I recently finished playing Shadow Runner Returns and really enjoyed it. One criticism I heard about it was that it was too short. But after playing it I disagree. I cannot tell you how many CRPGs I have started over the years that I have sunk 40, 50 even 60 hours into and then got bored with it and never finished the game. I have always been discouraged by this because in CRPGs the story is more important than most PC genres and a good story has to have a good ending. It seems to me that in a desire to create "open world" games we get stories bloated with never ending bland side quests that just add gameplay time for the sake of gameplay time.

So two questions. What is your ideal length of play (in hours) for an in-depth RPG? And do you think that you can have an "Open World" CRPG and still keep a tight and engaging story?

So how much do you need to enjoy a game to get the title right?

Not necessarily. For example I enjoyed Fallout 3 quite a bit at first. I don't regret the purchase because I enjoyed the time I put into it (which was a fair amount). I just got tired of it before I completed the game. I guess I am thinking about it more form the aspect of game design then as a consumer.

Can you make "too much game?" How long will the average player be willing to engage in the gameplay and story we have created. Is it worth putting 100 hours of game play into a game when 80% of the players will only sink 50?
In my opinion I would much rather play an RPG with 20 hours of gameplay to complete which is engaging and offers a lot of diversity on how you play the game. Because I will want to come back and play the game again and again.

Take Fallout 1 for example. A rather short game, but when you finish it as a fighter you can't help but wonder what if I tackled it as a stealth character. Now compare that to Fallout 3. If I ever finish it, it will be just to finish it. I don't see myself coming back to the game to try a new play style. The time commitment is too great and so much of the game felt like filler to get experience so I could return to the main plot as opposed to engaging.

That's pretty much exactly my sentiment. I generally like RPGs, but most of them are just too damn long, which is only made worse by the fact that I'm awful at them, anyway.

I think that's one of the reasons I loved Anachronox so much. It's just as long as it needs to be; I managed to finish it in about 25 hours, although I skipped most of the sidequests.
(Admittedly, Anachronox is more like a JRPG, but those are usually excessively long, too.)

For reasonably good games (e.g. Shadowrun Returns), 20-30 hours is enough. I am a completionist, so my 20-30 hours could be someone else's 15-20 hours. I, too, didn't think Shadowrun Returns was too short.

For exceptionally good games (e.g. Blackguards), I have no problem with 50+ hours.

I don't like "open world" games. At all.

It depends on many things. One of the important future is variety of quests/missions. I'm interested in a RPG with diverse [side] quests and missions. There are some good RPGs that they suffers from limited, similar and repetitive quests/missions. It's a negative point.

I can't remember playing any RPGs that still excited me anywhere North of 80-100 hours max. After about 40-50 hours, excitement usually starts to tank due to the repetitiveness of gameplay elements. Some games can compensate for that with long story lines but I'd say after 50 hours max all bets are off and only few games can keep me going beyond that. Too many side quests break the dramatic tension of the main story but as long as side quests are optional and one can beat the game without grinding then yes, I think it's entirely feasible to have a sand box game with a tight and engaging story.

What really puts me off nowadays is grindy combat, I have no patience for that anymore.
Gave up on my playthrough of Septerra Core, that's a good example of a long RPG with a good story and interesting characters but the gameplay is tedious and repetitive imho.

I'd say about 20-30 hours for the main storyline is about right, increased to 45-55 with sidequests. If it's any longer I still might enjoy it, but I will probably have to take a break, so it better have a good in-game journal and map. If I can take two weeks, maybe even a month break and pick up where I left off then I would say the lenght-limit is doubled at least. I guess I'll be able to answer that once I finally played the Witcher 3. So far my experience tells me "kinda sorta". You can tell a good story in an open world game, but not a great one.

It's not going to change your mind.

I think 80-100 hrs is enough

Probably not. The whole point of the open world CRPG is to exercise freedom, even from the game’s own story. The polished and contained 20 hour tale and the 80+ hour epic don’t have to square off though. I don't have a preference, they're both great.

I've quit quite a few games because I stopped playing a couple of days, logged back in and didnt have a clue what I was doing, what I was supposed to be doing and had pages and pages of unfinished quests. It was just too overwhelming and felt like too much work. so I agree some games can be just too damn long if its not your cuppa tea. If its that once in a lifetime perfect game then there is no such thing as too long, but mostly the majority of quests end up being 'fetch' quests for lazy npcs.

erm.. for your question.. i havent the foggiest what is the magic number of hours to be the perfect length of a game. I guess that is why devs compromised and made side quests optional.

How long is "too long"?

Simple answer:
Baldur's Gate 2

Dragon Quest 8 I think, pissed me off so bad I sold my friggin games and system!

I hate jrpg's when you have the end in site anddddddddd.....nope! A new boss!!! 50 mutha F'n times >_<

I just can't play jrpg games any more, they tend to do this so much it ruins everything going full retard.

Made by M. Knight Shyamalan.