own path in life. all topics that speak deeply to me at the moment.
all in all, it's a very charming and quirky game with a serious tragic core about the insecurities 20-somethings feel about their futures. oh, and there's a super cute cyborg sex worker called dorothy. she's the one in the OP, and she is the best and i love her.
Only time I really use guides is if I'm completely stuck on something AND it isn't a fun activity that I'm stuck on. Apart from that I never really use guides at all if I'm honest. Closest thing I use, I guess, is HLTB just so I know how long I can expect to be playing a game for.
EDIT: Started playing Terraria, god I feel like a massive hypocrite.
Hey i got bored so why not try to calculate it.
2000 years from now is 730.485 days according to wolfram alpha, which gives us 17.531.640 hours.
I would love to play only half life, but i need to sleep, right?
I sleep about 6 hours a day, now lets say i need 2 hours a day (thats maybe too much, but just say I am lazy motherfucker) to get myself food, drink, get high and take a wc breaks(yea this part is the only one that i wouldn't do while playing). So that gives us 16 hours of playing per day day, now we have only 11.687.760 hours.
We will use http://howlongtobeat.com/ to tell us how long we need to finish half life.
I always like to play games on hard/est difficulty possible, so it might take a longer time, but because i will play this games for 2000 years i think i will get better over time and improve my time, so we will take normal time to complete the game.
Here you can see the times for all half life games, I will play HL1, HL2, HL2:E1, HL2:E2, where we get 34,5 hours of total gameplay, lets say 35 to have it easy.
After we give all this crap into calculator we get that you would be able to finish all Half Life games 333.936x in 2000 years from todays noon. Pretty useless information, eh?
Anyway, I need to get to Xen already...
If you're actually wanting "Running Times" for games http://howlongtobeat.com/ is a pretty good resource. Crowd sourced, so gives decent estimates, and breaks it down in a "just playing start to finish" and "if I do everything the game has to offer".
I use How Long To Beat for checking out length. Sometimes I just want to play through a short game, so I will go to that site with some games in mind and see what the average completion times are.
That was how much I had played but I've been playing through it lately and I think I'm almost done. It's fairly short according to HLTB, you just have to know that a dark corner is the friendliest face you'll see in the game.
You can hide better in the darkness. Don't sprint, they'll know. Know where your exits and hiding spots are before picking up anything shiny. Put a stuffed animal on your shoulder for support.
> GTA5 single player ... was pretty darn short and lacking
According to HowLongToBeat.com, the average playthrough of the game is 31 hours (I think mine was about 24 hours). Meanwhile, the incredible single-player of Red Dead Redemption is 18.5 hours. I won't disagree with it being "lacking" (that's a personal discussion), but stating that it's "pretty darn short" is an inaccurate accusation, as far as I'm concerned.
The amount of content is between Baldur's Gate I (http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=808) and Baldur's Gate II (http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=810).
~170 maps I believe.
Baldur's Gate II had around ~ 250 maps, but Baldur's Gate II was insanely, insanely massively massive. In summary, game is PACKED with content. Easily 60+ hours of content.
I use HowLongToBeat.
You can log all your games there, categorize them, mark down completion times, sort by all sorts of properties, and it will estimate how long it takes (Main, Main + Extras, 100%) to complete any specific game or any list you have it generate.
And it can select a random game for you to play, from any generated list.
> It'd be swell if I could return it.
If you're serious, you're a dickwad. You bought the game and played it in full. You want your money back now? WTF.
If you are only concerned with long play times, then do your research and only buy super long games as detailed by http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=13720
What you misunderstand is that indie games tend not to have endless bloat because it’s expensive to make. And most indie studios can’t afford that.
Playing the odds, more plot-based indie games are completable in under 10 hours than plot-based AAA games.
That is not a controversial statement.
Check out a place like http://howlongtobeat.com for a ton of this info.
Rogue-likes if you enjoy the game. The whole idea is to hook you with some neat mechanics and progression rewards so that you play the game (which is generally short-ish) over and over and over. But if the game doest catch you, it'll bore you cuz it's just the same stuff again and again. Examples: Faster than Light, Rogue Legacy, Crypt of the Necrodancer (all games i love, btw).
RPG epics, like Skyrim, Divinity: Original Sin, Dark Souls
Competitive multiplayer games like Starcraft 2, League of Legends, Team Fortress 2, DotA 2, Counterstrike: GO (some of these are free).
A good resource is this website which shows average game time for all different games:
Nefarious sunk cost fallacy! I keep an eye on HowLongToBeat.com whenever I start a game so I can indeed know if the end is near, or if I'd have to play another too many hours of not-fun before the satisfaction of completion is a possibility or not.
But... does no one remember Chameleon Twist? https://ksr-ugc.imgix.net/assets/003/697/783/43c09986aab0a35e8cf65f44bcbdc39e_original.png?v=1430302753&w=700&h=&fit=max&auto=format&lossless=true&s=7fab61a2b2a1bbe3728be7edbb333422 What about Chameleon Twist 2? http://howlongtobeat.com/gameimages/196897_41872_front.jpg
Hearts of Stone is still a 10-18 hour expansion priced cheaper than this 2-4 hour DLC.
Blood and wine was a 20-40 hour expansion for €20,-. That's a slightly longer experience than the main game was for mankind divided.
I don't really care if it's labeled DLC or expansion if the price tag is the same.
(source of playtime: http://howlongtobeat.com)
Updated from this last one: https://www.reddit.com/r/JRPG/comments/3gp7ti/classic_ranked_jrpg_list/
Adjusted a few numbers and positions, added EarthBound, Phantasy Star, FF13-3 and Second Chapter of Legendary Heroes.
Explanation:
This is a "JRPG preservation" list I made compiling all noteworthy JRPGs that can be played on PC emulated, more or less. Final Fantasy 13 "series" is there only for comparisons as it wouldn't rate high enough, normally.
It works like this: the first number is the vote of the game. This was deduced from Gamefaqs, since it's the only site around with enough "aggregate" votes to show some kind of reliable result. The last number instead works as a kind of popularity index, since it shows the number of votes at the time I compiled the list. It can't really be updated anymore since gamefaqs moved to a different format, so take it as an absolute snapshot.
The other two numbers instead are approximate number of hours to complete the game. These deduced mostly from http://howlongtobeat.com/ but these also show rather consistent results overall.
If there are some noteworthy omissions please point them out, though it's not as easy to update the list now that the data has changed.
Giving people credit for their work is one thing, but tacking on 60 additional seconds to the startup of a game every time it loads is a bit silly, don't you think?
Let's do some napkin math here:
Let's pick one fairly recent AAA game... Assassin's Creed 4 for argument's sake.
It sold 10 million copies by the end of 2013... Let's be crazy and conservative and assume it has sold an additional 2 million in the last 16 months for a total of 12,000,000.
howlongtobeat.com says it takes 22h to beat the main story of AC4, and 55h to get "completionist" level completion for the game.
Now let's say 5% of all players will "complete" AC4, and 40% more will finish the story; we can guess, say, 20% get halfway through and quit and the rest load the game up once and never touch it again. That comes out to roughly 165,000,000 hours played of AC4.
Now let's say the average gaming session lasts for 2 hours--which I think is a fair estimate here--and that means AC4 has been launched in the neighborhood of 86.7 million times.
I don't happen to have a video showing the intro movies for AC4, but we can see Arkham Knight here took 60 seconds, let's be conservative and say AC4's intro movies are 40 seconds instead.
40 seconds times 86.7 million launches equals over 109 years spent giving Ubisoft credit for making AC4.
I use HowLongToBeat because not only does it give you an estimate about how long a game will be, but the website is compatible with all devices, which backloggery isn't. Personally I'd prefer a mobile app but this is a happy medium between the two. Usually when I'm playing the game I prefer to update my backlog through my phone because I always have it with me, and it comes in more handy when I'm on a console. If you want an easier time looking through your games on a phone I suggest HLTB over backloggery. I also like the fact that when I search games on HLTB it gives you the album art and little descriptions when you click on them, along with forum threads about the game and reviews from users on the site.
I like to prioritize my backlog by using http://howlongtobeat.com/ It helps put some games in perspective like Doom. I had a free weekend during the summer and was able to complete the campaign over the weekend. My kids enjoyed playing Rayman Legends with me. WAU and TWD S2 can knocked out relatively quickly if you have an hour or two per episode a night.
If you're willing to pay around 10$ for a movie these days and want an interesting story driven experience go for it.
The whole experience takes around 4 hours and is best done in a single session.
I think that is awesome. For comparison I did not feel the campaign of Wolfenstein TNO was short and that had quite a few cutscenes and some time-wasting side quests where you had to find item-x. Doom 4 should have none of those if the developers are to be believed.
Here are some interesting stats: http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=16886
All playstyles median time for Wolfenstein TNO is 13 hours. Sounds right on the money for Doom 4 and, with the playstyle taken into account, even a little bit longer then I expected.
http://howlongtobeat.com I would only use that for a very rough estimate though.
And on the topic, I had those "that's gotta be it" moments for the entire series. You can really tell they dumped a lot of resources into writing. Along with life is strange it looks like we're setting new standards for length in episodic adventures now which is awesome.
HLTB says it's about 8 hours long, which is about the time it took for me to complete it. In my opinion, I think the campaign is pretty good. The first half is pretty meh, but then at around 60% through the campaign it starts to get really good. IMO, its a pretty good story.
I liked the site howlongtobeat.com and someone said the let you track your games too. So one night I started tracking my games to see how much I've completed, how big my backlog is and all.
I like it so far. Gives you a nice overview of how many completed, how many backlog, how many in progress and on which plattforms you have them.
You can basically start wherever you want. Each game has its own nods and connections to others in the series, but for the most part you can play them standalone just fine. I can't really say anything about the story; oddly enough, it seems like I've never heard discussion about story for any of the games. The gameplay is good (at least, I think so), but you may run into a problem when you begin playing your second, third, fourth Legend of Zelda game. The Escapist's Yahtzee Croshaw says that Nintendo has been re-releasing Ocarina of Time for twelve years. There are many common elements between games. You'll start off with a slow, tranquil setting, soon transitioning to a forest-based dungeon, soon to follow with fire- and water-based dungeons. You'll get a bow, you'll get a Hookshot (or more recently, Clawshot), you'll get iron boots, you'll get the Master Sword, etc. etc. etc. Majora's Mask seems to deviate the most from this kind of formula, though still shares some elements.
Regardless, I've really enjoyed the home console releases (I've never quite gotten into the handheld games, you'll have to ask someone else about them). Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess have both been very well received, and tended to be compared around the latter's release. The Wind Waker is looked back upon very fondly, but the large amounts of sailing to be done are sometimes seen as an annoyance. Majora's Mask is markedly darker than most of the other games, and has a unique 72-minute time limit that must be continually reset and overcome. Skyward Sword, the most recent release, hasn't been as well-received as others in the series. It's got some problems, though I still enjoyed it.
Be aware that Legend of Zelda games often carry a hefty playtime. Using this site as a metric, we see average playtimes of anywhere from 23 hours for Majora's Mask to 45 hours for Skyward Sword.
http://howlongtobeat.com/index.php
It's a site to give people a general frame of reference for how long it takes to beat (or 100%) the single player portion of games. There is also an option to put games on a backlog.
Are we going to do this again?
Remember when the first playthrough video of The Order appeared and people began ridiculing the developers, in part, because a single YouTuber completed the game in under 5 hours. People who watched the video(s) said that he appeared to be rushing from area to area, and that his playtime might not be an accurate measurement of the average playtime. How people laughed.
But the data shows that they were correct. The YouTuber's playthrough was below the average rushed playing time.
So I really loved DA:I and played through the story, but as many other I usually forget about a game completely after finishing it, and never come back to it.
Without having watched the Video, does this mean I should really get the DLC and play through it to get more out of the main storyline if I enjoyed it?
But yeah, this is a general problem for me. I usually don't re-visit games months later and when I do I have no intention to play the whole game again. So many things may have already been forgotten and the new story content may not make as much of an impact.
On the other side I also don't want to wait a year just because there might be a "ultimate edition" down the road, I'm just not that kind of gamer. But that's ultimately my fault.
Edit: I watched just the beginning of the video since I don't want to be spoiled, but he makes an interesting point
>This time [speaking about his second playthrough] I only did quests, stories and collectibles that interested me and I cut the time almost in half. [...] I did not miss anything significant [...] Every plot element I wanted to pursue, I pursued.
Honestly this is how I play every game. Maybe that's why I enjoyed DA:I more than others. Doing everything in a game like this seems like a huge chore to me. I don't believe it's designed that way either.
I understand that there are completionists out there, but a big variety of content to me only means I have more things to choose from, not that I have to do everything. The games length can vary from ~45 to ~120 hours, but that can also be seen as a good thing. It could also be seen as huge amounts of filler content though.
I don't know imdb, but maybe http://howlongtobeat.com/ is something like this. It is mostly about how long a game takes to be beaten in different stages (like only main quests, main+side, all achievements) but you can also search for a game and put it on completed/backlog/replay/etc lists. You can also rate them and add time and date of completion etc.
So tired of that "5 hours" bullshit. According to HowLongToBeat.com, The Order had an average runtime of 8 hours. This is only one hour less than the reported average for God of War and Uncharted yet I don't recall anyone shitting on those endlessly for their run times.
Even the people describing themselves as having "rushed" through The Order still reported an average of nearly 6 hours. The absolute fastest reported speedrun was 4.5 hours.
If people are going to shit on the game, it'd at least be less annoying if it was about something factual.
This site has a ridiculous amount of games listed, where people can post how long it took them to beat those games. It is divided into different parts, such as how long it took to beat a game just start to finish, or if you went through and did everything completely. It also takes all the times that have been posted and gives the average, longest, and shortest times that it took people to play those games. I've found that for all the games I've looked at, nobody has posted things such as 1 second or a million hours to throw off the averages. The site is http://howlongtobeat.com/gamelist.php?sortby=0-9 Hope this helps.
I recommend using howlongtobeat to see what's under 9 hours. I had a good time playing Call of Juarez: Gunslinger and Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden Z (on easy) in a single day playthrough.
According to http://howlongtobeat.com/, FFVII is not larger than other RPGs out there. In fact, its only half than titans like Xenoblade and Xenoblade X. So yeah, not buying that excuse either.
(Disclaimer: I do not vouch for 100% reliability of the linked webpage. Still, it's a good standard. I don't remember spending more than 50 hours beating FFVII, while I'm now clocking 55 in Xenoblade X and only halfway through the game.)
I actually spent over 100 hours since I was trying to get as many quests as possible, but when I got to the end-game I decided to say "screw it" and didn't go for 100%. I have a few friends who say 80 because they didn't go as far as I did and only did quests they found while they were roaming around. The game is absolutely massive, and exploration is a big, time-consuming part of it. Additionally NPC's are only available during certain times of the day in certain areas that can change as the game progresses, so I can see this being the most common amount of time spent in it.
How Long To Beat's page on it says about 68 hours for the main story, but that probably a barebones blind run where you only do story quests and side missions when needed for experience, but playing like that would be doing yourself a disservice as the main draw of the game is how fleshed out the world is and how interesting the combat can get (parts of which are only unlocked via sidequests)
From what I've heard of X, it's even bigger. Games like these weren't designed to be played in a short timespan; the point is to make you feel invested in it over a long period of time over several play sessions.
I doubt the play-time will be anywhere near equal. You're really pushing it if you say that Blue team missions are twice as long as Osiris missions. Comparing the first two missions of the campaign (won't spoil, don't worry), we can tell that the Osiris mission took 20-30 minutes and the Blue team mission took 30-45 minutes. Even if all of the Osiris missions hit 20 max. and every blue team mission hits 45 max. that's still 4 hours Osiris to 2.25 hours of Blue team.
Lets get into total time for the campaign. If we use the generous lengths of each missions (30 for Osiris, 45 for Blue team), we get 6 hours w/ Osiris and 2 hours 15 minutes w/ Blue team. Plus probably the three non-combat missions (which would be no longer than 10 minutes each) we get 9 hours. I guess its respectable, compared to the others. This website lists completions between 8 and 10 hours for Main Story.
Tales of the Abyss, Bravely Default, Fire Emblem Awakening
And a shot in the blue: Donkey Kong Country Returns is a lot of fun but it's not that long.. 36 hours on average for 100%
Were you speed running it? Average playtime is approx 12 hours for just the main story. Playing on Veteran difficulty and being a completionist gave me right around 20 hours. If you beat it in 6h, that's on you. It's like complaining a meal wasn't tasty because you ate it in one big bite.
lol, boy are you in for a treat. Based on the previous FromSoftware games, main story + extras:
That's not even counting all the time you can spend doing PvP or New Game + (and the game allows you to do NG++, NG+++, etc).
http://www.gog.com/pick_5_pay_10
Point and click isn't typically my thing. I've heard good things about To The Moon though.
If you end up one game short / For other people reading this: Let me mention the The Geneforge Saga.
They are five turn based RPGs. They are a good length (40+ hours). They feature different player classes that play quite differently. The have multiple factions to interact with, a diplomacy skill (which is actually useful) and multiple endings.
An absolute steal for ~$2.
A 3DS game with actual gameplay costs $40.
15/40 = 37.5%.
According to HowLongToBeat Black 2 will keep you entertained between 25 and 38 hours.
To even consider buying Pokedex Pro 3D I'd assume you were a Pokemon fan and it's probably safe to double the amount of time you'd spend in a main entry, so we'll say between 50 and 76.
The average gamer would want to 'play' Pokedex Pro 3D for between 9 and 15 hours to justify the purchase, a Pokemon fan is looking at between 19 and 29.
Since you can't use Pokedex Pro 3D while playing a Pokemon game on your 3DS and the next Pokemon game for 3DS will presumably include these models and a Pokedex with the majority of this information, I find it hard to believe that anyone can justify this as a purchase.
tl;dr: You're paying for more than 1/3 of a Pokemon game just to look at and read about them. (Here's a quiz: did you buy this? If you answered no, you win!)
That it's not true. Yes there is a lot of cutscenes in the game but it's a fairly lengthy shooter with a lot of action. Just compare: Max Payne 3
with:
First, don't ever let me find out your steam id. Otherwise the next time the X SuperBox is on sale I'm adding 1000+ hours to your backlog. You have been warned.
Second, take a look at howlongtobeat.com. It might help you plan for how long a game will take you. You could also post your times for the rest of us who might be interested.
Main story would probably take between 7-10 hours I'd guess. If you're a completionist then probably closer to 20-25. The website howlongtobeat is useful for these types of questions
No it isn't. I played through and actively tried to look for extras but didn't go overboard. I think it took me 8? From what I saw at the time when I looked, that was the average.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=26729
Average playtime for main story + extras are about 71h. Completing the game takes about 154h. Most people are probably somewhere in between those two. 100 hours gives 60 cents / hour. Is that expensive? Quit you god damn whining. If you really loathe the experience so much, send an email to Bethesda.
Complaining here will do nothing for you. You could spend that energy creating content for mods that patch whatever you think is fucked up. Do something useful. Me and thousands of others will be in-game enjoying a more than good game while you sour-puss.
It's like no one here realizes there's a website for this...
You report your actual game time down to seconds if you want and you report based on how you played: main story, story+extras, completionist.
I've found it to be fairly accurate, but I'm usually a little faster than the average based on what my Wii U/3DS/Steam report as playtime.
That seems super unlikely to me. I feel like you're either not remembering correctly, lying for some reason, or didn't actually play very much of the game at all in your ridiculous speed run.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=3340 This shows the average speed run of only the main quest at 7 hours 23 minute. A rushed main story + extras averages 36 hours. If you finished it in 8, you're claiming to have beaten the entire main story and a third of the side quests in a third of the time it takes an average player to beat just the main quest. Come on dude.
>My favorite aspect of FO3 and the one way I feel it totally tops FNV is the game's world. The Capital Wasteland just feels like it has more to do and explore (I don't know if this is actually the case).
Objectively not the case. New Vegas has a gazillion quests and collectibles compared to 3.
How long to beat says the game takes on average about 18.5 hours to complete, seems like there's at least some hour/$ value if you want to look at it like that. But I'm in the same boat as you, is the story any good, do the gameplay mechanics get painfully repetitive and dull?
KotOR and Mass Effect 1 were only 20-30 hours for me. Good games, just maybe not quite long enough.
Baldur's Gate 2 is certainly long enough.
I'm not sure / don't remember about the rest. Check howlongtobeat.com perhaps.
A post from another subreddit about steam sales and gigantic libraries encouraged me to start working off my backlog.I found so much shit I didn't even know I owned.
Useful website if you want to do the same: http://howlongtobeat.com/
according to howlongtobeat.com(a site i find pretty reliable) the core story line of both games isn't that much different with divison being 2 and a half hours longer
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=14358
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=20073
but once you get past main story, Destiny had a ton more to do at end game. the Devision is basically just four challenge mode maps and the dark zone(and a lot of people don't like the dark zone). while destiny started their end game content with a ton of strikes, a weekly super hard night fall strike, literally all the quests in the game scaled up to end game content(challenging but not super hard), a full blown super great raid(i think their raid was out on launch, it's been a while) and a huge robust pvp system. the only thing Destiny was missing was not having a match making system for the nightfall and raids.
On the other hand there are people who have spent hundreds of hours in the X games. A well done game with deep systems can keep players interested for months.
It is short compared to most 3D platformers.
Super Mario 64 - 26 hours
Banjo Kazooie - 15 hours
Enslaved: Odyssey to the West - 18 hours
Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time - 21 hours
Banjo-Tooie - 23 hours
Super Mario Galaxy 2 - 35 hours
Crash Bandicoot: Warped - 14 hours
Psychonauts - 22 hours
All times taken from http://howlongtobeat.com/
>Map size is indicative of the content.
http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/3/30984/1366065-xju7q.jpg This map combined with http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=9848 this website would say otherwise.
>You are blind if you think EA is the only company dicking us around. I remember FF13-2 had dlc purchased ending, Ubisoft releasing games that literally are unplayable on release loaded with micro-transactions. Hell even FF15 wont have the airship in the game according to Square and it will be DLC... Open your eyes man this shit is spreading, even the re-skinned FPS games and MMOs are now following these trends.
I use EA as the easiest example. But yes, there are more instances of problematic dlc.
>This is the only valid argument anyone can make and something I fully understand. Guess what though that's the way things work in the world. The cost of living goes up for everything not just creating games. The funny thing though about technology is that its constantly getting better, and performance is always enhanced. But there comes a time when this has to stop being an excuse. Witcher 3 proved all these stereotypes wrong.
Actually Witcher 3 doesn't. Its an extremely good game, but it still isn't exactly cheap and it still manages to fall into "open world" syndrome. And since you mention cost of living that is something you have to factor in. Living in Poland isn't the same as Living in Tokyo. Poland is a lot cheaper.
Either way, its about amount of content over anything else. If Square puts out multiple games worth 60 dollars or 40 dollars or whatever they charge, none of this matters. Its simply a matter of if the content is worth the price.
I can add in a longer length game. What few do you suggest so I can get an average game play for the longer genre?
Edit: I found the following data for the Elder Scrolls v Skyrim and will update the figure. http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=9859
While I agree you can get some replay value through playing through and making different choices, in a lot of Tale Tell games many of these choices have a very minor affect on the overall story and only affect future choices in small ways. And you're massively exaggerating by saying you can put in 150+ hours into any tale tell game. Most people get 15 hours out of Game of thrones:
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=22876
Around 10 hours for Wolf Among us: http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=14013
Around 13 hours for the Walking Dead: http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=10250
You would have to replay those games each 10-15 times in order to get 150 hours out of them. I seriously doubt very many people would enjoy doing so just to find out all of the different outcomes from choices they've made. It might be entertaining a second time through, possibly a third, but after that you're done.
The main game is 25-106 with completionist being 73.5 according to over 400 polled on how long to beat
I am at the final boss on NG++ at around 300 hours. Left it there for the inevitable DLC. I cleared the dungeons as well and I want to say I'm around level 140. Been on a mgsV break.
According to this very helpful website Unity takes 80.5 hours to 100% and Rogue takes 36.5 hours to 100% for a grand total of 117 hours. Given, that includes Unity's co-op missions, but depending on how you look at it, those are also solo content since they can definitely be done solo.
Honestly, I haven't gotten around to it either. I just know it is there. You play as Pigsy, so it probably isn't quite the same as the rest of the game.
Edit: HowLongtoBeat puts the DLC at about 1/3rd the length of the main game, so it is a decent chunk of content.
> I personally think it has more than enough content with it's latest update.
Even ignoring stuff like weapons, maps, and game modes... the game lacks team matchmaking and custom matches (and won't get those for another week,) as well as voice chat, which it will probably never get. Only Nintendo could get away with that.
> Call of Duty games got away with the same amount if content as splatoon so it's definetly not something only Nintendo can do.
This is such a tall pile of bullshit that it would be wasteful not to use it for agricultural purposes. Splatoon didn't even come close to Call of Duty in terms of the amount of day-one content. And I'm not even counting the pre-order/DLC shit COD had available the day it released.
Even the original 2003 Call of Duty shipped with 16 multiplayer maps.
And I'm hesitant to call the content Splatoon has added "free." Calling it free implies that we got a full game for $60 and now we're just getting more content for nothing. We didn't get a full game for $60. We got a partial game for $60, and the rest of the already-paid-for content was deferred for later release. That is, unless you think only five multiplayer maps constitutes a $60 game.
I challenge you to find even one AAA shooter with a single-player campaign shorter than Splatoon's.
That is a helpful site especially if you have a backlog but aren't sure what to tackle next. Getting the short stuff "out of the way" can make your backlog seem a lot smaller and not feel that guilty about buying new games on sales.
Depending who you are, MOBAs and MMOs are good within the first hour. For some people, they'll never be good.
I like RPGs. I actually prefer JRPGs. I play Tales of Xillia, I'm having fun in the first hour. I play Final Fantasy V and up, I'm having fun in the first hour. I play Diablo 3, I'm having fun in the first hour. I play Star Ocean, I'm having fun in the first hour.
If Nier was a good game, I would've liked it. But after 10 hours? ...Yeah, no. It's not. No part of it. Not the graphics, not the story, not the combat, not the characters.
I can look at the most popular MOBAs and, even though I don't really like MOBAs, I can say within the first hour that these are some good graphics and some good characters. No real story, don't care for the combat; but I can see the good in the game after playing for a reasonable amount of time.
Multiplayer games in particular are hard to rank in terms of 'hours played equating the full experience', because they often add new content and your experience varies wildly with who you play with/against.
Nier had no multiplayer, and that makes your comparison... a struggle, at best.
I checked a walkthrough. I was literally halfway through the game.
If I told you "here's a four hour movie, the first two hours aren't great, but it picks up in the second half", you would be right to think "that's not a very good movie then if half of it isn't good".
According to a number of people, Nier is about 20 hours long. I played it half way, and it wasn't a good game. Perhaps reaching endgame in an MMO takes 100 hours. If you're not having fun by hour 50, are you going to spend another 50 hours to see if it gets better? Of course not. Don't be daft.
Depends on your budget.
Make a wishlist of the games you want and sort it according to your desire to play those games.
Estimate the amount of play time for each of those games based off of your own experience with similar titles, the amount of time you expect you'll be able to play, and by using a resource such as How Long to Beat.
Don't buy more than what you think you can/will play before the next sale, because in a few months those titles that have sat unplayed are likely going to be cheaper. Why pay more for something you aren't going to play?
Add up the cost of those games at a discounted price (Is There Any Deal for an idea on discounts) and that's about how much money you'll want for the sale.
Review from 1999 for the N64 version
Apparently it very much is like a dark Zelda game and claims to have 60+ hours of content (however other sources say more along the lines of maybe 15-20 depending on if you want to 100% it)
So yes it does sound like it is worth two quarters from the couch cushions.
Dark Souls isn't the most difficult game out there, sure, but saying that it's not difficult is nonsense. Go play any AAA title and tell me that Dark Souls isn't ten times harder than most games nowadays. It's difficult but fair (most of the time).
10 hours is also crazy fast. OP, did you go in totally blind? I kinda doubt that someone could complete their first playthrough that fast with no help whatsoever. The average completion time, with a sample size of 220, is 49h12m.
> It took me 40 (first playthrough ever) to finish BG1, skipping many side quests. so I bet you can get another 10-20hours of those side quests.
That's why. Sidequests = more content than the game itself. The town of Baldur has a huge chunk of the sidequests. The minimum of a completionist playthrough of 16 plays in #2 alone is 120 hours on howlongtobeat. The median is 141 hours.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=810
Edit: TO clarify, a lot of the sidequest dungeons can't be entered until you trigger the sidequest, if I remember correctly.
BG1 is about half the length if you aim for completionism.
Approximately 11 1/2 hours according to howlongtobeat.com.
How good you are at classic Mega Man style games might also factor in how long it could take you to complete it.
Within the year, multiplayer will be added to Wii U/PC and three of the boss knights will be playable for all versions of the game.
Edit: While the game might seem easy on the first run, New Game+ and several achievements bring the game to classic NES levels of Nintendo Hard. Shovel Knight is as fun as you make it.
I don't care about my time specifically, but I do care quite a lot about game length, which is why I love HowLongToBeat. In general I quite like it when games keep track of statistics in games, what weapons you used, how many kills, how many kilometer you drove, etc. It's simply nice to have some quantifiable data, instead of just a subjective experience.
I thought it would help motivate me to finish more games (to feel the satisfaction of moving them from "started" to "completed story" or "completed"), but I think it just makes me depressed about how many games I still need to beat.
Also, How Long To Beat.
HowLongToBeat indicates that it is.
DeS - Main Story: 33H - Completionist: 86H
DkS - Main Story: 49H - Completionist: 111H
I haven't played XCX so take that into account but I've heard it's much more open ended than XC. Even though the game may have a ton of content, not having a major goal to work toward, or having too many goals, can lead to lack of direction and boredom. A steep learning curve can also be discouraging.
If those are things that made you quit XCX, XC is much better in those regards. The areas are still large and sprawling but there is a clear goal to work towards, which can keep you focused and interested in the story. You don't have to explore the large areas or do any of the side quests but you can if you want.
That said, XC may still be longer than you're looking to spend on a game. HLTB has the average completion for the main story at 68 hours. If that sounds like it's more time than you'd like to spend on a game, then maybe the Xenoblade series just isn't for you.
Personally, I have a love/hate relationship with XC. I loved it for about 40 hours but that's when I felt like it needed to start wrapping up. Unfortunately, it went on for another 30-40 hours and the mechanics just didn't keep me interested in the game. I did finish it and, this might sound odd since I said it started getting boring, I do want to play it again at some point. But the next time I play it, I'll definitely use my NG+ save file so it doesn't take as long to beat. The game has fantastic visuals and music. I just think the story could've been told more concisely.
You could use something like howlongtobeat to manage your backlog. I've been slowly adding all the games I want to play, it takes me around an hour to do it for each platform.
I believe my backlog is public, so you can see it here
The best thing about the site is that users can submit their 'time to beat' for any game, so you have an average for it. Then you can do things like order all your PS2 backlog from fastest-to-longest to beat
EDIT:
> as well as game I would consider playing.
You can add the games to separate custom lists
This isn't a case of for me or for others, it's about how long it takes to complete a game on average.
Let's take some games from the "top sellers" list of Steam and see their completion times (according to howlongtobeat). I'll always take the highest noted time, meaning doing everything a game has to offer (not just main story). I'll ignore multiplayer games because there's no completing multiplayer in general.
Fallout 4: 142½ hours
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six® Siege: 70 hours
Assassin's Creed: Syndicate: 52½ hours
Far Cry 4: 42 hours
Far Cry Primal: 31 hours
Notice a theme here? Only one of these beats the 106 hours you spent in JC3, the rest doesn't even come close. Also note that Fallout 4 has a "main + extra" time of 71 hours, which will be much closer to the time most people spend in the game. This can mean 2 things: Either most of the top selling games on Steam aren't worth the money, or your idea of how much content you should get for the price you pay is skewed.
Given that top selling actually means these games sell for the listed prices, my bet is on the second.
I Am Alive has an apocalyptic city environment, but the game has mixed reviews. My experience from I Am Alive consists from only a demo, so I can't give an overall review. It seems to be a short game, as the main story average is a bit over 5 hours according to howlongtobeat.com. You might end up disappointed, especially if you're looking for another great experience after playing the Last of Us.
It goes repeatedly on sale for under $5/€5, so it's probably worth a try when it's cheap enough.
It's pretty good and involved. I'm not much of a turn based RPG player but the game has me interested. Once you figure out how the game plays and that white points of interest on the map are good too and not just yellow, it makes things a lot easier.
But holy hell can you easily get sidetracked. I still haven't finished the first quest you get in the game but I've been side tracked by side areas, stealing everything from NPCs homes and selling it, doing a little hunting outside the gates and finding some caves and such for that phat loot. And at that point I'm just over 6 hours into the game with the wife.
From what I read at How Long To Beat you've got almost 70 hours of content in the game, which is pretty good if you're an RPG fan.
So just for reference since how long does it take to complete actually has way too few replies to be really meaningful ((http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=10273) Superbunnyhop's 40 hour playthrough would have skewed it almost 18 hours if he added his result) how long did it take you guys to beat this game?
And by beat I mean finish, not 100%.
How many lasers did you have unlocked when you beat the game?
How many hours did it take you to beat the game?
Did you watch anyone play it before hand, and if so how much and for how long (ie did you know half the puzzles)?
Did you look up any guides?
I guess I should make a poll but I recommend submitting your data to the above website.
40 hours seems unreal to me, I guess if he failed to experiment after completing a puzzle to find out how it works then maybe I can see it, but still
- Valdis Story: Abyssal City
- FULL LP
- ~15 hours, tops. [SOURCE]
- Assume the role of Wyatt in this Action/Exploration Platformer as you explore the ruins of a holy city that was lost many years ago. Battle various types of demons, angels, and a new threat known only as the “Ferals”, using swordsmanship, martial arts, and sorcery. There are many customizable skills and equipment that will aid Wyatt on his journey.
- THIS IS BASICALLY CASTLEVANIA MAY CRY. PLAY IT. PLAY ITTTTT.
- * Super Smash Flash * Fisticuffs * ~1 hour * SCRAPE THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL.
- Contact (Nintendo DS)
- Full LP
- ~15 hours, maybe 10 parts
- AN RPG BY GRASSHOPPER INTERACTIVE. DOES WEIRD FOURTH WALL SHIT LIKE UNDERTALE. THE PERFECT LP FOR MATT & LIAM.
Okay, let me attempt this motivation business. But first I'm gonna assume u don't have to pay a huge cost for shipping like me here in Canada, (although if do do this point is moot lol) but compared to a lot of the 'limited edition' packages that I've seen out there, $40.00 is a pretty good deal for artbook+licensed music tracks+physical copy of game+director's commentary.
Not to mention I think a lot of us, especially those that bought the season pass or even on sale really got a good deal in purchasing the game. Lets say on average we spent anywhere from $10-20 for all 5 episodes. Now factor in the average gameplay time source is ~15hrs just for main story not including extras or even leisure play with each episode clocking 2-3hrs. Thats $2-4 per episode, thats pretty much approximately the price of beer for each episode (I quote this from an interview with the producer, although I need to find the source again).
TLDR;I guess imho, DONTNOD charged us a fair price for the steam game and honestly could have charged us more. Buying the limited edition would not only show them our support, but give them the incentive and the assets to create something with the same impact as LiS had (or possibly better, in the future).
Okay, lastly if they could still create LiS with the budget issues they had in the ending, imagine what DONTNOD could have done if they didn't have budget issues.
They're a part of an arc that includes AC3. You could play one without the other but they do have connections.
I would play 4 first but that's because I like to follow the story. The buttons for ship battles are different in each game. Not too different but it took me a few battles to pick up on what was different in Rogue. Kept pressing buttons like it was Black Flag! Lol
It depends on how much side stuff you do. If I remember right, Rogue's main story is the shortest in the series. According to http://howlongtobeat.com Black Flag is 21.5 hours for the main story and Rogue is 9.5 hours.
They're both good. Black Flag is less of an Assassin's Creed game, at least as far as prior releases go plot wise. Rogue has it's own things but I don't want to spoil it at all. Playing 3 adds to the depth but then again, if you were going to play 3 and care at all about the modern day then you'd want to play the Ezio trilogy first.
Black Flag. A lot of side stuff to do although some of the side stuff is also in Rogue, some slightly altered. As far as ways to kill people I think they're pretty similar. Rogue might technically have more variety of environments if I remember right however I prefer Black Flag's environments.
Black Flag. A lot of people love Rogue but I found it kind of bland. Sometimes these games are better to me the 2nd time through but I've only played Rogue once. I liked Edward a lot more than Shay, although Shay's personal story as a whole was more compelling to me.
Black Ops had 15 missions, Black Ops 2 had 11, yet they are almost the same length at www.howlongtobeat.com. BO2 was little bit longer if you did absolutely everything in singleplayer
Edit: Looking more at CODs, Ghosts has 18 missions but it has the shortest main story listed in HLTB. The amount of missions doesn't tell everything
<strong><em>The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords</em></strong>
Full Let's Play
The first multiplayer Legend of Zelda game, so it could be a series with all four of them. They could record the series by having someone play on a Gameboy Player Gamecube attachment, while everyone else plays on a Gameboy Advance. I feel that, with it's unique playstyle (four player co-op - a first for a Super Best friends full LP) and relatively short length, this would be a good way to test the waters for more games like this in the future (maybe <strong><em>The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures</em></strong>).
Back when I played it I couldn't even beat it without a walkthrough (I was pretty young, one puzzle specifically which involved hearing a noise and figuring out that meant to ignore a symbol or w/e), but I think Neverhood was quite a bit longer, I still remember pretty much every puzzle, and I remember there being a decent amount more and more areas to explore
Also I suppose there's this: http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=10109
Apparently around 9 hours for Neverhood
It took me around 35 hours to complete the game, but I was going kind of slow. This site is pretty useful for determining the length of games although it seems like I took too long =P I think I got about 2 hours of gameplay out of the Toad amiibo, and then maybe 20 or so out of the bonus levels (the last one is super painful to complete). So for just the regular game, no bonus stuff, no completionist-type stuff, it took me like 13 hours. I really enjoyed it and I'm probably going to go back to it again, but it's not a very long game if you're not going for 100%. Still, it's not the 5 minute walk in the park that a lot of people seem to imply it is.
tl;dr: 13 hours to beat. 35 hours to 100%. Definitely worth the money but if you have something else to play right now you might want to wait until you see it for 20.
http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=17291
Kidnap all the VIPs and they will end up on your Mother Base helping you out.
I recommend taking your time and really enjoying GZ --- it's a great game in & of itself and pretty essential to understanding MGSV:TPP. I mean, it's the prologue of the game. Plus it will teach you all the gameplay mechanics.
Hey Liam? Liam-chan? You there? Good.
>YOU CAN'T CALL IT THE HARDEST MEGAMAN GAME WITHOUT SHOWING IT OFF
>IT WASN'T HARD AT ALL.
A quick look would be fine, but it's not long at all. 7 hours, tops.
...Or not, wow looked better in memory. Stupid nostalgia glasses.
If you are looking for a single player only experience, you will probably spend more time with the Witcher 3. However, GTA V is the type of game I find myself coming back to now and then purely because its a great game for messing around with. The Multiplayer can add also a lot of replayability to GTA.
But going by singleplayer alone, If you are looking for the one which would last the longest, maybe these statistics will help you come to a decision:
MH4U is really full of content (but be warned, it's not for everyone).
Rune Factory 4 have a lot of things to do, and I really like it.
Animal Crossing can get you a lot of playtime, but it's a strange type of game.
There always http://howlongtobeat.com/ to see these kind of info