The Myth of the 40 Hour Game

Over at Wired, Clive Thompson talks about the myth of the 40 hour game, the typical length of time listed on the side of a game box nowadays. Mr. Thompsons discusses the ways in which that estimate fails to jive with reality. From the article: "This game offers about 40 hours of play. This is precisely what I was told by Eidos — and countless game reviewers — when I picked up Tomb Raider: Legend earlier this year. As I gushed at the time, Legend was the first genuinely superb Lara Croft game in years... I was hooked — and eager to finish the game and solve the mystery. So I shoved it into my PS2, dual-wielded the pistols and began playing... until about four weeks later, when I finally threw in the towel. Why? Because I couldn't get anywhere near the end. I plugged away at the game whenever I could squeeze an hour away from my day job and my family. All told, I spent far more than 40 hours — but still only got two-thirds through."

Opposite.

[Shadow Wrought]

My stepson was dissappointed in Tomb Raider because it only took him half the time as it said on the box. The key difference is likely that when you play a game here and there it takes you awhile to get back into it and get your groove back. If its summer break and you play for twelve straight hours, well, its not going tot ake as long. What would be interesting is if he took a week off to just play the game, and see how he does. Not likely, but interesting;-)

Re:Uh huh... and...

[oc255]

RTFA. The very least thing he complains about is length. So some cliffnotes are in order.

His points (as a person with a job, life, kids) are:
- puzzles many times take him much longer than kids in the 6-17 range he compares himself to.
- he compares in-depth games to his job, dumping information in and out of his mental RAM doesn't get him very far. See: late-night or off-shift coders who work to avoid users/meetings/interruptions.
- he understands the hardcore vs casual design problem.

TFA isn't even that long but his really good point (imho) aren't in the title (which is Gamer not Game). But if you just read the title, then you miss the point. Great read, critical hit close to home.

Re:ok, so the game gives him MORE than promised

[Gulthek]

Tomb Raider: Legends is one of the easiest games I've played recently. I beat it on the hardest difficulty setting in about 20 hours of total playtime, and that was with me exploring around to find all the little artifacts.

Go try out Ninja Gaiden: Black on the XBox and you'll see what hard is [penny-arcade.com].

Re:Is this really a problem?

[kfg]

Riven was pretty easy. . .

The spousal unit bought it. I gave it a look and just thought, "better graphics, more of the same," and left the building.

Grim Fandango was a wonderful story, my favorite LucasArts game ever. But its puzzles were really pretty trivial.

And yet a few of them stuck me for awhile. Perhaps if I played more puzzle games familiarity with the conventions of the genre would have helped. I don't know. I don't know the genre that well.

On the other hand I've got some world records in racing games. I put a lot of time into my racing games. I take them just as seriously as my "real" racing, because I consider them just as real, with the advantage that they hurt less (Come in little girl, would you like see my. . .scars and x-rays?).

Milage varies. Go figure.

KFG