thats a really stupid question

Is 40 hours enough? Why is this even a question? Of course it is.

There should be an alt+f4 button for articles like these

I'm just going to say it, 40 hours is way too long for a game.

49 hours compared to 6? Come on guy do the math.

40 hours is plenty for an open world non-rpg like Assassin's Creed. Heck even Mass Effect 3 was shorter and it was brilliant!
I hope AC 3 can unseat AC 2 in my personal Top 5 games of the generation list. AC 2 seats at number 4 behind ME 2/3, Red Dead Redemption and God of War 3. With Forza 3/4 coming at number 5.

Where do these articles that ask dumb questions come from. Of course 40 hours is enough especially if its open world.

Gta used to be the my only single player purchase. But after GtA4 I 'll just rent games and buy sports (except madden)

What a stupid article. Sure 40 hours is enough, but how many times do these play times actually happen? Capcom said Biohazard 6 was 50 hours... did anyone spend even 20 on it? There are plenty of other examples, but in the end, I doubt this game will be 40. (probably 20)

Is it enough? Christ, did we suddenly travel back in time to 2003 when long games were the norm? Last time I checked, most of the idiot gamers wandering around N4G were still defending 8-hour games as perfectly adequate.

40 hours can be a bit much if you've unlocked most of the stuff and it's just getting repetitive.

LOL WTF?! are people even trying anymore with these articles?

Asked the man who plays for 11 hours at a time.

Depends on the game. For AC, it is fine. If an RPG is that short, then it better be 20 dollars.(only a handful of exceptions)

complaining about 40 hours? I can't remember an FPS that lasted longer than 6....

We are paying 60+ dollars for the game, I expect to be playing it longer than a day.....

LOL! Of course it is dumbass! Really now, some of us have a life here. I can only game about a good maybe up to 5 hours a day and thats "IF" i can have the free time to do so since there always too much shit going on in life itself.

"Is 40 hours enough playtime anymore?"

Why dont you try to at least think what you just said, and pretend you never wrote about it, K?

Yes, no, it depends. Is the game really good? If so, I can handle more.

For people with lives to lead, definitely. For basement dwellers, perhaps not. Belonging to the former, I'd say yes. Certainly.

That's a dollar and a half per hour. That's pretty decent in my eyes if we are speaking about quality hours. If you play 1-2 hours a day, it'll take you about a month to go through it. You could go all out and finish it over a weekend, but that's just not healthy. Even if you take a week to finish it, that's like having a second job in terms of hours per week.

Sure, MMOs, sandbox, competitive multiplayer games etc. can easily beat that in terms of the dollars per hour ratio, which makes them great for those putting in a hardcore amount of hours, but they're often very repetitive or even grindy. Heck, I've tried my fair share of MMOs that felt like a second job after a while. Hardly quality entertainment when you reach that point IMHO.

> Ubisoft makes 15-20 hour AC games
> Everyone's contended with the length especially compared to short shooters
> Ubisoft doubles the game length as a bonus, even though there was no real demand
> Gamer suddenly asks "but iz it enufffz?"

Perfect gamer logic right there.

And the answer is, no, it's not enough. The game should take 40 years to beat, allowing you to age with Connor so that you can better symphatize with the character, creating the ultimate immersion in any game ever released. *sigh*

I remember back in the day of zx spectrum and c64 that games were very very hard to complete.

25 hours is enough. 40 hours is MORE THAN ENOUGH. In a good way of course.

Yes! Forty hours is perfect!

Yes, it's an unanimous yes. Anything over 12 hours of gameplay is going above and beyond these days. For AC 40 hours is well worth the 60 bucks.

It is if you play 8 days 5 hrs

$60 for 40 hours of great entertainment.

You'd have to really have some serious sense of entitlement to not believe that was worth it.

How much do non-interactive SD movies cost again, at launch? $20? For a 2 hours of passive entertainment, or less? Most movies probably cost far less than AC3 did to make, as well.

For me it really depends on the type of game.

For an action game 40 hours is more than enough and I would likely skip quite a few optional missions during my playthrough.

For an RPG where you put time into managing and leveling your characters you don't want it to be over too quickly but even then 40 hours isn't exactly a disappointing amount of time.

There are a lot of factors like story and pacing to take into consideration but when it comes down to it the quality of the experience is what sticks with you regardless of it being for 8 hours or 80.

I say its a little bit too much. There are so many good games coming out this holiday, it's impossible to play them all. I say keep these stories short and sweet. No need for the filler side quests and all that crap.

Yes. If the game is good, anything above 10 hours or so is very good, the rest is just extra. There are way too many games that are good for the 8 or so hours and then, for example, have a stupid achievement/trophy for reaching max rank in multiplayer or doing some stupid "challenge mode" etc.

For f**ks sake, would you rather have the typical 6-8 hour long game with a weak story and a cliffhanger ending, no extras, no unlocks, and lack luster multiplayer that no one plays after 3 weeks? Way to give more ideas for companies to keep up the DLC nonsense.

Considering that most people will be exploring and doing things unrelated to that time consumption, therefore adding in more time to their play-throughs...yes, it is.

Seriously? This is easily the most ridiculous question in the world.

Depending on the game, anything between 4-40 hours is good. I'd easily take playing God of War 3's 4-5 hours campaign over certain other games in the same genre with longer story modes.

It all depends on how well it's done and how happy you feel after you've finished it. I loved Red Dead Redemption, Dragon Age: Origins & Mass Effect 2-3 and hated Final Fantasy XIII, GTA3, Fallout 3 and slightly didn't enjoy Dragon Age 2.

All long games, and some felt unnecessarily long.

Main focus should be making the game fun to play and having a key idea of where you want the game to go. How long it takes to finish is a product of development and how much honestly makes sense.

Just adding to the game to make it meet the unreasonable expectation of 30-40 hours is dumb and can only risk making a once amazing game into something mediocre.

Oh, and it's worth noting I'm not against longer games. It's just that not all games can do it. For a game like Assassin's Creed, 40 hours is more than enough. I'll be perfectly content with the main story at 20 hours (even then if the story is good enough, I'd be okay with 10 hours).

I would rather want a game that has 20-40 hours with quality instead of 100 hours of booring side missions. But thats just me.

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssss ssssssss

40 hours of actual gameplay is perfect for a console these days.. 10 or more story segments is good enough.. Games used to be 80hrs! but that day is dead so at the very least do 40 with optional side quests adding more.. handhelds should at least be 20hrs of gameplay.. All these cinematics fool ppl to think its a longer game than what it is.. 5-10 hour games are a f***ing rip off

Yes, 40hrs. for the full $60 price tag this is a reasonable ask anything that is single player focused and falls under 12-15ish hours pretty much gets relegated to a rental these days.

I'm still happy with 8 hour games so 40 is more than enough.

No. 40 hours is way too long for video games RPG's aside.

Name a game that isn't repetitive. I think the only thing that cures this is a good long storyline and great missions and side quests. Variety is the spice of life. Lets quit complaining about games being repetitive, when all of them have been.

I would also include CS and Fortnite players in this category too

My kids would only play Minecraft when they were younger. Roblox is banned in our house. Now thay they are not so little they are delving into single player and co/op games.