I prefer 40+

If we're talking straight playthough length for a linear game, I can rarely go past 30-40 hours. The longest game I've played in this fashion was FFIX and I made it to the 2nd to last boss (got stuck) before I called it quits. If it's a nonlinear open world game (GTA, MMO's, Elderscrolls/Fallot, ect) I really don't have a "limit". I either play til I do all the content (usually less than 100 hours) or until I get bored (usually somewhere around 200-300 hours if it's a good game. I think with WoW I got into about 2000 hours logged before I quit).

Varies with content/price. An interesting phenomenon I've noticed that people who prefer older games and people who dislike very short modern games often overlap, and yet, those older games were often unlikely to take six hours. However, they were often a lot http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard to compensate, and you racked up the hours through countless replays. If the game was good enough for you to want to keep trying, there was no feeling of being ripped off. Bigger storage space allows for longer games, but also for extra cutscenes and fluffy special effects that don't add anything. I played through Call of Duty 4 once, and never touched the multiplayer. That felt like a ripoff.

Generally, if a game is going to be under ten hours, it had better be awesomely fun enough that I want to play it over and over. It is unfortunately not often the case. If a game isn't great, it's still easier to play it the first time then avoid getting bored with a replay, and if I like a game enough, length doesn't wear me out (I've played the notoriously long Xenogears all the way through several times). So, in most cases, I feel the longer the better.

A game can be too long if I'm enjoying it.

Usually the games I play end up being about 70 hours in length

I've also played 100-200 hour games

I don't mind length so long as the game is good

And for some reason the counter in my FFIX game started over and turned red....then after that it completely stopped :lmao:

I only like to play games that last real long and have much replay value. That is because I rarely buy games, two or three each year.
Long games with freedom tend to have more replay value. I have played Fallout 3 for over 1,000 hours, personal estimate. However, linear and short games like Dragon Age; well, with no playthrough reaching 40 hours (39h 30min is my longest) I got totally bored after 3 playthroughs. Same dungeons, same enemies, same dialogue, with only end-quest decisions and six partners changing.

Of course, short length doesn't mean I won't like a game. For example, I still consider Beneath a Steel Sky one of the best games I've ever played, despite it being quite a short one (although long for a 1994 game). Fallout 1 also belongs to that category.

I like a good 40 hours of gameplay for games I like. That means if it's 20 hours to play the game, I'll play it twice. Or more if I like the game more. I don't like games that are less than 20 hours of gameplay though.

40+ for me.

<30 and it was rushed.

As long as a game is priced accordingly to how much playtime it has I am fine. I have no problem paying $10 for a 6-10 hour long game, as long as it is enjoyable. I don't like spending $60 on a game that will only last 10 hours though. Ideally I try to buy games with a $1/hour ratio.

It's not about how many hours it last, it's about how enjoyable those hours are.

If I'm going to buy the game full price, it would have to be at least 50 hours long (and have amazing reviews from the majority of people). If a game looked great, got good reviews but was less than that, I'd wait until the price dropped a bit.

I like my games to take around 40 hours. I do like long games though. JRPG's that last up to 80 hours for one playthrough are fun for me as long as they have a good story.

As long as possible. That includes replay value. It often feels so pointless to buy certain games when one thinks of other equally priced games or even other forms of media.

I like games that I can complete the story in a few weeks but keep playing as much as I want, like Oblivion/Morrowind and GTA.

It really depends on the game. If its linear, it better be engaging enough to keep me playing. A good example of this is Mass Effect (1 or 2).

I find games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare to be engaging, but at the same time, they're rather short.

Games like Dragon Age Origins have compelling parts, however, there are parts that you just want to completely skip because they're so boring, and worst of all they're long.

Fallout 3 lasted my for 400 plus hours. New Vegas lasted for about 100hours. The more the better.

Depends...game like TES or FO don't have a time limit...on the other hand story driven games, like RDR, GTA or even a few RPGs like DA O IMO need to have atleast 25 hours of gameplay...

For action / adventure and 20-25

fps: 10-15

RPG 40+ hrs. longer the better.

I voted 60hrs in the poll, but like others have said, it really depends on the game. If it's not a fairly open game or has little replay value, then being much shorter is fine with me...example, I had great fun with Overlord but it's not a game I would replay over and over so the fact it wasn't terribly long was just fine. I'm also a slow player the first time I play a game, so when ppl claim a game is 20hrs. for me it's probably going to be 30-35hrs. I'm only 'fast' during replays.

But imo strategy and RPG games should have at least 40 hours of gameplay value...even if you can rush through a main plot and "finish" the game in 15 hours, there should either be lots of non-main plot content that extends playtime for people who prefer to play that way, or enough tinkering/item collecting/strategy/build differences etc that increases the amount of time you spend playing the game overall. You can beat games like the Diablo's quickly but it's the loot hunting/builds or other things that keep fans of those games playing forever despite the grinding.

Its not the length that counts, its what you do with it,

Like most here, I'd say it really depends on the genre. Some of my favorite games of all time were rather short by todays standards (15hrs or less) but they were also nonstop in the action/storytelling dept. What really irks me though, is when a developer throws together some levels that you can get through in 5-6hrs; calls it a game, and expects you to pay full price for it. A year later.

I say 20/30 hours is justified and value for your money in single player/main quest. Many prefer 40+ which is fine also.

What I like about The Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3/NW is the 600+ hours worth of exploration and content. :celebrate:

Ten hours is fine for a campaign imo, but it depends on the re-playability.

If a game can't hold my interest for 100+ hours then it's a problem with the game's design, not the game's length.

It entirely depends on the game.

I usually like RPGs wen they can be big without boring me with filler combat. Rarely happens. 50% or more of my DAO run was just kiting darkspawn. Absolutely ludicrous. Mass Effect is the perfect length for a shootery game (if you disregard sidequests). Deus Ex felt good, but I was rushing towards the end. That said, I rush towards the end of most games, since I like to save up supplies and then just waste them at the end. In Ninja Gaiden 2, I saved up all the health increasing beads that improve max hp and refill hp bar for the last fight, then just spammed them and won... Ninja Gaiden 2 was a pretty good length for the slashy game, too, but it's slow going so if the game is easier, more may be needed.