How long should a single player campaign be?

New DOOM's SP campaign is said to be 13-ish hours. Without checking on social media feedback, I was wondering what users on this site thought regarding the best length for a SP campaign. We can make it so the answer depends on the genre of game. I know I spent about 50 hours getting to the endgame of FFVIII and 40-45 on FFX's endgame, but those are JRPGs which tend to take longer. How much time is considered "worth your money?"

 

I think 10 is good - in general. Not too long and not way too short and can be beaten in a few sittings. It's a joke when campaigns are like 3 or 4 hours and can easily be beaten in one long sitting. RPGs and such are obviously much longer.

I have a feeling the opinions on this will greatly vary. I think in general most people like longer campaigns.

 

id say for like cod. max 1 hour

 

Seeing as most games now take more focus on multiplayer or cooperative play instead of a single player experience, it's deeply saddening.

When I play a single player game, I want to have it be 6-10 hours to complete it, only doing main story related things, on the first run.
When speedruns come into play, if the game can be longer than an hour, it has an acceptable length (glitching to completion ignored like in link to the past/pokemon).

In the end, if it meets these requirements I'll be satisfied. A game should be solid, and even when exploiting, take time to complete.

 

I don't really care, there is no "how long should it be" thing in my head. As long as I have enough fun to justify whatever I paid for it, it's all good.

A solid example of a game that has not satisfied me in this department is Halo 5.

 

well according to the games made recently ... half an hour ..

 

~10 hours is definitely the sweet spot for most games. Nowadays there's a trend of packing your game with a ton of boring filler so it becomes longer but quickly starts to feel like a chore (see: Mad Max, any Ubisoft sandbox game)

 

What if the game is a sandbox game like Besiege?

Very fun little puzzle/sandbox game with objectives. The game itself is still not done but hey it's got progress. Its time spent playing is tied to your creativity and understanding of your tools so it can be 10 hours or 1 hour.

 

I really value re-playability more than anything else in a game, as I love replaying through my favourite games, so for me the length of a game isn't too important, as long as I can replay it again and again and still enjoy it. But however long the game is, it should be consistently enjoyable, not have annoyances like un-skippable cutscenes, and preferably not have too many scripted moments (as they can really grate after you've been through them two or three times, especially if they slow the game down at that time), and hopefully have some random elements to the gameplay, to keep the surprise alive.

But even so, a three or four hour campaign would still seem too short, especially considering how much you've paid for the game.

 

3 according to Ubisoft.

 

I'd say for an action game or FPS 10-15 is good, RPGs 20 would probably be a decent start. But of course then you get all the side quests and stuff. I am getting kind of sick of certain companies making the single player campaign basically (or literally *side eyes NeuBattlefront*) a tutorial for multiplayer.

If I don't want to hear 13 year olds talk about screwing my mother (because Xbox still won't let me just keep voice chat permanently off) I don't have to. By not buying the game mostly.

 

Let's point out some examples...

- The Order: 1866 was heavily criticized for it's short SP length.
- Ryse: Son of Rome's single player campaign was roughly 6 hours. That length was one of the biggest complaints leveraged against the game.
- Samba de Amigo for the Dreamcast was criticized due to lack of content.
- The Metal Gear Solid games have also come under fire throughout the franchise. I remember finishing 2 in under 10 hours including all the cutscenes.
- Call of Duty Black Ops Declassified's SP campaign was said to be roughly an hour in length.
- GTA IV was considered by some to be overlong.
- Final Fantasy XIII takes a long time to get to where it's going. Some claim it takes roughly 30 hours to get to where the game is enjoyable.

 

How would you explain "sandbox" to an old timer?

 

It all depends on the type of game. I want GTAV and MSG to be long because of the story. The online aspect in these games seems like an afterthought.

 

I'd like a good 10+ hours out of a game.

 

To me, length doesn't matter as long as the game is good. I've spent a few hours in some games and enjoyed them. I've played nearly every CoD singleplayer and thoroughly enjoyed 1, United Offensive, 2, 4, WaW, MW2, and BO1. Some were short but I still enjoyed them.

There are games where I've spent many hours to complete too. The Pokemon games always take me forever as I take my time and don't rush it. Wolfenstein: The New Order took me quite some time too.

I've spent nearly 230 hours in Sword Art Online Re: Hollow Fragment and I still have to complete it. I'm on floor 85 but I've finished the Hollow Area's main storyline and did a lot of grinding which caused the hours to shoot up quite a lot.

There have been games that I thought were too short such as Wolfenstein: The Old Blood. Good game but it could be longer like The New Order.

These are just some of the recent games I've played. There are others too but I'm not gonna list them to keep this post shorter.

 

My view may be a bit skewed as I grew up with RPGs, but anything less than 20 hours and I feel robbed.

 

It depends. I remember managing 100% completion of Super Metroid way back when in just under 2 hours. That game is still awesomely satisfying and epic though.

 

For as long as the game remains fun.

I would rather have an enjoyable well paced game that clocks in at a few hours than one that out stays its welcome. Many films get this right by specifically employing an Editor to ensure the pacing is right. Obviously games are a different medium with different expectations but pacing still counts.

For me it depends on the genre and more importantly the experience the game is trying to convey.

For example I would say Resident Evil 4 is a masterpiece of pacing. It perfectly ratchets up the tension and excitement before a well judged calm period before exploding again.

Another example I really enjoyed as Saturn 9 on XBOX 360 Indie games. Game length is only about 40 minutes but it perfectly achieves its aim and atmosphere for the experience it is trying to offer (obviously the pocket money price has an effect on expectations too!)

As an aside I have always placed a higher value on Depth (e.g. Technique, gameplay mechanics, replayability and that undefinable quality that makes a game compelling and fun) compared to Length. For example Streets of Rage 2 is a "short" game without too much in the way of secrets, additional content, fetch quests etc but it is so fun and satisfying to play (achieves such a perfect balance of elements - audio, visual, gameplay etc) that I am still playing it over twenty years since release.

Many games these days mistake "busy work" or padding as content. Don't get me wrong - all the side quests in the Arkham games are great and all but if the main storyline and the gameplay mechanics weren't as rock solid (or as Rocksteady ) and fun as they are then I would have no interest in all the peripheral action.

TLR: Deoends on the game and it's aims! Pacing is king!