How long does it take until you're "done" with a game?

[Schadenfreude]

What with the board members bitching and whining about how no new games are coming out, PC gaming is dying, blahblahblah I got to thinkin';

ON AVERAGE, HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO "GO THROUGH" A GAME?

And be subjective here - I won't judge. Looking at you game shelf (or your Steam game list), how many games are there that you got, but sit there untouched?

Here's my "gaming profile":

- I have a modest laptop w/ a discrete GPU (SB i5-2410/GT525M), Xbox360, NDS Lite, and PS2.
- I have a backlog of at least 10 games per each system, of which about 1/2 supposedly take 40 hours or more.
- On Steam, I have over 100 games listed, I've played about 40.
- On Gog, I have BGII, PS:T and Icewind Dale II in my backlog list - I played ID1 and BG 1, but not these games (+ others)
- On 90% of my purchases I buy them during sales. With the possible exception of Starcraft II and Dance Central 2 I have not paid full-price for any games that I've owned in the last 2+ years, most of them approx. 6 mos. after release.
- My most recent purchase was WH40K: Retribution: we'll touch on that later.

I am interested in the following PC/console games that are recent releases:

- Deus Ex: Human Revolution (40+ hours)
- Arkham City (40+ hours)
- Dark Souls (40+ hours)
- Skyrim (40+ hours)
- RAGE (8 hours)
- Battlefield 3 (?? Hours) - most likely not, as it is Origin
- The new Professor Layton game (if only for the RPG portion that was made by the makers of Eathbound)

I'd like to pick up a copy of Hard Reset, Bayonetta and Vanquish as I like the occasional mindless action as well; and my wife loves Puzzle Quest so we'll pick up two copies for the NDS so we can play against one another, and Clash of Heroes as it is fairly similar.

I'd like to think I have a normal life: I work a 40-hour job, I work out, hang out with the wife, and walk the dog. Even omitting my gargantuan backlog of games, that list of games I'd like to own would last me a good amount of time, I'm assuming about 6 months on a conservative estimate, for me to get through the single player campaigns of these games.

I understand that you guys have disposable income that allows you to get new games. While I wish I had the means to do so (I guess I do, if I really wanted) it's not about that; my quandary is, how do you stay on top of your game collections if a bunch of new, AAA games that are genuinely good come out on a monthly basis - that are 40+ hours in many instances, to boot - and yet bemoan the fact that we're not getting the games we want?

Let's put it another way - the reason I picked up Retribution was that I consistently heard that it was good - and then a good friend of mine who I don't normally talk games with brings it up, and says that I should get it (turns out that he spent, at the time of me last checking, over 520 hours and was on the top 10 steam ranking at one point); 520 hours playing this one single game. I'm not saying that we should aspire to, or it is even possible be like that (he's fanatical about whatever he does, he's currently in med school), but what do you guys do with your backlogs? When do you decide when you are "finished" with one game?

I'd say normally I spend 1 moth max on a game and I'd like to manage more of my game library, but in a sense I guess I just don't know how!

 

[thespyder]

The sad thing is, I personally don't stay on top of my list of games. Just recently I picked up Dark Souls and then was given Arkham City as a gift. So which do I play? And I have Crysis 2 and two or three other games that never got done that I am working on. Wife, kids, job, School, other priorities, leaves me with almost no time to game. So game play time =/= Days/weeks/months. it just doesn't translate.

Also, I am curious about some of the average game times you list. I fully expect that Skyrim in particular will end up being more than 40 hours. I am actually thinking on the order of 100 or more. or is that just me?

And it really depends on what types of games you like to play. Some games by their nature are one play through and done. Others, such as online Multi-player (shooters) can be dozens of hours just on that. Not including the SP campaign (assuming there is one). And RPGs like NWN2 can lead to persistant worlds and almost unlimited game play.

 

[shortylickens]

If its a good game, I play it for years.
No reason not to.
If I was only going to play it for a week I wouldnt spend that kind of money. Too wasteful. I could buy an awful lot of guns for the money I spent on video games over the years.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Also, I am curious about some of the average game times you list. I fully expect that Skyrim in particular will end up being more than 40 hours. I am actually thinking on the order of 100 or more. or is that just me?

The gaming hours are just an approximation. The two games I've been hooked on recently is League of Legends, Final Fantasy Tactics (GBA) and Portal 2 - LoL in itself is a disgustingly addictive timesink, let alone FFTA . . ..

 

[goobernoodles]

This question is waaaaaaaaay too subjective for a simple poll like this.

 

[Schadenfreude]

If its a good game, I play it for years.
No reason not to.
If I was only going to play it for a week I wouldnt spend that kind of money. Too wasteful. I could buy an awful lot of guns for the money I spent on video games over the years.

Well of course. Part of my problem(?) w/ my growing backlog is that instead of playing the new shiny game that I just got (and which know that it's a good game from start to finish), I just pick up the controller and play Tekken 6 with a buddy all day. Or play CS:S or any multitude of older games that I played and beat.

But my question is, do you do that with most of the games you buy, or just the few? I mean, I'll still pull out my copy of Vagrant Story and beat it top to bottom, or make another 99-hour game-save on my Final Fantasy Tactics game instead of playing Disgaea 1/2 or Frozen Synapse - but that certainly isn't the case with 80% of the games I get.

 

[Powermoloch]

I usually spend <20 hrs in a week for a new game. Then when it's done, I'm done

 

[RebelCapitalist]

I usually don't play 3-hour single-player games, so my stuff lasts a long time.

First, I'm a Civ fanatic, so that lasts me years (mods galore). I'm still rocking Civ IV and now into Civ V off and on. I'll get hundreds of hours there. Even though Civ V is a step back in the series, according to Steam, I'm 113 hours into it. Bet I get at least 300 hours. Talk about value.

Just started messing with The Sims 3, so looks like hundreds of hours there. Of course it looks like I have to pay EA each time I turn on my computer. LOL

Fallout, Oblivion, Skyrim, etc. Those types of games last 80+ hours normally as I like to explore and do everything.

Total War and other strat games, tons of hours.

Actually, the games I get the fewest hours on, and that I buy the least, are shooters (except MAG on the PS3 where I clocked in hundreds of hours).

Even though I have the money to buy every game on Steam new, I don't. Usually, I'm too busy playing catch up with older titles (and I hate wasting cash). And I love buying cheap games. Rather buy 3-5+ games for $60 on sales than one game at the same price.

Heck, I don't need lots of games to come out. I've got plenty to do as it stands. I can't even get to Skyrim right now, so I might hold off for a deal.

I think most of the complainers are Call of Duty fans. Just saying.

 

[Piuc2020]

My backlog is gigantic, I used to have lots of time to play video games when I was younger, right now I still have a fair amount of free time but I spend it on other kind of activities that I personally find more fulfilling. Games have to hook me right away for me to spend time on them and it's not unusual for me to quit halfway.

I don't have the same sense of accomplishment from beating games that I had before, now I play games for fun, I've played mainly Heroes of Newerth and Bad Company 2 this year and not much else, I guess I enjoy competitive multiplayer games more nowadays, probably because you can play those games at your own pace and you get instant gratification (no sitting through lengthy cutscenes, grinding levels, playing tutorials, etc, etc), if you have time for one game a day that's probably enough to keep your interest. Single player games... it's too easy to lose the motivation to keep playing if you can barely push 30 minutes of gameplay in games like Oblivion or even shooters. I guess you could say I have a bit of an attention span problem, at least with games I do.

I would say I spend XX amount of hours in multiplayer games until something better comes along (Bad Company 2 --> Battlefield 3) or until I get bored. Single player games I play until I beat them or I get bored with them (the latter of which has happened with 95&#37; of the games I've played this year).

 

[jlee]

A long, long time...if I ever do finish it. Exceptions being Mass Effect 1 and 2. I knocked those out back to back in short order.

 

[greenhawk]

how do you stay on top of your game collections if a bunch of new, AAA games that are genuinely good come out on a monthly basis - that are 40+ hours in many instances, to boot - and yet bemoan the fact that we're not getting the games we want?

define "good". Personally I am over looking at any game called a "AAA" game and falling for the marketing and so add it to the "must have" list. I might look at some clips or wait for people's feedback or something first before deciding if the game is for me.

By doing this, my list of games to play is rather short. I play ones that I think will be fun for me, not because someone said "we did the market research and think you will spend money on this".

Sure some games I collect (sales or impulse buys at the time) I do not get around to as either my tastes change or something better comes along. So those games just get put aside until nothing else is around. One example is supream commander 2. I liked 1, then bought #2 when it was on sale. Still have not even started it to setup settings.

As to that game list you mentioned, the top three I've passed on as not my type. Skyrim is more a impulse as the it looks good, but then I also bought the previous one and only played that for 2 hours before becomming put off by the controls). Rage I got and finished yesterday (25 hours according to steam). That is a good game, but that raises the issue of games I want that are not made. How many similar games have been released that are like rage? I suspect near none that had gotten my attention.

The last game on your list is on the impluse list for me again. Not because I like it but because some friends I play with like it. If I am not playing with them, that game would go the way of all other battlefield games where I ignore them.

It comes down to getting games you find enjoyable, not games that you have a interest in. Besides, if you only have a limited time to play the game then it is best to choose one, then buy the next as you finish the prvious ones. Advantage is you get it at a better price and and patches would have been well out by then. I also find that for some games like battlefield, but the time you get around to playing it, most of the gaming community have moved on to the next version of the game, so playing a previous one is not as much fun (ie: all the talk is about the NEXT AAA game comming out in a few weeks).

This is assuming you like multiplayer games of course. If you like single player games then what others are upto means nothign to you. I like though games myself generally, but then the good ones of that type have custom / random maps so replaying it is different so the same game can keep going for far longer than it would normally (ie: games like rage where it is just one story on offer, I rarly go back and play a second time. Games like Civilization I'll keep playing for a long time.).

In short, only buy what you want to play, not becuase marketing makes you feel like it is a "must have" game to play. Just look back over the last year, how many AAA games can you find that were released that pretty much had people stop talking about it about a week after release? Those games are not worth bothering about.

 

[videogames101]

I only buy games that I can play for 3+ months. HoN, SC2, CS:S, Battlefield Series, WoW, etc...

 

[stahlhart]

I go back and replay quite a few of them, including ones I've had for more than a decade now. So I'd have to say "forever".

 

[Red Storm]

It depends entirely on the game itself. I spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours playing games like Morrowind and Oblivion. I spent all of 2 days beating Mass Effect. I played (and still occasionally do play) Team Fortress 2 ever since the pre-release beta several years ago. Heck, I still play Age of Empires II!

On average, I definitely think I'm in the +3 months crowd, if only because I only buy games I know I'm going to enjoy thoroughly.

 

[Via]

Anywhere from 2-3 minutes to 10+ years.

I could still play the campaign of LotR2 today. Some of those scenarios are tough, especially the middle east one.

On the other hand - I played games like Bully:Scholarship edition and NFS:Undercover for 3 minutes tops before knowing that I was "done" with them.

 

[videopho]

on the average 3 years plus...
games not yet finished: Metro2033, Batman:AA, Mafia2, Bulletstorm, HAWX2, DCS:BS, DCS:A-10, DNF, DR2, Deus something?
then again average playing time is an hour per week.

 

[irishScott]

I have phases where I'll stop playing a game for months or even years and then rabidly play it. I've only ever sold one used game.

I have a bad habit with the Total War Series. I'll become the Super-power and then get bored with the repetition and stop. With RTW on VH/VH difficulty I was about to assault the Senate, then saw that between the other Roman families I'd have to do tedious real-time fights for hours just to take Rome (Scipii and Brutii had 3-4 full stacks each, in addition to SPQR stacks). Would have been one long grinding attrition that wouldn't have been worth it IMO.

 

[TecHNooB]

back in the day, it would take months. i think it took me 4 months to beat goldeneye. I didn't marathon like I do now.

 

[MustangSVT]

short answer.
on good games, forever. (SC1 SC2 CS1.6 Shift2 Dirt2 etc etc)

on average games, Usually play until I beat it (Mafia2 (too bad really..), Dragon age, Mass effect Bullet storm etc.)

on crappy games they don't get much play at all. (farcry2, Frontmission (pcone) etc.

 

[Zorander]

As long as it takes until I get truly bored of it.

For action/story-driven games, I do at least two walkthroughs (with the third one usually abandoned progressively via decreasing gameplay frequency), recent examples of which are DA:O, DA2, ME, ME2, Arkham Asyllum and Deus Ex: HR.

For (good) strategy games, it will be at least a year, recent examples of which are SoaSE, SupCom: FA, Anno 1404 and RA3. I also played Master of Orion 2 and Sid Meier's Colonization from their respective year of release till my last gameplay somewhere in 2005-2006.

 

[sandorski]

Most games with a distinct Start and Finish with only a single path, probably 40ish hours at most. Popular Multiplayer games(CS/CS:S and BF1942) I have no idea how many hours, but definitely 100's. Open ended games like Civ1/2/4 and Minecraft, also well into the hundreds.

Fallout NV - 124hours, probably more than that with FO 3.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

Most singleplayer games I ace in 1 sitting with the exception of RPGs which end up being 50+ hours most of the time.

My average time tends to come in between 50&#37; and 75% of the average time to complete I see on forums, Portal 2 took me a hair over 4 hours for the singleplayer, the MW games were about 5 hours a piece, these are all "1 sitting" games.

Interestingly enough once I picked up a PS3 a few months back (first console since my N64) I started playing games more thoroughly, I tend to go for trophies and 100% completion just to flesh out the purchase, providing it remains fun. I don't do that on the PC with a few minor exceptions, I just thrash through the game in "normal" mode, beat the game and move on.

 

[thespyder]

I usually spend <20 hrs in a week for a new game. Then when it's done, I'm done

This.

Unfortunately even that is way to subjective. It's like saying "How long is a piece of string"? I personally gravitate towards single player games, but usually RPG games which by their very nature tend to be longer (as a general rule). Or towards Strategy games like Gal Civ2 which can last almost infinitely variably depending on how many times you play through.

But to answer another question asked, I tend to replay a lot of my games. Or more specifically a few games, but a lot of replay. I am currently going through Diablo 2 again. And when I finish, I will probably go through another round of Baldur's Gate from the beginning.

 

[PrayForDeath]

How long does it take before you're done with a game on average?

Well, it varies greatly depending on the game. Story-driven games like the Witcher 2 take me a couple weeks to finish. Metro 2033 took me like 3 days, as it was much shorter. Some games I just never finish (and don't intend to) like Dirt 2/3. I just play them whenever feel like racing. Same applies to Just Cause 2/GTA IV (play them when I feel like blowing stuff up and roaming aimlessly in an open world.) And multiplayer games can keep you interested and coming back for years.

So I can't really answer your question, unless you narrow it down to a specific genre.

 

[Zenoth]

Well, to put it simply if I estimate the total number of games I own (on PC, both retail and digital downloads) including the ones from my consoles, the ones I cared to keep (or bought again after some years), namely the NES, SNES, Genesis, TurboGrafx-16, N64 and finally PS1, then I'd probably reach anywhere between 300 to maybe 350 games or so.

Within that number there's surely a good 250+ of them that I've never completed for various reasons even if I did buy them again either recently (example, from GoG.com) or a long time ago (that was back when I still bought old school games for the consoles I kept mostly from eBay). I played even more games in my life than the number of games I own, since of course I don't own every single games I've played, owned (and do not own anymore) or rented over the near 20 years of my "gaming career". I do know for sure that even back when I didn't buy games and used to mostly rent them at the local store I still never really completed all of them anyway.

For me, there's basically two parts of the answer I can give to the question:

1) Being "done" with a game, for me, can mean just being bored of it, or not having enough time to play it until the end at my own pace (when I rented them). Or it can mean that if I owned it at any point then I might not have liked it enough to play it regularly to complete it (lack of will or interest) until I decided to sell it at the local store or to a friend.

2) On the other hand, as long as completed games are concerned (either from renting, or owning the games) then I'm "done" with them ONLY if once I try it again a second time it gives no "new" incentives to play it (replay-value). There's a TON of games I LOVED but only completed ONCE, because the second time I played them it was identical to the first play-through, and were absolutely devoid of any forms of replay-value (mostly single-player games of the old days). There were a number of exceptions to that however (masterpiece games, like Mario Brothers 3, Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, Half-Life, DOOM II, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake, Unreal... etc.).

Basically, I think I complete perhaps around 30&#37; of the games I play, and I end up being "done" with more than half of them. The ones I play for months, years or nearly a decade can be numbered on the fingers of both hands. The ONLY game in my entire life I ended up playing regularly for approximately eight years was Diablo II, and in my own gaming career there's NO comparison to that, not even remotely close to it. The "second place" if it can be considered as such (by me anyway) might be The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which I've played for maybe two years and a half at the very most.